Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir: Difference between revisions

Archive 1

BBC Newsnight report

This is starting to read like HT's defence against the news report, with lots of direct quotes lifted from their own website. This appears to be POV to me. Shouldn't this be edited to remove the blatant politicking? Eddie Tour 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

HT britain should be merged with this article

Any objections?

Well, HT Britain is worth a seperate article in itself, because it is largely believed that the group is heaeded from London, and London decides policy for the rest of the world. Also the UK is one of the only places they are completely open and vocal, and they have a unique history in the UK, so I think they should stay seperate BUT the HT Britain article should be updated, I for one didn't know it was there. The general HT one should focus on generic HT ideas, as opposed to the peculiarities of a branch. 81.192.28.109 10:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I will move out country specific info to the other articles, any objections? Aaliyah Stevens 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the two, per the exchange on the other talk page. This article is only 35 kilobytes long, so there's no need for subpages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits need to be discussed before you commit them to the article

Please read wikipedia's NPOV policy.

1. You cannot claim this group is terrorist, it has never been proven to be involved in any terrorist activity - in fact cleared of such accusations by ASIO and British intelligence as stated in the article and referenced.
2. Please do not delete statements, instead ask for citations, but do not ask for citations when the point is cited in a proceeding sentence.
3. The heritage foundation's own references are blank for some of the claims made about this group, e.g. one reference simply cites a website like khilafah.com without reference to the particular article or statement. Right-wing think tanks are under no legal obligation to be nuetral at all, so are not really credible unless substantiated by other nuetral sources.

Aaliyah Stevens 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This group has killed over 400 people in Kazakhstan through car bombings and assassinations. The group's founder openly called for the violent overthrow of non-Islamic governments in his The Islamic State. HT declared a holy war on the Kazakh police in 2003. You removed content that does not fit your outlook and undid substantial cleanup efforts. I suspect you are a member of HT and that you are responsible for the recent attempts to whitewash this groups ties to terrorism. However, as I must assume good faith, I wont warn you for your vandalism in case your edits were unrelated to previous anonymous ones. KazakhPol 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, you say on my user talk page: "This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Next time you will be blocked". This was the First time you warned me, not the last implying I have been warned before (see Wikipedia:Civility) What I did was not Vandalism look up the meaning of the word (see Wikipedia:Vandalism)! Who are you to block me anyway?. Let's not get personal! You say HT are terrorist, then you suspect me of being a member, so you are saying I am a member of a terror group! FYI I am NOT a member, they do not even exist where I live, so calm down (see Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith), I repeat let's not get personal. (see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks)

Now to your points, unless you can prove your claims and reference them to credible sources they cannot be put up! HT have never been proven to be invloved in any terrorist activity, you have provided no evidence that they killed anyone in Kazakhstan. YOu must be mixing them up with another group. British and Australian intelligence, and Human Righst groups (as referenced in the previous article you wiped) recognise this fact, hence they cannot be banned unlike The_Saviour_Sect and Al Ghurabaa.

by Aaliyah Stevens 10:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI for referees HT's condemnation of terrorism & attacked by Al-Qaida + what the experts say

Hizb ut-Tahrir states on its website:

“ "The party disseminates its thoughts through discussion with the masses, study circles, lectures, seminars, leaflet distribution, publishing books and magazines and via the Internet. We encourage people to attend our demonstrations, marches and vigils." ”

HT directly forbid terrorism & ask members to report terrorists to police

After Sep 11th 2001, Hizb ut Tahrir issued a leaflet on September 18, 2001 which stated:

“ "The rules of this Message forbids any aggression against civilian non-combatants. They forbid killing of children, the elderly and non-combatant women even in the battlefield. They forbid the hijacking of civilian aeroplanes carrying innocent civilians and forbid the destruction of homes and offices which contain innocent civilians. All of these actions are types of aggression which Islam forbids and Muslims should not undertake such actions." ”

Dr. Abdul-Wahid, british spokesman for the party obliged members to report any acts of violence or terror to the police as a religious duty:

“ "If any Muslim citizen possesses information indicating an imminent act of violence, then he has an Islamic duty to prevent this from taking place, even if this means reporting to the police. Masood’s article was the first time I had ever seen a view to the contrary presented in the media, and it was sad that he did not check his facts, and instead made assumptions – a frequent problem when people talk or write about Hizb ut-Tahrir." ”

HT directly criticise Al-Qaida linked group

On Friday 3 February 2006, in response to the publication of editorial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, around 400 protestors from the extreme UK-based takfiri groups al-Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect staged a protest march. The protesters waved placards advocating violence against those who published the cartoons. Hizb-ut-Tahrir responded the next day with a demonstration, which attracted around 1000[1], and a press statement saying:

“ "While strongly condemning the publication of these caricatures, we in no way condone the conduct of those who are urging violent protests or inciting hatred against others as stated at yesterday's demonstration, the Muslim community in Britain must be vocal in protest, but should not stoop to the level of those who have provoked our community... We would like to point out for the record that we will not tolerate the incitement of violence or hatred. At this juncture, the way forward is... in sincere and robust intellectual debate and dialogue regarding Islam and the West." ”

Al-qaida attack HT

(It is well known that Jihadists hold no love for HT, e.g. in Uzbekistan the al-qaida linked IMU have been critical of HT, and in Palestine, HT's homeland & where thier leaders are from, Hamas have always criticised HT for not getting invloved in or allying themselselves in the 'Jihad'):

An Al-Qaida linked group called Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain or the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, issued a press release (No.5) with a photocopy of a book written by Al-Qaida members entitled “Une nouvelle vision des débiles et des modérés” or "A New Insight Into Weak and Moderate (Muslims)" listing Hizb ut-Tahrir's stance against violence as weak, and accusing it of being moderate, rather than strictly religious.

Expert opinion

According to a leaked unpublished government report produced for Tony Blair, revealed to the Guardian Newspaper printed on 8th August 2005, the prime minister has been advised that HT is not involved in violence or terrorism. Last year a paper, called ‘Young Muslims and Extremism’, was prepared for Mr Blair on the orders of the home and foreign secretaries. It says: "Most of the structured organisations, e.g. Hizb ut-Tahrir, will not directly advocate violence. Indeed membership or sympathy with such an organisation does not in any way presuppose a move towards terrorism." The document adds that young people attracted to terrorism may shy away from HT because they do not espouse violence, and would be seen as only engaged in “pointless pontification and debate”. It has also been revealed that Tony Blair has forced home office officials to accept a ban on HT, despite their warnings 2 weeks prior to this petition, that they were against banning HT. [2] (see author of this at Hassan and Habibah)

“ "Hizb ut-Tahrir [HT] is an independent political party that is active in many countries across the world. HT's activities centre on intellectual reasoning, logic arguments and political lobbying. The party adheres to the Islamic Shariah law in all aspects of its work. It considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, a violation of the Islamic Shariah." (Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under the Freedom of Information Act) [3] [4] ”

“ "Hizb ut-Tahrir - Lines to take if extensive coverage is given in the media:

Freedom of thought and speech key element of our society. Our tradition that there is a place for those who disagree with the way we do things – unless they espouse violence as a way to achieve their ends." (Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under FOI Act) [5] [6]

”

“ "We have yet to see convincing evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organization advocates violence or terrorism. Nor are we aware of any co-operation between it and Al Qaeda." (UK FCO Minister Bill Rammell, Hansard, 19/4/04) [7] [8] ”

“ "Hizb ut-Tahrir quite explicitly disavows violence as its means for achieving power." (John Schoeberlein, Director of Harvard University’s Central Asia program) [9] [10] ”

“ It will be impossible to see Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. If Hizb ut-Tahrir resorts to violence then it can be described as a terrorist organisation. Further more Hizb ut-Tahrir, as it stands, cannot be proscribed as a terrorist organisation." (Verdict Turkish Second State Security Court, 13/4/04) [11] [12] ”

“ Hizb ut-Tahrir does not advocate a violent overthrow of Muslim regimes... Instead HT believes in winning over mass support, believing that one day these supporters will rise up in peaceful demonstrations and overthrow the regimes of Central Asia (Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: the Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia)

[13]

”

“ "Hizb ut-Tahrir has shown dissatisfaction on the policies of the [Pakistan] government which is the right of each and every citizen?I am unable to understand as to how distribution of these pamphlets in the general public was termed as terrorism or sectarianism.? (Multan Bench, Lahore High Court, March 2005) [14] [15] ”

“ "Ata Abu Rushta, spokesperson for the Hizb ut-Tahrir, Liberation Party in Jordan, a party seeking to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in February by the State Security Court for lese-majesty under Article 195(1) of the Penal Code in connection with an interview he had given to the newspaper al-Hiwar. The statements on which the charges were based did not advocate violence." (Amnesty International Report, 1997) [16] [17] ”

“ The group (HT) has never been overtly involved in any violent actions, and Hizb ut-Tahrir has long claimed it wants to achieve its objectives through nonviolent means. It has so far not been involved in any known terrorist activities [18] ”

“ The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, wrote on these pages this week that the three-month internment power was now the "one major sticking point" - and changes to the glorification clause, he thought, meant that it was "a lot better" and that non-violent organisations such as the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir could not be banned.

[19]

”

“ "The United States Government is continuing to monitor Hizb ut-Tahrir. Despite the statements of governments of the region, the United States has found no clear ties between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activity. Hizb ut -Tahrir has not been proven to have involvement in or direct links to any recent acts of violence or terrroism. Nor has it been proven to give financial support to other groups engaged in terrorism. Because of that, it falls outside the definitions used by the United States and others to designate a terrorist group."

[20]

”

"While Karimov insists that the non-violent Islamic organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir was behind the 30 July bombings in Tashkent, observers say warn that the government's repressive policies have given life to a new kind of extremist opposition...A considerable number of regional political observers and human rights activists dispute the official Uzbek view..." [21]

"(Russian state) "Official support" by the Spiritual Directorate means repressions against Islamic organizations that act independently of the official structures. This includes local Muslim communities (jamaats), regional branches of non-violent international fundamentalist organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and others. Seeing no difference between non-violent Muslim civic NGOs and real terrorists, Russian authorities have declared a "holy war" on all independent Muslim communities in Russia [22]

Quality of references and article severly declined

For example there seems to be a coordinated attempt in the last month by editors to repetitively insert terrorism into the equation, despite my above posts proving otherwise, KazakhPols edits:

Yamin Zakaria, a former senior Hizb ut-Tahrir member, told BBC News in August 2003 that HT seeks the "violent overthrow of the established order."

The above reference article does not quote Mr Zakaria saying such a thing, rather it claims to be a "Secret Zionist Report On The Hizb" written by some "secret" zionists. The webpage this report is on is MPACUK's and these "secret zionists" actually state that HT are not violent at all, not to mention MPACUK is a political lobying group hence not an objective reference. MPACUK actually are posing in defence of HT.

Another Example under the Britain section KazakhPol has inserted

"It reported that an HT terror cell...."

And another silly example under Bangladesh and India section

"Hizb ut-Tahrir worked other terrorist organizations in Bangladesh - Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh and Harkat-ul Jihad Al-Islam - to bomb several cities in Bangladesh on 17 August 2005.[21][22][23]"

Not to mention the poor english of this editor, reference 22, and 23 do not mention anything about HT at all. Reference 21 quotes only one non-official individual who seems to be blaming HT out of the blue, despite the official investigation & police never accused HT, and HT themselves condemned the bombings, which was mentioned in the last sound version of this article now changed by this editor.

This article was at a reasonable high standard before it seems people with an agenda to malign this organisation with terrorism started editing. Aaliyah Stevens 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the supposed decline in quality of this article, prior to my edits, most of this consisted of one copyright violated theft of text taken straight from HT's website. The rest of the article was primarily uncited, in passive tense, and completely whitewashed this organization's long history of terrorist attacks. I did not understand MPACKUK's badly written parody, so thanks for removing that. I'm unsure of why you keep saying my English is poor. Is it because of my username that you are inferring I cannot speak English? I find that somewhat amusing. If I thought that references I have provided so far proved my point on HT's involvement in the Bangladesh terror attacks then I would have removed the TotallyDisputed template. As for HT's 'condemnation' of the bombings, I would remind the other editor that Al Qaeda initially denied and condemned the 9/11 terror attacks, claiming they were a pretext to attack Muslims, and then later admitted responsibility. KazakhPol 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there has been some deterioration, particularly with the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Just a small point about including quotes. It's important to include HT's position when it's criticized, but if we include quote after quote from their spokespersons, the article starts to look like an HT press release, and it becomes a bit dull to read. Also, please don't put quotes in italics; either use quotation marks, or if in blockquotes, nothing. See WP:MoS. And please remember to close the blockquotes. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert

KP, can you say what the problem is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you show me please where the source says "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, from the source I provided: "Hizb has called for a jihad against the U.S., its allies, and moderate Muslim states. The purpose of the jihad is "to find and kill the Kufar (non-believers)," in fact rejecting the Islamic notion of Greater Jihad against one's own as a sin.19"

"In a June 2001 article published in the party's journal, Hizb ideologists claim that all methods are justified in the struggle against the unbelievers, including murder. They specifically mention that a pilot's diving a plane hit by enemy fire into a crowd of unbelievers without bailing out with a parachute is a legitimate form of armed struggle."

You know what I see? I see on my version[23] extensive citation for the countries in which HT is banned - specifically Russia, Germany, Holland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. Then I look at your version and what do I see? "Citation needed." Would you like to explain that? KazakhPol 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then add the citation. Instead, you've reverted to a version with poor writing. As for your claim about jihad, where does the source say explicitly that HT called for jihad against the U.S. in June 2001? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot simply assert that the version I cleanedup had "poor writing." I also fail to see the logic in you removing citations I added and then my re-adding the citations. You are just being obstructive. KazakhPol 04:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Others are saying the same about your edits. For example, your lead is poor. You've removed a lot of the good material and added irrelevancies. You also added that they are a terrorist organization as though it's a fact. [24] We don't even call unambiguous terrorist groups "terrorist groups" in that way, never mind Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is a political party according to many governments. You added that they declared jihad against America in June 2001, even though you've cobbled that together from the source yourself, and if they declared it against the U.S. in that statement, they declared it against everyone non-Islamic. [25] There's more, but that should give you an idea. You've also violated 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits have reached the level of disruption at which you really should be banned from editing this article. I did not violate 3RR. You either cannot count, which I personally find unlikely, or you merely cite random policies to try and push your agenda. What your agenda is is beyond my understanding, unless it's vandalism, which increasingly seems likely. Once again you refuse to address my point that you are removing citations without any rationale. KazakhPol 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(moved from SV's talk page) Stop. You cannot just dump text from the HT in UK page here. That's not a merge. You need to find citations for the content you wish to add. If you cant find citations for the content in that page then either remove it from the HT in UK page, or refrain from adding it to the main page and wait for someone else to find a citation. If you are genuinely interested in improving this article, either in factual accuracy or pov, then find citations for the content that is already there. KazakhPol 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

KP's edits

KP has restored his version, calling other versions "vandalism," then immediately asked for page protection.

KP, Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a terrorist organization. If you want to add that, please produce sources showing which governments have categorized it thus. It also did not declare war against the U.S. in June 2001 to the best of my knowledge; again, please produce a source who says that specifically.

You are violating WP:BLP, among other things, by labeling its members "terrorists." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you removed citations you admitted were valid. Then, when I asked you why you did that, you accused me of having poor English. Aaliyah Stevens did the same thing. My reverting of your vandal edits does not count towards WP:3RR. You can try and cite WP:BLP all you want, but that does not apply when I quoted ITAR-TASS. I removed a copyvio, yet you continue to claim the quality of the page has deteriorated - thats hilarious. Your sole reasoning for why this version, which whitewashes this organization's long recorded history of terrorist acts, is superior to the version I tidied, is that I misinterpreted one source. You are a vandal, you should be blocked. KazakhPol 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Widely seen as a terrorist organization by whom? Which governments have designated it as a terrorist organization? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Syria, Oman, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Singapore, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Belarus.... How many do I have to list? Look, if your problem is the introduction then I am willing to compromise on that, but you are undoing over a week of work. Why did you remove the citations for the countries that recognize it as a terrorist organization? I do not understand. You must see how that looks like vandalism... KazakhPol 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then provide sources to substantiate these assertions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For example one of the sources your provided, say: "It has so far not been involved in any known terrorist activities". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It would also be appreciated that you treat fellow editors with civility and avoid saying to other editors. "you are a vandal". These comments are most unhelpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Number one - I did provide sources. SlimVirgin removed them and provided no explanation. Number two - she has repeatedly stated that I do not understand English. She treats me with condescension and has been far from civil. Her edits to this page have been nothing but vandalism. She should be blocked if she is unwilling to discuss the page and continues to remove citations. KazakhPol 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You can say that Hizb ut-Tahrir is designated as a terrorist organization by X, Y, and Z, and then list the governments that say that explicitly, and provide a source for each claim. That's what's done elsewhere e.g. Hamas; see third paragraph. But you can't state that they're terrorists as though it's a fact, or say "widely regarded" when they're not widely regarded as that at all. The U.S. has said they've found no evidence linking Hizb ut-Tahrir to violence (I'm writing from memory). Also, I haven't undone a week's worth of work. I started my edits based on your last version; I didn't undo it. But quite a lot had to be changed because it was inappropriate, or uncited, or formatted wrongly, and the lead was not as good as the previous lead. Finally, you must stop calling other people's edits "vandalism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the heck of it, I'm going to ask you again, and this is the third or fourth time I've asked you - why did you remove my citations? The lead under your version is awful. This is not the Muslim Wikipedia - this is the English Wikipedia. You do not translate every 'Islamic term' into Arabic. KazakhPol 01:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Which citations? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my lead; this is KP's. People can judge for themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Call to overthrow governments

Do we have a source for the claim that the party has called for Muslims to overthrow their governments; preferably a secondary source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm you probably removed it when you were correcting my "poor English." KazakhPol 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any refs to prove that "overthrow" is the appropriate word, rather I believe 'replace' would be a better suited, as overthrow implies violent revolution. As this article shows in the 'methods' section they want some sort of popular based uprising possibly supported with sufficient silence or complicity from the military, and key government ministers, or branches, after a 3 stage process. Sounds like HT aims to do something similar to the Color_revolutions seeking a Revolutionary_wave just like radical left wingers. Aaliyah Stevens 01:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats so ridiculous. For one thing, the people who overthrew the governments of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, and Georgia were not far left, but on the right. They overthrew the communist dictators that had been in power since before the end of the Soviet Union. The only "radical left wingers" involved were Akayev and Yanukovych. It does not "sound" like HT aims to do something to the color revolution, as you well know, because the whole point of those revolutions were to liberalize the politics in those countries involved, whereas HT's goal is to kill all non-Muslims in Central Asia and enslave the non-Islamic world. The article is already a disgrace to Wikipedia thanks to your efforts at whitewashing. I actually hope you try and make that comparison though. This way no one who knows anything about HT will take this article seriously. KazakhPol 01:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ref tags

Hi Aaliyah Stevens, thanks for the edits you made cleaning up some of the writing. Just a point about ref tags. Footnotes should contain full citations (e.g. byline, headline, name of newspaper, date of publication). If you don't have that information but only have the URL, just put it in an embedded link i.e. a single square bracket around it. Otherwise, readers have to click twice only to get the same effect; at least when they click twice for a proper footnote, they get the extra information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)