Myth of Islamophobia 2

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

Poll Confirms Massive Support for the Caliphate in the Muslim World

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 and Hizb-ut-Tahrir: ‘Muslims under the bed’

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

Newsnights False Allegations Against Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

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

The Government’s Plan for Mosques and Madrassahs

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)

Islam Channel Interview: Dr Abdul Wahid Chairman of HTB

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

Why Britain’s Afghan Venture has Failed

Six years after the invasion, the overthrow of the Taleban regime, the installation of a client regime that is now steeped in corruption, the deaths of thousands of people and an aid programme that is failing dismally
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set out Britain’s ‘plan B’ for Afghanistan. Given the appalling record of destruction, matched only by the chaos that is Iraq, it is no surprise that people are sceptical about the likelihood of these new plans bringing peace and stability to the region, and cynical about the motives behind the ongoing intervention. Corruption, poverty and insecurity have all worsened in Afghanistan under occupation. This “free, democratic” Afghanistan has levels of poverty comparable to sub-Saharan Africa, as well as 120,000 women and 60,000 children who are amongst Afghanistan’s new drug users, giving a meaning to the term “liberation” that is entirely in keeping with intervention by capitalist liberal states.

One has to ask if this is what western politicians mean when they boast that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan . People want more than a rigged vote labelled as democracy. They want stability, security and a decent standard of living. Not death, destruction and poverty. They want Islamic values, not to be liberated to enjoy cannabis and heroin.

Given the deepening crisis in Afghanistan it is no wonder that Brown is suggesting this new plan. He has to win hearts and minds in Britain and justify the billions of tax payers money, as well as justify the many troop casualties. However, the hearts and minds in the Muslim world are already lost. The worsening security and worsening poverty prove this military venture has not been about ensuring a more peaceful world, or about humanitarian intervention, but has been about Britain fighting its corner in a new colonial Great Game. Sadly, the people of Afghanistan are the victims of this competition between Russia, Britain and the US, in this most strategically and materially important region.

On Security, Brown has proposed this be under the auspices of ISAF and the Afghan national army. Yet under their watch the UN estimates that violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since the previous year. In November 2007 they criticised international troops for killing civilians at ‘alarming levels’. It is NATO troop presence that fuels the insecurity. Moreover the UN high commissioner also raised concerns about whether ISAF was turning detainees over to torture in Afghan custody. Amnesty International said that NATO forces in Afghanistan have handed detainees to Afghan security services (the NDS) despite reports that they torture their prisoners.

On economic development the current record is shameful. Almost half of the US ‘ aid budget goes directly to fatten the profits of five US contractors. Much has been squandered on profits for companies or subcontractors, or spent on high salaries and living expenses for expatriate staff (each full-time expatriate consultant costs up to $500000 a year.) Only $270 million of the $15 billion of aid has been spent on the agricultural sector when this is the major source of income for 80 percent of Afghans. Heroin production is up since the occupation, providing 93 percent of the world’s opium supply. Tragically the rates of addiction within Afghanistan have increased sharply since 2003 to nearly 4 percent of the population.

On political development, even Karzai himself cannot hide the levels of corruption. The democratic parliament is packed with former warlords, who voted themselves an amnesty from war crimes earlier this year. Large profits from Afghanistan’s $3-billion opium crop, funds skimmed from aid and reconstruction contracts and bribes for services all fuel official corruption. One elderly parliamentarian addressed Karzai saying. “The government and cabinet members are sucking the blood of innocent people; we can’t tolerate the corruption in every government office.”

The on-going western occupation and interference only fuels the desire for an independent Islamic Caliphate where authority lies with people; where elected representatives cannot vote themselves an amnesty from prosecution; where the laws and values are those based on the beliefs,heritage and values of the population; where the executive is wholly accountable and has to stand up for the interests of its citizens and not for those of foreign governments.

Western governments will never admit that their repeated interventions trying to “fix” what they themselves have broken only creates more problems. They show no signs of wanting to leave the Muslim world to shape its own future and political destiny. Stability can only come when a system of government enjoys the trust and confidence of the people and that will only come when Islam lies at the heart of the system. All people want to have the rulers they chose, and not be forced to accept stooges who represent foreign interests.

Dr Abdul Wahid

Chairman UK Executive Committee

Hizb ut-Tahrir

12th December 2007

Mosques and Imams National Advisory Body

Asalasmu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatahu

Re:  Mosques and Imams National Advisory Body

The launch of MINAB on 29th November 2007 places upon its founders an enormous test. They have declared MINAB an independent advisory body whose aim is to seek to improve the mosques in this country. It has not declared itself to be a self-appointed or undisputed governing body for mosques, and some of the founding organisations have made great efforts to distance it from any government agenda.

However, set against what may seem to some generally reasonable aims are the harsh realities of today’s political climate. Government ministers past and present have virtually claimed the strategy as their own, suggesting that this strategy is an essential part of their ‘war on terror’ and ‘hearts and minds’ policy – born as it was out of an idea that came from the government’s own working group in 2005. It is striking that statements of politicians about MINAB have suggested this and have been reinforced by the media coverage of the launch. Former Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly even spoke about establishing a British form of Islam when she launched a very prescriptive agenda for mosques, Imams and madrassahs in April 2007.

It is a feature of many politicians, media commentators and policy advisors that they consistently conflate security matters with matters of the beliefs and values of Muslims. Similarly, they have mixed security policy with policies claimed to be for improving community relations. These misguided and misleading strategies are at best irrelevant to security and counterproductive to good community relations. They have seamlessly linked the threat of violence in the UK, which none of us stand for, to widely held and core Islamic beliefs and legitimate political concerns, now labelled as extremist ideas. They then link policies for better community relations to the control and suppression of these beliefs and concerns. Shariah, Khilafah, the honour of the Prophet (saw) and his family, aspects of Islam that differ with western liberal values, concerns about western foreign policy in the Muslim world – all of these are regularly labelled as problem ideas.

Any initiative which is sincerely based upon firm Islamic criteria that towards improved governance in our mosques, better access for youth and women, or improvements in madrassah curricula and teaching styles would be valuable. Good governance in mosques, transparency in decision making, accountability of mosque committees, wider consultation, and engagement in community dawah so people can see the beauty of this deen, and how it can better the general community, are all noble Islamic aims if aimed towards achieving the pleasure of Allah (swt).

However, any initiative subverted by another agenda, used to perpetuate a false myth that mosques breed violence, or preach hatred would be harmful for our community. It would further the McCarthyist atmosphere that has developed. Would the hijacking of the agenda to preach a ‘reformist’ message to somehow distort Islamic ideas to suit a liberal agenda earn the pleasure of Allah (swt)? It is not fanciful to think that politicians could hijack even well intentioned actions. Machiavellian politicians of all parties would seek to run rings around us if they see any exploitable opportunity, using mosques as pawns in their own misguided policies. Haven’t we seen matters hijacked before – a message for Muslims to be vigilant spun as a call for Muslims to spy on each other; a message that Muslims want to end an attack on Afghanistan spun as an endorsement of the attack?

Some of the government’s proposed interventionist policies are similar to the control of mosques and Imams by regimes in the Muslim world. However, establishing a ministry of ‘Awqaf’ would not be a very British thing; even an ‘Arch-mufti’ of Canterbury is some way off. Though, there is a track record in the Indian subcontinent of trying to control religion and different methods of state control exist today. Universal registration of mosques allow policing by the charities commission; threats of mosque closure would follow non compliance to standards set by a government regulatory body; financial incentives would promote dependency upon government, as the one who pays the piper calls the tune. All of these are methods that have been used in many other areas of life but can lead to every bit as much control without appearing as draconian as what happens in the Muslim world.

Britain’s history does not only show how religion was controlled in the colonies but how it was made subservient to the state here: sometimes through constitutional means (the break from Rome and the formation of a state-established church), sometimes through oppression and sometimes through manipulation of religious texts. Were this to happen to Islam and Muslims in Britain it would rightly be seen by the Muslim community as a betrayal of what is right. The Muslim community, who feel pressure from the anti-terror laws and relentless anti-Islamic propaganda in the media, would be let down by any who allowed this.

Our view is that our mosques, run in an inclusive and transparent manner could empower our community acting as the hub for community life. Silencing a voice for Muslims in our mosques would inevitably lead to frustration. Allowing discussion and debate becomes a channel and a vent for people’s feelings They could be opened for non-Muslims to come and ask and learn about Islam. It is my hope and prayer that this is what will be achieved.

My sincere advice to you brothers and sisters engaged in this venture is to be prepared for almost unbearable pressure upon you to divert from your independent advisory role, towards becoming a body that becomes financially dependent, and that seeks to directly or indirectly promote the state regulation of mosques. Such pressure will come from people within your organisation as well as people outside it. Pressure will come from the media scrutinising MINAB to see if it is successful in secularising the mosques in Britain. We ask Allah (swt) to keep you on the straight path and to keep you away from pitfalls in your way.

“O believers! If you help (in the cause of) Allah, He will help you, and make your foothold firm” – [Surah Muhammad Ayat 7]

Wasalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatahu

Dr Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir
19th Dhul Qada 1428
29th November  2007

The Politics of Eid has Created Fitna, not Unity

Dear Brother in Islam
Asalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatahu

Re. The Politics of Eid has created Fitna, not Unity

As the month of Dhul Hijjah draws to a close, and we approach the end of another year it is a good time for some reflection. Over the past two years, some masajid have witnessed increasing pressure to agree the days of Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. The pressure on some of them to conform has been immense, even to the point that people attack each others for celebrating Eid on different days. The sentiment to desire a unified day of Eid is honourable, but the use of illegitimate pressure and self appointed positions of authority has caused more harm than good. Sadly, the bitterness over this long standing controversy has never been so great.

Different opinions

For centuries Eid was celebrated across the Islamic world one day, despite the fact that Islamic scholars have differing opinions on the criteria for the start of Ramadhan and the start of Shawwal. The opinion of most scholars and the opinion that we find the strongest (and Allah Ta’ala knows best) is that a witnessed sighting of the moon by the eye of trustworthy Muslims signal that fasting should begin (in the case of the Shawwal moon, end) for all Muslims, regardless of locality. The alternative view of some scholars, the weaker opinion in our view (and Allah knows best) was that the month started and ended with a sighting of the moon by trustworthy Muslims in your locality. The evidence for this is well known derived, from the hadith of the blessed Prophet SAW (in the translated meaning):

“Fast when you see it, and break your fast when you see it.”

Settling the difference

There is a Sharri’ principle that the Imam settles differences of opinion in such matters. In this issue it was the Imam of the Muslims, the Khalifah, who settled this matter. Since we lost our Khilafah in 1924 there has been disunity on this issue. People maybe divided between these two legitimate Islamic opinions, but have lost the adab of ikhtilaaf (etiquettes of difference) and argue with each other. To add to this confusion, we have people who add the matter of ‘calculating’ if the new moon was born or could have been seen, by less than 100% certain methods and differing views of calculation. Despite the fact that the hadith calls for the action of sighting NOT calculation some people have chosen not to follow the clear Prophetic instruction to follow sighting by a Muslim and follow calculation by astronomers at observatories in Britain.

Playing Politics with Eid

The politics of Eid has been most bitter by the corrupt and illegitimate rulers in the Muslim world who, even if the scholars accept the principle of sighting in any global locality, refuse to allow their Imams and masajid to start Ramadhan and make Eid because ‘another nation’ has declared it. The evil of nationalism and division according to nation states has been a plague on this Ummah, allowing its exploitation, for almost a century now. The Saudi rulers will not follow Egypt or Yemen or Pakistan etc. So Muslims who wish to be unified upon Eid are forced by these rulers to be divided on the lines of the nation state.

The Situation in Britain

Over the past few years sincere Muslims would love that we fast together, and celebrate Eid together. But consensus in Britain seems more important to them than unity with the Muslim world. So we have masajid that refuse to celebrate Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha with millions of their brothers and sisters around the Muslim world, just so they can have a local consensus. As a result the Muslims who do wish to share their Eid with the rest of the Muslims in the world have, in some cases, even been barricaded from using their local masjid! The British government would love to force a consensus upon Muslims, so that they – or those whom they appoint – can decide the day we celebrate, regardless of whether the Ummah of Muhammad (SAW) everywhere else fasts or celebrates Eid. They have made huge efforts to bring mosques, Imams and Muslims under greater control, and in a manner that separates us from the global Ummah. We must beware that such attempts to enforce a day of Eid do not fall into this trap.

Unity of Muslims

Dear Brothers and Sisters. We love and pray that Allah unites our hearts, teaches us tolerance of each others legitimate differences of Shar’i opinion, and helps us to unify around the Shariah of Allah, and the Sunnah of His messenger. However, on this basis, coercive measures to force a consensus, barricading and closing masajid preventing people praying on different days, trying to create a British Eid – instead of just Eid – has created more fitna (division and argument). We in Hizb ut-Tahrir work for real unity in the Muslim world in the form of the Khilafah, which according to the Shariah of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger is the way to have an Imam or Ameer of the Muslims who settles this difference of opinion. We urge you all to work with us, to follow the strongest Sharri opinion on the matter of sighting, and to work to maintain our loving bonds of global brotherhood. We urge you to remember in future years that the type of agendas we have seen playing out in recent years regarding Eid is doing us more harm than good, in both the dunya and akhira.

Wasalamu alaikum
Your brother in Islam

Dr Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK Executive Committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir
27th Dhul Hijjah 1428
6th January 2008

A War Waged on Liberty in Liberty’s Own Name*

Paranoia about Muslim ‘extremists’ has seen the West trample on the very rights it claims to uphold, argues Abdul Wahid

Is there an “extremist” under your bed? Worse still, a Muslim one? The Government’s proposed “extremism task force” may not be a match for the House Un-American Activities Committee, and paranoia about Islam and injustices committed against Muslims in the name of security have not yet reached McCarthyite proportions. Nonetheless, the changes to the law proposed by the Prime Minister are draconian, challenging centuries-old liberties while intensifying the alienation of Muslims in Britain.

Tony Blair has proposed banning Hizb ut-Tahrir, the party to which I belong. By doing so he would label as terrorist an organisation with a 53-year history of non-violent political activism working to shape public opinion in the Muslim world in favour of a caliphate system of government with an elected ruler and defined systems of accountability. In promoting an unashamedly Islamic approach that is committed to sharing resources for the benefit of all citizens (regardless of their faith), we are strongly against Western imperialist foreign policy. But despite this, we have clearly condemned the killing of innocent civilians in New York, Madrid and London.

It is a disturbing reflection of the climate in Britain that this unprecedented proposal to proscribe non-violent organisations has not caused outrage. Similarly, there is no vocal opposition to the way anti-terror proposals disproportionately target one minority community and potentially silence and criminalise political support for resistance struggles in Palestine and Kashmir.

Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Education, further fuelled the paranoia by declaring that universities should be more vigilant in seeking and rooting out “extremists”.

The label “extreme” inevitably imposes a type of censorship on those views selected as such by politicians and the media. Kelly’s suggestion surely has huge implications for discussion and debate on campus.

There has been a blurring of the war on terrorism with a war on political ideas. The paranoia produced by giving police the powers to “stop and search” and arrest and detain for two weeks without charge is spreading.

The “smoke” – more often without fire than with – has blown beyond anxious neighbourhoods and across university campuses.

Muslim student leaders fear they could be expelled from courses or that prayer rooms may be closed if they organise political debates about Zionism or about the resistance to occupation in Iraq.

Muslim students are unlikely to abandon views that they are forced to censor, only keep them hidden, and a view that is not expressed can never truly be challenged intellectually, just condemned. Any frustration and alienation they feel could only be fuelled by such a climate.

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s is a vision that commands huge support in the Muslim world and has substantial backing among Muslims in the UK. Our members are often better able to articulate a viewpoint of Islam and politics than others.

If universities, students, academics and thinkers do not discuss, question and scrutinise the views of our non-violent political organisation, who then would they approach to try to bridge the already huge gap in understanding between the Western and Islamic worlds? Do they really prefer a one-sided neoconservative rant about any future caliphate to an informed dialogue?

I suspect my words may resonate with Muslims on campus. But it is the rest of society that needs to appreciate what is happening. It is highly likely that silencing one section of the community by legal or social pressures will give politicians greater licence to encroach upon the speech of others, so narrowing the circle of “acceptable” views to hold in society.

This is not a position about which anyone should be proud, and it only adds to the image of hypocrisy that stains a nation that promotes the rhetoric of free speech and human rights elsewhere while violating what it holds most sacred in its own midst.

*Article title has been given by the Times Higher Education Editorial and not the Author

Dr Abdul Wahid

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain

Times Higher Education

20 January 2006