Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Responds to Muslim MPs Call to Ban Party
London, UK, July 20 – The call by some Muslim MPs to UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke to ban the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a non-violent Islamic political party that rejects terrorism and militancy, is nothing more than an attempt to stifle legitimate political expression in the Muslim community.
For over five decades Hizb ut-Tahrir has faced intense repression at the hands of the rulers of the Muslim world. In Uzbekistan, tens of thousands of our members have been imprisoned for little more than distributing a leaflet or raising a political discussion. In their treatment of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the rulers of the Muslim world have made it abundantly clear that they will not tolerate any political dissent whatsoever. Despite this intense repression, including torture, rape, imprisonment without trial and extra-judicial killings, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not wavered from the path of non-violent political work in the slightest. The dungeons of the Muslim world are full with our prisoners of conscience. The current global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Ata Abu Rushta, was a designated Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in the late 1990s.
Dr Imran Waheed, the Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "Like the tyrant ruler of Uzbekistan, the statements of these MPs calling for action against Hizb ut-Tahrir are evidence of their intolerance of political dissent. They want the Muslim community to forget the dodgy dossier and the war on Iraq and would rather the Muslim community join the fold of the Labour Party than ask searching questions of their politicians."
"Hizb ut-Tahrir continues to enjoy wide support in the Muslim community – indeed these MPs know that many of their close family members are active members of Hizb ut-Tahrir."
Email.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a very controversial group, however they still do have a right to exist.
On what grounds do the government want to ban them? Mere suspicion? Isnt banning them being undemocratic?
Interestingly even groups who totally disagree with their ideology, are arguing for their right to exist, such as [url=http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4/822/103/]MPAC[/url]
Whats your views on the above?
deleted
I think alot of us, including myself, may have fallen for the HT propaganda a bit. It should be made clear that the above article is straight from HT (my little pet peeve).
Muslims MPs are calling for measures to be taken against perceived extremist groups such as HT. I don't think I've come across any of the apne MPs use the word 'ban'.
But seeing as everyone is talking about the possibility of HT being banned, I'll give my two cents worth:
A ban would be wrong and set a bad precedent. If HT is banned then anyone else that the gov sees as extremist will also be banned. Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi and Tariq Ramadan would be barred from this country, MPAC and even MAB might be banned.
It would be better if the gov discouraged people from dealing with HT. Eg Aston Villa Leisure Centre cancelled a HT conference that was supposed to have been held there a while ago. If the number of HT talk-shops can be limited, HT membership will be limited... and we can all more happily enjoy the fruits of democracy.
'Either you're with us or your against us.'
I have heard that somewhere.....
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
good point
irfan
maybe this threat of being banned may scare them into shutting their big Gobs'a bit?
Maybe. They're starting to sound more and more pacifist everyday.
last night on BBC news they showed some raid in a Pakistani house in Lahore where some guy was captured
the lady from the house was saying "we were telling the capturers that he aint even an HT"
did anyone watch that?
news at 10
Just watched it. That woman spoke good English. Bet she was British.
Good point-but irrelevent. :roll:
Q is-was he arrested just cos he was a HT?
HTs are banned in Pk.
really... thats news to me.
Back in BLACK
Salam
Freedom of speech means that people are free to express their views however distasteful they may be to others.
This is a free society.
It is not U.S.S.R. !!
Let BNP and other nutters say whaever they want, as long they don't actually do any physical harm.
Omrow
i am anti HT but they should not be banned. We must have freedom of speech
if anyone is inciting violence who ever they are and spreading hate then they should be banned
HT only borders on spreading hate (they rather spread distrust of the west) but as yet i have not heard them preach violence
It was on the 10'o'clock report LilSis mentioned. That's my only source.
u know we all agree that HT shouldnt be banned here in UK
aint it sumin to think about that they've been banned in Pakistan?
was Pakiland wrong to ban them?
Well to each their own.
I am on two minds on this. I can see benefits and drawbacks to both sides.
After all if you ban an organisation, all they do is change their name.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
no point in banning groups wiv controversial views, so long as dey aint encouraging ppl to violence...
but ppl, gimmie a break wiv dis BNP rubbish...
bnp r a bunch of muppets who NO BODY votes for...
never had a single mp...dey aint on da rise or anything...
but, i dont see why we dont introduce a loyalty test for all brit citizens...
make ppl swear alligance to da country, and lock up/deport any traitors who want to attack they fellow brits...
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
whats a loyalty test gonna prove? :roll:
Only 12% saw themselves as British first and Muslim second
[url=http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13391671,00.html]Link[/url]
approx 500 muslims were interviewed-do they all need to sort their loyalties out?
Thats the way it should be. Muslim first.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Musharraf warns UK over militancy
Pakistan's president has urged Britain to do more to tackle its own militancy threat following the London bombings.
He added: "There are extremist organisations in the United Kingdom - there is the Hizbul Tahreer and al-Muhajiroun - who operate with full impunity in that area.
"They had the audacity of passing an edict against my life and yet they operate with impunity.
President Musharraf said banned militant groups would not be allowed to reorganise under new names.
During previous crackdowns in 2000 and 2002 banned groups reemerged with new names.
The president also said the publication of all "hate material" would be banned.
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4705379.stm]BBC[/url]
I was listening to him on the news today...I think he made a really valid point.
He pointed out that unlike UK, Pakistan has banned all extremist organisations such as al-Muhajiroun.
Therefore instead of pointing the finger at Pakistan...UK should not let people get away with stuff under the banner of "freedom of speech" and "liberty".
It was interesting he said that UK-based groups have made death threats against him but the British gov have done nothing about it.
Some 'vallued-ally' Pk is.
i see your question is was it right to ban them in Pakistan answer is NO because they'll go underground and get themselves called cool - which is the way most banned things go no matter how silly they were before the ban
according to what Busharf said the other night
banned organisations can not get away with operating under a diff name
How are you gonna tell?
1. gain info on organisation. Probably 6 months to a year of investigation.
2. ban organistaion.
3. organisation changes name.
4. authorities tipped off.
5. go back to stage 1.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Any organisation that renames itself is still gonna have the same members. Gov just needs to monitor the main protagonists and maybe even jail 'em.
So if you have once been a part of a banned movement, you lose all right to participate in any legitimate cause?
After each rename there will have to be a full investigation to prove the organisation is the same.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If you keep joining up with dodgy orgs then you should have some of your rights taken away. It's like repeat offending.
We're talking about Pk. Investigation shmation.
Names might change, but the bulk of the membership would be the same, the general aims of the org would be the same etc etc.
Banned groups not allowed to operate under new names
No public displays of unauthorised weapons
Clampdown on inflammatory material, including audio, video tapes and their publishers and distributors
Militant groups not allowed to collect funds
Monitoring hate sermons from mosques
All madrassas registered by December 2005
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4705379.stm]LINK[/url]
I'm sure these measures have its flaws-but they would reduce the activities of banned groups
How will you know that they only changed the name?
You still need to investigate the new organisation, as it could be legitimate.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
go undercover
the way the police will start going undercover in our Mosques soon
And that's not a ten minute job. It takes time.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Pages