Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Non-Violence
Hi there.
I am mostly interested in considering
a. the material which Hizb'ut Tahrir has published; and b. the contents of its Draft Constitution
If it says it wants to liberate Spain, then that should be said (and not removed!!). But I am wary of spiraling off into a general discussion of what Muhammed did and didn't do, and so on..
Hizb'ut Tahrir is very frank about its beliefs and its goals. I want to stick to analysing what they say.
If it is alright with other contributors, I will put back in a quotation which is sourced to Hizb'ut Tahrir material which makes the point about their views about what will happen once their Caliphate has been established.
(Hizb Analyst)
Kaashif : I'm sorry, but the above contributors seems to have agenda's beyond proportionate and balanced representation of HT's views. One of them initially added a section that claimed HT approved of slavery, then aparthied, then seperate development. I find myself continuesly redressing such extreme & innaccurate interpretations of HT's words. Selective quoting, out of context, adding extra words to real quotes, removing real quotes that don't suit their sensationalist agenda, and most of all repetitive removal of any explanation that brings Israel and it's policies into light, putting HT's statements into context, seems to be thier hallmark. They give their own emotive explanations of HT quotes, without any knowledge of the theological and political background of those quotes, from a Sunni, Shafi'i mazhab. They have even implied that HT intend to copy Mohammed's example by "murdering jews" (which he never did). They failed to mention it was not arbitary murder of jews, but was a declared war against a jewish tribe, lead by Mohammed as head of state for violation of the Constitution_of_Medina. Regardless of how you interpret what Mohammed did, what matters in this page is HT do not see that as a license to launch a war to murder all jews that come under Islamic rule. In fact this whole reference is not needed because HT do not make reference to it, in any way or to justify any future proposal at all. HT also have made very clear their criticism of jews is of the jewish state, Israel, and only in this context. There is absolutely no proof that they intend to kill, target or discriminate against jews in a general sense, you will find NO such plan against jews in any future caliphate.
By claiming that HT's constitution does not prohibit slavery, and mentioning another group's views on it, implies HT somehow are not entirely and utterly opposed to it. Raising this section is a red-herring, and needless, they are opposed to slavery, and since there is no quotes or evidences to argue that they are pro-slavery it should not be an issue to even raise. Raising this, simply casts un-warranted doubts on the issue, and arguing your stance by claiming thier constitution doesn't prohibit it, is the same as entertaining the possibility that HT also allow drugs, or prostitution because their constitution doesnt prohibit it. This is intentional negative scare-mongering, by seeking out gaps of information, and fillng them with what you wish you could proove HT believe, rather than what they actually believe.
I am opposed to some of HT's views, and every Islamist movement for that matter, but I am a Muslim, who works proffessionaly and personally with various scholars, and Islamist thinkers, so I am better placed to prevent and explain HT more so than someone who doesnt reveal who they are, and calls themselves a "Hizb Analyst"
--Kaashif 12:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The way this piece has developed is as follows:
a. The original description of Hizb ut-Tahrir's politics was in my view inadequate. I cannot remember it in detail, but I remember it being badly informed in some details.
b. Some time thereafter, the article was sanitised so that it presented Hizb ut-Tahrir in a positive fashion. All references to Hizb ut-Tahrir which might be construed as negative were removed.
c. I introduced some analysis of Hizb ut-Tahrir's Constitution, and added links to anti-semitic material which they had published
d. Somebody removed those links, and sanitized the material, again removing details which were embarrassing to Hizb ut-Tahrir.
On Slavery: I think it is very odd that Hizb ut-Tahrir should make reference to somebody not being a slave in their constitution if slavery is not permitted. It is difficult to think of a modern constitutional document which does not proceed with an outlawing of Slavery. I think that Hizb ut-Tahrir says one thing in public to its critics but believes another. If you can find an article which sets out the basis upon which Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects the Quranic permissibility of slavery in certain circumstances, I am happy to remove this statement.
On the subject of Hizb ut-Tahrir saying one thing in public and another in private: it is interesting that two of the articles to which I linked - and which were removed by editors of this page - have now actually been removed from the Hizb ut-Tahrir website. Did they put them there by accident? Are they now no longer their policy? Or are they trying to hide their real politics because they are embarrassed by them?
Incidentally, don't you think that a better way of avoiding criticism would be for Hizb ut-Tahrir not to publish racist material (rather than publish it and then remove it when other people point it out)? Similarly, Hizb ut-Tahrir could avoid criticism if they stopped campaigning for a state which significantly and formally disenfranchises non-Muslims. In the past you have tried to put a gloss on Hizb ut-Tahrir's proposal, enshrined in their constitution, that they execute apostates. But wouldn't it be better if Hizb ut-Tahrir didn't propose to execute apostates at all?
On killing jews. If they don't plan to kill jews then it is very stupid of them to publish pamphlets, citing a Hadith, which claim that "stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him'". I mean, it does give the wrong impression.
Yes, perhaps it shouldn't be banned. But if it came to power it really would create a very repressive state, wouldn't it? In fact, as it states in its Constitution that it would prohibit parties not established on the basis of Islam, it isn't really in a position to complain if it gets banned itself!
That needs to be pointed out.
(Hizb Analyst)
Kaashif: Mohammed's state waged war on the jewish tribe for breaking the agreed and signed Constitution_of_Medina. Political parties such as HT are not violent, nor are they a monologue. They may advocate capital punishment, and war if they can influence or control a future government, but this is to be done by the government, not by the party, so to talk of them being violent is again a red-herring, and equivelent to talking of certain tory party members in the british government as 'violent', or potentially violent because they believe in the death penalty. It is not about them being strong enough, to be violent, it is about a government which has a muslim majority, who elect a caliph, legislating capital punishments once that system has been set up, with or without HT. Mohammad himself, did not start war, until there was a state, and army to fight war. So it would be sensible to state something like "HT are non-violent, but they propose that any Caliphate that is established follows the Shariah law, which has capital punishment, and permits defensive war or if needed offensive war, in certain situations. In this respect they are not pacifists"
There also needs to be a distinction made between articles that come out of the middle east, full of the fire that currently engulfs it, and what the current British branch advocate, in a not so charged environment. In arabic when you use the term "the jews" it is a euphomism for Israelis, like when Mandela talked of "the whites" he meant the Afrikaner rule. In modern arabic discourse, if you want to be more general about the jewish people you would say "sha'ab al-yahoodi" i.e. the jewish people, a term which has never been used by HT, so it cannot be comcluded that they are against all jews.
"Parties being based upon Islam", is not as narrow as you would like to think. Non-Muslims can have parties based upon Islam, just as socialist parties exist in Britain, based on liberal capitalist law, who may not believe in liberal capitalism, but the provision exists within liberal capitalism, with limits, to allow other parties. In the same way the provision exists within Islam to allow non-Muslims to have their own parlimentarians and groups, elected into the "peoples council", these would still be "parties based on Islam, becuase Islam has permitted them, and they do not intend on the overthrow of the system. In an analogous way, in the UK if you are to sit in parliment you cannot be a party that intends the overthrow of the system, and you must pledge alliegence to the queen.
HT do campaign for a state that excludes non-Muslims from running for the khaleef, as in the USA people not born in the USA cannot be president. Also if you win elections in the UK, you cannot be prime minister unless you accept the soveriegnty of the Queen, and the monarchy does not allow catholic succession. Every state has it's lines for head of state. These rarely have practical implications. The fact that non-Muslims cannot be head of state (khaleef) in a muslim majority nation is a theoritical point, and if a non-Muslim truly does wish to be, and does run for elections, then he simply needs to give a pledge or state that Allah & Mohammeds laws are soveriegn (the shahada that makes him obstensibly muslim), like the queen is given a pledge in the UK, (making the pledger obstensively a monarchist). To summarise. this is not total or extensive didenfranchisement of non-Muslims. HT members point to the sucess of sephardic jews under the caliph of the ottomans, as an example of tolerance, and enfranchisement of minorities, relative to the medieval climate.
There needs to be a distinction made between local branch publications, which are emotive at times, and official lines. If I were to add into the conservative party page what some tories have said in the past, I would lead people to believe that the tory party is also a racist party. It is obviously not as simple as that. HT like other parties is not a monologue.--Kaashif 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
a. Hizb'ut Tahrir is seeking to establish a global party. The material I cite is on its global website: not a local one. << --Kaashif 13:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC) says "not true, www.khilafah.com is a UK based site, which run by members and non-members. it has never claimed to entirely represent their views, rather it is more of a general news site"
b. Hizb'ut Tahrir will not doubt be delighted to hear your apology for it. But really, I think it is up to them to unambigiously repudiate the racist material which they haved published and indeed continue to publish.
Until they do, then I think I am entitled to call attention to it. << they have, and do not continue to publish it --Kaashif 13:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the long "character references" by academics which are not appropriate in this document. If you want them back, I can provide the sorts of links which suggest that your favoured academic is quoted by odd types too. This is silly.
I will leave your quotes in the article but will remove your own subjective interpretations of them. I will also remove all quotes that are not from official HT sites, if there are any. I will shortly be posting more quotes from HT, to prove that their idea of Jihad is NOT only war, just because they reject "jihad-un-Nafs" or "Jihad of the heart". in their definition, jihad includes dawa, and political activism. --Kaashif 13:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
--Kaashif 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
To give an example of you filling in gaps in information with assumtions that suit a pre-conceived conclusion, based on a half-baked understanding of islamic history, and theology, I have tried to remove the section on slavery, as a red-herring. I have tried to explain, and have quoted to you that HT do not in any way believe in slavery, and that they only mention freedom from slavery or captivity in any war, as a nullifier of the Caliph's position and eligability as head of state. If the Caliph is captured in war, his positin would be stripped from him. This criterion is only listed as per the ancient conditions laid down in ISlamic law.
Mr Taki al-nabahani, the founder of HT in his book shakhseeyyat-ul-Islamiyyah, gives a long explanation of slavery before (in his view) Islam forbade it, and the the history. He explains what situations the ancient world enforced slavery, e.g debt, criminality, being caught as a theif, being captured in war, and how it was arbitrary not racial slavery, how in some cultures it was brutal, in other more like a contracted servant. He then uses explicit references to the Quran and Hadith to say in the section on slavery, that slavey was phased out for existing slaves, and forbidden to take any more slaves (translation):
"When Islam came, for the situations where people were taken into slavery (e.g. debt), Islam imposed Shari’ah solutions other than slavery. For example Islam clarified in relation to the bankrupt debtor that the creditor should wait until a time of ease for the debtor to pay. The Supreme (Allah) said: “And if he is one in difficulty then waiting to a time of ease [Quran]"
Reagrding existing slaves:
"It (Islam) made the existing slave and owner form a business contract, based upon the freedom , not upon slavery"
Regarding capturing free men: 'It (Islam) forbade the enslaving of free people with a comprehensive prohibition. Muhammad said “Allah said: Three people I will deal with on the Day of Judgement: someone who gives in my name who betrays, a man who enjoyed the money of capturing selling a free man, and a man who employed someone who did his job, but did not pay him” (narrated by Al-Bukhari). So Allah will deal with the seller of the free person. As for the situation of war, Islam prevented the enslaving of captives or prisoners of war absolutely. In the second year of the Hijrah, it clarified the rule of the captive in that either they are favoured by releasing without any exchange, or they are ransomed for money or exchanged for Muslims or non-muslim citizens of the Caliphate.'
--Kaashif 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality
1. I will remove the section on slavery, reduce my comments, and place my comments in a separate section
2. The question is not whether HuT believes that jihad is "only war": but whether it is truely non violent as they claim to be. I will add a statement makes it clear that HuT also believes that Jihad includes jihad "dawa, and political activism". You must provide a link to that statement.
3. I have no comments to make on the inclusion of the discourse about Mohammed's actions as a model for HuT. I think that material on this page should be sourced to HuT publications only.
4. HuT uses the term "jews", "israel", "israelis", and "zionists". Indeed, they discuss jews specifically and "Kafir" generally in a theological context, and in general terms, often referenced to quotations from religious books, which is evidently not restricted to israel. It is also not restricted to israeli soldiers.
Now, if this were an article about a white supremacist group which had published an article saying "Kill All Muslims and Turn Arabia into Glass", or quoted the "mark of cain" passage from the bible to suggest that all black people were cursed by god, and so on, what would you say? Would you dispute the claim that were publishers of islamophobic or racist material? If their defenders said "well, they're only reacting like this because of terrorism and in any case only mean terrorist muslims, not muslims generally", would you think that relevant, let alone an excuse?
Changes made
I have removed the discursive section about Mohammed's conduct because it is not sourced specifically to a quotation from HuT material. I have removed the Neutrality warning.
Glossing
Kaashif
This article consists of links to statements made by prominent HuT members and published on their website.
Please stop putting in paretheses what you believe them to say. If they say "Andalus (Spain)", you must not put (a southern province of Spain).
The only material which should be in this article is material which is specifically linked to statements by HuT without gloss or context or explanation by you or me.
Glossing over the Israeli context, by trying to give it a theological context
Why do you keep removing FULL quotes , and leaving only parts of the sentence which suits your agenda. The quotes must be given in full. Also you are the one that has raised the issue of slavery, originally accusing them of believing in it, and now that it turns out that they look very positive with regrads to slavery, you wish to remove the whole section? It is clear that you wish to be selective in leaving only material that looks balanced, but gives misleading messages. I dispute the nuetrality of this article again, and SO DO NOT REMOVE THE NUETRALITY WARNING.
HT deal with jews in the Israeli context, and not in any other way. IF you can find me a quote of theirs from their official websites (not khilafah.com, unless it states at the bottom that it is them) that clearly says that they are against all jews in general, not in the Israeli context then I will accept the word racist or anti-semetic to be used. You have 50 years of HT history to search through.
Andulus is a southern province in spain, not all of it, and you want to spin it, to mean all of spain. When they say Andalus (spain) it means Andalus (in spain), just like Texas(USA). YOu are clearly not balanced. The nuetrality warning will go up. until we can agree on wording.
Neutrality
I have made the changes requested.
The point is: "Do they use racist language"
The answer is "Yes they do" and "They have been removing it" and "They explain that it uses racist language in the context of jews in Palestine" (or indeed, in any self-governing context other than as dhimmis in the Muslim world, as you well know)
Links to the articles are provided.
Links to HuT's refutation is provided.
That is sufficient.
On "Spain": it is not my fault that HuT say "Andalus (Spain)".
On "khilafah.com" not being HuT. If that is your position, then I think I have nothing to say really. I'm astounded that you're making this claim.
Here is the registration details of Khilafah.com:
Registrant: Al-Khilafah Publications (KHILAFAH2-DOM) Suite 298 London GB
Domain Name: KHILAFAH.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Al-Khilafah Publications (22717833O) abdul.kareem@btopenworld.com Al-Khilafah Publications Suite 298 London GB
Here are the web details of http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org
Al-Khilafah Publications (HIZB-UT-TAHRIR-DOM) Suite 298 London UK
Domain Name: HIZB-UT-TAHRIR.ORG
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Al-Khilafah Publications (22717835O) abdul.kareem@btopenworld.com Al-Khilafah Publications Suite 298 London UK
Why have you removed the section on reporting to police? and other references and quotes?
I'm sorry I don't agree. How is using the term "the jews" to refer to 'the jews' that occupy your land in palestine, kill your people, a racist term against all jews? You need to provide clear evidence that when they talk about fighting "the jews" they mean all jews everywhere, rather then the jews in the jewish state of Israel.
And I added various sections and references and quotes including their stance that Muslims should report terrorists to the police, why have they been removed? Becuase they give a more positive light to Hizb-ut-tahrir? regarding anti-semtisim or Israel section, why have the fully quoted sentences from HT that i pasted, in which you put links for to selectivly pick bits of sentences from, been removed?
Please do not re-edit the whole article then push it, edit sections at a time.
Khilafah.com is not an official site of hizb-ut-tahrir. Please provide evidence, i.e. any claim from any official site of HT that it is one of their official sites. It is a news site, & comments site run by some of their members, and other non-members. If you need clarification and response from them on these issues why don't you email them, and ask them to respond on their website, if you are so sure of your judgement on them? Just because the same person owns both domains, does not mean that both are official sites. A Labour party memeber may own the official domain for the labour party, and own other domains, but that does not mean all content on other domains is official Labour Party material.
You have removed the neutrality warning again!
The least you could do is allow that to stay, considering we have not agreed on wording yet?
Neutrality
I have removed the character references and statements opposing the Hizb ut Tahrir ban, and replaced them with a statement that the ban has been opposed by these organisations and links to the statements.
I am not going to discuss with you the question of whether HuT decides on the content of sites which it owns and operates, and which publishes its material! If you can provide evidence from HuT that HuT does not in fact operate its own sites, then we can discuss this.
I agree that statements from HuT suggesting that their members should report terrorism to the police should be added back in. I must have inadvertently removed them. I have added them back in. They are important
I am also expanding the bit on the Andijan massacre
I have also added details on the arrest and torture of HuT members in Egypt.
You should stick to material published by HuT, the sites which it owns and operates, or verifiable, linked statements by its officers. Comment and speculation isn't appropriate.
.......Actually, now I look at it, it the article is nicely balanced. The sections you've objected to have been removed. The accusation of generalised racism has been balanced by a linked, sourced denial and contextualisation by a senior HuT member. Unsourced speculation about HuT has been removed. Glosses on "what HuT really meant" has been removed. There's balance all over!
I have therefore removed the Neutrality warning
Jews
OK, lets take this:
The Jews are a people of slander.
In what sense is this limited to Israelis?
They are a treacherous people who violate oaths and covenants.
This is a theological view
They lie and change words from their right places.
This is a theological view
They take the rights of people unjustly, and kill the Prophets and the innocent.
This is a theological view. They are talking about jews killing the Prophet Jesus.
They are the most severe in their hatred for those who believe.
This is a theological view
Allah has forbidden us from allying ourselves with them.
This is a theological view
In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. Even the [sic] themselves rarely like each other.
This is a general statement about Jews. How is it limited to Israelis?
The American people do not like the Jews nor do the Europeans, because the Jews by their very nature do not like anyone else. Rather they look at other people as wild animals which have to be tamed to serve them. So, how can we imagine it being possible for any Arab or Muslim to like the Jews whose character is such?
This is a general statement about Jews. How is it limited to Israelis?
Yes. HuT are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel. This is very clear from their material, and is not in dispute. But this material goes further than opposition to the existence of a state, or rhetoric against the people who live in the state. These are universalised racist statements about a religion and ethnicity, based explicitly on theological grounds.
You might disagree with them. Fine. Form an organisation to campaign against HuT, but don't apologise for them. Lets hear what they have to say themselves, in writing, where it can be linked to and examined
Explanations for edits
Inequality
Your recent edits prioritise the duties which Muslims are to owe non Muslims in the Caliphate. It diminishes the clear statements in the draft Constitution which emphasise the fundamental political rights which are to be enjoyed only by non Muslims and are denied to non Muslims. This is unacceptable. A balanced article should explain that there are some rights which are enjoyed by both Muslims and Non Muslims, Men and Women.
The ordinary position in a constitution is that it treats its citizens equally. The notable feature of this Constitution is that it treats different classes of citizen - muslims and non muslims, women and men, unequally. This is why this feature of Hizb ut Tahrir should be highlighted.
If you want to edit this back please explain why you do not think that these features of the Draft Constitution should be highlighted.
Ideology
A bland statement that Hizb ut Tahrir follows Sharia does not make it clear that this involves the execution of Muslims who leave their faith. This is a notable feature of the Hizb ut Tahrir ideology. It is not the ordinary position that people who change their religious beliefs are executed. That is the very essence of Hizb ut Tahrir's ideology. Or do you regard it as trivial?
If you want to edit this back please explain why you do not think that these features of the Draft Constitution should be highlighted.
Non Violence
Hizb ut Tahrir prominently states that it does not urge violence against the countries in which it operates. It is presently campaigning against a ban on the basis that it is the essence of its ideology that it is not violent. However a prominent member of the party has been arrested for inciting violence: twice. Hizb ut Tahrir is a single party. It is not a series of parties. The material that they produce stresses the unity of the Party. In fact, this article appears under the heading "Transnational political parties".
If you want to edit this back please explain why you do not think that these features of the Party's conduct should be highlighted along with its public emphasis on non violence.
Multiple Entries for various countries and regions
I see that you have started to add headings - most of which are empty! - for over twenty different countries. This is already a very long article which is much longer than the recommended length for articles on Wikipedia.
If you want to produce multiple entries for various countries, you are welcome to do so. These new entries can be linked to this central entry on the party's ideology and constitution. I think that it is particularly important to highlight the brutal treatment of Hizb ut Tahrir members in Egypt and Central Asia.
I have accordingly deleted all the entries which are relevant only to specific countries.
Each entry should only include details which are specific to Hizb ut Tahrir's actions in that jurisdiction. For example, the material on the proposed ban in the United Kingdom can be put into your new entry for the United Kingdom.
However, the material which is relevant to Hizb ut Tahrir as the a single party, established according to its vision of Sharia, should stay in this entry. That includes material on the conduct of its members in any country which appears to run contrary to its global stated policy of non violence.
Why have you removed the nuetrality warning again?! this is shameful, and dishonest!
This should stay up until all of the editors can agree, and to remove it, it to assume that you have a superior understanding of HT, beyond the 2 Muslim contributors to this article, which appears to me, to be clearly not the case. Please put the nuetrality article back!
I WILL DO SO
Explanation of edits
The quotes on execution of apostates were not removed, but placed under a different section, under the functioning or politics or draft constitution of the caliphate state. It belongs there. Anyway, It is not central to or unique to hizb ut-Thrir, it is something every Islamist groups believes in, based upon a saying of Muhammad.
NO IT NEEDS TO GO BACK. HIZB IS SEEKING TO IMPLEMENT THIS AS A LAW
The Quotes on one it's members in Denmark being charged with distributing that leaflet were not removed, but moved belong under the europe section, or the jihad section
THERE IS NO EUROPE SECTION. YOU PROPOSED TO CREATE DIFFERENT HEADINGS FOR EACH COUNTRY. I AGREE THAT TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE AT A MANAGEABLE LENGTH YOU SHOULD DO SO IN SEPARATE WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES
THE CHARGING OF A MEMBER IN DENMARK IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT THAT HIZB UT TAHRIR DOES NOT URGE VIOLENCE.
The quotes on inequality were not removed. They were placed in the corerect sections, e.g. under women, or under non-Muslims, with the whole quotes, not partial quotes.
I have not and will not remove quotes from HT's publications, tht you have pasted, so please do not remove the ones that I paste either, just because they seem to make them look less extreme.
YOU MAY PUT THEM BACK IN. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR DOING SO AT ALL.
I AM RESTORING THE LAST VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE AND YOU SHOULD PLACE THEM BACK IN THE TEXT AS YOU SEE FIT
Truncated quotes misrepresent HuT's statements on terrorism
The quote on condemning terrorism added by 62.253.64.13 in edit 21355750 is truncated so as to give a wholly different impression of its meaning (missing portion in italics).
The full quote reads: "At a time when fingers will be pointed at us from the wider community we need to come together as a community with one voice. Yes, the rules of Islam do not allow the harming of innocent civilians, but at the same time the rules of Islam do not allow us to condemn Muslims with little evidence in order to remove the pressure from ourselves."
Also, at the time, the New York Times quoted Imran Waheed, HuT's spokesman: "I will condemn what happened in London only after there is the promise from Western leaders to condemn what they have done in Falluja and other parts of Iraq and in Afghanistan." (NYT, 7/10/2005, "For a Decade, London Thrived as a Busy Crossroads of Terror")
The original quote should only go back up in full and include the contradictory quote. Otherwise, it misrepresents the record.
I HOPE SOON TO BE ABLE TO START THE SEPARATE, REGIONAL HuT PAGES ON WHICH KAASHIF HAS STARTED WORK. I WILL ADD THE FULL QUOTES TO THOSE PAGES.
PDF Document with no source
Regarding the acrobate file, that you have provided, and possibly fabricated, that claims HT allow hijacking civilian aeroplenes. Anybody can print up a document and put a name on it, then attribute it to an organsiation. Just because it is on a free general file download site, scanned into a PDF , does nto make it referenced. I could do the same thing in a few clicks. This does not represent the views of HT, and cannot be considered a referenced document. The document's existence does not proove it's own authenticity, many MS word files or Acrobat files exist that attribute themselves to many people, but their mere existence does not make them genuine. YOu are obviously showing how un-biased you are.
NOPE THIS IS A WELL KNOWN HIZB DOCUMENT. HERE IS ANOTHER REFERENCE TO IT QUOTING ITS TEXT FROM 3 YEARS AGO. [1]. AT THE TIME IT WAS PRODUCED HIZB DID NOT PUT ITS POLICY STATEMENTS UP ON WEBSITES. HUT IS WELL AWARE OF ITS CONTENTS AND HAS NEVER DENIED IT.
IN FACT, ASK YOURSELF WHY HUT STATES THAT IT OPPOSES THE HIJACKING OF "INNOCENT CIVILIANS"? SURELY ALL CIVILIANS ARE INNOCENT? NO, NOT TO HIZB. THE WORD "INNOCENT" MEANS CIVILIANS OF COUNTRIES WHICH ARE NOT "AT WAR WITH THE MUSLIMS". THAT IS WHY THEY USE THE WORD "INNOCENT"
YOUR REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO SHOW - DESPITE THE CLEAR WORDS OF HUT'S CONSTITUTION - THAT THE PARTY ALLOWS NON MUSLIMS TO PARTICIPATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ELECTION OF THE CALIPH SHOW THAT YOU ARE NOT EDITING THIS PIECE WITH SERIOUS INTENT.
Your so called new proof from spiked online does not even mention hijacking israeli aeroplanes! So that is not a source, and even if it did, many people have distributed fabricated Hizb leaflets to discredit it. You have yourself proven it is easy to find old hizb leaflets in web archives, and caches, but you will not find this one, because it is a fabrication, so I will not allow it on. On non-Muslims being members in the Majlis, that is your own interpretation, and you have not substantiated it. You quote from one place or another, then add your own words. Either quote in full, or not at all. The same applies ot womens rights, you have clearly edited and added to the slef-exlanatory quotes from the constitution, there is not need, simply quote it, and let the reader decide without your spin. --User:193.82.152.149 13:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Solution?
--Kaashif 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC) says:
I would add that the person who calls himself "hizb analyst" has clearly got a pro-Israeli or extreme right-wing agenda, to blow out of proportion HT's ideas with sensationalist headings, and fasle logic. He or She has in the past tried to argue that HT believes in slavery, or aparthied, then when I clearly proved otherwise, and quoted HT articles that made them look positive on this issue, s/he removed the whole section. I believe the policy should be that you allow quotes, and quote completely or not at all. And refernced have to be real, not a random PDF of a scan of a leaflet found in some bin, 18 years ago, that spiked online mentions. Your point that at the time HT did no print it's articles is also a red herrin, because the web hardly existed in 1988, and when it did appear, they have posted all of their books, and articles in arabic, and slowly translated them into english, at one time or another, before some were deemed inappropriate outside of palestine. And your point about "innocent civilians" is a futile, and self serving one. It also is clearly refuted by HT themselves after Sep 11th attacks in 2001, Sep 18th 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
And Dr Abdul-Wahid, of Hizb ut-Tahrir's executive commitee said: 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.
So stop picking at words, seeking meanings that don't exist, language cannot be all things to all people. For those that have pre-concieved ideas like "Hizb Ananlyst", they will pick on everything to seek inetrpretation which didn't exist in the mind of the author. This is a sign of insincerity to truth, and facts.
There is only one way to get agreement on this article, is if we allow sourced and refernced quotes only, without comment, and without being selective, or placing quotes in places that lead the reader to a particular conclusion that may not be the meaning intended by the quote, in areas or sections of dispute. How does that sound everyone?
==============================
I agree with that, but i don't think "hizb analyst" (or not as I would say), will be happy, because then he can't add his negative twists, and misleading or fake quotes. --User:195.2.12.88 07:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I am jumping in the middle of this but only to take up these issue of whether HT means "Jews" or "Israelis" when they say "Jews." I think it is clear to any rational person that the term "Jews" means just that. It may be plausible to argue that there is some ignorance of this distinction in some quarters, but HT has been operating in the West long enough to understand the difference. This same issue has come up with respect to the Islamic cleric Youssef Qaradawi who also makes pronouncements about "Jews." When he came to London in 2004 and appeared with London mayor Ken Livingston, he brought along two American rabbis from NETUREI KARTA to show that he nothing against "Jews." I think this shows pretty clearly that the distinction is understood. In fact, as reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, HT was banned in Germany partly on the grounds that it was fomenting anti-semitism.
Just an interested party
For your information, just like Yusuf Qaradawi, NETUREI KARTA Rabbis have appeared on HT programs on the London based "Islam Channel", to illustrate that it is not against jew., but the Jewish state, and the jews who are there.
PR for Hizb ut Tahrir
Kaashif
I left this article alone for a couple of weeks to see what would happen.
What happened was that you attempted to remove any material which might make a liberal think that Hizb had any policies to worry about.
- No I didn't, it was severly shortened and edited by others too. Rightly so, it was too long due to too many red-herrings that needed responses --Kaashif 15:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
YOU HAVE TURNED THIS INTO A PROPAGANDA PIECE FOR YOUR POLITICAL PARTY
I have restored that material and provided, in every case, links to Hizb ut Tahrir's own website.
- You only restored material in an out-of-context and biased way, including trying to re-introduce the de-funct slavery issue. You didnt restore my additions fully, which were a response to attempts at maligning the group --Kaashif 15:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I DID NOT WRITE THE HIZB CONSTITUTION. IF IT INCLUDES THE WORDS "NOT A SLAVE" THEN IT IS RIGHT TO POINT TO IT. IF THAT EMBARASSES YOUR PARTY TELL THEM TO CHANGE IT.
You are effectively acting as a PR agency for Hizb ut Tahrir. That is a pretty shameful thing to do.
- I am not linked to HT, I only seek the truth, I work in the broadcats & print media. Calling me shameful is biased, and rich coming from you who put in they believe in Slavery, aparthied, and provide incredidible unreliable sources.--Kaashif 15:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I DON'T BELIEVE YOU
Incidentally, I have sourced the document on Hizb's "Islamic Rule on Hijacking Aeroplanes" article to another website, and they have confirmed that they obtained it from an antifascist organisation. If you believe it is not genuine, then talk to your contacts in Hizb ut Tahrir.
- I already have, and they have clearly said it is a fabrication apparently from 1988, if you read the intrview with jalal patel, he said that there are many fabrications made by middle-eastern regimes, and pro-Israeli elements in the west. Their latest press relese against the independent also states that they do not believe in violenece against civilians in Israel, so that should sort this issue out. Your referneces are false, one of them (AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE) does not contain your quote at all, and even argues the opposite! --Kaashif 15:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
LOOK AT THE DATE. IT WAS PRODUCED DURING A PERIOD DURING WHICH HIZB UT TAHRIR AND OMAR BAKRI MOHAMMED WERE A LOT LESS MEDIA SAVVY THAN THEY ARE NOW
WELL I'M SORRY IT ISN'T GOING TO GO AWAY.
As a footnote: on the creation of sub pages for regional Hizb activities: that came out of your decision a couple of weeks ago to create multiple sub headings within the document for Hizb's activities in various countries. I am not sure why you did that, but if you want to discuss the different approaches taken by your party in other jurisdictions, as opposed to their central leadership, then feel free to do so. Alternatively, let us concentrate on the things that matter
- - Hizb ut Tahrir's constitution and the status of non muslims
- - Violence, non violence, and jihad
- - The issue of the racist statements which have been published by Hizb ut Tahrir
- I think the main article should be concise about HT ideology, and pages on HT in (1) Central Asia, (2)Europe (including Turkey), (3) the Middle East, (4) and South Asia should be seperate pages.
- If you want to talk about your spin on their rules on non-Muslims, then I will include acts of parliment from the 1700s still in effect today that also restrict other religions from taking positions as prime minister, and as head of state or monarch. I will also contrast it with the same restrictions in many european states, and the current regimes in teh Muslim world, to give a context to what they propose as an alternative (which is not as bad as say ba'athist egypt or the saudi monarchy). Their position on violence is clear, by quoting from the context of state violence and giving the impression they believe in it now, or trying to muddy waters on this issue shows your bias.
HOW DO YOU SPIN RULES WHICH SAY THAT NON MUSLIMS AND WOMEN HAVE ONLY VERY LIMITED POLITICAL RIGHTS?
I ALSO NOTICE THAT YOU PERSIST IN CLAIMING THAT NON MUSLIMS CAN APPOINT THE CALIPH BY VIRTUE OF BEING MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY. WHICH PART OF ARTICLE 33 DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND.
I actually am not persisting in that claim, read my edit again, before you sweep edit! An I am happy to have them quoted in context on these issues, without you cherry picking and ordering in the way you like. --Kaashif 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
BY THE WAY, DO I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY - YOUR ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THAT I AM WRONG TO POINT OUT THAT HIZB UT TAHRIR PROPOSE TO CARRY OUT AGGRESSIVE WARFARE ONCE THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED A CALIPHATE BECAUSE PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT THEY ARE VIOLENT NOW?
NO, I am saying. I agree they believe in war, they are not pacifist, but they believe in war via a state, not before a state, so that should be under a section on foreign policy! --Kaashif 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
THE PROBLEM, IT SEEMS TO ME, IS THAT HIZB UT TAHRIR HAS A CONSTITUTION WHICH EFFECTIVELY ESTABLISHES GENDER AND RELIGIOUS APARTHEID. AND YOU OBJECT TO THE WORD APARTHEID? HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT? "GOD'S DIVINELY SANCTIONED PLAN FOR THE WORLD"? I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE SOUTH AFRICANS CLAIMED ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL REGIME AS WELL.
I consider this sarcastic ridicule of me, my religion and my beleif in god, and trying to insinuate that my beleif in god is a euphomism for something like south african aparthied. It also also sarcastically implies that i believe that God agrees with Hizb ut-tahrir. you are getting too personal and are accusing me of being a liar, although i swear by god that i am not linked to this group --Kaashif 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
LIKEWISE HIZB UT TAHRIR HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THE NEED FOR OFFENSIVE JIHAD - MEANING TO KILL UNBELIEVERS. YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE THAT. YOU MIGHT WISH THEY HADN'T. BUT THEY HAVE AND SO IT IS RIGHT TO HIGHLIGHT IT.
offensive jihad does not simply mean to kill unbelievers, this shows your ignorance of the word, and their foreign policy. Would you consider Britain an aparthied state too then, because it doesnta allow catholics to be haed of state? Is that really fair? Would you describe the vatican as aparthied because of it's stance on women bishops? --Kaashif 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
YOU ARE WELCOME TO TALK ABOUT THE ACT OF SETTLEMENT IN PAGES ON THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION. WRITE ABOUT WHATEVER YOU WANT THERE. THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE NATURE OF HIZB UT TAHRIR.
- To describe thier rhetoric as racist against jews is false on many accounts as we have already discussed. Jews are a religion, and have been considered a racial group (disputed). If they were racist then they would not accept Israeli or jewish converts, as they would hate the very race, regardless of religion. If you want to argue that they are anti-jewish in a religious sense, why do they share platforms on the Islam channel with anti-zionist jews? Then it becomes an issue of religious hatred, if you want to take that line, then you have to prove that they hate the religious attributes of jews specifically.
AGAIN IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT HIZB UT TAHRIR HAS PUBLISHED RACIST MATERIAL WHICH HAS GOT THEM PROSECUTED AND BANNED IN OTHER COUNTRIES. IN FACT IT IS NOTABLE THAT *ALL* THE PIECES I CITED WERE TAKEN DOWN SHORTLY AFTER THEY WERE CITED HERE. YOUR PARTY LEADER THEN MADE A MEALY MOUTHED STATEMENT ABOUT HOW GENOCIDAL STATEMENTS ABOUT JEWS WERE SIMILAR TO THE SORT OF THINGS SAID BY CHURCHILL. THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I THINK YOU ARE SIMPLY EDITING THIS PAGE FOR HIZB UT TAHRIR.
YOU ARE A TRANSPARENT PROPAGANDIST FOR HIZB UT TAHRIR. INSTEAD OF EDITING THIS WEB PAGE WHY NOT SPEND YOUR TIME PRODUCING MATERIAL FOR THEM. DON'T WASTE IT HERE
THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA IS NOT TO HIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HIZB UT TAHRIR WHICH ILLUSTRATES ITS TRUE NATURE. IT IS HERE TO PROVIDE A RESOURCE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PARTY STANDS FOR.
-"True nature" as you see it with your biased eyes and personal interpretations???? That is not what wikipedia is for. Your illusions of grandeur amaze me!--Kaashif 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
YOUR ONLY CONTRIBUTION TO THIS PAGE HAS BEEN TO DISGUISE THE NATURE OF YOUR POLITICAL PARTY.
Your only contribution seems to be sensationalist propoganda against the hizb akin to the neo-Nazi BNP, trying to prove that they believe in slavery, aparthied, violence etc etc You seem to be disguising their nature, not me. I am very happy to accept thier quotes on these isues, if they are in context, not selective quote cherry picking that you seem to do, then put them in an order that gives a misleading view. --Kaashif 14:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
There are 2 ways to resolve this as I ahve states above in a previous post. AND PLEASE EDIT SECTIONS AT A TIME< NOT IN ONE BIG SWEEP!
YOU ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN REMOVING MATERIAL WHICH HIDES THE NATURE OF YOUR POLITICAL PARTY. THERE IS NOTHING TO RESOLVE.
Remaining issues of dispute
Firstly I am not a member or supporter of this group. To try an malign me in that way is to subvert my arguments, I am not on trial here. It is pure coincidence that some leaflets of the hizb were taken off the website, when you began editing this entry, nothing to do with me being linked to them. It was more likely the fact that it was immediately after the london bombings there was more focus on Islamist groups, and as Dr Abdul Wahid stated, they decided leaflets on the Palestinian conflict about jews were not relevant to the UK or anywhere outside the middle east, so they removed them. In fact they completely re-launched a new website, with a whole new design, which is not the type of thing you can do overnight in response to a wikipedia article, so please dont rate yourself.
So lets get to the points at hand, before we carry on sweep editing the whole page, and then counter sweeping can we agree on issues of dispute?:
1) The arguably diproportionate length of, and content of section on Anti-Semitism & Israel- On the amount of hizb rhetoric on jews & hizb response needed
2)The arguably diproportionate length of, and content of section on Violence
a- on the scanned image of a leaflet about hijacking Israeli aeroplanes
b- On the russian government's version of events related to chechnya & arrests
c- Any contemplation of "violence" after their state exists
3) Quotes on no non-Muslim rights to be the caliph, and vote for him, but allowed to be part of assembly.
4) On segregation of the sexes & child custody
5) the need for short section on Economic Policy
