Hizb-ut-Tahrir - A Threat to Western Societies?

[Holger Danske]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an international, Sunni, pan-Islamist vanguard political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and headed by an elected head of state. They reject democracy as western and unislamic[....]

Long story short:
Should we (the western societies) go ahead and ban this organisation, despite being against the principle of democracy, as they clearly stand as a threat to democracy itself?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

If they can ban the NPD, I don't see how they can't ban it.

[danzig]

They have been around since 50s and their goal is to unite the muslim world...Id say their level of success in this area answers the question on whether they are a threat. Just more of the same standard extremist morons.

[Holger Danske]

If we can ban neo-nazi's for being... Nazi's.. Then we should be able to ban these morons, as their ideology is a threat towards democracy itself.

[Last Roman]

meh, I really can't see how it will do any good to ban them. Their idea of a united Muslim nation probably won't get much support, guessing from the current situation.

[Holger Danske]

true, but it's more a matter of "principles"... and i've never seen them as a REAL threat... Just hated the idea that someone like them could operate within a western country, corrupting the muslim citizens to become "hostile"

[Kiljan Arslan]

Don't ban them Ridicule them! Make them a joke.

[Aristophanes]

Don't ban them Ridicule them! Make them a joke.

That would be a good idea, if it weren't for the fact that making fun of these organizations is a violation of the status quo, likely to excite the opprobrium of media personalities, radicals, activists, and pc police the world over...not to mention previous incidents demonstrate the stark mortality of individuals who ridicule these fascists.

In Canada, there have been several cases recently, most notably involving Ezra Levant, and the venerable Maclean's Magazine, where the state has pursued individuals and publications which have attempted this course of action, despite the generally innocuous nature of the satire, or ridicule employed.

[Tajir]

Hahaha...I find it ironic how most Western posters on TWCenter turn their extreme vanguard of their racial existence and cultural proliferation into some type of vanguard for democracy.

Now, the idea of one Islamic state (no, this doesn't include France or England, LOL) is a great idea if its a populist movement. If this organization isn't moving tanks into Damascus or fire bombing Jerusalem into submission (like Hiroshima and Nagasaki), I don't find a problem. But, this could be because I'm Muslim and I like the idea, but its also got to do with the fact that media today likes to vilify anything related to Muslims or Islam.

I don't know why they would be banned in any country, since warmonger Tony Blair himself said that they haven't committed any acts of terrorism or anti-state elements thus far:

"Most of the structured organisations, e.g. Hizb ut-Tahrir, will not directly advocate violence. Indeed membership or sympathy with such an organisation does not in any way presuppose a move towards terrorism."

"Most of the structured organisations, e.g. Hizb ut-Tahrir, will not directly advocate violence. Indeed membership or sympathy with such an organisation does not in any way presuppose a move towards terrorism."

"We have yet to see convincing evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organization advocates violence or terrorism. Nor are we aware of any co-operation between it and Al Qaeda."

[jankren]

I dont like them either. They never really got much support in Indonesia. But thanks to the ongoing "crusades" in some parts of the world, lately they have managed to gather much more support among Indonesian Muslim population by playing the "Islam is under threat" card.

[MasterAdnin]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an international, Sunni, pan-Islamist vanguard political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and headed by an elected head of state. They reject democracy as western and unislamic[....]

Long story short:
Should we (the western societies) go ahead and ban this organisation, despite being against the principle of democracy, as they clearly stand as a threat to democracy itself?

So you're afraid of a unified Islamic state? Besides, look at your own post, "ruled by Islamic law and headed by an ELECTED head of state." If they're not Wahabbi or Salafi, then I do not really mind. Also depends on what views are. If they just reject democracy, then I do not see a problem, if they are like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, then yes, they should be banned.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Heinz Guderian]

We tried to ban them in Britain after the 7th July bombings. But all the reports published by the government security agencies say they are not a threat.

Some people consider them to be a rather good alternative for people who are disaffected as they have been described as a group who sit around and talk alot. Mostly intelligensia types, professionals who like to discuss rather than act.

The security services have not found any links between violence or militancy and Hizbut Tahrir.

[Tajir]

We tried to ban them in Britain after the 7th July bombings. But all the reports published by the government security agencies say they are not a threat.

Some people consider them to be a rather good alternative for people who are disaffected as they have been described as a group who sit around and talk alot. Mostly intelligensia types, professionals who like to discuss rather than act.

The security services have not found any links between violence or militancy and Hizbut Tahrir.

Do they have to blow things up to prove they are an active party?

Does Labour have to go around bashing people in the heads to prove that they are real?

About Hizbut Tahrir, do they want to have Shariah law in England too? I thought they were campaigning on behalf of the Muslim-majority nations in the world?

[Heinz Guderian]

Do they have to blow things up to prove they are an active party?

i..i dont understand. They are an active party. They were banned on uni campuses (campi?) for several years until it was lifted because they presented no threat to civil society.

Does Labour have to go around bashing people in the heads to prove that they are real?

I..guess not..?

About Hizbut Tahrir, do they want to have Shariah law in England too? I thought they were campaigning on behalf of the Muslim-majority nations in the world?

If they wanted Shariah law in the UK, they would be rather optimistic. I think their goals are to replace corrupt middle eastern regimes with elected representatives (i dont understand why Condi doesnt love HT).

[Tajir]

i..i dont understand. They are an active party. They were banned on uni campuses (campi?) for several years until it was lifted because they presented no threat to civil society.


I..guess not..?



If they wanted Shariah law in the UK, they would be rather optimistic. I think their goals are to replace corrupt middle eastern regimes with elected representatives (i dont understand why Condi doesnt love HT).

Nevermind my earlier ranting, but that last part about their goals...they seem like a decent organization. But its these kinds of organizations that are normally hated by Washington anyway; what's bad for the middle east is good for the fat cats.

[Holger Danske]

You see Dahir, Nazi parties are a lesser threat to democracy, yet people in the west are more concenred about banning them than a party that openly states it 's goal is to take down every single thing our societies have been built on.
That, and the fact that they're fracking up alot of young immigrants with their sick ideologies.

I don't care if you live in a country ruled by Sharia, Dahir, I really don't! But i'm an not going to accept that these morrons are trying to rob me from all the freedoms that I value - like the freedom of not being enslaved by religion: e.g. the right to eat pork, drink pints, listen to all kinds of music, and to enjoy the company of women to whom i'm not married with (Sex outside of marriage).

In other words: I enjoy being able to satisfy all of my natural instincts, without having priest, imams, whatever telling me what to think and do.

So, this is, in no way, an attack on Muslims as you might think.

[Каие]

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an international, Sunni, pan-Islamist vanguard political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and headed by an elected head of state. They reject democracy as western and unislamic[....]

Long story short:
Should we (the western societies) go ahead and ban this organisation, despite being against the principle of democracy, as they clearly stand as a threat to democracy itself?

As i said in the other thread if banning parties in the western world was an option, then many parties would be banned already but
I know what i said before but a party which is peaceful is a party, whether it is monarchist, communist, islamist or nationalist.

Thats what democracy is. All ideologies and stupid thoughts allowed as long as its peaceful and legitimate.


and for the tenth time, they are not getting rid of democracy, voting is still allowed in their Utopian world, but just to elect the caliph not president.