Since it emerged that the attempted Glasgow and London attacks were carried out by men with links to Hizb ut-Tahrir, a global Islamic movement, calls for the government to ban the group have grown ever louder.
However supporters of a ban have given conflicting – and often less than convincing - reasons for the ban.
Patrick Mercer, the former Conservative spokesman on security, told the BBC's Today programme that a ban was needed because the group “supports terrorism” and claimed that several of its former members are suspected of carrying out terrorist attacks:
“Major terrorist figures like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – who have been at the centre of campaigns in Iraq and other places - are people who’ve been at the have been through this organisation,” he said.
Shiraz Maher, himself a former member of HT, meanwhile argued that the group should be banned because they increase ethnic and religious tensions in the UK – which he believes in turn increases the likelihood of future attacks.
“Its culpability in inspiring terrorists cannot be denied. Hizb has consistently raised the temperature of Islamist anger across Britain by issuing inflammatory leaflets aimed to agitate and provoke," he wrote in the New Statesman.
“One leaflet distributed at British mosques urged: "O Muslims! Hizb ut-Tahrir calls upon you to mobilise your forces to help and support it in its work to establish the [caliphate] state, by which you will restore your glory . . . and destroy your enemy . . . the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, namely America, Britain, the Jews and their allies."”
However there is another option for banning HT which does not involve either trying to tenuously link the group’s ideology to major al-Qaeda figures or arguing that the group might threaten social cohesion. Rather, this other option is to examine HT’s ideology and to declare that it's ideas and proscriptions should not be tolerated any more than racism or homophobia are tolerated.
The group’s draft constitution for example says that once an Islamic state is established a discriminatory tax should be paid by all non-Muslims living there:
“Article 140 - Jizyah (head-tax) is collected from the non-Muslims (dhimmis). It is to be taken from the mature men if they are financially capable of paying it. It is not taken from women or children.”
The constitution’s Article 105 adds that only Muslims will be able to vote for the Caliphate’s Shuras or referendums.
“All citizens, Muslim or not, may express their views, but Shoora is a right for the Muslims only.”
Article 102 likewise forbids the creation of non-Muslim or secular political parties:
“Any party not established on the basis of Islam is prohibited.”
The same constitution also effectively bars women from all role in public life:
“Segregation of the sexes is fundamental, they should not meet together except for a need that the sharia allows or for a purpose the sharia’ allows men and women to meet for, such as trading or pilgrimage.”
Moreover, senior Hizb ut-Tahrir leaders say that after the Caliphate is established it will seek to convert the whole world to Islam – using force if necessary. In 2006 ‘Abu Muhammad’, one of the group’s leaders in Jordan explained how this would happen:
"In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad,” he said.
"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world. And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."
"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad
to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam."
There is no doubt that if a similar party in the UK called, for example, for the creation of a global, aggressive, expansionist Christian state which systematically denied full political, legal and social rights to all women and non-Christians, the government would not hesitate to ban it.
So why not ban HT on the same grounds?
Comments (5)
I agree with JB's idea of critiquing the ideology in much the same way as Marxism-Leninism and their fellow-travellors in CND etc. were defeated in an earlier era. Mrs T and others won the argument without needing to ban the CPGB, Trots etc.
The problem now is to find someone or some group who are able to engage in a critical dialogue and who have an alternative vision, ideology and theology. Christianity doesn't and the Jews are wisely keeping their heads down.
A defence based on values is too vague and frankly un-English. England is not based on 'values' but its history, literature, traditions, architecture, attitudes, humour and institutions. Since none of these have been transmitted to new generations for decades through the educational system there are in fact very few English people living in England anymore.
The politicians who talk about such vacuous values as 'tolerance' are both insulting other countries by implying they are all intolerant as well as misrepresenting our own.
Muslims also believe murder is wrong you know. In fact the first generation of Muslims who came to this country regarded it as 'Muslim' in that it was based on the rule of law, laws informed by its Christian faith. Hence laws against homosexuality, severe restrictions on gambling, drinking, pornography, laws supporting marriage and family, etc.
As the Christian content of the law has been eroded Muslims have naturally come to see the country as corrupted and sinful. The Roman Catholic Church would find little to disagree with in the Muslim critique of the modern West. An analysis that Mary Whitehouse and millions of Christians would have agreed with in days gone by. So those who mocked Mary Whitehouse as the 'most dangerous woman in Britain' have only themselves to blame for what medieval Christians would have regarded as the judgement of God acting through Islam.
Posted by William | July 16, 2007 8:03 PM
Posted on July 16, 2007 20:03
James Stubbs is right to point out that there are difficulties with codifying core values in the context of a traditionally tolerant and easy-going society. But sometimes difficult decisions have to be made, and perhaps we have reached a decision point. James asked 'who decides'; personally, I would favour a referendum on this and other issues; in the absence of referenda, I guess we are reduced to putting pressure on MPs to make the decisions we wish them to make (seems to work for I*****c minorities). Are our core values loosely Christian or vaguely secular? My feeling is that the application of common sense will free us from this type of semantic issue. Both a Christian and a rational secular system would conclude that murder is wrong, for a simplistic example. Disagreement with said core values should not be a criminal offence per se; but attempts to undermine said core values, by preaching, website construction / hosting, pamphlet writing / printing /distribution, etc etc - all such attempts to undermine the values on which our mutually tolerant and free society has been built should be considered criminal acts. As for going to war over core values - some might say we are in the process of being silently invaded by those who have declared war on our core values.
Posted by anon | July 16, 2007 9:53 AM
Posted on July 16, 2007 09:53
I have some sympathy for anon's comments, but the difficulties arise when you try to codify what our core values are. Are they loosely Christian, vaguely secular, and who decides?
Then there comes the danger that we slip into the excesses of our enemies. Do we criminalise those who strongly disagree with us? Do we go to war over these 'core values'? I'm inclined to less laws not more.
Posted by James Stubbs, Coventry, U.K. | July 16, 2007 9:19 AM
Posted on July 16, 2007 09:19
Instead of banning specific groups, I think we should just ban all Islamic extremism, and when we find evidence that people are to any extent Islamic extremists, they should be deported or jailed. Banning a group means it can still change its name and structure. The new group has to receive a new ban.
Posted by Senior | July 13, 2007 11:25 PM
Posted on July 13, 2007 23:25
Of course this poisonous and morally defunct organisation should be banned. Unfortunately, that will not cure the problem - HT simply will reform under a different name, and continue as before. I do not see how we can address this problem other than by giving legal protection to certain core values of our democracy and culture such that it is a crime to seek to dilute or destroy said core values. This would, at the same time, provide a clear statement of what the UK as a nation believes to be right, and what we will not tolerate from those who live amongst us - which would be no bad thing.
Posted by anon | July 13, 2007 6:13 PM
Posted on July 13, 2007 18:13