Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Non-Violence

message: 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. . 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)
thread_title:  PDF Document with no source 

message: 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)
thread_title: ==============================

message: Firsly I am weary of this article getting too long, so I would like to keep all sections as short as possible. 
1)Can we agree to have one complete apparently anti-Jewish quote with an external refernce, then one complete  rsponse from Hizb ut-Tahrir? 
2) a- The scanned image of an apparent leaflet from 1988 about hijacking civilian aeroplanes has been rejected by the hizb memebers personally and explicitly by one of their recent press releases. There is no way that is an acceptable reference, until you find real proof for it, it will not be acceptable.
c- The russian events can be included, but I'm not sure how relevent it is. It has already been undermined, and rejected by Human Rights groups, and it is well known that Russia is severly controlling journalists, and infromation on events from the caucus area, and the Hizb have categorically rejected it. Nobody takes the Russian claims seriously, even the US, and Bitish governments have not accepted their version of events, so a red herring if you aks me. If you insist on keeping it, it will have to come with responses from Human Rights Groups etc on the nature of the current Russian Government, whihc again will make this article uninformative and long.
c- Any contemplation of "violence" after their state exists should be placed under a short section on "foreign polcy", not under any section on violence generally. That is like having a section under the Tory Party entry called 'position on violence in absense of their state', then giving their quotes about the falklands war, leaving the impression that they are a violent group, when actually they are only violent when they are in government and the nation goes to war.
3) Can the words: "The future Caliphate by it's Islamic nature will not allow non-Muslims to run in the elctions for the position of Caliph, or allow non-Muslims to particpate in the election of a Caliph, although they are allowed to be elected onto the Majlis al-Shura".??
4) On this topic it is sufficient to include the quotes from the constitution alone, and provide a link to segregation_of_the_sexes.
5) The focus on 'violence' and 'anti-jewishness' has diverted peoples attention from the dangerous economic policies they propose, e.g effectively de-stablising the world economy by pegging oil to gold linked currency, rather than the euro or dollar, abolition of paper money, interest, nationalisation of many recources and industries. This aspect deserves attention.
===I REPEAT! PLEASE EDIT ONE SECTION AT A TIME===, not in one big sweep, otherwise we will end up counter sweep editing and get nowhere. I suggest the the NPOV gets added to teh relevent sections until agreement rather than the whole article. please se current revision, and let me know exactly which sections you disagree with and why, don't just sweep edit.
Sections headings sugested: :Aims, :Methods, :Structure & organisation, :nature & levels of membership, :Training, :teachings & ideology, :Allegations of Anti-Semitism, :Proposed policies of future state + Economic doctrine, :Position on violence, :Cooperation with other Muslims, :Prominent Members, e.g. spokesman. 
----
What happened? I notice the page has been locked. Although I do believe we should resolve these disputes, this will now force us. Please add to the list of disputed issues in the current article, pointing out the specific wording you disagree with, and then in a seperate section, give suggestions. then we can all submit that the page gets unlocked. I still believe as I ahve said above, in having balance when describing Ideology, so should include some details on economics. --Kaashif 09:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page isn't locked. An anon put the tag up, so I've removed it. Could the person who's posting without signing, please sign and date his/her posts? The page is hard to read otherwise, and also it would be helpful if you could stop posting in caps for the same reason. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for more information. I've done a bit of a copy edit and general tidy. What's the reason for the NPOV tag exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaashif's suggestions

message: Hi Kaashif, I reverted your recent edits because they seemed to turn the page into something the group might have written. I'm going to go back through it and retrieve anything that looked okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: Hizb-ut Tahrir in their books 'Thought' and 'System of Islam'  place heavy emphasis in discussing modes and models of the psychology behind human thought, and concepts. They define the thought process, and how it reaches the status of conviction, and concepts. They discuss the internal working of thoughts, convictions,and concepts in shaping the Nafs or emotions and sentiments. Delving into the internal workings of how people reach conclusions & the psychology behind the process derives itself from Taqiudin al-Nabhani's roots in non-Ascetic legalistic Sufism from his fist teacher and maternal grandfatherYusuf al-Nabhabi. Al-Nabhani's definitions of thought have been used in the study of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, and information processing research discussed in the Addison-Wesley published book "Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine (Systems Programming Series)" and used in London South Bank University's  Informaion systems department. 
After many philosophical discussions on the nature of thoughts and emotions, Hizb ut-Tahrir conclude that the only way to bring about change is via discussion, refutation, and revival of the relevent thoughts and emotions. It is from this philosophical basis that they argue force does not work in changing peoples' ideas. They also argue that a decline in the Muslims' thought, emotions and concepts led to the decline of the Muslims & the eventual destruction of the Khilafah. They believe the first thing to go wrong in the Muslims was confusion about, and dealing with new foreign ideas, mainly greek, persian & eastern philosophy. They argue the Muslims didn't know how to tackle & contextualise these ideas because they became complacent in preserving & keeping relevant their own Islamic thoughts or philosophy. The heavy emphasis on pinpoitning, defining and changing peoples thoughts, convictions, or emotions, via stronger thoughts, diagnosis, and refutation of the process an individual uses to reach their particular 'incorect' view, is the method of Hizb ut-Tahrir argumentation on almost every issue. 
====Faith vs Rational Belief====
Hizb ut-Tahrir claim Islam is founded on rational belief not blind faith, although they argue later that after belief is established; divine laws in the Quran are beyond question due to the 'mind' of god being beyond human comprehension. Hizb ut-Tahrir affirm rationalism but argue that it can establish belief in a God. They try to outline materialist arguments and axioms to prove that one unlimited creator of the universe, god (Allah in arabic) can be proven by rational deduction. They believe that the dependancy of and limited physical nature of every tangible thing within human perception point ultimately to an unlimited creater that is beyond need and dependancy, an Absolute_Infinite. 
end --Kaashif 13:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy & Theology

message: Hizb ut-Tahrir claim Islam is founded on rational belief not blind faith, although they argue later that after belief is established; divine laws in the Quran are beyond question due to the 'mind' of god being beyond human comprehension. Hizb ut-Tahrir affirm rationalism but argue that it can establish belief in a God. They try to outline materialist arguments and axioms to prove that one unlimited creator of the universe, god (Allah in arabic) can be proven by rational deduction. They believe that the dependancy of and limited physical nature of every tangible thing within human perception point ultimately to an unlimited creater that is beyond need and dependancy, an Absolute_Infinite. 
end --Kaashif 13:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith vs Rational Belief

message: This article can't be written from the group's point of view. It is a highly controversial, anti-Semitic, undemocratic organization, banned in most Arab countries as well as recently in the UK. Our NPOV policy states that we write from the point of view of majority published opinion, taking into account significant-minority published opinion, and last (and sometimes not included at all) comes tiny-minority published opinion, which is what this group represents. That doesn't mean we misrepresent the group's views, but we also don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a platform for them. I'm concerned about the tone of parts of the article e.g. mentioning that women will have certain important rights, but without mentioning that they wouldn't have the right to vote. Everyone contributing should probably try to provide a reputable source for most of their edits (or for any edit likely to be challenged). Also, please stop removing the anti-Semitic material. It's one of the reasons the group is regarded as controversial (it's the reason the Guardian trainee journalist who belonged to it was let go, for example, and at least one of the reasons Tony Blair decided to ban them), so it's disturbing to find these passages being deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Please stope saying women can't vote, it has been quoted above, and now again below from another article that women can vote for the caliph:
How will women be treated in the Caliphate? 
Men and women have similarities in that they are both humans. They have minds, an ability to reason. They have feelings, instincts and needs. They are both accountable to Allah to contribute to the Islamic society in order to please Allah. So, Islam did not differentiate when it called both men and women to use their reasoning to study the world and understand that it is created. Islam ordered both to pray, fast and perform hajj (pilgrimage). Nor did Islam stop at beliefs and individual worships, because it is a complete way of life. Islam also called both men and women to deal in the affairs of society, such as buying, selling, renting, farming, trading, marrying with their consent, judging, providing medical treatment, electing and accounting the ruler. It also made the seeking and teaching of knowledge compulsory on both women and men.    
I also await the citation for the first paragraph in the anti-Semitism section.--Kaashif 13:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Kaashif, I haven't looked for the anti-Semitism reference yet, but will soon. Regarding the constitution, I've linked to it and have clarified that men and women may vote, but women and non-Muslims may not stand as Caliph, and that non-Muslims may be members of the assembly, but their membership is restricted to voicing complaints about, inter alia, whether Islamic law has been misapplied to them. In other words, only male Muslim citizens will have full political rights, according to the draft constitution. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provided references for the first quote in the anti-Semitism section. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Women voting

message: "Membership is restricted to" does not mean an absolute restriction except for the issues mentioned, if you read thier other books (in arabic & english) it simply means that non-Muslims cannot be or participate in electing a Caliph but can do all other things in the peoples parliment see (Majlis_al-Shura). That is the restriction. I coul draw analogies to many european countries with official state religions, and monarchs.
It is as true to say that "only male Muslim citizens will have full political rights" in a Caliphate, as it is true to say that "Only protestant, anglican, members of the church of england, descendents of Sophia_of_Hanover, or unelected male anglican members of the church of england (with regards to Anglican Bishops), have full political rights in england e.g the position of being the Archbishop_of_Canterbury or on the General_Synod"
These above laws make up the fundamental laws of England, and the English 17th century bill of rights. However I do not consider England in practice discriminatory against me, although it is if I want to be in certain positions of power.  If wikipedia were to write an article on the conservative party in the UK, I doubt thier belief in these (remotely unequal) laws would get much attention, because (although not in law) practically as a non-anglican-protestant citizen of the UK, for ALMOST all things I am an pretty much an equal citizen according. When you write an article about any group, in order to be balanced, you don't just pick out the most extreme & contreversial things they argue like tabloid Sensationalism, but also mention the main thrust, and most common issues they discuss, which for hizb-ut-tahrir is NOT that non-Muslims cannot be the Caliph, but they concentrate on anti-capitalism, globalisation, western foreign policy, social ills, the process of human thoughts, theocracy & philosophy, theory on economics & sociology, and social problems, none of which have been given any attention at all in this article. Instead we focus on the extreme bits, quoting outdated leaflets removed from their literature, anti-semitism, and violence. I could very easily add cited quotes to the page on the consevative party about how their members have made racist comments, or advocated violence in the past, but people don't do that because they know as a whole they are not like that, and these are extreme opinions within the party, and/or in the past, not now. this is fundamnetally why i believe this article is unbalanced, and nor very represntitive.--Kaashif 09:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance, proportion & relative context

message: While the defining paragraph and the "Aims" sections talk a bit about the ideological foundations of Hizb Ut Tahrir, I don't think they shed sufficient light on the beliefs of the organization. The entire entry doesn't convey HT's strong criticism against Westernism and particularly the role America plays Worldwide, as well as its opposition to what are considered many Western liberal philosophies and systems (capitalism, socialism, democracy, etc). I was considering adding a section titled "Islamic Reactionism" in which I could expand on this, but that would also be expanding on the "Aims" section, making a bit of the information redundant. Maybe "Aims" can be renamed "Ideology and Aims" and can be adjusted to expand on HT's philosophy and stances and then lead into its aims and objectives. Good idea? Amibidhrohi 01:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: I am removing the destroy the infidels bit.--Aliyah 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Destroy the infidels" was added as part of the vandalism, with no source

message: I changed Caliph to caliph, but I see it's been changed back. Is there any reason to capitalize it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry 'bout that. It was probably my fault, it's corrected now. If it's okay with everyone, I'll look for some images to add to the site. Amibidhrohi 03:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, and thanks. Images would be great. If you upload any, be sure to add a link on the image page to the source (e.g. the website you took them from), and also add , unless it's an image that you know is public domain or can be used under one of our free licences, in which case I'll explain further. If you don't tag and source them, someone will come along and delete them. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caps 

message: The party is banned in every Arab country, except the UAE, Sudan, Lebanon, Yemen throughout the former Muslim Soviet Union states of Central Asia, and in Germany
I'm confused- is Germany considered an Arab country then? Borisblue 05:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing sentence

message: Yuber, I know faithfreedom is a poor source, but it's the only one I could find for this particular quote, because Hizb ut-Tahrir has removed it from their website. Do you mind if I put it back? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another source there from Jewish Virtual Library that has the same quote, unless one's different from the other...Yuber(talk) 05:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize it had the whole thing. I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't have it all, only "The Jews are a people of slander. They are a treacherous people who violate oaths and covenants (…). Allah has forbidden us from allying ourselves with them. (…) Indeed, that you should destroy the monstrous Jewish entity. (…) Kill all Jews (…) wherever you find them." SlimVirgin (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other link is to a forum though that has some additional inflammatory comments.  Can't we just leave the Jewish Virtual Library source in even though it doesn't have the whole quote?Yuber(talk) 05:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, fair point, the comments below the quote aren't appropriate to link to. Okay, we'll leave the other link, and I'll try to resource the whole quote. If I can't, I'll reduce the quote to whatever's in the Jewish Virtual Library. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is the original page from the Hizb ut-Tahrir website not accessible via the Internet Archive? GCarty 13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope Jacoplane 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Faithfreedom.org

message: This article is not on the rights or wrongs, of Shariah law, in whichever flavour or particular state, the European Court was referring to, which is another point as it may not be the same Shariah that this group aspires to. The statement about Shrariah and the European court belongs in the Wikipedia article on Shriah, not in this article. Every Muslim believes in some form of Shariah, but not the same Shariah as the Taleban. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.115.70.9 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 October 2006.
:The ECHR judgement was on Sharia in all its forms. The status of Sharia is intrinsic in understanding the aims of HT and thus has a legitimate place in this article. (And please sign all of your edits with four tildes ~). AJD 19:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Sharia: democracy and human rights for background. AJD 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The European Court's judgement on a form of Shariah is beyond the scope of this article