[Othman]

Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain to launch new report: Radicalisation, 'Extremism' and 'Islamism': Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'

http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/images/stories/general/repcover.jpg

London, UK , July 10 2007 - Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, will launch a report entitled "Radicalisation, 'Extremism' and 'Islamism': Realities and Myths in the 'War on Terror'" at a meeting in Central London on Friday 13th July 2007. The report will be widely circulated amongst thinkers, academics, journalists, columnists, politicians and think tanks.

The report exposes the many inconsistencies in the 'war on terror' narrative and the manipulation of security fears to attack political ideas that carry considerable support in the Muslim world. It examines the statements of politicians to prove that their primary concern is preventing Islamic political change in order to maintain their control over the Muslim world and illustrates the way that language and arguments are manipulated to falsely claim that Islamic political ideas are the root cause of the problem. The report goes on to cite credible research that calls into question the Bush-Blair argument that Islamic political ideas inherently cause violence and insecurity and explains the Caliphate and other Islamic political ideas.

Speaking ahead of the report's launch, Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain , said, "The current climate of fear and suspicion in the UK leaves many people searching for answers to questions about the causes and solutions to these complex problems. The most fundamental of problems is the inaccurate understanding and depiction of the causes of violence. Our report challenges misconceptions about radicalisation, 'extremism' and political violence, explains Islam’s political tenets and maps a way forward for the future."

"In the corridors of Washington and Westminster, Islam's political ideas are seen as a potential threat - not to security - but to the control, exploitation and interference that has continued for decades. Yet on the 'Muslim street' these ideas mean liberation from tyranny and oppression, a connection to their beliefs and history and the ability to shape their own political destiny."

The launch event will be held at Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street , London , E1 6LS (Nearest underground: Aldgate East) on Friday 13th July 2007 at 7 p.m.

[Ends]

Notes to Editors:

1. Following its launch, the full report will be available for download from our website.

[maryamary]

Othman, on Jul 11 2007, 07:20 PM, said:

The report goes on to cite credible research that calls into question the Bush-Blair argument that Islamic political ideas inherently cause violence and insecurity and explains the Caliphate and other Islamic political ideas.

Our report challenges misconceptions about radicalisation, 'extremism' and political violence, explains Islam’s political tenets and maps a way forward for the future.

TAKBIR!!!!

Can't wait for this report. The ongoing campaign to create ideological and political Islamic awareness will be greatly helped by this report. The more we understand and clarify the political reality of Islam as an ideology the more change can be achieved on a global scale for the Ummah and mankind inshallah.

[Othman]

Report:  Radicalisation_Extremism_Islamism_Realities_Myths_in_the_War_on_Terror.pdf (347.16K)
Number of downloads: 27
------------------------------

Quote

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Section 1 - Challenging the Narrative: Radicalisation, Extremism & ‘Islamism’

Part I: The Use, Misuse and Abuse of Language in the Politics of Terrorism
Part II: Politicisation not 'Radicalisation'

Section 2 - 'Unspinning' the Accusations of Violence Against Islam

Part I: Decoupling Political Violence from Islam
Part II: Poll Evidence Refutes the Alleged Link between Islam's Political Tenets and
Violence as a Means of Change
Part III: Ends do not Justify Means, but Means do not Invalidate Ends

Section 3 - The Caliphate, Islamic Governance & the Myth of Violence

Part I: Maligning a Popular & Orthodox Call
Part II: The Significance of the Caliphate at the Time of its Demise
Part III: The Caliphate will Bring Stability to the Muslim World
Part IV: The Caliphate is an Islamic System of Governance

Section 4 - Mapping a Way Forward

Part I: The Failure of Calls for a 'Moderate', Reformed Islam
Part II: Understanding the Causes of the Political Crises in the Muslim World
Part III: Allowing the Muslim World to Shape its own Political Future

Bibliography

This post has been edited by Othman: 14 July 2007 - 04:52 PM

[freeman]

+1 vote for HT to be banned from forum

[Mosty]

^ That thread has been locked now bro... so it's probably best to leave it.

[freeman]

Actually i think it was deleted.

[al-CIAda]

pretty good report so far. seems well referenced too.

[313]

freeman, on Jul 14 2007, 08:23 PM, said:

+1 vote for HT to be banned from forum

As someone who wholeheartedly disagrees with the notion that we can re-establish the Caliphate as only Imam Al-Mahdi (atf) will be able to do so, I still have to applaud HT for their working towards this goal. Whether HT members believe or not, Al-Mahdi's reappearance will only come about when the Muslim Ummah works towards it, and so far HT are setting a great example so I fail to understand why people have issue's with HT's methods and their goal.

Interesting report Othman, may you keep them coming.

[Sister-Ameena*]

Interesting..

Jazakallah Khayr brother.

[vinko]

Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand
Hassan Butt, a former jihadist, demands some fresh thinking
From The Times
July 14, 2007
LINK HERE

In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings I remember having a passionate discussion with some friends about who was responsible for the attacks. “It’s the work of the security services; I can put my life on it!” one said. “In fact, I think they’ve killed off these guys, planted their stuff on the trains and then just blamed it on the Muslims again.” Then came a timid voice of opposition. “Shaf, I don’t think they’d kill their own people, I mean Tony Blair isn’t that evil. I think Mossad had a hand in it.”

The theories in the Muslim community were wide and varied: some believed the bombings were orchestrated by the Government in order to justify ever more draconian laws. Others believed it was near-impossible for four British-born Muslims to be behind such indiscriminate violence, so the first suicide attacks on British soil must have been the work of other terrorist organisations. Two years on I still hear the same conspiracy theories being clung to by a Muslim community that is living in a comforting state of denial.

Denial by definition is a psychological defence system by which people protect themselves from things that threaten them or make them feel uncomfortable. People do this by refusing to acknowledge the awkward person, thing or event, or by attacking any allegation of the existence of such difficulties.

I spent many years in the British Jihadi Network. While I was a member of that extremist group, I was told to encourage the spread of such theories because they created a useful, murky state of confusion. Propagating the idea that the Government was victimising Muslims by painting them as the bogeymen of the 21st century recruited young men to the radical camp.

This deeply imbedded culture of denial is not a new phenomenon in the Muslim community. Within Muslim families like any kind of family where its members are expected to live up to demanding traditional standards of behaviour there has always been a habit of burying their heads in the sand whenever there is something unfavourable happening.

For instance, there was a guy in my year at college who was a known drug dealer. He wasn’t at all subtle in displaying the wealth he had obtained from selling drugs and it was widely known that his family knew what he was up to but had decided it was easier to pretend it wasn’t happening, rather then confront the problems within their household. The same happens in our communities if someone’s sister or daughter is seen at a club or in the company of males, the first response will always be: “No, my daughter isn’t that type of girl! How dare you accuse my daughter and stain her untainted reputation.”

This tendency towards denial is now writ large with the problem of terrorism and Muslims. Let’s remember that the older generation of Muslims emigrated to Britain aspiring to work hard and to better their standard of living. They had always been law-abiding citizens whose loyalties lay with Britain in the main. Muslim involvement in terrorism here in Britain carries as much or even more shame for them as a drug-dealing son or a promiscuous daughter. Muslims do not deal with shame very well or anything that tarnishes their honour or reputation.

Just alcoholics or drug addicts must acknowledge that they have an addiction problem, we Muslims need to accept that there is a problem within our communities. Only when Muslims admit that 9/11 and 7/7 were the work of Muslim terrorists can we move forward to the next juncture: which is recognising the hard truth that Islam does permit the use of violence. Muslims who deny this, preferring instead to mouth easy platitudes about how Islam is nothing but a religion of peace, make the job easier for the radicals who can point to passages in the Koran, set down in black and white, that instruct on the killing of unbelievers.

I disagree with those who say the pressing problem is simply how do we deal with an aberrant, extreme minority who have unleashed a reign of terror on Britain rather, I believe the heart of the matter is Islam itself and how its teachings are interpreted. If we isolate the problem to that of the extreme fringe, then we are merely skimming the surface.

What we Muslims need to do is go back to our books: we need to debate the teachings that are used to radicalise young men and legitimise the killing of innocent people. We need to discuss and refashion the set of rules that govern how Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in the West live alongside nonMuslims. Only when we do this can we successfully dissect the radicals’ interpretation of Islam and fight back against terrorism.

We can no longer turn a blind eye to the driving force behind terror attacks both at home and abroad. It should not matter how painful or embarrassing this admission may be, and nor should it matter how taboo

[pepe]

Quote

What we Muslims need to do is go back to our books: we need to debate the teachings that are used to radicalise young men and legitimise the killing of innocent people.

nice rhetoric but i would be surprised if the "young men" who commit these acts do it in the most logical states of minds. otherwise he raised some very good points

[maryamary]

Why keep posting articles in HT threads Vinko that try and portray the linking of Islam, politics and violence?

I seriously advice you to have a careful read of the report for it clearly dispells all the assumptions and accusations that your trying to highlight through these articles.

[Niazi]

does HT stand for hizbul tahrir?

[al-CIAda]

yes.

[freeman]

Yes.

[Niazi]

I saw a thread on general discussion that people wanted them banned .....Can someone explain to me in very simple terms why .....I havent really heard of them before ...are they a new militant group rivalling Al-qaeda?

[freeman]

politcal party who want to establish global dictatorship

[Splotty]

al-CIAda, on Jul 14 2007, 08:36 PM, said:

pretty good report so far. seems well referenced too.

I would be very interested to check the Hansard reference for this one:

The words of Lord Curzon, the British
Foreign Minister at the time of the
Caliphate's end, appear to have best
caught the Caliphate's significance when
he announced to the House of Commons:
"We must put an end to anything which
brings about any Islamic unity between
the sons of the Muslims. As we have
already succeeded in finishing off the
Caliphate, so we must ensure that there
will never arise again unity for the
Muslims, whether it be intellectual or
cultural unity"

I have only ever read Curzon referring to "Moslems", and "Mohammedans". I'd be somewhat astonished if he ever uttered the words "Islamic unity" in his life. I don't recall ever reading of Curzon addressing the House of Commons, he was a member of (and Leader of) the House of Lords. I'd very much like to know how much editing this particular quotation has been through, I suspect it may have been very substantial indeed.

But maybe I'm wrong, these forums are full of surprises, and I look forward to being made a fool of by someone with a reference to the Hansard showing my suspicions specious.

[pepe]

Niazi, on Jul 15 2007, 07:53 PM, said:

I saw a thread on general discussion that people wanted them banned .....Can someone explain to me in very simple terms why .....I havent really heard of them before ...are they a new militant group rivalling Al-qaeda?

freeman, on Jul 16 2007, 02:14 AM, said:

politcal party who want to establish global dictatorship

take it outside
niazi, use the search feature there is a thread on HT

[Othman]

Splotty, on Jul 16 2007, 01:20 AM, said:

But maybe I'm wrong, these forums are full of surprises, and I look forward to being made a fool of by someone with a reference to the Hansard showing my suspicions specious.

Use the contacts given in the report and ask this question.

[Aqidah_police]

freeman, on Jul 16 2007, 01:14 AM, said:

politcal party who want to establish global dictatorship

Alhamdullah. if you call living undeder justice that.

Altho iam a critic of ht,and thats no secret, but If they can achieve that, ill be happy for them. And would live under them.

This post has been edited by Aqidah_police: 16 July 2007 - 08:08 PM

[Sadi]

313, on Jul 14 2007, 10:58 PM, said:

...we can[not] re-establish the Caliphate as only Imam Al-Mahdi (atf) will be able to do so...

Asslamualikum

That is incorrect. There is hadith that contradict this popular theory and suggests he will arrive "at the death of a Khalif"; the existence of a Khalifah translates into the existence of the Khilafah. My assumption is that the above theory was formulated precisely to retard any Islamic political activity- as Imam Mahdi will do the fixing up and we just have to sit and wait.

Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin:

The Prophet said: Disagreement will occur at the death of a Khalifah and a man of the people of Medina will come flying forth to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, bring him out against his will and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam. An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria but will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people see that, the eminent saints of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam.

Then there will arise a man of Quraysh whose maternal uncles belong to Kalb and send against them an expeditionary force which will be overcome by them, and that is the expedition of Kalb. Disappointed will be the one who does not receive the booty of Kalb. He will divide the property, and will govern the people by the Sunnah of their Prophet and establish Islam on Earth. He will remain seven years, then die, and the Muslims will pray over him. Abu Daud Book 36, Number 4273.


Like I said above, the presence of a Khalifah (to whom the Ummah has given the baya of alligience) is proof the Khilafah exists. In the hadith above, RasulAllah :SWS: confirms that "at the death of a Khalifah..." Imam Mahdi (AS.) will descend. Here is the full article from where I learnt this.

How did you come to become convinced of that theory? Would it be possible to provide dalil for it?

This post has been edited by Sadi: 16 July 2007 - 07:21 PM

[Chrome]

Othman, on Jul 16 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

Use the contacts given in the report and ask this question.

Wouldn't it be wise for anyone interested in this topic to know the truth of this, or are there some members who are only interested in reinforcing their own subjective views?

[Legally Insane]

Chrome, on Jul 16 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

Wouldn't it be wise for anyone interested in this topic to know the truth of this, or are there some members who are only interested in reinforcing their own subjective views?

Problem is, AFAIK, we can't access Hansard from the house of commons in the UK as the electronic records only go back to '88. I don't think the Australian parliament has the UK hansard for 1924, so yeah, you'll probably have to go to Britain, or have a contact there or something.

[Legally Insane]

Here we go.

Quote

Commons Hansard prior to 1988 is held by the Archives

http://www.publicati...a/pahansard.htm

Quote

Welcome to the web pages of the Parliamentary Archives of the United Kingdom. We provide access to the archives of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and to other records relating to Parliament, and are usually open to the public all year round, Monday to Friday, 9.30am to 5.00pm (apart from public holidays).

http://www.parliamen...ry_archives.cfm


Yep. Definitely need a contact in the UK

[Chrome]

Foiled again.

[Splotty]

Legally Insane, on Jul 16 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

Problem is, AFAIK, we can't access Hansard from the house of commons in the UK as the electronic records only go back to '88. I don't think the Australian parliament has the UK hansard for 1924, so yeah, you'll probably have to go to Britain, or have a contact there or something.

I have numbers of contacts there; its where I was at uni. In any event I'd be astonished if it weren't available on microfiche at one of the libraries in Sydney. It's certainly at the national library.

[Legally Insane]

Yeah. Hehe, my bad

National library's got it:

http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn1690078

[Splotty]

Othman, on Jul 16 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

Use the contacts given in the report and ask this question.

Just sent this to press@hizb.org.uk:

Dear press contact,

I have been shown the paper of yours entitled "Radicalisation, Extremism & ‘Islamism’". I noted the following passage on page 24:

The words of Lord Curzon, the British
Foreign Minister at the time of the
Caliphate's end, appear to have best
caught the Caliphate's significance when
he announced to the House of Commons:

"We must put an end to anything which
brings about any Islamic unity between
the sons of the Muslims. As we have
already succeeded in finishing off the
Caliphate, so we must ensure that there
will never arise again unity for the
Muslims, whether it be intellectual or
cultural unity"

Having read a little bit of Curzon's writings, this quotation does not seem to have his usual tone, and I'm therefore curious to track down its source. Could you give me a reference to the appropriate Hansard document with this quotation?

This post has been edited by Splotty: 17 July 2007 - 07:54 PM

[Splotty]

Also sent a reminder and a request for an acknowledgment of the receipt of the question, no answer yet.