Dr Abdul Wahid’s Weblog

1. Because Hizb ut-Tahrir is a radical Islamic group that stresses non-violence (at least in Britain) many people are shocked at the suggestion that you might be banned. But there are two serious problems with HT. First, you seem to play a “transmission belt” role for many young British Muslims who get their first taste of the fundamentalist world view from you and then move on to more violent groups. Second, you have openly opposed the idea of co-operating in the handing over of terror suspects to the authorities. How can you reassure politicians and the public on those two points?

It certainly should shock people that we may be proscribed. Not even Sinn Fein was banned, with declared links to a terrorist organisation at the height of the ‘troubles’. I totally reject the ‘transmission belt’ role you assert. It is built upon many false premises and I can explain why I am confident it is not true. Our political culture does not only stress non-violence, but stresses the importance of finding intellectual and political solutions to our problems. We say this because we consider that the problems of the Muslim world are due to declined thinking leading to political ineptitude. Hence, our mantra is that all our various problems in the Muslim world, including occupation, are symptoms of a deeper one that needs a political solution. That is something that people who hear us speak and read our literature are very clear on. Our objective is political and intellectual and so too are our means. Indeed, in some parts of the Muslim world we are accused of being too political in our solutions. We deal with a population politicised by world events, and channel their emotion into this non-violent political work. It is, in fact, foreign policy and the rhetoric of politicians that makes Muslims, young and old, angry. We replace anger with hope by providing a convincing political solution and invitation to work with us for that solution. That has been our position for over fifty years, even in the face of severe repression in some parts of the world. The assertion that we act as a “conveyor belt” for terrorism was first put by Zeyno Baran of the Nixon Center in America and was soundly refuted at the time by one of our members, Dr Abdullah Robin. (See http://www.1924.org/comment/index.php?id=1240_0_13_10_M )

On your second point, we have never said we oppose the handing over of terror suspects to the authorities. We have said that if an individual Muslim was faced with someone who was unwavering about committing harm to others, one would have no choice but to tell the authorities in order to prevent the harm to others. What we advise people to be careful of is to beware the climate of paranoia that exists at sensitive times. The lives of many innocent people have been ruined by over suspicion. Indeed many arrests in the UK and some detainees in Guantanamo bay were innocent people maliciously reported to the police.

2. You reject the “conveyor-belt” tag but what did you feel when you heard that the two British Pakistanis who blew themselves up in Tel-Aviv had passed through the study group of one of the HT founders in Britain?

I think you are alluding to Omar Bakri in your question, who incidentally was not a founder of our group in Britain, and who was expelled from it over nine years ago. I feel people need to look at HT for what we stand for, and not make assumptions based on anecdotal situations where many confounding factors are ignored.

3. You used to openly support suicide bombings in Israel on the grounds that Palestinians feels that they have no other means of being heard, have you changed your mind on that?

Look, there is a fundamental question you have to answer first. Do people who have suffered the occupation of their land, expulsion, homelessness and the loss of self-determination have the right to resist? If it is accepted that an occupied people have a right to choose when to fight and when to make peace, only then can we discuss whether means they use are valid or invalid. Certainly, the means any people use will be dependent upon their resources. So people with tanks, plans and guns would undoubtedly use these and people without these would use whatever means they do have. To deny this principle would be to say to the weak that it is illegitimate to defend themselves by the only means they have at their disposal.

4. You talk about the importance of political solutions and yet in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries you reject both violent overthrow of the system and political participation in the system – so how will you prevail?

With respect to the way we want to see change occur in the Muslim world there are many examples of how such changes occurred in recent history. Fundamentally, a pillar of our methodology is to change public opinion at a grassroots level. If you work on thoughts and opinions in society you create a ground swell of support for those ideas in society. When that support is sufficiently strong then systems can change.

South Africa’s example was one where public opinion changed, the system changed and then a new political system was established.

5. The more successful you are in Britain the worse it is for integration. A friend of mine said that at his school in Hounslow in the late 1980s the main role of HT members was to stop Muslims going out with non-Muslims. That may seem a trivial example (although a similar action by white Christians would be dubbed racist) but your general stance is one of Muslim chauvinism. You accept a duty of care towards your fellow citizens but hold yourself apart from British society (rejecting participation in the political system etc) encouraging an enclave mentality and openly opposing the vast majority of Muslims who try to accommodate their faith to living in western nation states.

Contrary to what you may believe we do not want to see social disharmony in the UK. Where we differ from the majority is that we would like to see this on terms where Muslims hold on to distinct values and a strong identity based on Islam. This is because we and others, including some non Muslims, genuinely think Muslims adhering to their faith have something to offer society by way of example. I concede that as a community we have not been good at engaging with the wider society, and there is huge ghetto-isation that produces problems that need to be managed.

We are against party political participation, but accept that many Muslims disagree with us and we discuss these disagreements with each other. However, it would be narrow minded for any one to think, would it not, that political life in the UK is restricted to party political involvement. We see our role within the sphere of civil society to be far more important than voting for career politicians once every few years in the hope that they fulfil their promises.

6. What would you say to a Muslim who wanted to leave the faith?

I would try to convince them not to, basically because there are rational proofs to belief in God and the authenticity of the Quran that many don’t realise. That is one reason why historically very few people have left this faith, and why increasing numbers return and turn to it.

7. Would you support the introduction of Shariah law for Muslims in areas of high Muslim population in Britain, as is now happening in parts of Canada?

No. Fundamentally it will not work, and we have always said this. Shariah needs comprehensive implementation, and that is why, despite being in the UK, we wish to see a Caliphate in the Muslim world.

8. How will you continue your work if HT is banned?

We are working hard to avert a ban, and if it comes our way we plan to fight it legally all the way.

9. Finally, back to the possible ban. You sound very reasonable – yet many organisations not known for their illiberalism – like the National Union of Students – have banned you. Could it be that there is quite a big gap between what you say and what your over-enthusiastic members actually do on the ground?

Approximately 10 years ago we were new to campuses and some were over enthusiastic with their first taste of political activism. Unfortunately, despite maturing in our work, old impressions have stuck. The NUS ban was passed in that era, but when it was proposed for renewal last year, the college that was first asked to propose maintaining the ban, UCL, voted not to do this. The proposal was then passed by Leo Baeck College in London and passed on to the NUS. Within days of the proposed proscription one University Student Union has condemned the proposal as well as individual members of the NUS.

The point is that in places where there is a recent and significant first hand experience of our ideas there has been weakening zeal for both the NUS ban, and no appetite for proscription.

I would add one final point, that illiberalism is often over looked when applied to more socially conservative ideas, in particular religious beliefs. This is in no way unique to Muslims. Many people who carry a strong faith will often find themselves facing illiberal attitudes.

Dr Abdul Wahid
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
Prospect
September 2005

Across the Islamic world support for the caliphate is a very real phenomenon, which deserves a serious and measured discussion. Sadly, Jean-Pierre Filiu dismisses the aspiration of millions of people as a fantasy and a dead end, against the evidence of history and of public opinion.

For over 50 years, Hizb ut-Tahrir [the Liberation Party] has used only non-violent political activism and intellectual means despite the harshest of repression, to win the support of people to the call to restore the caliphate as a political system in the Islamic world. In that time support for Islam’s political ideas has grown across the whole region. This year there were open public conferences in Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Ukraine, Palestine and, most significantly Indonesia where 100 000 people packed a Jakarta stadium debating and discussing the subject of the caliphate as a system of government.

The gathering of 100000 delegates – the majority of whom were women – is an impressive enough demonstration that support for the caliphate is actually mainstream, particularly when one considers it was in a country that is held up by western governments as a ‘model moderate Muslim state’. However, this is… Click Here to Read Further…

Dr Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir
Prospect
January 2008

Introduction

Gordon Brown, Michael Howard, Boris Johnson, David Blunkett and Trevor Phillips are just a few of the names that have dared to tackle the complex and controversial subject of British citizenship. The subject is complex, because Britain was always a convenient political identity to try to preserve an uncomfortable union between dominant England and its vanquished neighbours. It is controversial because its prominence has been brought about because one section of the British population – the Muslim community – has caused concerns. Most concerns have been dominated by allegations of a security threat by an ‘enemy within’, seemingly realised after the 7/7 bombings, but for those who had studied the issues for longer, concerns really emerged when the Muslim community in Europe had such a strong reactions to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. The blame was placed firmly on the policy of multiculturalism for institutionalising difference, the lack of a strong and distinct British identity and the failure of Islam to ‘reform’, meaning to secularise.

At best the responses produced to solving the problem of defining what is meant by ‘Britishness’ are, in my view, destined to fail. At worse, where they confuse security and religious reform with citizenship and identity, they could backfire spectacularly. It is measure of the failure of the debate that such a fundamental discussion has been framed as a reaction to specific events, and has placed the burdens of change upon one specific community.

Where should the blame lie?

Those who would blame Islam and Muslims for the failure to be well integrated stakeholders in society should pause for thought. It is easy to cite examples that Muslim US citizens fought against US troops in Afghanistan (John Walker Lindh for example) or that Muslims were amongst those rioting in Paris earlier this year. However, the images of an alienated black underclass in New Orleans, exposed by Hurricane Katrina, should pose an immediate challenge to complacent views that somehow other minorities are thoroughly assimilated. Furthermore the involvement of immigrants of more than one religion in the riots in Paris prompts the memory of similar riots in Brixton and Toxteth some years ago. If we are looking for a scapegoat there is more of a case to make for targeting French style secular assimilation, or the so-called American dream, than Muslims and their alleged failure to fully integrate into British society.

Fundamental mistakes: National identities, shared values and uniform ‘Britishness’

The contribution to this debate by Gordon Brown in his speech to the Fabian Society conference of 2006 was arguably the most significant contribution made thus far in the whole debate. Brown argued that Britain has a history in which people manage their multiple identities well. He felt that this was still possible as long as Britishness was built upon a shared history, a shared sense of purpose and shared underlying values.

In my view it is neither possible nor desirable to focus upon identities built on national identity, as articulated through an ‘official’ narrative, nor upon certain adopted values. It is simply not possible to unify people based upon such matters as a common history, heritage or shared cultural values. This is because it is almost impossible for people in a globalised world to share the same narrative of any nation’s history, particularly in countries with large immigrant minorities from ex-colonies. Furthermore, there is the ever increasing prominence of supranational identity – be it either European or Internationalist in outlook.

There is no currently unified or uniform view of Britishness that many such as Brown or Howard allude to. How could there possibly be? A white Anglo-Saxon Protestant has a very different historical heritage, culture or religion to a citizen who is Celtic, Catholic, Hindu or Muslim. Someone who’s ancestry can be traced back to the British Isles will have a very different view of history to someone whose ancestry is from an ex-colony. Even within one ‘ethnic’ subgroup a senior citizen, whose views in life have been shaped by two world wars, will have very different values to someone whose formative years were during the swinging sixties or the yuppy eighties.

To try to unify such a diverse society in this manner would do one of two things. Either one would simply define the lowest common denominator of shared culture, which is hardly likely to fill people with any great national pride, or one could try and impose a dominant ‘nationalistic’ interpretation of a culture on the whole of society. The former approach goes to the heart of the recent criticism of multiculturalism. The latter represents the worst form of citizenship – whether it be manifested in Britain, France or even Muslim countries like Pakistan. It is the ugly rabid form of nationalism which often leads to jingoism and feelings of racial supremacy.

So, what about shared values? Do they exist? It would be supremely arrogant for the political ruling class to define a certain view of Britishness based on certain values they advocate. It would be doubly arrogant to then dictate to large numbers of minorities a narrow view of what the best values were, or worse what were acceptable political views. The Brown / Fabian approach was just an attempt to do this, to the extent that the view of British values excluded even much of the political ‘right’.

To a large extent this has become institutionalised by the present government through its educational citizenship programme, both in schools and for immigrants. The values based approach is coercive, often aggressively promoted in the media, encouraging people to adopt certain values, and abandon some of their own. This is the reason that the pressure on Muslims to ‘reform’ Islam has become entwined with the politics of identity. Such an imposition of values completely circumvents any opportunity for reasoned debate, or ideological discussion of the relative merits of different ideas and beliefs.

There is a real danger that putting such a strong emphasis on controversial values, history or institutions as a litmus test for citizenship in the absence of conviction or genuine agreement will create different levels of citizenship. Muslim citizens for example are often made to feel that they must display more loyalty to symbols of the State such as the Crown than others in society, many of whom have little or no respect for the Crown (indeed a sizeable minority of British citizens and a majority of the Fabian conference delegates would quite happily confine the monarchy to the dustbin of history). Some expect the Muslim community for instance to show respect and trust in Parliament despite the fact that 40% of the mainstream population showed their own respect and confidence in the system by not voting at the last general election.

Even ignoring these contrasts, there are immense pressures from the media on Muslims and others who hold a very strong religious faith, to adopt liberal secular values. Not conforming to the dominant view leaves those citizens open to vilification or ridicule. This pressure creates a socially imposed censorship on the views of a significant minority every bit as sinister as the legalised censorship that is enforced in the anti-terror laws. Both forms of censorship effectively censor views the former on a number of matters relating to social domestic policy, the latter relating to foreign policy under the guise of ‘glorifying’ terrorism.

Helpful advice from the Muslim experience?

A system much admired in European history for its achievements in Andalusia was the Islamic Caliphate. From its outset in the Middle East the Caliphate achieved a largely cohesive citizenship between people of different races and religions. In the context of that diverse society Sir Thomas Arnold once wrote:

“We have never heard about any attempt to compel Non-Muslim parties to adopt Islam or about any organized persecution aiming at exterminating Christianity. If the Caliphs had chosen one of these plans, they would have wiped out Christianity as easily as what happened to Islam during the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain; by the same method which Louis XIV followed to make Protestantism a creed whose followers were to be sentenced to death; or with the same ease of keeping the Jews away from Britain for a period of three hundred fifty years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christiandom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of Mohammedan [sic] governments towards them”. Arnold, Sir Thomas W. THE PREACHING OF ISLAM, A HISTORY OF THE PROPAGATION OF THE MUSLIM FAITH, Westminster A. Constable & Co., London, 1896, p. 80.

There are two essential points to consider based upon the model that Arnold describes. Firstly, the level of commitment to the state that needed to be shown by any citizen was obedience to the law. That was all. Not that they be forced to believe in the source of that law. Had non-Muslims been asked to proclaim that the source of law was divine it would have violated the Islamic principle: ‘there is no compulsion in the deen (religion).’ People who did not share the fundamental beliefs and values of lslam were not expected to change their religion to Islam, nor to omit verses from the Torah and Bible to conform with Islam. To ask for that would have been tantamount to a forced conversion, and could only have been described as totalitarian. Of course many will argue that Muslims are also not being asked to leave their faith, yet what is effectively being asked of Muslims is to secularise their faith to conform with the dominant value system found in western societies. As Islam does not recognise a separation between religion and state, asking Muslims to adopt divergent values and concepts is tantamount to asking them to leave important parts of their holistic faith.

The second point to reflect upon is that people in the society Arnold described trusted the system, felt secure and as a consequence felt like stakeholders. People feel secure, and consequently feel ‘at home’ when they have equal access to justice, have opportunities for redress and have space to hold on to their beliefs. The Caliphate gave citizens of different faith the space to practice their faith and even exempted them from the obligations of citizenship that were specifically linked to the Islamic belief.

This view that the predominant expectation of any citizen should be no more that to abide by the law and display civility in interaction with others is not unique to the Caliphate. It is one that some brave voices do air, and it is a demonstration of confidence in ones values and state.

The ties that bind

The push for a nationalistic, values based citizenship is therefore a divisive and coercive approach, which sadly dominates much of the identity debate today. It betrays a lack of confidence, and perhaps substance in the dominant values and symbols of national pride that are being forced on society today. Sadly, this will not create the harmony that many may intend, only harm.

In the end people, and especially minorities, feel they have a stake in society when they feel welcome, are given space to find their feet and practice their own faith in a protected sphere, without vilification and pressure to reform their religion from its basis. They feel they have a stake when they feel that justice and opportunities are truly for all. In such a way there is a natural process of attachment to ones home, an appreciation of the natural environment in which one lives, and an adoption of those aspects of culture that do not contradict ones principles. This is the natural process that existed for centuries in the Muslim world that allowed minorities – religious and ethnic – to feel attached to their state, preserving many rich cultural variations in a way that did not cause division and resentment.

For Muslims in modern Europe – including Britain – this has not only been denied through the attempts at social censorship on the personal views of Muslims, laws banning the hijab (and now the jilbab), a discriminatory foreign policy and oppressive legislation, none of which will help the process of harmonizing society.

This was the lesson of Northern Ireland. This was the lesson of Lord Scarman after the race riots of the eighties. Yet this is the path that politicians tread once again. Sadly, this is a shared history that does not appear to have been bought into.

Dr Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir
New Civilisation Magazine
March 2008

Kenan Malik (Prospect, 2005) claimed that the Muslim Council of Britain and other groups were overplaying the extent of anti-Islamic feeling in Britain and inflating statistics to suit their own agenda. Here, Hizb ut-Tahri, Britain respond to Malik’s charges.

The provocative use of the title “Islamophobia myth” in February’s Prospect has done little to further an understanding of the extent of Islamophobia in society or its possible causes. We Muslims may sometimes be clumsy with our arguments when discussing the issue. Kenan Malik accuses some people of “inflating” minor incidents. A few may do this, but most are just using the same criteria that other communities have adopted to define an “attack,” which includes verbal abuse. It is also likely to be true that the many social problems affecting the Muslim community have complex and varied causes and are not always related to Islamophobia.

However, Malik’s article has three main weaknesses and two of these open him to the same accusations he levels at others. Firstly, he makes a highly partial analysis of the anecdotes he has heard in the course of his researches. Secondly, he puts his own interpretation to statistics which he himself points out are non-specific. The third weakness is that he makes an erroneous comparison with the race hatred that existed in the 1970s. It is erroneous because we have no idea whether the current phenomenon of Islamophobia has peaked or is in its earliest stages.

Malik prefers to view reports of police harassment and physical violence as perceptions of Muslims stemming from a “culture of victimhood.” He implies that they are at best examples of age-old racism, only re-labelled as Islamophobia. My own experience amongst Muslims, in my role as a GP and as an active member of the community, is that hostility towards Muslims because of their religion has dramatically increased since 11th September 2001 (Of the dozens of incidents about which I have personally heard, which include physical assaults upon women in hijab, none have been reported for official statistics. Most Muslims see no point in reporting these incidents, and certainly have not caught on to the political importance of doing so.)

Additionally, the current statistical data is neither large nor specific enough to prove or disprove the phenomenon of Islamophobia. Malik is critical of those who draw firm conclusions from such statistics, yet does the same. It is ridiculously simplistic to say that the 300 per cent increase in stop and search incidents “among Asians” is a consequence of their living near Heathrow, or that only about half of these are Muslims because only about half of all Asians are Muslim.

Neither seeking “victim status” nor new legislation is likely to curtail what I see as the most prominent causes of the hostile atmosphere to Islam in society: a climate of fear of political Islam deliberately inspired as part of the “war on terror.” In the long run robust expression and explanation of Islamic thoughts and practises will do more to address these root causes of Islamophobia.

Many of us are actively engaging in this but have met with mixed responses. The chattering classes, it seems, prefer a genteel chat with those who differ very little with their own views. The real challenge would be to embrace an “intelligent conversation” with those who honestly admit there are differences with the mainstream of society.

Dr Abdul Wahid
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
Prospect
7th February 2005

My own experience among Muslims, in my role as a GP and as an active member of the community, is that hostility towards Muslims because of their religion has dramatically increased since 11th September 2001.

The statistical data is neither large nor specific enough to prove or disprove the phenomenon of Islamophobia. Malik is critical of those who draw firm conclusions from such statistics, yet does the same. It is absurd to say that the 300 per cent increase in stop and search “among Asians” is a consequence of their living near Heathrow, or that only about half of these are Muslims because only about half of all Asians are Muslim.

Neither seeking “victim status” nor new legislation is likely to curtail what I see as the main cause of the hostile atmosphere to Islam in society: a climate of fear of political Islam deliberately inspired as part of the “war on terror.” In the long run, robust expression and explanation of Islamic thoughts and practises will do more to address these root causes of Islamophobia.

Many of us are actively engaging in this but have met with mixed responses. The chattering classes, it seems, prefer a chat with those whose views differ very little from their own. The real challenge is to embrace an “intelligent conversation” with those who admit to differences with the mainstream of society.

Dr Abdul Wahid
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
Letters, Prospect
7th February 2005

Striking findings came in an underreported poll published in April 2007. The poll, commissioned by the University of Maryland confirms previous research on the subject www.css-jordan.org . The poll conducted across four majority Muslim countries shows overwhelming:

• Support for application of Shariah law in Muslim countries
• Unification with other countries in a Caliphate or Khilafah
• Opposition to occupation and western foreign policy in general
• Opposition to the imposition of western values in Muslim lands
• Opposition to the use of violence against civilians

The levels of consensus for these ideas are in excess of 75% for some issues.

WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM SUCH POLLS?

1. It indicates the real views on the Muslim street

2. It blows the false myths about the political ideas of Islam and violence

3. It shows that the ideas of those who launched the global war on terror are dangerous for the whole world and deceive even their own population

4. It proves the need for a change in western foreign policy towards the Muslim world

5. It proves that Khilafah today resonates in the Muslim world and that there is a need for all to understand these ideas from their advocates

1. It indicates the real views on the Muslim street

Blair has said in many speeches that the Muslim world does not have to choose between dictatorship and a ‘Taleban style theocracy’. Rather, he has argued, that the shared universal values of western democracy and liberty should be the future for Muslims.

It is true people hate dictatorship, occupation and corruption. However, it is false to think that the Muslim world feels the only way this can end is to choose a system like the one Blair, Bush and others advocate.

Muslims see the Shariah in governance as guaranteeing their authority in appointing the ruler, and giving the checks and balances of accountability. Islam, Shariah and Khilafah are what Muslims see as their liberation from dictatorship, occupation and corruption. It is a system that comes from their beliefs and values and is in accordance with their history.

2. It blows the false myths about the political ideas of Islam and violence

Extremist commentators in the west argue that there is an inherent link between the political ideas of Islam and violence as a means to see Islam established. This survey proves this is a lie. People in the Muslim world want Islam but do not see political violence as a means to achieve it. In reality the overwhelming activism for the return of Islam and Khilafah in the Muslim world has been through a political method. Hizb ut-Tahrir leads the discussion today for the implementation of Islam and the establishment of the Caliphate through exclusively political means.

3. It shows that the ideas underpinning the War on Terror are dangerous and deceive the people in the west.

Bush, Blair, Cheney, John Reid and others have all attacked the principle of anyone working for a Caliphate and Shariah in the Muslim world.

Bush said, when referring to people that share the ideology of Al Qaeda “They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call caliphate, where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology.”

Tony Blair also weighed in, when after the 7/7 attacks on London he said that Britain must confront – “an evil ideology”, defining this as “their barbaric ideas.” These included: “the establishment of effectively Taliban States and Shari’ah law in the Arab world en route to one Caliphate of all Muslim nations.”

Charles Clarke when Home Secretary in 2005 made a speech to the right wing neo-conservative US think tank the Heritage Foundation saying in regards to the Muslim world: “What drives these people on is ideas. And, unlike the liberation movements of the post-World War II era, these are not political ideas like national independence from colonial rule, or equality for all citizens without regard for race or creed, or freedom of expression without totalitarian repression. Such ambitions are, at least in principle, negotiable and in many cases have actually been negotiated. However, there can be no negotiation about the re-creation of the Caliphate; there can be no negotiation about the imposition of Sharia law”.

They lead people in their own population to believe these are ideas of a fringe group of Muslims and most Muslims disagree with the idea of Shariah, Caliphate and any political manifestation of Islam. It is this thinking that deludes people into believing that they can ‘solve’ the problems of the Muslim world by bombing some groups, banning others and changing a couple of regimes.
The reality is that Islam, Shariah and Caliphate are the political ideas of the majority. Therefore, the war that these politicians launched is one that is against the ideas that are the majority mainstream ideas of the Muslim world – the ideas that people see as their liberation from tyrannical oppression, economic dependency and political slavery.

They are fooling their own population into a false idea that is a war that can be won. They say it is to be a ‘long’ war. If they are trying to fight the ideas of approximately 1 billion people this is to be a never ending war.

4. It proves the need for a change in western foreign policy towards the Muslim world

The late Robin Cook said, after the Iraq war was over, that the challenge for the west is to reform its foreign policy with the Muslim world – meaning that he recognised that a colonial relationship was no longer tenable. The sad reality is that Bush and Blair interpret the alternative to ruling through proxy dictators as direct rule via occupation. The unfortunate reality is that the likes of David Cameron and his small circle of neocon advisors agree with this analysis. The Gordon Brown analysis is like that of the Iraq Study group in the USA – that is that the policy of intervention to suppress the expression of these political ideas of Islam is essential, but that the military option is a last resort.

The hopeful sign is that the mainstream populations in Britain, Europe and America were against the Iraq war, and do not support these politicians in their desire to intervene, interfere and invade. They are sceptical about the arguments about liberal interventionism – seeing it as a hypocritical excuse to intervene for material gain. They are sceptical about the scare mongering about terrorist threats. Even where they see the need to take security measures at home they see this foreign policy as worsening the problem. They recognise that heightening anger in the Muslim world and destroying civil society does not make the world a safer place.

5. It proves that Khilafah today resonates in the Muslim world and that there is a need for all to understand these ideas from their advocates

Above all this survey reflects the emergence of the return of the Khilafah as a majority desire. It proves that the Muslim masses want to live by the Shari’ah. It proves that the west has lost the battle of ideas. And it proves that Islam has won the battle for hearts and minds.

Given that this is the case, this shows that there is an urgent need for people to understand these ideas from those who carry them and believe in them Many ordinary people in western countries see past the lies and spin of politicians. There is currently no effective voice that is countering these government inspired lies with the real facts about what Muslims the world over want. There is a huge burden on the Muslim community to advocate Islam as an alternative for the Muslim world.

The poll can be viewed here

Highlights of the poll

Support for Islam, Shariah and the Caliphate

Views on Islamization and Western Cultural Influences

Most respondents express strong support for expanding the role of Islam in their countries—consistent with the goals of al Qaeda—but also express an openness to outside cultural influences. Large majorities in most countries support the goals of requiring a strict application of sharia, keeping out Western values, and even unifying all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state. On the other hand, majorities in all countries regard the increasing interconnection of the world through trade and communication as positive and strongly support democracy and religious freedom. Majorities or pluralities also reject the idea that violent conflict between Muslim and Western culture is inevitable and say that it is possible to find common ground.

Attittudes to violence against civilians

Attacks on Civilians in General
Large majorities in all countries opposes attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam. Attacks on civilians are seen as hardly ever effective. Politically motivated attacks against civilian infrastructure are also rejected as not justified

Attacks on American and European Civilians
Consistent with the opposition to attacks on civilians in principle, and in contrast to the significant support for attacks on US troops, majorities in all countries disapprove of attacks on civilians in the United States as well as civilians in Europe. Nearly as many disapprove of attacks on Americans working for US companies in Islamic countries. In all cases the Egyptians are the most opposed, while the Pakistanis are the least.

Foreign policy and occupation

In all countries large majorities have a negative view of the US government. The United States is perceived as having an extraordinary degree of influence over world events, with majorities in all countries saying that the United States controls most or nearly all of what happens in the world

Perceptions of US Foreign Policy Goals Related to the Islamic World
Very large majorities believe the United States seeks to undermine Islam and large majorities even believe it wants to spread Christianity in the region. About the same numbers think a key US goal is to maintain access to oil. While majorities perceive the United States as seeking to prevent terrorist attacks, this is not seen as the primary purpose of the war on terror

Getting the US Military Out of the Muslim World
Majorities in all countries endorse the goal of getting the United States to remove its military bases and its forces from all Islamic countries. Consistent with this goal, support for attacks on US troops in the Muslim world is quite high in Egypt and Morocco. But Pakistanis are divided about such attacks and Indonesians are opposed to them

Dr Abdul Wahid
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
June 2007

Tony Blair’s plans to counter radical Islamism include a legal ban on the Hizb-ut-Tahrir party. Abdul Wahid, a member of its executive committee, responds.

Can anybody recall a political party or organisation being banned in modern Britain? I must confess I cannot. I can remember the ridiculous spectacle of actors speaking the words of Gerry Adams – president of the Irish republican Sinn Fein party – whilst we watched his lips move, but even at the height of the “troubles”, and its overt alliance with the Irish Republican Army, Sinn Fein itself was legal and membership of it no offence.

So it should send seismic waves throughout Britain that on Friday 5 August 2005, Tony Blair announced that he planned to proscribe a solely political organisation that, moreover, has a history of non-violence spanning more than fifty years. The group in question, Hizb-ut-Tahrir (“party of liberation”), has maintained that stance – based upon a deep religious belief that it is prohibited for Muslims to use violence to try to establish their political goals – despite immense persecution in many parts of the world.
In the central Asian dictatorship of Uzbekistan, for example, it is Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s members who have been boiled to death by the Islam Karimov regime; thousands more men and women, young and old alike, have been imprisoned simply for carrying membership. Even Craig Murray, Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, confirmed its non-violent character.The goal of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, of which I am a member, is to re-establish by political work alone an Islamic form of governance in the Muslim world; and in so doing, to end the damaging interference – political, economic and military – that has persisted in the Muslim world from the colonial powers and their “viceroys” until today. Our frank words, and Islamic rhetoric for our Muslim audience, have provoked much criticism, but no serious person who has scrutinised our group has considered us violent.

In Britain, our work (which is frequently misreported) promotes the idea that Muslims should hold central to their Islamic beliefs and identity, and that this in turn confers further duties: to care and think about Muslims’ global concerns; to hold the government to account on its foreign policy; but also to protect the lives, honour, wealth, minds and beliefs of our fellow citizens.

Perhaps some in Britain are troubled by the fact that this “duty of care” to fellow citizens is built upon a higher duty to God, which leads them to call into question the “loyalty” of Muslims here. But if people (wrongly) believe that this will somehow endanger the society, are they then saying Muslims should be willing to accept political and legal martyrdom (if it is still legal to use this word!) – as Thomas More (1477-1535) was literally martyred for refusing to accept the absolute supremacy of monarch over God?

An assault on liberty

The prime minister’s proposed legislation – including the possible use of treason laws dating from 1351, and secret pre-trial hearings to examine suspects – may, it has been argued, lead to the expulsion of people from the United Kingdom, the closure of mosques, the banning of books and the silencing of criticism of British and United States foreign policy. Even the “validation” of the use of violence anywhere in the world to further “particular” beliefs could be criminalised. It is little wonder, then, if I hear both “medieval” and “McCarthyite” bells ringing in my head.

Some will ask themselves, with a trace of “McCarthyite” paranoia, whether there is a “Muslim under their bed”. But others will recall older episodes: the expulsion of Muslims from Andalusia in the 15th century, the royal closure and seizure of monasteries in England in the 16th century. Both were extremely bloody. The stifling and criminalisation of political expression has always been dangerous, whether by the Spanish Inquisition or the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Those for whom these historic comparisons resonate will realise the implications of such proposals in terms of civil liberties and community cohesion. Some will view it as an assault on their sacred beliefs about liberty, which repeats past errors and injustices.

If any reader thinks I exaggerate, and feels these comparisons to be misplaced, I would simply say this. Perhaps you feel no threat from these proposals, or believe the reassurances from British government ministers like Charlie (Lord) Falconer and Hazel Blears that under them, the likes of Nelson Mandela, Cherie Blair, George Galloway and Jenny Tonge would be free of prosecution. However, I can assure you that many educated, reasonable and rational Muslims do feel threatened by such changes in the law, and their potentially selective application. Their feelings, consistently ignored for many months, should be welcomed as a barometer of society’s health and given due consideration – not rejected as the noises of a moaning minority.

All of these proposed measures, including the ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir (a ban which many Muslim organisations have opposed) should lead Muslim and non-Muslim alike to question the easy talk of freedom of speech, tolerance, human rights and democracy that falls from the lips of powerful men.

Dr Abdul Wahid
Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain
openDemocracy
8th August 2005

Dr Abdul Wahid responds to Newsnights false allegations against Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain….

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain addressed a packed public meeting in East London following Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly’s announcement of plans for the Muslim community. Under the banner of fighting extremism she announced that the government hoped to see a British version of Islam.

Taji Mustafa from Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Executive Committee explained how the government were using this project to further the global war on terror. He explained that because the rise of Islam was proving to be an obstacle in the way of securing resources and interests in the Muslim world, the governments of the United States and Britain would use the excuse that Islam is violent and threatening to justify their continued intervention.

Dr Abdul Wahid, also from the Executive Committee, explained that the government hoped to use pressure from the Charities commission and department of Education to control these institutions. There has been some talk of changing the curriculum. They both gave clear messages of how the Muslim community had to unite and work in a constructive manner to solve our internal problems, otherwise the government would use more excuses to justify intervention.

Government’s Plan for Mosques and Madrassahs ( Part 1)

Government’s Plan for Mosques and Madrassahs ( Part 2)

Abdul Wahid responds to questions about Hizb ut-Tahrir, the call for Khilafah, the allegations against HTB from the government and Conservatives and the duty of Muslims in the West.

Click Here to Watch the Interview

Dr Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir
Ummah Talk Interview, Islam Channel
Thursday 2nd August 2007