Dr Abdul Wahid’s Weblog

Highlights from an Interview with Chairman of UK Executive Committee, Dr Abdul Wahid for the September 2007 edition of Islamism digest – The full interview can be found in the print edition of the digest available from www.cfsot.com

ON THE WAR ON TERROR:

Islamism Digest: How is the West trying to perpetuate the so-called War on Terror?

Abdul Wahid: The West’s different strategies in the War on Terror vary from place to place. In the context of Iraq – where the United States is failing badly – the strategy has defaulted to trying to induce a sectarian conflict, not only in Iraq but in the wider Middle East. In the context of Pakistan the West is using the Musharraf regime to fight its military battles there, particularly in the border regions with Afghanistan. In the context of Muslim diasporas in the West, Britain in particular, there is a two-fold strategy. One is a legal strategy designed to reduce the political space for Islamic activism. The other is a so-called ‘hearts and minds’ strategy which is in reality an attempt to impose its own vision of Islam – in other words a compliant and subservient Islam – upon the Muslim community in the West.

ID: Are you referring to attempts to promote quietist Sufi Tariqas [orders or paths] as an alternative to Islamism?

AW: I think that is too generous! They are using the label Sufi to promote a form of Islam that is virtually unrecognisable to a broad spectrum of Muslim opinion, including Sufis. This is an Islam without Shari’a; without Khilafah; an Islam without Islam basically!

ON “TERRORISM”

ID: Can the international community develop a common definition of terrorism?

AW: I think the international community in its present form has no desire to develop a common definition of terrorism primarily because powerful states want to define terrorism according to their own interests. The United States has its own definition of terrorism according to its interests; Russia will use its own and so on and so forth. What we don’t see – and are unlikely to see – is an emergence of a definition that would hold these powerful states to account. A simple definition of terrorism which included the targeting of civilian life for a political cause would be first and foremost applicable to Western states and their military onslaughts on Iraq and Afghanistan and going back many decades and centuries to France in Algeria, Britain in India and countless other examples.

ID: How does Hizb ut-Tahrir define terrorism?

AW: I would look at terrorism from a global and broad-based perspective. We can look at state-sponsored terrorism in Iraq which has so far cost 650,000 civilian lives; we can look at decades of Israeli terrorism in Palestine; we can look at corporate terrorism which subjugates literally billions of people to the volatile forces of the market.

ID: This is interesting since you are extending the definition to include ‘corporate terrorism’. Would you then regard the behaviour of Western drug companies in Africa as a form of terrorism?

AW: Whether it is the drugs companies and their refusal to address the proliferation of AIDS in Africa, or whether it is the food companies that coerce countries to grow crops for export purposes at the expense of the local population having food on their tables, these actions cause immeasurable amounts of suffering and are tantamount to terrorism.

ON MUSLIMS AND FOREIGN POLICY

ID:  Some people contest your argument that foreign policy is the decisive factor in leading a tiny number of Britain’s young Muslim male population to resort to terrorism. They would argue that many of the so-called ‘radicalisation’ factors were present before the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I don’t want to discuss this in particular I’d like to know what you think the British government can do (aside from changing aspects of its foreign policy) to diminish the terrorism threat to the UK?

AW: First of all, it is important not to underestimate the impact of foreign policy. It is very unfortunate that the new foreign secretary David Milliband has explicitly said that Britain needs to maintain its activist stance in the world; which effectively means its engagement and interference in the Muslim world. Upon his return from Pakistan Milliband explicitly endorsed the actions of the military dictator of Pakistan. So once again we see the British government dealing immorally in its international politics and thinking that no consequence and anger flows from these policies. On the domestic front, the British government’s approach to the Muslim community has been very divisive inasmuch as it has tried to set up rival factions and more broadly the government has isolated the Muslim community by over-emphasising, even exaggerating the security threat in a way that effectively tarnishes that whole community. The government has also tolerated the media’s onslaughts on aspects of Islamic identity (in particular the Islamic Hijab and Niqab) which has further undermined community relations in the UK. Furthermore, the government has tried to reduce the root causes of the security threat to aspects of Islamic ideologies thereby absolving itself of any blame or responsibility.

ID: Supporters and apologists of the British establishment would say that why should the Muslim community in the UK – which only comprises 2% of the total population – have the opportunity to shape this country’s foreign policy.

AW: The first thing I would say is that if the people who hold that view really regarded the Muslim community in Britain as fellow citizens then they would allow them to advance their political opinions openly and without fear of harassment and proscription. The fact is if they wish to silence our opinion, and it would be more honest for them to say so openly. Secondly, the reality in contemporary Britain is that there exists a tiny elite – often representing powerful commercial interests – which determines foreign policy and policy generally in this country. As the war in Iraq proved, it is not the masses that determine policy in this country. A clear majority of the British people were against the Iraq war but the power elites simply ignored their wishes.

ON CAMPAIGN AGAINST Hizb ut-Tahrir

ID: There is renewed media attention on HT’s alleged ‘radicalisation’ function; how do you explain this? Is it a prelude to the party’s proscription?

AW: I think the government realised that proscription is very hard. Indeed, the former Home Secretary John Reid said that there is no evidence that Hizb-ut Tahrir is a violent organisation and on that basis it is difficult for the rest of government to argue forcefully for proscription. In light of this, the tactics have reverted to smear, slander and innuendo to try to discredit the organisation.

ID: It is clear that former members or at least sympathisers of HT, like Shiraz Maher, are leading this campaign. What is the motivation of these individuals and how important are they?

AW: In regards to motivation you’d have to ask them that question. I think it is clear that these people are not significant players. Sudden 180 degrees ideological and political transformations are very strange indeed. But you have to look at the wider picture and recognise the fact that powerful forces in the right and left wings of British politics are against any form of Islamic political activism in this country.

ID: Do you believe these dissidents are part of a wider disinformation campaign against Hizb ut-Tahrir and are you fearful of their activities?

AW: I am not in the slightest bit worried by their activities. I do not know if it is part of a co-ordinated disinformation campaign but it is in the public domain that some of these people [former HT members] have openly admitted communication with the security services. We will get on with our activities and mission as before and will not be deterred in the slightest by smear campaigns.

ID: Leaving the government aside, do you accept that HT has an image problem in the UK dating back to the late 1980s?

AW: If there is a misunderstanding about HT then it is clearly our duty to rectify that.

ID: One key misunderstanding – especially on the part of the media – is that HT wants to extend the Islamic Khilafah to the West. How would you rectify this misunderstanding?

AW: All we can do is to repeat what we have always said. HT’s methodology for the past 50 years has been very open and clear; working for the re-establishment of the Khilafah solely in the Muslim world. We have done this by preparing public opinion at all levels of society to bring change. We have repeatedly clarified that it has never been part of our programme to work for the re-establishment of the Khilafah in the west.

ID: But you work intensively with Muslims in the West. Do you think this heightens suspicions?

AW: Debates about the future politics of the Muslim world are generated in the West. Muslims in the West are part of the Muslim Ummah and need to be part of that debate whether in the West or the world over. Moreover, they regularly travel to Muslim countries and are in constant communication with Muslims in the Islamic world. All of this interaction has a major effect on global Muslim public opinion. Furthermore, our role in the West is to encourage our community to lead a model Islamic life and convey the true message and mission of Islam to the wider community.

ON MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN BRITAIN

ID: What is your ideal Muslim leadership in the UK?

AW: Any effective leadership has to remain independent from government manipulation and interference.

ID: There is now a lot of talk and speculation about the direction of the Muslim community’s development in the UK. How do you see the Muslim community ten years from now?

AW: I think there are several consensuses building up in the Muslim community. One is that isolation is simply not an option. Second, there is a growing realisation that the ideas, values and symbols of Islam are under concerted attack in the UK and that there is a need to defend these ideas and values both intellectually and politically. Third, many Muslims aspire to lead an authentic Islamic life and all available evidence suggests that this trend will intensify in the years to come. This is best epitomised by the battles which Muslim women are constantly having to face in simply following the Islamic dress code.

ID: Do you see engagement and Islamisation as parallel processes in the UK?

AW: Islamisation means Muslims adhering to Islamic values, living as decent and productive citizens in the UK, whilst at the same time standing up to the injustices that take place around the world. If we engage on this basis then we actually have something valuable to offer to the wider society in the UK. After all, many British people often bemoan the erosion of these values in this country.

ID: It seems you want to substitute the word engagement with integration!

AW: The government talks the language of integration but in fact it pursues the politics of assimilation. I think the term engagement is clearer and relieves the Muslim community from the burden of religious-cultural divestment and assimilation.

Dr Abdul Wahid

Chairman UK Executive Committee

Hizb ut-Tahrir

Islamism Digest, Volume 2, Issue 9

September 2007

We have become accustomed to matters of security being cynically played by you for political point scoring. Your persistent call, with no evidence, for the criminalisation of Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Muslim groups and thinkers illustrates many things.

Firstly, you mislead the general public who expect their leaders to produce well informed arguments based on evidence. The complex issues that have created today’s security environment have been reduced by you to the single issue of Islam’s political ideas and its adherents. You, like Tony Blair and George W Bush before you, simply seek to divert any responsibility for creating today’s security environment away from western government policies in the Muslim world. Secondly, it confirms your party’s credentials as an anti-Muslim party, who care little for community relations. You expose the promotion of a Muslim to the Shadow Cabinet as a veneer for your actual policies, by silencing her views on these matters (such that she utterly contradicts what she had argued for over two years) and by having her stalked in her brief by one of the most hawkish MPs.

Thirdly, the trail of your argument can be traced to various right wing neoconservative think tanks in Washington, via their sister organisations in the UK. It is well known that you have self declared neoconservatives in your front bench team and we are aware that some of your senior staff have been sent to Washington to consult with these people on these matters. These same people who have advised you on the matter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, also call for the bombing of Iran (as they called for the war in Iraq), the withdrawal of Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights and the termination of your relationship with the Conservative Muslim Forum (recently described by one supporter of yours at the Heritage Foundation as a flirtation with Islamic extremism). Such views merely illustrate the fragility of the so-called principles of freedom and tolerance that you claim to believe in.

You prefer to ban ideas rather than debate them. You believe that voices that confront the policies of this country in the Muslim world should be silenced. Your views on non-violent groups like ours simply reinforces the belief in the Muslim world that this war on terror is not about preventing violence but preventing Muslims from living in their lands according to their way of life – Islam – and seeking to impose your systems on them. This is a recognised pattern that we have seen under repressive regimes in the Muslim world.

We are willing to debate any of these matters with you in a public forum. The cowardice of making your accusations in Parliament – where you enjoy the cover of legal protection – is telling. Your persistent call for a ban and the censoring of debate and discussion on important issues, suggests to me that you would not accept this offer, because you have no arguments and no proofs to bring to the table. However, our challenge stands regardless.

Dr Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir
November 2007

Leader of the National Executive Committee of Hizb ut Tahrir Britain, Dr Abdul Wahid presented an important speech in London discussing the ongoing Pakistan crisis and the role of western governments in supporting the dictator and tyrant Musharraf.

He showed the duplicity in western governments rhetoric versus practise when it comes to the regimes in the Muslim world. Dr Wahid also talked about the duty of Muslims living in the UK to stand firm in calling Islam and the Khilafah despite the atmosphere of fear being generated by the government iwith its draconian anti-terror legislation.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

“Has political participation failed British Muslims?” This was the title of a debate held on Tuesday 26th February 2008 at the London Muslim Centre, hosted by the Cordoba Foundation. The response: a resounding 78% of the audience agreed with the motion, after a lively, frank and civil 90 minute discussion following Islamic etiquettes of debate.

The panel consisted of human-rights lawyer Makbool Javaid and Abdul Wahid of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain arguing that political participation had failed, with Muslim Peer Nazir Ahmed and Osama Saeed, a prospective SNP candidate and activist, both feeling it had not failed. All the participants agreed the importance of that political engagement through discussion, campaigning, building communities, presenting a case for Muslim interests and trying to affect opinion within political circles. However, the area of difference was over the worth of engagement with the party political system.

Lord Ahmed argued that Britain offered unrivalled opportunities for Muslims and justified Muslims being involved in party politics by citing the example of the Hifl al Fudhool in the time of the Messenger SAW. Osama Saeed mentioned many examples which might benefit Muslims such as legislation against religious discrimination and Shariah compliant finance.

Abdul Wahid responded to these points that Hilf ul Fudhool – a discussion forum in pre-Islamic Arabia – could not be compared to the Westminster parliament, a legislative body where debate was within the exclusive framework of specific secular criteria. He also mentioned that the religious discrimination legislation from Europe had nothing to do with Muslim involvement in the political system and the Shariah compliant issue arose out of a consumer demand, pressure from city financial institutions and Muslims presenting their case to the Treasury outside of the party political process.

He said he rejected the binary argument that only assimilation in to the political system or isolation/separatism were the only two alternatives but that if people wanted to know whether Muslim participation in the system had brought fruits they should look at the recent Archbishop-Shariah debacle. Not one of the Muslim parliamentarians explained the meaning of Shariah in civil and personal matters to the media, and none defended the viscous and fanatical media attack on Shariah more generally. Indeed, some cynically used the opportunity to join in the attack on the Archbishop, and criticise Shariah themselves. He explained this by saying that the system corrupts even well intentioned men and women, who enter politics meaning to help their community, but find they have to submit their principles and wishes of their community to the party line. To be selected as a candidate and then to rise up the party requires ever increasing degrees of submission, and in today’s anti-Muslim climate in Europe, that inevitably meant more denunciation of Islam and Shariah. He told the audience because of this, they might join in the system, but only at the expense of their Islam. He argued for a better alternative of political activity for Muslims, based on Islam and political activism to build self-reliant community institutions to tackle the real issues affecting our community – as well as to carry dawah by example of living by Islamic values.

Makbool Javaid challenged the premise that the system should only serve the interests of those who participated. He did not feel that Muslims, alone, should have to do more than other citizens to be treated with fairness. However, anyone who felt that playing the system was the only way to move forward should look to the example of the black community in the USA . It should be a lesson to us that the USA, with a serious black contender for President, a black Secretary of State, and numerous black mayors and police chiefs that Hurricaine Katrina two years ago revealed a black under class comparable to some African states. Political participation had not helped these people, and the various black politicians who had climbed the career ladder had not been able to elevate their community significantly.

During the Q and A session the discussion covered alternative ways of political engagement, as well as the hukm shari issues related to legislation and backing secular political parties. Lord Ahmed argued that you didn’t have to agree with all policies of a party to support it. Abdul Wahid responded to this by saying that governments whip their MPs on manifesto issues, and when you vote you effectively tick a box for the candidate who stands on that manifesto.

Following the assassination of the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto and the rioting across Pakistan which followed, Chairman of the National Executive Committee of Hizb ut Tahrir Britain gave a speech in London on the crisis. Discussing how the violent politics of Pakistan’s history and its continual failure as a state, like other Muslim countries, is the consequence of a failure of leadership and political system that allows western colonial states to interefere and dictate both internal and foreign policies.

Dr Wahid emphasized how Pakistan must move towards a new leadership and a new system of governance if the cycle of political violence is to end. Dr Wahid re-iterated Hizb ut Tahrir’s global call for the return of the Khilafah as the system that will bring unity through Islam, independent leadership, the rule of law and security to the Muslims of Pakistan and across the world.

Click Here to Listen to the Speech