After the terrorist attacks on London on July 7th (and the failed ones on July 21st), British politicians and most British Muslims were united in outrage. Most Britons were anxiously waiting for the changes that would come in response to the tragedy (with the Muslims among them bracing themselves for the worst). Finally, Tony Blair announced (among other things) a ban on two groups, Al-Muhajiroun (which, although defunct, has spawned a shadowy splinter group, The Saviour Sect) and Hizb-ut-Tahrir (could you ban these while you're at it?). To most Britons (and Muslims), the banning of anything resembling Al-Muhajiroun was no surprise and welcomed (except by founder Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad who left Britain shortly after the announcement for a long holiday in Lebanon). But the ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir had people across the spectrum scratching their heads. While provocative, worrying, and a bit quixotic (the group aims for a global Islamic state and a resumption of the Caliphate), their most gregarious connection to extremism was the departure of Bakri in 1996 (to form the aformentioned Al-Muhajiroun). Known to most Muslims as the eager leafleters outside mosques (long way to go for that ummah, eh?), the group has been banned in Germany and Russia (and maybe soon Denmark) for alleged anti-Semitism. The group remains legal in Australia and the USA, though a ban of the organisation there may ease public anger after July 7th (Solving the problem? Pfft.). Their bans in several Muslim countries (with Uzbekistan being the most recent example) are usually more a result of the political challenge to autocratic Muslim leaders than involvement in terrorism (though some Muslims disagree). Naturally, Hizb-ut-Tahrir responded with disgust and reiterated its history of promoting non-violent change around the world (er... except in Palestine). "This is a blurring of the margins of people who are engaged in non-violent political speech," said Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Imran Waheed. "In fact, we are directing people's anger and frustration into political work." However, their well documented aversion to integration in British society (or any other) effectively shut the door to preventing an eventual official backlash. Naturally, a ban won't end the group (as it has failed to do in many countries) and will only push it underground, which is why the move reveals more about the British government's poor hand than it does about its long term responses to terror. But in the current climate, it should be no surprise if British Muslim groups picking for a fight get one in return.

Banning of this movement seems completely useless because if muslims in the UK or the British government want to open up Islamic dialogue between the west and the Ummah then this would have been the ideal place to start. There are misconceptions on all sides about religion, diplomacy and political process. All empathy is diminished because peoples personal theories stand superior to the societies they're supposed to serve. And there's a wasteland of British and Islamic imperialism and arrogance that must be placed on the table and weeded out of the discussion.
Honestly though, there is little actual dialogue that can occur between western governments as opposed to the enormous opportunity of meaningful dialogue/dawah with the western public. I believe that if western authority wasn't threatened, then it wouldn't be able to turn its public against religious Islam.
Hizb- seems to me to be focused on a Utopian fantasy built on some half baked Islamic truths and somehow manage to factor out some common sense and human truth from their equations. Always seeing themselves in juxtaposition to everyone. In a way .. it's intellectual imprialism on all sides thats stifling.

Is anyone going to post some articles on the Tableegh movement? I want to know what the perceptions are about what is probably the largest the civil society movement presently operating in the Ummah .. and as yet unbanned

Is this guy for real? His english is scary, his tone is judgemental, .. he may as well be the queens son : ). People like this should never be allowed to speak for muslims.
>> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-8-2005_pg3_4

>>the group aims for a global Islamic state and a resumption of the Caliphate

and quite frankly .. all muslims want an Islamic state .. ie all muslims want Islam to be a shared value amongst peoples of the world because they believe in its truth. To say Islamic state is to say global justice, peace and brotherhood. Nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.

Author, I think you should go easy on the parentheses you are using throughout the text. Too many brackets hamper easy reading of the text. Perhaps you should also consider using normal type for the hyperlinks. Bold doesn't work if you have too many hyperlinks in the same line.

Author, I think you should go easy on the parentheses you are using throughout the text. Too many brackets hamper easy reading of the text. Perhaps you should also consider using normal type for the hyperlinks. Bold doesn't work if you have too many hyperlinks in the same line.

Point taken. I just noticed that there was more than usual in that article (more parenthesis, that is).

Whoops. There I go again.

>and quite frankly .. all muslims want an >Islamic state .. ie all muslims want Islam to >be a shared value amongst peoples of the >world because they believe in its truth. To >say Islamic state is to say global justice, >peace and brotherhood. Nothing wrong >with that as far as I'm concerned.

salaam aleikum,

actually there *is* a problem here, the neo-conservative think tanks and the CIA have said this is something they will NOT allow (i.e. if u think the price of oil is high now, imagine what it would be with govt.s that were actualy accountable to their people in the Muslim world and didn't spend all of their money on their armies, locking up and torturing their own people).

anyhow, here is a leading neo-conservative analyst's working for the republican Heritage Foundation, view here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/BG1656es.cfm

another think tank's view on how to 'combat' HT here:

http://www.nixoncenter.org/Program%20Briefs/PB%202004/confrephiztahrir.pdf

A report by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), a group of senior intelligence analysts who report to CIA Director Porter Goss but technically aren't part of the spy agency, predicts that by 2020 a "New Calipahte" may have been established and presents a
hypothesis on what the situation in the world will be like in general.

"There is a substantial risk that broad Islamic extremist movements akin to al-Qaida will merge with local separatist movements," it continued.

The report presented one scenario, dubbed "The New Caliphate," in which an obscure Islamic caliph emerges to lead a worldwide Islamic movement.

summary here:

http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s3.html

link for full report here:

http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.html#contents

hope that this proves useful.

salaam aleikum,
g