This is an archive of past discussions about Hizb ut-Tahrir. 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 jalaluddin 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

Kaashif's suggestions

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)

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)

Query

A couple of questions: in the passage below, what does "matured" mean, and what is meant by "remit of public dress"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Unlike some traditionalist movements in the Muslim world, the party says it would give women rights to choose a partner freely, voting rights, the right to seek an abortion within 42 days of conception, the right to initiate divorce, and rights to child custody, except for a non-Muslim mother whose child has matured with a Muslim father. Article 109 of their draft constitution provides for the segregation of the sexes in public institutions like schools and sports, and the remit of public dress (articles 113 and 114). Women may also seek employment in any field, including the judiciary, but are prohibited from leading the government.

--Kaashif 17:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC) "Mature" was used because that is what the constitution says (I think), although it isn't available online anymore. The constution said something like all children go to the mother, even if the children are Muslims going to a non-Muslim mother, for as long as the child needs the mother, then when mature, a Muslim child of a non-Muslim mother goes to it's Muslim father. This entry I believe was unecessarily going into detail, as the point of the paragraph was that they contradict most traditionalist Muslims in many issues related to women, including on this issue. The traditionalists say in most cases children should always go to the father, which is absurd & the exact opposite of what hizb ut-tahrir say. I say remove this bit, and leave it as "rights to child custody", which is enough, if people want to know the details of their interpretation of Shariah law, they can follow the link, otherwise it defeats the topic of the paragraph.

The same goes for the public dress issue, it digresses the point of the paragraph and was added later to imply something which it doesn't. The articles state simply that they should not "display their charms in public", i.e not be naked according to islamic culture which means people won't be allowed to wear e.g bikinis in public etc. The articles say women should show their faces unlike the traditionalists muslims who demand women wear face veils, and / or all balck, not even showing hands or eyes. Again, it is unecessary to the paragraph, unless you simply say, "they do not require women to wear face veils, but 'cover thier charms'. A euphomism used in the Quran in the chapter called al-Nisa, for nakedness". Hope this helps. I have tried to list the reaosns for The NPOV above, anyone can add to my list of issues of dispute --Kaashif 17:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Kaashif. I feel it's probably important to say a bit more about the dress issue, because "cover their charms" could mean anything, so we ought to find out exactly what this group says, if possible. The covering of women is an important issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aliyah, I reverted your edit because you changed a link without explanation, and also because you've added parts of the quotes that not everyone would find anti-Semitic. But the section is about anti-Semitism, which is why I quoted only those parts that are unambiguous examples of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry i am new to wikipedia, I hope I am welcome. As a Muslim woman by religion and jew by birth who has visited Israel & palestine I believe I can help with this article, especially considering they are likely to be banned, so fair representation is currently important. I changed the link because it didnt refer to the leaflet, it referred to a blog, which is not exactly an objective source, so I put the leaflet into the link. I think it is important to include the whole text in context of it's place in the leaflet. The text I added was word for word the preceeding text of the existing quote. If we only include the sentences that appear anti-Jewish, and miss out those that arn't, or don't give the sentences their surrounding context (ie their preceeding and prOceeding sentences), then we are selective quoting. Can you add the preceeding text? Sorry for not explaining. And I noticed your question on their policy on dress, well they explain in their book "The western Beauty Myth" (mentioned here: [2])that Muslim women are required to cover their bodies, but refute those Islamic scholars that say that women MUST wear Burqas or Veils. They also say that non-Muslim womens simply have to dress "modestly" which is your bog standard sunni Hijab(as opposed to wahabi Islamic interpretation of hijab. Contrary to all the hysteria about this group, they are non-violent, and much more progressive than most traditional islamists or wahabi Islamists or shias, despite their rhetoric on jews 6-10 years ago from their palestinian branch. Let us remind ourselves that the republican and conservative parties of the past have made many racist statements too, and have since reformed, or at least refrain from it now as they modernised--Aliyah 21:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Aliyah, you're certainly welcome here. It's good to have you with us.

I've already linked to the full text after the quote. The first link I provided was to a page of information and links about this party on a well-known political blog called Harry's Place. As for the quotes, I would normally agree that context is important, but there are two things mitigating against that here. First, the section is about alleged anti-Semitism, not anti-Israel sentiment. And second, to include the context makes it appear as though we think the context explains the anti-Semitism i.e. that because they're anti-Israel, it's somehow ok to be anti-Semitic. Length is an issue too. We can't include a huge statement from them.

About the clothes issue, thank you for your explanation of that. That should certainly be made clear in the article, because to a non-Muslim reader, the article currently reads as though the party thinks Muslim women may dress more or less as non-Muslim women do, and that seems not to be the case. Any clarification you could make of that passage would be very helpful.

And again, welcome to Wikipedia. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, you said "the section is about alleged anti-Semitism, not anti-Israel sentiment" well then the section should be about alleged anti-semitism and only include quotes from leaflets that crticise jews as jews of Judaism or the jewish faith, not as Israelis. The problem is that Israelis are jews, and hizb-ut-tahrir have said that "In Palestine, Islam is in conflict with Israelis — not in their capacity as Jews who historically had lived alongside Muslims in peace and security for centuries — but in their capacity as occupiers and aggressors." They clearly use rhetoric about jews in Israel, who have stolen homes & occupy the palestinians, not jews generally just wordlwide as a religion, just because they are jewish. So the section has to be about Israel too, otherwise it gives the impression to the readers mind that we are saying that their rhetoric is purely about the jewish race detatched from the palestinian problem. The question I suppose is, if jews in the form of Israel didnt occupy palestine, etc then would hizb-ut-tahrir still have rhetoric about jews? I highly doubt it, as they have repeatidly said it is purely in the palestinian context. You will not find a single piece by them about jews or about the jewish religion (which defines jews) in a general way. Every leaflet is about Israel. Nelson Mandela & the ANC spoke of "whites", and Afrikaners in fiery anti-white rhetoric during white control of South Africa, everyone knows he didnt mean all whites or Afrikaners globally, the same goes for black activists in 50's America when they spoke of "Whites".

YOu said "to include the context makes it appear as though we think the context explains the anti-Semitism i.e. that because they're anti-Israel". If we don't include the context it makes it appear as though we think they are anti-semetic i.e. nothing to do with Israeli occupation of palestine. That is also not nuetral.

Here is a suggestion which may deal with the problem, and shorten it, 1 quote, but all leafelets cited. Here is my draft, do you like it?:

Hizb'ut Tahrir has published what appears to be anti-Semitic material. In January 2003, Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned in Germany on charges of anti-Jewish propaganda, a ruling currently being challenged in the German courts. Fadi Abdelatif, Hizb Ut Tahrir's spokesman in Denmark, was found guilty of distributing racist propaganda in 2002. The title of the pamphlet in question was "And Kill Them Wherever You Find Them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out". [12] This is a quote from the Quran chapter 2, verse 191 commanding defiance if being turned out or expelled from your homes. [13]. The full text of the leaflet in question can be found here -[14], and another here -[15]. Hizb ut-Tahrir respond by claiming that this is rhetoric in the context of the occupation of Palestine by Israel, not against jews as people of Judaism. They claim: "In Palestine, Islam is in conflict with Israelis — not in their capacity as Jews who historically had lived alongside Muslims in peace and security for centuries — but in their capacity as occupiers and aggressors." [16]. Another one of thier responses can be found here [17]

Its shorter, gives 1 short quote and 1 short response quote, lets the reader decide themselves from the original text so we dont need to argue about context. What do you think? --Aliyah 23:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

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)

Hi SlimVirgin, I assure you i am not a member. I'm willing meet anybody in peron to attest to that & reveal who I am which will itself prove that i am not a member. I am a Muslim working in print & broadcast journalism in the UK who has a lot of experience with HT (hizbu tahrir). I have taken Aliyah's suggestion but removed (as you did too) the explanation about the meaning of the Quranic quote in the "alleged anti-semitism" section.

Anyway, I would like to add a section on their theology and religious beliefs, not just political: I have been using Opus Dei as an example of how an article should look on a religios group. Here is a draft, please consider adding it: --Kaashif 13:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy & Theology

Hizb-ut Tahrir in their books 'Thought' and 'System of Islam' [3] 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)"[4] and used in London South Bank University's [5] 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) ---

Needed additions coming: Their views on : Ijtihad, Madhabs, Sharia over the Mind & Sources of Shariah, Their rejection of clergy and the divinity of or unquestionable clergy Comparison with the Wahabis & al-qaida: accepting traditional sufi Sunni Islam Their rejection of relativism & individualism, Sensual Gratification, libertarianism, & the book "The western Beauty Myth." Hadara Maddiniyya: for adopting Science & technology, but not culture Thier religios view on nationalism in Muslim world. Section on Cooperation with other Muslims: with the Muslim Brotherhood, IHRC, Shias etc --Kaashif 13:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I too believe this article lacks any description of hizb-ut-Tahrir's religious beliefs, philosophy and theology, membership, structure, and their most prominent activity i.e. comment on current affairs. It seems to concentrate on controversial or negative aspects. There needs to be more on women too. I will try to elaborate on this soon.--Aliyah 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Required reading

I advise all to read the following articles to enrich this page:

NPOV

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)

NEW NPOV DISPUTE

Kaashif you put up a new NPOV notice, explain please.--141.195.143.145 16:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Factually incorrect

Firslty, the group is not banned in the UK, Tony Blair only suggested it, it has to go through parliment.

Secondly racist groups are not banned in the UK so this was not the basis upon which HT would be banned, the BNP are publicly active, only "incitement to racial hatred" is illegal, which BNP leaders have been in court for, but NO hizb ut-tahrir members have been in court for this although their membership is public.

Thridly, you seem misinformed. Where do they say women are not allowed to vote??? Contrary to your view, hizb-ut-Tahrir have said that men and and women are allowed to vote, and stand as members of the peoples asembly. Women are not allowed to be head of state, but everything else is OK, so please try and do your research before you say things like that and form conclusions. It is true that they are much more liberal than traditionalist groups, referenced can be provided for each point including abortion.

Fourthly, let me infrom you that even any democratic party is banned in most arab countries. The only free arab countries are UAE, and LEbanon, where hizb ut-Tahrir and all non-Violent groups are legal. Being banned in an Arab country is not the sign of a violent group, does not mean anything, the green party would be banned in an arab country.

You decribe them as undemocractic, please see Islamic Democracy. They do believe in elections.

Lastly There is no citation or reference for the quoted first paragraph under the Anti-Semitism section.

Please, please I beg you to do your own research before coming to conclusions. I have provide some articles above, and you may also go to their websites and see what they say. This article is about not misrepresenting their views, so have a look at thier views on their website, and provide an outline of them. There is nothing on their philosophy, or theology in this article, which is strange, as it is supposed to provide that.--Kaashif 17:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kaashif, the article doesn't say the group is banned yet. It says Tony Blair announced that it would be. I'm not sure what the point of comparision to the BNP is, or how you know why Blair decided to ban Hizb.

All the third party sources say that only Muslim men would be allowed to participate in elections for the Caliph. That is, Muslim women and non-Muslim men and women would be allowed neither to stand nor to vote. In other words, the group advocates against democracy and the universal franchise.

I'll find a citation for the first paragraph in the anti-Semitism section.

I've read through the talk archives and for some time you've been advocating here on this group's behalf. Please read our policies: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. These jointly say that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and must not be used for advocacy of any kind; that we publish only facts or opinions expressed by reputable, English-language, published sources; and that we never use tiny-minority lobbying groups as sources, except where they're being used as primary-source material (i.e. sources about themselves), and even then we use them with caution, for obvious reasons. Just as we wouldn't allow BNP sources to dicate the contents of that article, nor can we allow Hizb ut-Tahrir sources to dominate this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, there's no need to indent one short sentence, but if you do, it's either indent or quotation marks, but not both. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I agree the article doesnt say the group is banned yet in the UK, but you said it above "banned in most Arab countries as well as recently in the UK". Sorry if this is a misunderstanding. Just as you are not sure how I know, I'm not sure how you know that Tony Blair intended to ban HT as anti-Semetic as "at least one of the reasons Tony Blair decided to ban them" as you have said. Tony Blair's reasons are given in the full text of his spech where he mentioned them, and it does not mention anti-semitism as one of the reasons. So for you to postulate that was innapropriate. I raised the BNP to simply contradict the view that they are possibly being banned for racism, which is clearly not the case, I didnt claim i know why Tony Blair intends to ban them.

Third party sources are usually not very well researched, or mistranslate. There seems to be a mix-up with the conditions on being the Caliph, and who may vote for him. WHat you say about being a Muslim man, is the restriction on WHO may be the Caliph, similar to who may be the pope: a catholic man, but women are allowed to vote for the caliph candidates. Women are also allowed to be Senators of the Majlis_al_shura or "Peoples Assembly" as stated in the following passages:

on their website in the "What is khilafah" article [6] quotes still available here:

Under the section ‘Head of state’: “The Khaleef is the head of state. He has the general leadership of the state. The citizens of the Khilafah state have the sole right to appoint the Khaleef. He can be appointed by a direct general election ...or through the elected members of the ‘Peoples Assembly’ (Majlis al Ummah).”
Under the section: ‘Electing the members of the council of the Ummah’ (Peoples Assembly): “The members of the Ummah's council are elected and not appointed, for they are representatives of the people in the voicing of opinions”
Under the section ‘Membership of the Council of the Ummah’:
“Any person that holds citizenship of the state, if mature and sane, has the right to be a member of the council of the Ummah, and he has the right to elect the members of the council, whether the person is a man or a woman, a Muslim or non-Muslim”

Thanks for your efforts and time, sorry for appearing to be an advocate, I was enraged at people saying they believe in slavery, aparthied, and tried to argue they are linked to al-qaida, etc which is not true, so I juped to thier defence. --Kaashif 18:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Women voting

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. [7]

I also await the citation for the first paragraph in the anti-Semitism section.--Kaashif 13:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

I've provided references for the first quote in the anti-Semitism section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Balance, proportion & relative context

"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)

Anonymous contributers!!

Will all anonymous contributers like "70.18.22.43" please check thier spelling, sentence construction, and grammar, before editing an entry. Also will you please put your suggestions in this discussion before editing any section. Even better would be to use your user name, or create one, it's free. I will be reverting the additions of anonymous user as it was in very poor english, and had many things that were not cited. This is not a soap box for your view of what hizb-ut-tahrir should be, or what you wish it was, or for your interpretation of Islam. I will however go over your entries, and try to neaten the english up, then add the cited parts --Kaashif 13:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Kaashif, you're also editing in errors like spelling mistakes and odd words (what's a proscription for terrorism, for example?). And you're removing material that is critical of the party, and altering facts. Tony Blair did not, for example, express his personal "wish" to ban the party. He expressed the intention of the British government to do so, and they have cross-party support for it. You also changed a quote from a source, changing wrong-doer to oppressor (incorrectly spelled). Maybe you're right and the word does mean oppressor. But the quote said wrong-doer. And you or someone else removed from Aims the summary of the draft constitution.

Please stop removing material. If you can add to it using good sources, do that instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

One's critique of someone else's grammar and spelling should never contain spelling errors within itself.

Hizb Ut Tahrir is a political party founded on Islam. To exclude what are accepted as parts of Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) and Shariah is to make the entry deceptive. In the context of this entry, the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadiths and the opinions derived from consensus of the companions of the Prophet can all be considered as 'official documents' of Hizb Ut Tahrir's agenda and purposes. They are more valid an indication as to the objectives and functions of Hizb Ut Tahrir than the constitution itself (nevermind a draft constitution), which can be amended or discarded. [[8]] Amibidhrohi 18:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL! That assumes there is only 1 interpretation of Islam in the world! The logic of your argument implies that all groups founded on Islam believe in the same thing, and that all Muslim (as they are founded on Islam too) are a monolithic whole who all believe in everything you THINK is Islam! --Aliyah 20:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Source

Amibidhrohi, thanks for supplying that source. [9] Two problems with it: first, it's a website maintained by an unknown person or group. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for the rules about using websites: if this is a personal website, we can't use it. Secondly, we'd have to show that Hizb ut-Tahrir agreed with this analysis, or at least that it's largely not disputed by Muslim scholars. There's a danger here of getting into original research, which we're not allowed to do. See Wikipedia:No original research for more details. Disputed sentence is below. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That which has been shown to be permissible within the Qur'an and Sunnah cannot be made illegal in Islam, and therefore the contemporary sense of morality and justice cannot be used as the basis of legislation unless supported by the divine sources.

I'll replace the source with a more widely accepted one when I can find one. The notion of halaal and haraam in Islam is so widely accepted that it is difficult to find a scholar that bothers to discuss it. To my knowlege, there is no school of thought amongst Muslims, Sunni or Shia, that takes exception to this notion that halaal and haraam are exclusively determined by God, and therefore men cannot make haraam that which is permissible for Muslims, and vice versa. This precept is implied in the Quran itself, in Surah 66:1

66:1 O Prophet! Why holdest thou to be forbidden that which God has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy consorts. But God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 66:2 God has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and God is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

The story behind this verse revolves around Prophet Muhammad having doubts about marrying the divorced wife of his son-in-law. In this verse, Allah almost rebukes him for considering forbidden that which God had not made forbidden to him. It would be difficult for visitors to understand the precise context of this verse in the Prophet's biography, and so I didn't use the scripture itself as source in the article. As for the source I used, Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid is a well-established scholar and a former student of such scholars and leaders as the late Shaikh Bin Baz, former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia. Amibidhrohi 22:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Slavery Again!!

Firstly sorry about the spelling mistakes etc. SlimVirgin.

Secondly we need to work out if this article is about Islam, or about Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Why are we speculating on what Islam says is halal or haram and then assuming Hizb-ut-tahrir have the same view as other Muslims on various topics in Islam? Conversly why are we pointing out things in hizb-ut-tahrir which is not unique or characteristic of them? Just because Islam has a concept of Caliphate does that mean that we give details of the caliphate that are not unique to hizb-ut-tahrir, e.g. Muslim only head of stateCaliph? [10]. Because Islam says that you must pray, does that mean we say "hizb-ut-tahrir say you must pray"? That would lead the reader to believe this is unique to hib-ut-tahrir, just like the apostates issue is not unique to hizb-ut-tahrir.

Is it Hizb-ut-tahrir that explicitly says slavery is OK, or is it your own interpretation of Islam which you then assume hizb-ut-tahrir share? I have in the past clearly proven with quotes and citations that hizb-ut-tahrir have categorically rejected slavery, so why have we come back to this! I will edit this out, and add some balance. Just because Hizb-ut-Tahrir reject the UN [11], it does not mean therefore that they reject all International treaties so long as they are permitted by thier interpretation of what is morally OK in Islam. Again lets stop assuming and filling in the gaps with our own spin.

Lastly that website (Islam-qa) and Shaikh Bin Baz, former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, both are Wahabi or Salafi who belong to a different sect of Islam than Hizb-ut-tahrir. Why are we using them as a source for anything to infer onto Hizb-ut-Tahrir?

________________________________________________

First of all, as explained by the original entry, the HT website, and as understood by anyone who understands anything about HT, Hizb Ut Tahrir IS an Islamist movement. We agree on that, right? Islam is the basis of the Caliphate, and so what is understood to be generally accepted in Islam is relevant in this article regarding Hizb Ut Tahrir. The reality is that the Qur'an and Sahih Hadiths are a stronger indication as to what Hizb Ut Tahrir is and what its policies will be than its own constitution, which can be amended or discarded altogether. It is ludicrous to exclude the principles of Islamic theology when discussing what is an Islamist party.

Now on the matter of slavery. Muhammad himself did own slaves, and from amongst his captives after battle he allowed his companions to choose slaves for themselves. Some he took for himself and later wed. This is all documented in the Sahih Hadiths and in his biography. Is there any disputing that Haraam and Halaal are determined by the Qur'an and Sunnah, and that to add rules and regulations that contradict the divine rules is considered 'bidah'(illegal religious innovation)? Muhammad spoke on slavery in his very last sermon before his death, and he didn't ban it. There is no such mahdab of Islam that would argue the Prophet forbid something that was permissible. I dare you to point out any scholar of any mahdab of Islam that disputes this point. If Hizb Ut Tahrir believes in government according to Islam, it must accept this point as well, and that means it MUST accept the legality of slavery as was permitted during the Prophet's lifetime. To ban slavery would be kufr. Whether Hizb Ut Tahrir is open to only a single school of Islamic thought, or all of them (which it states itself to be in its constitution), it MUST accept the legality of slavery as defined and permitted by Muhammad itself.

The statement that I added to the article was that the permissibility of slavery in the Khilafah was a 'legitimate fear', and this statement was intended to direct attention to the fact that the Khilafah would honor no obligation that nations accepted while standing within the walls of secular institutions like the UN. Amibidhrohi 18:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It might help if you were to read Wikipedia:No original research (NOR). This says that we're not allowed to add our own opinions or arguments to articles, even when we're right. We're particularly not allowed to add our own interpretations or our own synthesis of established facts. What you say about Islamism is very interesting, and it certainly improves the article to have that material added, but I think it's coming close to, and may be, original research. An analogy might be if I were writing an article in 1979 about Margaret Thatcher winning her first election. I report that she said: "Where there is despair, we will bring hope; where there is darkness, we will bring light" (based on the Prayer of Saint Francis). And then I add: "As Thatcher is on the right of the Conversative Party, and has declared her admiration for monetarism, any despair felt by working people is likely to deepen, as she begins her inevitable dismantling of the British welfare state." Of course, this would have been true, and obviously so, but I'm not allowed to say it because it's my own political analysis. If I want to include that point, I have to find someone else who has made the same argument, then I can add: "As The Guardian has argued ..." and link to the Guardian article after the sentence.

So I think what needs to happen here is that you find a reputable source who makes these arguments about Hizb ut-Tahrir. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Amibidhrohi, you seem to be defining Islam according to your own extreme opinion, forming your own conclusion, and then ASSUMING hizb_ut'tahrir MUST agree with your own interpretation of it. It is sad that you havn't read this whole discussion before contributing. We have already had the issue of slavery dealt with by kashif, and he categorically disproved any myth that this group believes in slavery, you may not like the idea of a Muslim group rejecting Slavery, you may consider it Kufr(heresy out of Islam) but this group does not accept slavery. I advise you to read the archive of this discussion. kashif said:

"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.'"

This is all in the archive, I advise you to read that.Otherwise you are wasting everyones precious time going over previous issues--Aliyah 20:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to make alterations to the page, alter the section itself that you dispute. As far as I'm concerned, Islam itself is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the DRAFT CONSTITUTION points to the Quran and Sunnah as divine and thus infallible sources. The constitution does NOT point to the opinions of its founder as a source of any kind of knowlege. Considering the extent to which HT has expanded in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, it's likely that most HT members are totally unfamiliar with this man's beliefs. HT proclaims in its constitution that it is open to all Mahdabs of Islam,and since the categorical opposition to all forms of slavery is alien to all accepted Mahdabs of Islam, it is impossible that this opinion will bear any weight practically. What matters is the text of the Qur'an and Hadiths(Sunnah). As long as you can show me the exact places in those two documents (for sake of arguement, forget they are scripture), you have a point. The exact Hadith number in whichever scripture is needed here. Until then, your arguement holds no water. That another arguement took place here on the matter of slavery is irrelevant as well. The Prophet's last sermon spoke of slavery; no explicit and categorical ban was ever spoken of by him in either the Qur'an or the Hadiths. If you have something specific, bring it out. I'll look for souces to back my point to.

On the question of 'original research', in my opinion, I violated no rule that isn't violated by all those who used the HT constution or website as sources. HT's draft constitution states the place of Qur'an and Hadith in the Khilafa that it invisions, and therefore what the Qur'an and Hadiths say are to be considered as documents on which HT stands. This isn't theory, this isn't interpretation. This is an inference made explicitly by the draft constitution of HT. This is so because HT says so.

I also made some changes in sections that were flat out disingenuous. To say women are only prevented from assuming the role of Caliph is simply wrong. They're also barred from appointment as assistants to the Caliph, from being appointed as Governors and Mayors, Chief Judge, and from certain positions amongst the other Judges of the branches of Court. I've mentioned that millitary Jihad is mandatory for all Muslims, and that millitary training is a compulsion on males over 15. This is an important point, and should not be deleted. All these facts are direct references to the constitution.

For the time being, I'm removing the slavery reference because it's causing so much disagreement. I'll research it further, and when I find backing for its legality based on Quran and Hadith, I'll reintroduce the point. I still hold you to your obligation to prove that the Qur'an or Hadiths explicitly and categorically banned slavery. Amibidhrohi 21:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Book 015, Hadith Number 4112.

Chapter : He who emancipates his share in the slave.
'Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.

More to come. Remember, the point here is not whether or not the Prophet encouraged or discouraged slavery. It simply is whether or not he accepted it as legal. Here, clearly he did. If the Hadith proves it to be legal, the Constitution which refers to the Sahih Hadith as divine legislation also deems it legal, and so must the Khilafah as HT defines it. Amibidhrohi 21:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The point is that one of Hizb-ut-Tahrir's officially adopted books (written by it's founder) believe that Islam does not allow slavery, no matter how much you think your interpretation of Islam is better, you may be right, but Hizb-ut-Tahrir have explicitly stated that they think Islam does NOT allow it. This argument is simply unbelievable! This is clearly not nuetral! Thier book "Shakhseeyah al-islamiyyah" is a book officially adopted by them, translated as "The Islamic Personality" on thier website [12] It is irrelevent what you think the Quran should be interprated as, what is relevent is hizb-ut-tahrir clearly don't believe the Quran allows Slavery, no matter how much you may think it does.--Kaashif 10:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Not sure why the headline was "Alleged" when the body of the article is all very solid proof they are anti-semitic. I don't see any reason to give them the benefit of a doubt that doesn't exist. Isn't it sort of like saying "Alleged Racism" for the KKK or "Alleged Anti-Semitism" for the NAZI party? I suppose the only deliniation is that the KKK and NAZIs didn't contest/even embraced the accusations wheras HT simply doesn't address the accusations. They have been through numerous courts, and more than one respected institution has found their rhetoric Anti-Semitic (like the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm) so why not call it as it is?

It's misleading to readers. The inclusion of "alleged" makes it appear there is a debate about whether their platform is racist, when it quite clearly is. This isn't a judgement call, it's a statement of fact. I suppose a heading of "Anti-Semitism" including the evidence against them and any counterpoints the organization has would be prudent... the only problem is nothing I have found indicates they have contested the label.

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"HT simply doesn't address the accusations", "nothing I have found indicates they have contested the label." errr... have you not read thier responses, especially pasted into this very wikipedia article? they have most definately addressed the accusations, and removed the material from their websites. Nazi's and the KKK openly accept they are racist, and it is the fundamental point of their existance, unlike hizb-ut-tahrir. Hizb-ut-Tahrir also share platforms with Gareth Pierce a famous JEWISH human rights lawyer, and jewsnotzionists.org. I have added the MOST recent BBC quote about them to say that this issue is debatable. If they were anti-semetic, they would not share platforms with jews, and jews would not share platforms with them, notwithstanding their own responses to the accusation.--Kaashif 10:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ever listen to KKK rhetoric these days? They no longer argue that they hate blacks or that black people are inferior, but rather that they respect the cultural diversity of the different races. It isn't that they hate blacks, they just wanted to separate races so that we didn't all merge and become one boring mixture. They're just saving the Rainbow. What misunderstood souls!

See, even the worst of hate-driven organizations like the KKK understand a thing or two about marketing their campaign in moderate language so as to attract support and deter opponents. We can't say for sure that HT is withdrawing from its anti-semetic stance. Regardless, that wasn't the point originally made. The point was that HT has historically oficially published anti-semetic articles, and therefore the 'alleged' in the entry shouldn't be there. The anti-semetism was blatant, regardless of whether or not HT later engaged in enough damage control to neutralize the situation.

Amibidhrohi 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea... User "Kaashif" I agree with "Amibidhrohi," just becaust HT pulled their articles (under pressure) I don't think that constitutes a definitive stand against their anti-semitism. All I really pull from that is they don't like the negative connotations of being anti-semitic, they don't particularly have a problem with the idea of hating jews though. Their "rejection" of anti-semitism is simply word play "I'm not antisemitic - i'm anti-zionist." Be real - they use zionism as a euphamism for Jews all the time - it's practically a racial slur in the middle east. Besides if you read the article you would see that there is more than one very well respected source that agrees with me, the German courts for one. Amibidhrohi is absolutely correct on his points about the KKK, especially under and after David Duke. They now claim to be an association to "help european-americans" and it's not that they "hate" blacks, it's that they feel somebody should stick up for white people too. Yea right.

At the end of the day Kaashif you have to look at the evidence and say clearly or not if those articles were antisemitic:

"In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. Even they themselves rarely like each other. He (swt) said: "You would think they were united, but their hearts are divided" [TMQ 59:14] 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? ... Know that the Jews and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah (swt), be destroyed "until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him."

There is nothing "allegedly" anti-semitic about that statement... it's blatently antisemitic. Abdul-Wahid's comments are a fun foray into semantics, but ultimately his arguments are unconvincing in the face of such blatent evidence. HT isn't talking about "Israel" or "the Zionists" in their quotes, they are talking about Jews - all Jews, including Jews in America and Europe, which completely counters Wahids remarks that:

"It would be ridiculous to assume that rhetoric relevant to a population that sees itself under occupation is symptomatic of the viewpoint of Muslims generally, and Hizb-ut-Tahrir specifically, on all issues relating (say) to Jews and Americans."

In fact the quote supra is SPECIFICALLY about Jews outside of the affected area of his Israeli "occupation."

Bare in mind that most criminals always deny their crime - even after being tried and convicted (and Hizb has in numerous courts). They were given the benefit of the doubt in court, they stand convicted, thus they are no longer afforded the accomodation.

1) KKK have a history of actual attacks, discrimination, open campaigning to make racist laws, and refusal to share platforms with blacks. HT have not ever attacked jews, discriminated against them, they share platforms with jews like Gareth Pierce, the MP Edwina Curry, and are not campaigning to make laws specifically against jews even in the caliphate.

2) Anti-semetic was not ever the main thrust or aim of HT unlike the KKK. The main campaigning issue for groups like the KKK is race, be it racist or not. HT's main aim has nothing to do with race, in the same way the British Conservative party's main aims have nothing to do with race, although individual memebrs have made racist remarks.

3) Numerous courts? Only Germany has convicted thier German spokesman of anti-semitism, this does not necessarily mean all HT members are clones of each other, that the leaflet which was anti-semetic was a global policy, or that various brnaches don't have a degree of independence. Otherwise I would believe that all conservatives are racist, despite having black members. There are jewish memebrs of the PLO and Hizb-ut-tahrir. In hizb-ut-tahrir they are jewish by race and Muslim by religion [13] also on: [14], so how could they be racist? If you want to say they are "religionist" that is a whole new argument.

4)You claim "the quote supra is SPECIFICALLY about Jews outside of the affected area of his Israeli "occupation." and "in their quotes, they are talking about Jews - all Jews, including Jews in America and Europe,". Firstly these 2 statemets contradict each other. Secondly you put the term 'occupation' saying "his Israeli "occupation"", you obviously doubt that the Israeli occupation exists, which shows your bias. Thirdly there is no evidence at all that the quote is SPECIFICALLY about Jews outside Israel, in fact the whole leaflet was from the palestinian branch, in the "Palestine" section of thier website, and if you had read the whole leaflet it is all about palestine. Nowhere does it mention jews anywhere else. Can you find any tracts of the thousands written, by any branches outside the middle-east that is racist against jews in thier local area of the world? You would have to find one to prove your theory that they mean all jews globally, not Israeli's.

4) As a non-Arab, non-HT, brit who has lived in the arab world & Palestine, don't lecture me on what is a racial slur in the middle east, and you shouldn't generalise arabs like that. Arabs mostly don't use the term "Zionist" (Sahyooni), they use the term 'al-yahood' - the jews to refer to Israel. For arabs the word 'zionist' is not a euphomism for jews, but "the jews" is a euphomism for Israeli's. You've got it the wrong way around. Just like "the whites" or "the boers" was a euphomnism for black south africans to refer to those whites who believed in the apathied state of South Africa. Boer supremacists argued that the blacks would overturn thier way of life, that they own the land, and that the blacks were against ALL Boers, to discredit the black "communist" movement, similar to what you are trying to do here.

Because you claim they are anti-jewish and anti-Israeli, I will accept a title such as "Anti-Israel and Anti-semitism". How about that? It would be much quicker to agree to this, rather than carry on this debate wouldn't it?

I read the poorly translated (by HT) quote as such, taking into account it's context:

"In origin, no one likes Israel except the Israelis. Even they themselves rarely like each other. He (Allah swt) said: "You would think they were united, but their hearts are divided" [TM-Quran 59:14] The American people do not like Israel nor do the Europeans, because the Israelis by their 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 Israelis whose character is such? ... Know that the Israelis and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah (swt), be destroyed "until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jewish enemy behind me so come and kill him."

I can accept that these statements are xenophopic or 'racist' against Israelis if thats what you want to say.--Kaashif 10:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears you are upset by my arguments Kaashif - in the future I would hope you could avoid ad hom attacks and indictments of my alleged "bias" if you have no more intellectual arguments left I suggest you admit defeat.

Point 1. I don't see what HT having pet Jews has to do with their antisemitism, being an American I can tell you flat out that there is support amongst black people for KKK views and sometimes even the KKK. This is called being an "uncle tom," and is a problem that the black community has had to deal with, comments about the child with the "good hair" or "nice skin" shows up in african american literature often. Should we then give the KKK more credence in their view on race? Hell no, they are terrible people who are exploiting the ignorance forced on older generations in some black communities that are easily targeted because of the institutionalized racist disadvantages present in the American system. Also there are instances in which racial minorities will work in concert with these groups to pursue common interests. Sounds crazy but it happens.

But to give you something more concrete to wrap your head around consider this article http://atheism.about.com/b/a/029959.htm, also have a gander at the wikipedia article about the Klan and the ACLU's legal support of it.

For these reasons I do not see the questionable support of a few token jews to be indicative of an HT reversal on their racist policy.

2. A group's embracing of a racist policy makes the group racist, or in better terms means the group holds racist beliefs - that is all I am arguing for HT. Their antisemitism doesn't have to be the center of their efforts, but as long as it is present and important relevant information about the group it is necessary to point it out and label it as such. The section is appropriately titled "Anti-Semitism" nowhere am I saying that the central purpose of the group is Anti-Semitism as the scholarship simply doesn't support such a conclusion.

3. The German Court is an authority and ruled the remarks antisemitic - seeing as the Germans have a particular expertise in the area I don't see why we should ignore their ruling. I understand your point about there being independence in various branches - but considering the wide array of racist opinions presented in just this article from a diverse number of locations, it is impossible to say this is localized. I don't really understand why you are using the HT distinction between race and religion when clearly from their comments posted on the article they are talking about the Jewish race.

4. I don't really see how those comments are mutually exclusive... besides you are entirely missing the point, your argument and HT's ex post facto defense is that their comments are directed toward Israel, when in that very quote above and in other quotes they are talking about all Jews, and even single out Jews outside Israel - in short, the representative was misrepresenting the organization in light of those quotes. I'm not even going to address your cheap trick accusing me of a bias. I don't see how you can say that nowhere does it say anything about Jews outside Israel in the face of this comment "the American people do not like the Jews nor do the Europeans, because the Jews by their very nature do not like anyone else."

5. This isn't going to get you anywhere, I consider your entire point 5 paragraph a colossal ad hom, and hope that you leave it unchanged for others to judge. I don't know your background, you have no way of prooving your background, but at the end of the day you are attempting a logical fallacy "appeal to authority" in which you claim some level of distinction over me due to your self declared merits. I am not amused by your attempts to say I am generalizing arabs - for all you know I am one.

6. That's a lovely interpretation but the fact of the matter is the original text reads:

"In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. Even they themselves rarely like each other. He (swt) said: "You would think they were united, but their hearts are divided" [TMQ 59:14] 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? ... Know that the Jews and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah (swt), be destroyed "until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him."

As you pointed out yourself the words for Jew and Zionist are different and you claim they are used with care and consideration throughout the middle east, why then would a translator make such a mistake.

It doesn't matter anyway - your challenge of the translator is going to have to be backed up by documented evidence, essentially I am asking "you and what army" because we cannot build articles based on personal appraisals of scholarly work, without equally enticing evidence.

All that said, I disagree with the Anti-Israel Anti-Semitic title, I will leave this to the rest of you but my personal intuition is that there is a danger of equating the anti-israel argument, which has limited merit, with the anti-semitic argument, which does not - to some detriment. Also they are two very different arguments and if addressed should each be given their own seperate headings. --141.195.143.145 16:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ideology

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)

I agree, I think we should use the Opus Dei article as a guide. I think there needs to be the following sections: Philosophy & theology, Political Commentary, Structure and Membership. I did start work on these earlier, go and have a look. I will find them and add them for your views.--Kaashif 10:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy

I removed the "Apostasy left undefined" edits throughout the article. "Apostate" is a word, english for "Murtad" in Arabic which is well-understood by all Muslims. That a piece of liturature didn't define apostasy in text doesn't mean the meaning of the word was meant to be vague. In addition, it's grammatically incorrect to say " the state punished apostasy left undefined with death". I also removed the bit in the Policies section that says killing apostates is mainstream in Sunni/Shia practice and that many Muslim countries practice it. Other than Saudi Arabia, Iran and a few recently Islamicized African countries, no other practices this kind of killing.

Had to revert to an older version of the entry. Some of the changes to the article made the entire piece misleading. For instance, the bit about HT's position on membership in the UN. You made it appear as if the reason for HT's opposition to membership was based on their perception of the UN as being "oppressive". In truth, the constitution bars the khilafa from membership in any organization not founded on Islamic principles. You also edited out some of the professions that women would be barred from, especially that of mayor and governor. Alot of your information is also unsupported with references that I can check up on. Though I am familiar with the Hadith on the "greater Jihad", you didn't provide a source through which readers can verify it. By the way, we also need to clarify here whether or not citing the sunnah of Muhammad and the Qur'an is allowed here. You cannot add in references to Quran and Hadith when it serves your promotional agenda and then bar me from doing the same regarding the issue of slavery. Amibidhrohi 23:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I advise you read the article in wikipedia on Apostacy. The fact that HT left it undefined means it is undefined, and unless you can find a HT definition of it it has to be stated. I know the arabic word for it is Murtad, if it is so well understoof by all muslims why is there ikhtilaf (legal difference) on it's conditions and definition amog muslims? Again you are imposing your understanding of Islam.

I agree that th bit about the UN etc being oppressive can be misleadig, but the way you worded it is also misleading, as aricle 186 continues to say "OR CONTRADICTS ISLAMIC LAWS", not simply no founded on Islam, then carries on to say that treaties with neighbours is fine. So will reword to a neutral version.

I Agree; I will put back the specific things about womens posts in government, although I didnt remove them but moved them to a different place, or generalised to "ruling positions". Please do not remove my additions because they are cited! read the whole text of the refernced webpage.

I DID PROVIDE A SOURCE! Read the referenced webpage. I did not quote the hadith about the greater jihad, I quoted a HT lealet on a HT website, quoting it, so leave it there because it is refernced to a direct HT article. If you want to claim anything about HT, it has to refer to thier websites etc. So i didn't quote a hadith from he sunnah myslef to speculate about how HT would interpret it, I quoted HT quoting the Sunnah, unlike you. I am not trying to promote HT, I do not like them, they are irresponsible, xenephobic, etc, so to accuse me of that is insulting. You seem to be obsessed with trying to prove they believe in slavery, simply because they believe in the Quran and Sunnah, which is bogus.--Kaashif 10:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

: DONT REMOVE THE NPOV nuetrality warning, that is unfair, and dishonest!

And here I was convinced that you were a paid employee of Hizb Ut Tahrir. Is this an islamist version of the "Fair and Balanced" cliche? You've altered the article several times, changing to protray HT as a moderate, almost liberating organization. On the apostasy issue, how many words in the constitution are undefined? Why add the 'left undefined' suffix after apostasy and not have those two words following EVERY word used in the HT constitution that isn't explicitly defined? Go and ask a leader or follower of HT for the definition of apostasy, nobody will tell you it's 'undefined'. Also, you listed countries that have 'laws' for killing apostates. Where did you come up with this list? I'm from Bangladesh, there is NO law there that has apostates put to death. I do not know about the other countries, but I doubt some of the countries you mentioned practices the killing of apostates. Do your research. Post your sources. Also, it's you who posted that HT holds that everything is permissible and legal what isn't prohibited in the Quran. Slavery isnt prohibited. As for the matter of HT feeling the UN and IMF and World Bank are oppressive, wouldn't it be more meaningful to point out that HT opposes EVERYTHING that isn't Islamist in its purpose and Islamic in origins? HT's also opposed to democracy, capitalism, socialism, and 'compromise' Amibidhrohi 16:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed "This however, according to the UK leader of the party on UK's Channel 4 programme on the 4th August 2005 [15], comes 'with the proviso that civilians are not targetted'," because that's not what the source says, and it's not even a Channel 4 source.

I also removed "and anti-Israel" from the anti-Semitism section because it's not the anti-Israel material that people objected to, but the anti-Semitic material, and the section is about the party's anti-Semitism.

And I removed the BBC quote that had been tacked onto the end of that section, because it would have been the third quote from the party in there, it didn't say anything new, and it didn't say anything accurate. Party members have elsewhere made it clear that the party does not condemn violence.

Kaashif, I have to ask you again to stop inserting Hizb ut-Tahrir POV. Please read our editorial policies carefully: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability. These state that we represent majority and significant-minority published views, and we do not represent tiny-minority ones, except in articles devoted to them. The views of this party are tiny-minority ones, and this is an article devoted to them. In such articles, we make it very clear that this is a tiny-minority view, and we avoid where possible relying on the party's own websites and publications. Wherever possible, we use third-party, credible, published sources. If you think what the sources are saying is wrong, you'll have to take that up with them, but not with Wikipedia. We can't insert your opinion about what the party really meant when it said to kill all Jews wherever you find them. You think they were simply attacking Israel. Fine, that's your opinion. But it's not the opinion of other reputable sources e.g The Guardian, which sacked a trainee journalist because he was a member of a party the Guardian regards as anti-Semitic. It's a liberal, left-of-center newspaper, which is itself not pro-Israel, so we ought to take seriously what it says.

Regarding the NPOV tag, if it's to stay, you must make reasonable suggestions for change so it could come down, and these must be in accordance with our policies. For example, if you want to claim that it's POV to say they are anti-Semitic, you must find reputable, third-party, published sources saying they are not anti-Semitic, because there are reputable sources aplenty who say they are. If you can't do that, you must take the tag down, and ditto for your other objections. Both sides must supply independent sources, not Hizb ut-Tahrir sources. That doesn't mean we ignore what Hib ut-Tahrir says, but we don't rely on it, we don't prioritize it, and we don't present it as fact.

We don't use Charles Manson as the main source on the Manson murders, or neo-Nazis as the main source on what Nazism is, and the same principle applies here.SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I re-added the quote from the BBC as it was not, as you claim, a quote from the party as you claimed. I also added "controversy". I will add further comments soon, regards. --Kaashif 14:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a view attributed to Hizb ut-Tahrir, and there is no need for it. Their views are already given lots of space in that section and elsewhere, probably too much already. We need more third-party views, not more Hizb ut-Tahrir. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Kaashif, please don't delete any more material. Add your own material if you want, but don't delete or change anyone else's. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm blind, but could you show me where in that BBC article the quote is attributed to hizb-ut-tahrir? It is not. It is the words of the BBC themselves. Please re-insert the quote. Also it seems I have added my owne material but it is also constantly removed. There is nothing in that linked article which shows animosity towards non-Muslims that suffered in the quake. Amibidhrohi needs to stop speculating and adding his own opinions without proof. He is still insisting that thye believe in slavery because they believe in the quran.

"Hizb ut-Tahrir wants an Islamic state across the Middle East and has been accused of anti-Semitism because it opposes the existence of Israel - it, however, insists that it opposes violence." Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that it opposes violence. The BBC is attributing the insistence to Hizb ut-Tahrir. Had the BBC wanted to attribute the view to itself, it would have written "Hizb ut-Tahrir opposes violence."

As for the other, I didn't read it. If you delete material, your edits will be reverted, even if you've added other valuable material, especially now, because this has been going on for too long, and no one has time to follow you around tidying your edits. I'm sorry to write in this way, but this really has gone too far. You say you're not a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, and I'm assuming good faith and believing you. All I can say is that you write as though you're one, and we're not allowed to act as advocates for any particular group. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Advocacy of any kind is not allowed. If you want your material to stick, please stop using Hizb ut-Tahrir as a source (or at least find others too), write in accordance with our policies, and don't delete material. Then no one will have reason to revert you. Sorry again to write in this way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh! :-) "Hizb ut-Tahrir wants an Islamic state across the Middle East and has been accused of anti-Semitism because it opposes the existence of Israel - it, however, insists that it opposes violence." OK, lets remove the bit that says "it, however, insists that it opposes violence." This is the only part attributed to hizb-ut-tahrir, the aerlier part of it is the BBC's words.--Kaashif 15:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, is it the first bit you were talking about? I wondered what you meant. Sure, you can put that in, though it will look a little lame, if that's the only source you can find. You have to understand that the BBC never attributes a view to itself, unless it prefaces it with something like "the BBC has learned," and names a particular show or quotes a particular journalist. Then they're taking ownership of the view. But in a website piece like the one you're linking to, these are not the BBC's views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin SlimVirgin, I am going to change the title back to "anti-Semitism" removing the controversial part added by Kaashif without any explanation or defense - rather he simply told us he was doing it. I can only assume that he was changing/deleting material without explanation contrary to your warning, given what appears to be in response to those changes. Since I am new to wikipedia I will defer to your judgement in the matter but I thought I should give you some explanation for why I reverted the title. Also, could we perhaps get a ruling, or some sort of action on the still unsubstantiated claim that HT is challenging the ruling of the German courts? The citation needed notice has been there for quite a while, is there a next step in resolving this issue? Thanks! --141.195.143.145 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi 141, I personally don't mind the controversy and anti-Semitism header, because it's very factual. Regarding the German courts edit, if someone has asked for a citation and no one has supplied one within a reasonable period, the material may be deleted. A few days is usually regarded as enough, and sometimes people remove uncited, challenged material immediately and bring it to the talk page. Either is acceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tried cleaning up the grammar and spelling issues. I think we have a 'too many cooks' problem with this article. ALso removed the POV warning, as just about all the info here seems factual. No more reverting please, edit it directly if there's more information that needs to be added or if anything needs correcting. Amibidhrohi 19:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The site needs a few images. Right now it looks like a college report.

"Destroy the infidels" was added as part of the vandalism, with no source

I am removing the destroy the infidels bit.--Aliyah 21:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Caps

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)

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)

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 {{fairuse}}, 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)

Confusing sentence

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)

Faithfreedom.org

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)

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)

I didn't realize it had the whole thing. I'll take a look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Is the original page from the Hizb ut-Tahrir website not accessible via the Internet Archive? GCarty 13:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope Jaco plane 17:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly homemade leaflet, scanned into Adobe PDF document, uploaded onto a blog, hijacking document must be properly sourced or not included

This source is totally incredible, and unless you can provide a reliable source for such beliefs it should not be allowed. If you can prove that the scanned A4 leaflet, which appears to be a home made, home printed leaflet scanned into a PDF, is official HT policy then i am happy to let it go up.

Also the link to the alleged inclusion of andalus as part of Muslim land is non-existent. So removing.

The Jewish virtual Library is not a neutral source

It is a "Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise" as they themselves say so. They are Zionist, right-wing pro-Israelis. Also the report referenced was rejected by the EU as they state at the top.

And your point is? Or, more precisely, your POV is... not needed. AJD 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it is not an objective, nuetral, or balanced source of information, therefore unacceptable as a reference. The report was also rejected by the EU after they asked for it. This is not my POV, this is according to the rules of nuetrality. The other better referenced quotes about jewish people are enough to put the point accross anyway.

Totalitarian? Let people decide that themselves

I quote: "Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of single-party state, secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people)." [16]

Hizb ut-Tahrir have stated that their Caliphate will not do many of the above things, so i don't believe they neatly fit into this sweeping definition.

Would you please sign your posts with four tilads (~) please. I think that it is clear, once you think about what they say, that they will, in factm do precisely this. They do fit neatly into that category as most Islamic parties do. Maududi and Qutb were open about it. But HuT merely try to dress it up a little. Lao Wai 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And I quote: "Totalitarianism is a term employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior." [17] As every aspect of public and private behaviour will be regulated by the caliph, Hizb ut-Tahrir's aim is to see the imposition of just such a regime. Hence, I have reinstated the reference in the article removed by 74.96.100.163 (talk). AJD 18:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Every aspect of public and private behaviour will be regulated by the caliph (According to who? proof needed), Hizb ut-Tahrir's aim is to see the imposition of just such a regime." please provide proof for this too. Don't give your own opinion, tell us where "every aspect" will be controlled by the caliph above and beyond other regimes that are not considered totalitarian. Also a qualifying factor must be the use of secret police and a single party state. 193.115.70.9 14:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't keep deleting, you may see the proof in the article and the associated references. This does not come from my opinion, but from an HT website: "The idea upon which Hizb ut-Tahrir is established, which is embodied in its members and which it works to melt the Ummah with, so that she takes it as her issue, is the Islamic idea, i.e. the Islamic 'aqeedah together with the laws which originate from it and the thoughts which are built upon it.

"From this idea the Party has adopted the amount which it needs as a political party that is working to bring Islam into society i.e. to embody Islam in ruling, relationships and the various affairs of life. The Party has explained everything it has adopted in detail in its books and leaflets which it has published, together with detailed evidences for every rule, opinion, thought and every concept."

And further, ...The principle that the basis of actions is to be restricted to the Hukm Shar'i (the Shari'ah ruling) and therefore no action is performed until its ruling is known... Also, ...the basis for every Muslim is to restrict all his actions by the Shari'ah rules... And lastly, ...The Shari'ah has given the possessor the power over what he owns so he can dispose of it. But the Law-Giver has defined the means by which a person can possess and invest capital, as well as the ways to dispose of it...

From all these statements, (all to be found on an archived HT website [18]), HT wants to regulate all aspects of life. Not my opinion: what they state.

A totalitarian regime has total control over its systems: the caliphate, too, will exercise total control over its realm. The instruments of state necessary for that will not be different. A totalitarian regime needn't restrict political activity to a single party, but have a system to control their activity. "The Muslims have a right (by Islam) to form political parties for the purpose of accounting the rulers or for establishing the government through the Ummah. There is, however, a pre-condition: these parties should be founded on the Islamic belief and doctrine, and the laws and solutions that they adopt should be solely Islamic laws and solutions." A totalitarian regime must also have one system for control. "The system of government in Islam, which is the system of Khilafah, is a unitary system of one state and not a federal system. And Muslims all over the world are not allowed to have more than one Islamic State, nor to have more than one Khaleefah who rules them by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, i.e., he implements the Islamic Law, because Shari'ah evidences has established this and prohibited the existence of more than one state,..." HT is out to implement Sharia and a system of government that is universal, unable to be challenged and ruled by a caliph, alone. They, therefore, want a totalitarian regime. AJD 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not how our policies work. It is no good putting in your own opinion, however strongly you can defend it on the talk page. We do not present facts and then draw an inference of our own preceded by the word "ergo". That is OR and the words themselves become a POV adopted by Wikipedia. It is, indeed, correct to let readers draw their own inferences rather than drawing them on their behalf. I suggest you let this drop. I also suggest you avoid uncivil edit summaries in future, as I have warned you on your talk page. Metamagician3000 15:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The European Court's judgement on a form of Shariah is beyond the scope of this article

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)

Please provide a reference for the ECHR quote, and show some evidence that they referred to all forms interpretation of shariah, as opposed to a perticular interpretation in e.g. Saudi or Iran or the interpretation of Al-qaida, which this organisation is clearly opposed to; be it in the form of Al-qaida or in the form of Saudi or Iran. Otherwise I do not believe that the quote from the ECHR is relevent or proportionate because all Muslim believe in some form of Shariah or another, but the various forms differ greatly, do we include this quote in all articles related to all Muslim groups? Shariah law is not a static monologue, just as secular liberalist socialist law is not a monologue, some socialists are like the Labour party in the UK, whereas some are totally against 'private ownership of the means of production'. Aaliyah Stevens 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Sharia: democracy and human rights for background. AJD 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You've proved my point, that ECHR ruling was due to the Turkish Refah party's push for a dual legal system in Turkey, "Refah's sharia based notion of a "plurality of legal systems, grounded on religion" was ruled to contravene the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", ...... however "On the other side, legal scholar L. Ali Khan determines "that constitutional orders founded on the principles of Sharia are fully compatible with democracy, provided that religious minorities are protected and the incumbent Islamic leadership remains committed to the right to recall".[16][17] However, Christian Pippan argues, that this contradicts the political reality in most Islamic states."

Hizb-ut-tahrir do not share with Refah the concept of dual legal systems, and also do not accept the ridiculous mis-application of so called Shariah in so called Islamic states, rather as this article points out, this party seeks to remove these "Islamic" states. Anyway, it is clear that the ECHR was referring to a specific case it had to deal with, and cannot be applied to all forms of shariah - i.e. Islamic law. I have found an interesting article by a supporter of Hizb-ut-tahrir on this: http://hassanandhabibah.blog.co.uk/2006/09/12/scrap_pakistan_s_pro_rape_hudood_laws_aa~1147541

Aaliyah Stevens 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)