The Double Standard of Banning Hizb ut Tahrir

Talk is constantly revolving around proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) especially in Europe.  Meanwhile HT's activity is banned in the majority of Muslim countries. Yet, Western regimes with the exception of Germany and Russia allow HT to assemble publicly and privately.  All the while, Arab and Central Asian regimes take lead from their U.S. and European superiors.  Why the double standard of attempted proscription and the persecution of its members and supporters in Muslim countries?

As recently as May this year, David Cameron was explicit about his desire to see the group banned. In reply to a question from the Labour MP and former home secretary Alan Johnson, he said: "We are clear that we must target groups that promote extremism, not just violent extremism. We have proscribed one or two groups. I would like to see action taken against Hizb ut-Tahrir, and that review is under way."

The Tory 2010 election manifesto was explicit in its promise to ban the group. It stated that a Conservative government would "ban any organization which advocates hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir."

Where did the touts of democracy go?  The calls of freedom of speech, expression, and assembly all go?   The call to spread democracy throughout the lands?  All this is ironic since Western-backed enforcers harshly dictate severe torture-filled prison sentences upon those simply call for ideas.  The contradiction is clear that HT's methodology follows a strict and rigid method of the Prophet's Muhammad (pbuh) which did not advocate material means to achieve their goal. Essentially, HT expresses their ideas through debates, literature, and websites.

The important question remains: What is so threatening about Hizb ut-Tahrir? Why do agent-rulers violently and aggressively crack down on HT members and supporters declaring their leaflets terrorist-based evidence and subject them to long and unjust prison sentences like the Karimov-torture-filled prisons?  We constantly witness security experts, various think-tanks, and politicians try to pass laws banning HT.

Let us "dismantle" this strange and contradictory logic piece by piece.

The first and crucial point is that HT does not in any way pose a direct threat to the United States, Europe, or Russia.  Since HT does not seek to establish an Islamic State in Western countries, its coursework does not "intimidate" the regime in place.   Furthermore, if HT did pose a direct threat, the U.S. and the European Union would immediately ban the party like it did with other groups who call for armed-based resistance especially following the incidents of September 11 and July 7.

Yet despite banning other militant-style groups, think-tanks and governments have yet to concretely link HT with violent acts despite what the media propaganda churns out/ portrays. Lord Carlile, the previous counter-terrorism reviewer, told the Guardian he was not aware of any plans to ban the group and believed that the government would be forced into a U-turn. "I don't think anything is going to happen ... I think the general view is that Hizb ut-Tahrir are best dealt with in public debate rather than by proscription," he said.

Hizb ut-Tahrir's aim is to establish an Islamic State in Muslim majority countries yet they stall and place severe obstacles in the people's path to hinder and halt efforts to implement what the actual populations demand and desire to be ruled directly by Islam.  The agent-rulers are very careful to implement what their superior's demand of them.

So where did the so-called glorious banner of democratic self-appointed rule doctrines go?

Why stop Muslims in their countries from ruling by the laws they desire? Why the hypocrisy---the dictatorship of implementing foreign and domestic enforced policies and doctrines upon people desiring another ideology?

Manal Bader

Bayt Al-Maqdes