Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir/Archive 2

NPOV
I have added a Neutral Point of View rating in response to the ongoing claims below that this page reads like propaganda for HT. Given that the internet elsewhere contains plenty of claims that HT is linked to terrorism, it is important that they be included here. With any luck, we can get some neutral experienced Wiki editors to come in and apply Wiki standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandigram (talk • contribs) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC Newsnight report
This is starting to read like HT's defence against the news report, with lots of direct quotes lifted from their own website. This appears to be POV to me. Shouldn't this be edited to remove the blatant politicking? Eddie Tour 15:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

HT britain should be merged with this article
Any objections?

Well, HT Britain is worth a seperate article in itself, because it is largely believed that the group is heaeded from London, and London decides policy for the rest of the world. Also the UK is one of the only places they are completely open and vocal, and they have a unique history in the UK, so I think they should stay seperate BUT the HT Britain article should be updated, I for one didn't know it was there. The general HT one should focus on generic HT ideas, as opposed to the peculiarities of a branch. 81.192.28.109 10:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, I will move out country specific info to the other articles, any objections? Aaliyah Stevens 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've merged the two, per the exchange on the other talk page. This article is only 35 kilobytes long, so there's no need for subpages. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Constitution link was broken (http 404)
The link to the English-Language version of the draft constitution was returning a "404 not found" - so have linked back to the latest available version cached on web.archive.org (Sep 27th 2007): possibly the constitution has moved within the site itself, so if it has and somebody knows where it is, please relink to the current version. Bear in mind that this is used a citation for sentence describing policy, and that the constitution was draft - so need to double check all that still lines up. Monowiki (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits need to be discussed before you commit them to the article
Please read wikipedia's NPOV policy.


 * 1) You cannot claim this group is terrorist, it has never been proven to be involved in any terrorist activity - in fact cleared of such accusations by ASIO and British intelligence as stated in the article and referenced.
 * 2) Please do not delete statements, instead ask for citations, but do not ask for citations when the point is cited in a proceeding sentence.
 * 3) The heritage foundation's own references are blank for some of the claims made about this group, e.g. one reference simply cites a website like khilafah.com without reference to the particular article or statement. Right-wing think tanks are under no legal obligation to be nuetral at all, so are not really credible unless substantiated by other nuetral sources.

Aaliyah Stevens 11:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This group has killed over 400 people in Kazakhstan through car bombings and assassinations. The group's founder openly called for the violent overthrow of non-Islamic governments in his The Islamic State. HT declared a holy war on the Kazakh police in 2003. You removed content that does not fit your outlook and undid substantial cleanup efforts. I suspect you are a member of HT and that you are responsible for the recent attempts to whitewash this groups ties to terrorism. However, as I must assume good faith, I wont warn you for your vandalism in case your edits were unrelated to previous anonymous ones. KazakhPol 19:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, you say on my user talk page: "This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Next time you will be blocked". This was the First time you warned me, not the last implying I have been warned before (see Civility) What I did was not Vandalism look up the meaning of the word (see Vandalism)! Who are you to block me anyway?. Let's not get personal! You say HT are terrorist, then you suspect me of being a member, so you are saying I am a member of a terror group! FYI I am NOT a member, they do not even exist where I live, so calm down (see Assume_good_faith), I repeat let's not get personal. (see No_personal_attacks)

Now to your points, unless you can prove your claims and reference them to credible sources they cannot be put up! HT have never been proven to be invloved in any terrorist activity, you have provided no evidence that they killed anyone in Kazakhstan. YOu must be mixing them up with another group. British and Australian intelligence, and Human Righst groups (as referenced in the previous article you wiped) recognise this fact, hence they cannot be banned unlike The_Saviour_Sect and Al Ghurabaa.

by Aaliyah Stevens 10:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI for referees HT's condemnation of terrorism & attacked by Al-Qaida + what the experts say
Hizb ut-Tahrir states on its website: "The party disseminates its thoughts through discussion with the masses, study circles, lectures, seminars, leaflet distribution, publishing books and magazines and via the Internet. We encourage people to attend our demonstrations, marches and vigils."

HT directly forbid terrorism & ask members to report terrorists to police
After Sep 11th 2001, Hizb ut Tahrir issued a leaflet on September 18, 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."

Dr. Abdul-Wahid, british spokesman for the party obliged members to report any acts of violence or terror to the police as a religious duty:

"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."

HT directly criticise Al-Qaida linked group
On Friday 3 February 2006, in response to the publication of editorial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, around 400 protestors from the extreme UK-based takfiri groups al-Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect staged a protest march. The protesters waved placards advocating violence against those who published the cartoons. Hizb-ut-Tahrir responded the next day with a demonstration, which attracted around 1000, and a press statement saying:

"While strongly condemning the publication of these caricatures, we in no way condone the conduct of those who are urging violent protests or inciting hatred against others as stated at yesterday's demonstration, the Muslim community in Britain must be vocal in protest, but should not stoop to the level of those who have provoked our community... We would like to point out for the record that we will not tolerate the incitement of violence or hatred. At this juncture, the way forward is... in sincere and robust intellectual debate and dialogue regarding Islam and the West."

Al-qaida attack HT
(It is well known that Jihadists hold no love for HT, e.g. in Uzbekistan the al-qaida linked IMU have been critical of HT, and in Palestine, HT's homeland & where thier leaders are from, Hamas have always criticised HT for not getting invloved in or allying themselselves in the 'Jihad'):

An Al-Qaida linked group called Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain or the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, issued a press release (No.5) with a photocopy of a book written by Al-Qaida members entitled “Une nouvelle vision des débiles et des modérés” or "A New Insight Into Weak and Moderate (Muslims)" listing Hizb ut-Tahrir's stance against violence as weak, and accusing it of being moderate, rather than strictly religious.

Expert opinion
According to a leaked unpublished government report produced for Tony Blair, revealed to the Guardian Newspaper printed on 8th August 2005, the prime minister has been advised that HT is not involved in violence or terrorism. Last year a paper, called ‘Young Muslims and Extremism’, was prepared for Mr Blair on the orders of the home and foreign secretaries. It says: "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." The document adds that young people attracted to terrorism may shy away from HT because they do not espouse violence, and would be seen as only engaged in “pointless pontification and debate”. It has also been revealed that Tony Blair has forced home office officials to accept a ban on HT, despite their warnings 2 weeks prior to this petition, that they were against banning HT. (see author of this at Hassan and Habibah)

"Hizb ut-Tahrir [HT] is an independent political party that is active in many countries across the world. HT's activities centre on intellectual reasoning, logic arguments and political lobbying. The party adheres to the Islamic Shariah law in all aspects of its work. It considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, a violation of the Islamic Shariah." (Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under the Freedom of Information Act)

"Hizb ut-Tahrir - Lines to take if extensive coverage is given in the media: Freedom of thought and speech key element of our society. Our tradition that there is a place for those who disagree with the way we do things – unless they espouse violence as a way to achieve their ends." (Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under FOI Act)

"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." (UK FCO Minister Bill Rammell, Hansard, 19/4/04)

"Hizb ut-Tahrir quite explicitly disavows violence as its means for achieving power." (John Schoeberlein, Director of Harvard University’s Central Asia program)

It will be impossible to see Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. If Hizb ut-Tahrir resorts to violence then it can be described as a terrorist organisation. Further more Hizb ut-Tahrir, as it stands, cannot be proscribed as a terrorist organisation." (Verdict Turkish Second State Security Court, 13/4/04)

Hizb ut-Tahrir does not advocate a violent overthrow of Muslim regimes... Instead HT believes in winning over mass support, believing that one day these supporters will rise up in peaceful demonstrations and overthrow the regimes of Central Asia (Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: the Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia)

"Hizb ut-Tahrir has shown dissatisfaction on the policies of the [Pakistan] government which is the right of each and every citizen?I am unable to understand as to how distribution of these pamphlets in the general public was termed as terrorism or sectarianism.? (Multan Bench, Lahore High Court, March 2005)

"Ata Abu Rushta, spokesperson for the Hizb ut-Tahrir, Liberation Party in Jordan, a party seeking to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in February by the State Security Court for lese-majesty under Article 195(1) of the Penal Code in connection with an interview he had given to the newspaper al-Hiwar. The statements on which the charges were based did not advocate violence." (Amnesty International Report, 1997)

The group (HT) has never been overtly involved in any violent actions, and Hizb ut-Tahrir has long claimed it wants to achieve its objectives through nonviolent means. It has so far not been involved in any known terrorist activities

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, wrote on these pages this week that the three-month internment power was now the "one major sticking point" - and changes to the glorification clause, he thought, meant that it was "a lot better" and that non-violent organisations such as the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir could not be banned.

"The United States Government is continuing to monitor Hizb ut-Tahrir. Despite the statements of governments of the region, the United States has found no clear ties between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activity. Hizb ut -Tahrir has not been proven to have involvement in or direct links to any recent acts of violence or terrroism. Nor has it been proven to give financial support to other groups engaged in terrorism. Because of that, it falls outside the definitions used by the United States and others to designate a terrorist group."'''


 * "While Karimov insists that the non-violent Islamic organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir was behind the 30 July bombings in Tashkent, observers say warn that the government's repressive policies have given life to a new kind of extremist opposition...A considerable number of regional political observers and human rights activists dispute the official Uzbek view..."


 * "(Russian state) "Official support" by the Spiritual Directorate means repressions against Islamic organizations that act independently of the official structures. This includes local Muslim communities (jamaats), regional branches of non-violent international fundamentalist organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and others. Seeing no difference between non-violent Muslim civic NGOs and real terrorists, Russian authorities have declared a "holy war" on all independent Muslim communities in Russia

Quality of references and article severly declined
For example there seems to be a coordinated attempt in the last month by editors to repetitively insert terrorism into the equation, despite my above posts proving otherwise, KazakhPols edits:


 * Yamin Zakaria, a former senior Hizb ut-Tahrir member, told BBC News in August 2003 that HT seeks the "violent overthrow of the established order."

The above reference article does not quote Mr Zakaria saying such a thing, rather it claims to be a "Secret Zionist Report On The Hizb" written by some "secret" zionists. The webpage this report is on is MPACUK's and these "secret zionists" actually state that HT are not violent at all, not to mention MPACUK is a political lobying group hence not an objective reference. MPACUK actually are posing in defence of HT.

Another Example under the Britain section KazakhPol has inserted


 * "It reported that an HT terror cell...."

And another silly example under Bangladesh and India section


 * "Hizb ut-Tahrir worked other terrorist organizations in Bangladesh - Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh and Harkat-ul Jihad Al-Islam - to bomb several cities in Bangladesh on 17 August 2005.[21][22][23]"

Not to mention the poor english of this editor, reference 22, and 23 do not mention anything about HT at all. Reference 21 quotes only one non-official individual who seems to be blaming HT out of the blue, despite the official investigation & police never accused HT, and HT themselves condemned the bombings, which was mentioned in the last sound version of this article now changed by this editor.

This article was at a reasonable high standard before it seems people with an agenda to malign this organisation with terrorism started editing. Aaliyah Stevens 14:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the supposed decline in quality of this article, prior to my edits, most of this consisted of one copyright violated theft of text taken straight from HT's website. The rest of the article was primarily uncited, in passive tense, and completely whitewashed this organization's long history of terrorist attacks. I did not understand MPACKUK's badly written parody, so thanks for removing that. I'm unsure of why you keep saying my English is poor. Is it because of my username that you are inferring I cannot speak English? I find that somewhat amusing. If I thought that references I have provided so far proved my point on HT's involvement in the Bangladesh terror attacks then I would have removed the TotallyDisputed template. As for HT's 'condemnation' of the bombings, I would remind the other editor that Al Qaeda initially denied and condemned the 9/11 terror attacks, claiming they were a pretext to attack Muslims, and then later admitted responsibility. KazakhPol 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that there has been some deterioration, particularly with the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
Just a small point about including quotes. It's important to include HT's position when it's criticized, but if we include quote after quote from their spokespersons, the article starts to look like an HT press release, and it becomes a bit dull to read. Also, please don't put quotes in italics; either use quotation marks, or if in blockquotes, nothing. See WP:MoS. And please remember to close the blockquotes. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert
KP, can you say what the problem is? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, can you show me please where the source says "Hizb ut-Tahrir declared a state of holy war with the United States in June 2001"? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, from the source I provided: "Hizb has called for a jihad against the U.S., its allies, and moderate Muslim states. The purpose of the jihad is "to find and kill the Kufar (non-believers)," in fact rejecting the Islamic notion of Greater Jihad against one's own as a sin.19"
 * "In a June 2001 article published in the party's journal, Hizb ideologists claim that all methods are justified in the struggle against the unbelievers, including murder. They specifically mention that a pilot's diving a plane hit by enemy fire into a crowd of unbelievers without bailing out with a parachute is a legitimate form of armed struggle."
 * You know what I see? I see on my version extensive citation for the countries in which HT is banned - specifically Russia, Germany, Holland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan. Then I look at your version and what do I see? "Citation needed." Would you like to explain that? KazakhPol 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then add the citation. Instead, you've reverted to a version with poor writing. As for your claim about jihad, where does the source say explicitly that HT called for jihad against the U.S. in June 2001? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot simply assert that the version I cleanedup had "poor writing." I also fail to see the logic in you removing citations I added and then my re-adding the citations. You are just being obstructive. KazakhPol 04:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Others are saying the same about your edits. For example, your lead is poor. You've removed a lot of the good material and added irrelevancies. You also added that they are a terrorist organization as though it's a fact. We don't even call unambiguous terrorist groups "terrorist groups" in that way, never mind Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is a political party according to many governments. You added that they declared jihad against America in June 2001, even though you've cobbled that together from the source yourself, and if they declared it against the U.S. in that statement, they declared it against everyone non-Islamic.  There's more, but that should give you an idea. You've also violated 3RR. SlimVirgin (talk)  04:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your edits have reached the level of disruption at which you really should be banned from editing this article. I did not violate 3RR. You either cannot count, which I personally find unlikely, or you merely cite random policies to try and push your agenda. What your agenda is is beyond my understanding, unless it's vandalism, which increasingly seems likely. Once again you refuse to address my point that you are removing citations without any rationale. KazakhPol 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (moved from SV's talk page) Stop. You cannot just dump text from the HT in UK page here. That's not a merge. You need to find citations for the content you wish to add. If you cant find citations for the content in that page then either remove it from the HT in UK page, or refrain from adding it to the main page and wait for someone else to find a citation. If you are genuinely interested in improving this article, either in factual accuracy or pov, then find citations for the content that is already there. KazakhPol 03:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

KP's edits
KP has restored his version, calling other versions "vandalism," then immediately asked for page protection.

KP, Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a terrorist organization. If you want to add that, please produce sources showing which governments have categorized it thus. It also did not declare war against the U.S. in June 2001 to the best of my knowledge; again, please produce a source who says that specifically.

You are violating WP:BLP, among other things, by labeling its members "terrorists." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, you removed citations you admitted were valid. Then, when I asked you why you did that, you accused me of having poor English. Aaliyah Stevens did the same thing. My reverting of your vandal edits does not count towards WP:3RR. You can try and cite WP:BLP all you want, but that does not apply when I quoted ITAR-TASS. I removed a copyvio, yet you continue to claim the quality of the page has deteriorated - thats hilarious. Your sole reasoning for why this version, which whitewashes this organization's long recorded history of terrorist acts, is superior to the version I tidied, is that I misinterpreted one source. You are a vandal, you should be blocked. KazakhPol 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Widely seen as a terrorist organization by whom? Which governments have designated it as a terrorist organization? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Persia, Syria, Oman, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Singapore, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Belarus.... How many do I have to list? Look, if your problem is the introduction then I am willing to compromise on that, but you are undoing over a week of work. Why did you remove the citations for the countries that recognize it as a terrorist organization? I do not understand. You must see how that looks like vandalism... KazakhPol 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then provide sources to substantiate these assertions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For example one of the sources your provided, say: "It has so far not been involved in any known terrorist activities". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It would also be appreciated that you treat fellow editors with civility and avoid saying to other editors. "you are a vandal". These comments are most unhelpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Number one - I did provide sources. SlimVirgin removed them and provided no explanation. Number two - she has repeatedly stated that I do not understand English. She treats me with condescension and has been far from civil. Her edits to this page have been nothing but vandalism. She should be blocked if she is unwilling to discuss the page and continues to remove citations. KazakhPol 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can say that Hizb ut-Tahrir is designated as a terrorist organization by X, Y, and Z, and then list the governments that say that explicitly, and provide a source for each claim. That's what's done elsewhere e.g. Hamas; see third paragraph. But you can't state that they're terrorists as though it's a fact, or say "widely regarded" when they're not widely regarded as that at all. The U.S. has said they've found no evidence linking Hizb ut-Tahrir to violence (I'm writing from memory). Also, I haven't undone a week's worth of work. I started my edits based on your last version; I didn't undo it. But quite a lot had to be changed because it was inappropriate, or uncited, or formatted wrongly, and the lead was not as good as the previous lead. Finally, you must stop calling other people's edits "vandalism." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the heck of it, I'm going to ask you again, and this is the third or fourth time I've asked you - why did you remove my citations? The lead under your version is awful. This is not the Muslim Wikipedia - this is the English Wikipedia. You do not translate every 'Islamic term' into Arabic. KazakhPol 01:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Which citations? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is my lead; this is KP's. People can judge for themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen KP, you have effectively accused me of being a member of HT, which you believe is terrorist, so implied I am too, you have called me vandal, threatened to block me, put innaccurate messages on my user page, and ridiculed without any consideration that you may be wrong when I criticised your english. It is very obvious that your english is not one of your strengths, which is not a problem if you just accepted that you can be corrected, and are polite. Aaliyah Stevens 01:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Call to overthrow governments
Do we have a source for the claim that the party has called for Muslims to overthrow their governments; preferably a secondary source? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm you probably removed it when you were correcting my "poor English." KazakhPol 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any refs to prove that "overthrow" is the appropriate word, rather I believe 'replace' would be a better suited, as overthrow implies violent revolution. As this article shows in the 'methods' section they want some sort of popular based uprising possibly supported with sufficient silence or complicity from the military, and key government ministers, or branches, after a 3 stage process. Sounds like HT aims to do something similar to the Color_revolutions seeking a Revolutionary_wave just like radical left wingers. Aaliyah Stevens 01:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats so ridiculous. For one thing, the people who overthrew the governments of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Serbia, and Georgia were not far left, but on the right. They overthrew the communist dictators that had been in power since before the end of the Soviet Union. The only "radical left wingers" involved were Akayev and Yanukovych. It does not "sound" like HT aims to do something to the color revolution, as you well know, because the whole point of those revolutions were to liberalize the politics in those countries involved, whereas HT's goal is to kill all non-Muslims in Central Asia and enslave the non-Islamic world. The article is already a disgrace to Wikipedia thanks to your efforts at whitewashing. I actually hope you try and make that comparison though. This way no one who knows anything about HT will take this article seriously. KazakhPol 01:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the article on what a Revolutionary_wave is, it is important to marxists and thier worldview of dialectical progress. Listed within that article is revolutions of various political persuations. If it makes you happy I can say that it seems HT seek a Revolutionary_wave similar to the right wing revolutions against communism (although striclty speaking they were not right wing in the way we understand them in the west), the point is that there are parallels to HT's idea of a wave of nations joining up to a unified federal caliphate, and the notion of a Revolutionary_wave. And please stop making unsubstantiated extreme claims like "HT's goal is to kill all non-Muslims"..."and enslave the non-Islamic world", without any proof. Aaliyah Stevens 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right.... theres no proof at all... thats why you people are banned in 80% of the world. KazakhPol 02:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely, this discussion is redundant. Look at the end of the 'Aims' section.  It describes that HT "aims for the caliphate to 'wrest the reins of initiative away from other states and nations' and become the dominant hegemony, before Islam, ultimately, takes over the world".  Wresting the reins of initiative from other states is a violent, revolutionary act, tantamount to overthrowing such states. There is also an HT source for the quote.  What more is needed? AJD 01:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Their only desire in editing this article is to whitewash HT. That's why they keep on removing citations. Nothing will ever be enough for them to allow criticism. KazakhPol 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KP i see you have read the Civility codes then. To "wrest the reins of initiative away from other states and nations" assumes firstly that the caliphate state exists, and secondly that certain other nations hold "the reins of initiative". I can only assume they mean the current world powers, and that they want those "reins of initiative" for thier own state. This has nothing to do with revolution, because this is 'post-revolution', after the caliphate has been established, and so the aim of the group achieved. The question posed in this section is how they intend to establish this state and succeed the current regimes 193.115.70.9 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaliyah Stevens, you need to learn to login to your account on a regular basis. Wikipedia:Civility is not a "code." Regarding your nonsensical interpretation of what HT advocates, no one is fooled. Well, almost no one. KazakhPol 18:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me quote the Civility page "Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias". Aaliyah Stevens 12:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a "code." Wikipedia does not have "codes." KazakhPol 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason Hisb ut-Tahrir has been attacked by the Libyan and Syrian Governments is that it was believed to be actively plotting a coup d'etat and was preaching revolution. I am still looking for a source on this. This article is heavily biased to make it seem like Hisb ut-Tahrir has been unfairly persecuted which is not the case. Voiceofreason01 —Preceding comment was added at 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref tags
Hi Aaliyah Stevens, thanks for the edits you made cleaning up some of the writing. Just a point about ref tags. Footnotes should contain full citations (e.g. byline, headline, name of newspaper, date of publication). If you don't have that information but only have the URL, just put it in an embedded link i.e. a single square bracket around it. Otherwise, readers have to click twice only to get the same effect; at least when they click twice for a proper footnote, they get the extra information. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Change 'HT by Country' to 'HT by region'
Does anyone object to renaming 'Hizb ut-Tahrir by country' to 'Hizb ut-Tahrir by region', then have the sub-headings
 * 1) HT in Africa & the Arab World
 * 2) HT in the West,
 * 3) HT in Russia & the Central Asian Republics,
 * 4) HT in South & South East Asia

Then merge the Alleged Persecution section into this? Aaliyah Stevens 14:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

HT x 2
from my quick overview, the article currently says nothing about the split in HT, nor their history in general. there are two main HT organisations, both claiming to be the "official" HT's. OBM actually mentions this as follows: "A man called Abu Rami and his followers dismissed the Amir of HT, Abdul Qadeem Zalloum, who at that time led HT from a secret location, and established a separate organisation. The Zalloumis became HT Camp 1 and the followers of Abu Rami, the so-called Nakithoun (renegades), became known as HT Camp 2". the website of HT1 is: http://www.hizb.org.uk, and that of the latter is http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/.  ITAQALLAH  02:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I must admit I was ignorant of these splits. I knew about HuT splitting into the IMU and Akramiya in C.A., but these major splits I have not read about previously. KazakhPol 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of this, but consider this insignificant, as most of the world, unless you can show otherwise, is part of the hizb.org.uk organisation, and what Bakri says is not exactly a nuetral source. However we could have a little note saying that a relatively small group of memebrs split away, and founded another HT with the same name, but as of yet have not made significant inroads into recruiting many, or a presence in many places. Whatever your opinion on this, can we leave it on a backburner until we get this terrorism thing resolved? Aaliyah Stevens 12:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there's no controversy over this, someone might as well add a mention of it now. I have no indepth knowledge on the split so it would be best if someone else would add this. KazakhPol 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Redress did indeed occur in October 1997 and as mentioned in the main page, the former leader Abdul Qadeem Zallum was removed from his postion of Leader for violating the Party's Adopted thoughts. Some members remained with him and continued to operate under the name Hizb ut -Tahrir whilst a large part of the Party body moved with the Redress. The Party is not interested in gaining publicity unlike its namesake but is more concerned with generating the public opinion for its thoughts and establishing the requisites to acheive its objective of Resuming the Islamic Way of Life and carrying Islam to the rest of the world via the establishment of the Islamic State. The success of the Redress is not to be measured by the number of members, or websites the Party has or the amount of times its members make television appearances. Such measures would be superficial and deceptive. Rather the success of the Party is measured through a host of tangibles linked to its work.(Redress1997 21:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

KazakhPol
The following comments were originally posted on User talk:SlimVirgin. She decided to repost them here without explanation:

''As I have asked you before, I would appreciate it if instead of trying to hide your edit, you admit to reverting when you do so. Islamist redirects to Islamism so unless you are trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make the point that I am not allowed to edit that article, I suggest you stop adding in needless redirects. This is the English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia, so stop adding in the Arabic pronunciations for every concept you deem to be 'special'. Thanks,'' KazakhPol 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the Caliphate has existed in the past, so re-establishment is the wording to use. KazakhPol 22:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You also need to stop adding "Prophet" before Muhammad. You know that's not allowed. KazakhPol 22:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not restore that it's a terrorist group to the lead. If you want to say it, you must say that it is designated as a terrorist organization in [name of country plus source] and [name of country plus source], and the sources must show that the governments have made that formal designation. Otherwise we cannot refer to it as terrorist. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When you stop vandalizing Wikipedia and distorting my edits, I will take your posts on the talkpage seriously. How many Wikipedia policies are you going to violate today? KazakhPol 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen you call about half a dozen good editors "vandals" or refer to their work as "vandalism." If you continue with this, you'll be reported for admin action, because you go too far. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another bold faced lie from you. The only vandals I see are you and Aaliyah. You go ahead and "report" me. KazakhPol 04:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of edit summaries you are typing. That dont kid yourself. None of these templates will ever leave until you're banned.. Please be remain civil. --- ALM 05:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen their posts? You may want to tell that to them. SlimVirgin has done nothing but obstruct attempts to cleanup this article and give it a semblance of pov. KazakhPol 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have given these comment to Aaliyah Stevens. Whereas I can see clearly that there is no need of uncategoried tag (because it has been categoried already). Why it should not be removed. What she has done that you have given her these comments? --- ALM 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have "given" these comments to Aaliyah Stevens? What does that even mean? I am also unfamiliar with the "uncategoried" tag. The uncategorized template is on this page because this organization should be under Category:Terrorism in Russia, but is not because Aaliyah Stevens and SlimVirgin revert my edits to this page without looking at them. If you would like to see Aaliyah Stevens comments I suggest you view Special:Contributions/Aaliyah Stevens. KazakhPol 06:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My English is bad and I hope you can understand what given means. I do not wish to disrespect you ever and wish you give me my respact too. So we will both (me too) talk with each other in clam and civil manner only. Please?
 * uncategorized tag means No category. If there is some dispute about neutrality of existing category then a separate tag is for it. Uncategorized tag is NOT for this showing dispute about not including a category in an article which already is listed under multiple categories. --- ALM 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The uncategorized template is appropriate even when there are some categories, if other categories can be added. It is not just the Terr in Russia cat that would be appropriate. The 1953 establishments category has several categories, and this should be put into one of those. KazakhPol 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree about this that one can have uncategorized tag even when there is already many categories. Should I post the question on Admin noticeboard so that we can have outside views? --- ALM 23:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think Template talk:Uncategorized would be the place to raise this question. KazakhPol 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But I do not know that how many people will reply there. But I respect your suggestion and will post message there. -- ALM 00:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ALM, I wouldn't bother. KazakhPol is just trying to make trouble. Requesting admin action is more appropriate. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * May be you are right. In that case we will be more sure and have a stronger case against him. In case you are wrong (because I do not know the whole story) then in that case we might have a solutions by discussions. So nothing to loose here. --- ALM 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the templates again. KazakhPol 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
Do me a favor and find me an "Uzbeki." I would love to meet them. What nation are they from? Uzbekististan? KazakhPol 01:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear KazakhPol, please cool down and do not give comment that make it a dispute. Please try to handle things in a better way. --- ALM 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed
SV has decided I am only trying to "make trouble" by adding the cleanup template. Let's review the article's current issues.
 * Refers to the mythical Uzbeki ethnicity
 * Incorrectly states that HuT is banned in Turkmenistan
 * Claims HuT "survived" a ban in Australia, implying it is somehow a living being
 * In the section on Aims it states that the Caliphate will be ruled by a Caliph which is a truism
 * Changes from referring to the Caliph/Caliphate with a capital C and a lowercase C throughout the article
 * Refers to Niqab as a right of women
 * Translates random words into Arabic without justification throughout the article
 * The section on Law, under the section on Policies, is merely a series of quotes
 * Excessive linking throughout the article to "proscription" and "Al-Qaida", which needlessy redirects, in one instance linking to the AQ page twice in one paragraph
 * Improperly uses lowercase letters at the beginning of official positions, as in "prime minister Blair"
 * Refers to the "Uzbekistan Government", which should either be the Government of Uzbekistan, or the Uzbek government
 * "Craig Murray former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has made many claims" could use a few commas
 * Refers to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as "General"
 * Passive voice throughout the article
 * KazakhPol 01:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is important to remember that most of this was remedied by my earlier edits, which were reverted by SV and AS without explanation. I am still waiting to find out why SV removed citations, and then re-added them after I complained. KazakhPol 01:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Refers to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as "General"
 * He is General indeed. What is wrong with that?

Refers to Niqab as a right of women
 * It is one view. You can give other views but cannot say one view wrong and other is right.

Claims HuT "survived" a ban in Australia, implying it is somehow a living being
 * Looks fine to me. How you suggest to change it?

Other are mostly minor things. You can edit them ALL in single go. I do not understand why you need tag when you can fix so quickly. What is the big deal to dispute ? --- ALM 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, you can fix all of those in one single edit. You will have to, because I am not allowed to edit this article. There really is no big deal here in fixing any of these problems. If SV had ever actually looked at my edits she would have found that none of these are controversial, and would have let them stand. KazakhPol 01:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no real dispute here :(. btw I have posted message on Template talk:Uncategorized. --- ALM 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to sound a little condescending but KazakhPol should stop trying to whitewash his/her edits as if they only corrected the above minor points. This is simply not true, if you look at the history of his edits;


 * 1) You will see that s/he has consistently tried to malign this group as a terrorist group, and argued that he has references, and even provided links but either the links did not state what was claimed, or were not credible. It gave the reader the impression that such statements were referenced correctly when they were not.
 * 2) S/He has deleted swathes of the article that had been in place for months without a reason, and when questioned did not provide a satisfactory answer
 * 3) His/Her command of the English language seems poor, as illustrated in the history and in the above points made
 * 4) Lacks civility and has been warned many times. Gives me final warnings about vandalism when I didn't vandalise nor did I recieve any preceding warnings from him to receive a final one. He also accused me of being a member of this group!!

Now regarding KP's minor issues above:


 * Refers to the mythical Uzbeki ethnicity
 * I've changed that, thank you for spotting it


 * Incorrectly states that HuT is banned in Turkmenistan
 * No it doesn't


 * Claims HuT "survived" a ban in Australia, implying it is somehow a living being
 * The use of the word 'survived' is wholly appropriate here, and is not reserved for living things only see: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=survived


 * In the section on Aims it states that the Caliphate will be ruled by a Caliph which is a truism
 * Not for people who don't know the difference between the two, and are not familiar with what term to use for the head of state.


 * Changes from referring to the Caliph/Caliphate with a capital C and a lowercase C throughout the article
 * I've changed that, thank you for spotting it


 * Refers to Niqab as a right of women
 * No it doesn't say that it is a right categorically, it says that this party defends the right of women to choose the wearing of a Niqab, it is referring to the party's opinion


 * Translates random words into Arabic without justification throughout the article
 * Could you provide a list?


 * The section on Law, under the section on Policies, is merely a series of quotes
 * So? the sentences flow, and would do even if the quotation marks were taken out. If they were taken out it would still be a valid paragraph but wouldn't wouldn't illustrate that it is taken directly from HT's books.


 * Excessive linking throughout the article to "proscription" and "Al-Qaida", which needlessy redirects, in one instance linking to the AQ page twice in one paragraph
 * Removed more than one linking to the same issue in the same paragraph


 * Improperly uses lowercase letters at the beginning of official positions, as in "prime minister Blair"
 * I've changed that, thank you for spotting it


 * Refers to the "Uzbekistan Government", which should either be the Government of Uzbekistan, or the Uzbek government
 * I've changed that, thank you for spotting it


 * "Craig Murray former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has made many claims" could use a few commas
 * I've changed that, thank you for spotting it


 * Refers to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as "General"
 * Well he still is a General, despite the protestations of the defunct opposition he is still cheif of army staff, and head of the National Security Council!


 * Passive voice throughout the article
 * please explain Aaliyah Stevens

Move this text?
" It quotes HuT literature as saying `Islam will naturally be at odds with, or even in conflict with, every other civilisation or ideology`, and that Muslims who champion integration of Islam with Western civilization `tend to be weaker-minded Muslims who simply compromise their ways due to what they deem as necessity." [10] HT preaches that the Western world's concept of freedom to legislative law through elected parliaments does not exist in Islam;[11] and that Islamic law will be applied."

It is not clear how this information is a goal of HT. It is more of a comment on HT positions & thought. Should it be moved to a different section?--24.15.11.254 02:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is HT banned for terrorism or simply banned for other reasons in some countries?
Please do not pretend as if the above issues are what has wound you up, this is the first time you have raised them, otherwise most of the friction here has been aboout the above points I made about your obsession with labelling this group as terrorist, and even claiming they have killed hundreds of people in a year! Aaliyah Stevens 18:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "large swathes" of the article I removed were blatant copyright violations that you added. The organization is banned throughout the world as a terrorist organization - this isnt something you can debate. According to the references I originally added you will see that is banned in Russia, most of Central Asia (but not Turkmenistan), and China. Therefore, geographically, it is banned throughout most of the world as a terrorist organization. KazakhPol 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you launch incredible claims and accusations without referenced credible evidence. Even if it were true that HT is labelled terrorist (as opposed to simply banned) in every single country you claim, are we going to debate whether the Communist and ex-Communist block in Eurasia who have a history of repressing non-officially sanctioned religious groups   constitute or justify the claim that HT "are designated as terrorist throughout the world"??

This would be a futile pursuit, unless you believe that Russia, China, and Central Asia (but not turkmenistan, or Afghanistan) are the world. Anyway according to the Deputy Prosecutor in Tajikistan members are guilty of 'extremist activities' not terrorism. Most of these governments define terrorism as any attempt to challenge thier dicatorial rule or ideology, not simply the targetted killing of innocent civilians. Aaliyah Stevens 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the fact that out of all the countries in the Middle East, the only countries not to ban HT - as a terrorist organization - are Yemen, UAE, and Lebanon. So if we take all the other countries in the Middle East, Russia, China, 4/5 of the Central Asian republics, and Belarus (?), then both geographically and in terms of population HT is banned throughout most of the world as a terrorist organization. Whether or not it really engages in terrorism is irrelevant to this point. As for Tajikistan the laws on extremism are used against HuT members when the police lack enough evidence to prove HuT membership and thereby get them under the anti-terror law. KazakhPol 01:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On a separate note I would be interested in getting confirmation on whether HuT is banned in Israel, Belarus, and China. I would assume as China is a member of the SCO that it automatically recognizes and bans it as a terrorist organization, but it would be good if we could find a list of banned terrorist organizations. KazakhPol 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Again unreferenced claims. Yes HT is banned in many arab countries, but NOT proscribed as a terrorist organisation not every group banned in the world is because of terrorism, e.g. the Falun_gong. HT is banned in many Arab/Middle eastern countries for things like 'going against the concept of the secular state' (turkey), or 'calling for the dismantling of the constitution', or 'a group founded in violation of the provision of the law' (Egypt: ) or 'unauthorised establishment of a political party' (Morocco ). By the way there is no evidence that HT is banned in the following 15 of the 22 Arab League countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Yeman, UAE, Western Sahara, Djibouti, Somalia and the Comoros. Which actually means that they are not banned in the majority of arab countries, even if you dispute a couple of these. It is also not banned in Iran, nor Afghanistan and Turkmenistan which are both part of Central Asia Aaliyah Stevens 10:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you had actually looked at the reference I provided, you would have seen that Jamestown Foundation says the only countries in which HT is not banned, as a terrorist organization, are UAE, Yemen, and Lebanon. Afghanistan is not in Central Asia, and I have seen no proof one way or the other on whether its banned in Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. So why dont you actually provide references instead of trying to push your pov on every article you edit? KazakhPol 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the main point. Yes HT is banned in many arab countries, but NOT proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Many groups are banned for many different reasons as I have already said, just because a group is banned, doesn't mean it was banned because of an alleged accusation of terrorism Aaliyah Stevens 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not missing any point, I am going by the references I provided, some of which are still on the page right now! Unless you are saying you doubt the reliability of the references, you are just engaging in WP:POINT violations. KazakhPol 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Think tanks are under no legal obligation, nor do they have an industry code of conduct, to assure the information they provide is accurate. But assuming they are, if you are referring to this article "HT's growing Appeal in the Arab World" by the Jamestown Foundation, NOWHERE in this article does it say that HT is banned as a terrorist group, rather all it says is that it is illegal, and then goes on to say "...there is no evidence that HT members have carried out any attacks in the Arab world". Aaliyah Stevens 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have had this conversation so many times now that there is no point in having it again. Dialogue on this point is exhausted. KazakhPol 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you have yet to provide one single quote from the Jamestown Foundation document, (which you asked us to refer to) thats says they were banned as a terrorist group as opposed to banned for any other reason. Please quote us one cited statement from that report, or accept that such a statement is not proven. Aaliyah Stevens 19:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to stick to one stonewalling tactic. You cant go from acknowledging that the reference is there and that it is automatically unreliable because it is a thinktank to denying that such a reference exists. KazakhPol 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

if, as Aaliyah Stevens says, there is no source explicitly labelling hizb at-tahrir as a terrorist organisation or banned for acts of terrorism, then any other deductions are simply original research and must be avoided. simply being banned is not sufficient evidence.  ITAQALLAH  04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources that say this that have been presented to AS. He/She is actively trying to whitewash this organization, regardless of the proof presented. KazakhPol 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, i'm having trouble locating the sources you presented to AS. i did however look through this Jamestown article, but i couldn't find anything asserting that they were either a) a terrorist organization or b) banned for acts of terrorism. could you present the sources and quotes you feel explicitly label HT as a terrorist organization? the quotes below are not explicit evidences: what we need is a good source unequivocally describing HT as such.  ITAQALLAH   05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on something off-Wikipedia for right now (its 12:33 PM) my time, but I will make an effort to present my sources here by 3:00 PM tomorrow (my time). KazakhPol 05:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The jamestown foundation also seem to be wrong in their claim, it appears HT are allowed on Saudi State TV, so they can't be banned there.
 * You need to use your signature at all times. Appearing on television is not an explicit refutation of their ban in Saudi Arabia. That could have either been before they were banned, or the member could have gone on tv without making his HT association known. Or, more likely, HT is making this up. If you can find a source outside of HT that mentions openly HT-associated rallies then Ill take it seriously. KazakhPol 18:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See discussion below where AS lies about the ISF's listing on the FTO. Details about meeting with Al Qaeda also. KazakhPol 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'''DON'T ACCUSE ME OF BEING A LIAR!!!! LEARN TO BE CIVIL. THE FACT THAT ACTUALLY FIS (ISF) IS NOT LISTED WOULD INDICATE THE CONVERSE OF WHAT YOU ACCUSE ME!'''Aaliyah Stevens 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain this HT members
I cannot wait to see the ridiculous excuse from HT members as to why this is not an example of HT support for terrorism: Singapore University terrorism expert Dr Rohan Gunaratna said "It actively promotes dismantling the state of Israel, attacking the United states, but in terms of actually conducting terrorist attacks it has refrained from doing so." KazakhPol 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to your explanation for: "The group has been linked to the London bombings." KazakhPol 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * HuT "backs the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria, a radical movement on the U.S. State Department's terrorism list." KazakhPol 03:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the past, members of Hizb participated in coups against pro-Western regimes in the Middle East, such as the failed 1968 officers' coup against King Hussein II of Jordan." KazakhPol 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "However, more recently, Hizb representatives, together with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, participated in coordination meetings sponsored by al-Qaeda in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan." KazakhPol 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

--- I am astounded at your references. Do you think we are stupid, and will not check them to see if what you claim is accurate?


 * To advocate a One State Solution federated under an Islamic Caliphate AKA promoting the "dismantling of Israel" by a future Caliphate is not terrorism by any definition, at worst it will be 2 proffessional armies at war, IF Israel refuses the solution. Now to quote your source the Singapore University terrorism expert Dr Rohan Gunaratna said in the very same article, in the very same paragraph:
 * "Hizb ut-Tahrir was an extremist organisation, not a terrorist organisation" .

In the introduction of this article it clearly says HT want to dismantle Israel anyway??
 * The next one is even funnier, because it undermines the credibility of the biased right wing think tank; the heritage foundation, and your references. Think tanks are under no legal obligation, nor do they have an industry code of conduct, to assure the information they provide is accurate. To prove my point, you and the your reference the heritage foundation, claim:
 * "HuT backs the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria, a radical movement on the U.S. State Department's terrorism list." 

Well if you look at the U.S. State Department's terrorism list the Islamic Salvation Front is NOT on there


 * If attempting a Coup d'état is what you define as terrorism, then General Musharraf and half of the world's leaders are terrorists for coming to power through Coup d'états. Anyway your source for this cliam is, as I have proven, the unreliable Heritage Foundation.


 * As for the claim that HT "participated in coordination meetings sponsored by al-Qaeda" this is again from the same unreliable source, the heritage foundation article which incorrectly claimed that the Islamic Salvation Front in on the U.S. State Department's terrorism list. Also the article provides no proof or reference for this claim.

And I repeat, learn to follow the codes of civility, I am not a HT member, so stop accusing. By Aaliyah Stevens 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Number one, do not alter my comments again. This is the second or third time I've had to ask you not to do that. Second, the world does not revolve around you. Stop assuming I am referring to you, especially when I phrase things in the plural. Civility is not a code, it is a policy. Trying to argue that the Heritage Foundation is an unreliable source is ridiculous. If you seriously want to try and make that argument then I am more than happy to open a poll on Talk:Heritage Foundation as to its reliability. Your comment about "half of the world's leaders are terrorists" is immature and an obvious attempt to ignore the evidence shown. The State Department has multiple lists of terrorist organizations and alters this. The ISF is on the FTO list - foreign terrorist organizations. The answer to your question is no, I do not think you are stupid, I think you are actively trying to whitewash this organization. I think you should be banned and I do not understand why SlimVirgin takes you seriously. KazakhPol 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And another link, from the American University, "The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), the second largest terrorist group in Algeria." KazakhPol 18:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The ISF apparently has stopped engaging in terrorism since January 2000. KazakhPol 18:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the sources need to say that HT is a terrorist group or has been banned for acts of terror. allegedly supporting acts of terror isn't enough, and using it to claim that they are or have been banned as a terrorist organisation is original research. ISF is not HT. it's like saying, the CIA and ISI supported the taliban committing "acts of terror" against the soviets, so they must be terrorist organisations too. HT may have been described as extremist, Islamist, radical, and so on. this is completely different to the epithet of terrorist. what we might be able to derive from these references is that HT has been accused of supporting organisations listed for acts of terror. if HT are truly listed as a terrorist organisation, or banned for terrorism, then it should be extremely easy for us to find explicit material, we need not draw our own links from the sources.  ITAQALLAH   04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See: . It is banned as a terrorist organization in Kazakhstan. KazakhPol 04:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I concede that stating support for terrorism does not amount for terrorism. I still believe the references I have provided both here and through subsequent revisions demonstrate that this is a terrorist organization, but clearly there are users who disagree. I think the best way for the article to progress is to maintain the status quo on this point and avoid revert-wars. KazakhPol 04:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

--
 * What are you on about? I haven't altered your comments, and the there has been no second or third time or even first time???
 * The world doesn't revolve around me, but you have directly accused me of being a member recently, and there were primarily only two editors dealing with this, me and SlimVirgin, and I don't believe s/he is even Muslim; to be accused of being a HT member.


 * I'm not a member of HT, I'm just a vandal. :-D SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though the first words on the WP:civ policy page says is "Civility is a code" I'm not going to argue if it is a code or policy, get the point: be civil!
 * I never said half the worlds leaders are terrorist, that was the implication of your logic; you tried to claim HT are terrorist because they apparantly attempted a Coup, which is the same method many of the worlds leaders used to come to power, including General Musharraf. Aaliyah Stevens 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now to the point

 * The Heritage Foundation claims in that article you quote that the state department has listed the Islamic Salvation Front aka FIS in Algeria as a foreign terrorist organisation or FTO. You try to back this claim by quoting an out of date FTO list from 1999  instead of the latest one  I used. Even then, none of them, neither the 1999 or the latest one, list the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) as terrorist, so what are you on about?! Stop referring us to things which don't prove you point! This proves that the heritage foundation has made a mistake, (among many) and my point that think tanks are under no legal obligation, nor do they have an industry code of conduct, to assure the information they provide is accurate, this would apply to the many right-wing neo-con think tanks and private-funded unis people try to use as sources. Think tanks by their nature are expressing an opinion, not necessarily facts, and as shown above get their facts wrong sometimes suspiciously. Aaliyah Stevens 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It does list it... are you saying that the political and militant factions dont equate? At the very least the link shows the Jamestown Foundation wasnt making stuff up. KazakhPol 06:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm getting rather frustrated with you're repeated inability to cognise a simple fact in plain english, FIS (Islamic Salvation Front) is not listed by the state department as a foreign terrorist organisation, and there is no mention of any military faction of FIS there either. Even in Algeria FIS is not designated as a terrorist group, rather it was simply banned. Aaliyah Stevens 13:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Cognize a simple fact"? What does that even mean? KazakhPol 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) It means what it says?! What do think it means? Aaliyah Stevens 21:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KazakPol, I'm going to request admin action against you if this disruption doesn't stop. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop what? When did I last do an edit to this article that you actually contest? January 9? Grow up. Your threats do not scare me. KazakhPol 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't stop calling other editors vandals and liars, or telling them to "grow up,"; if you don't stop reverting and tagging; if you don't stop accusing other editors of speaking poor English, when you're the one who appears unable to understand simple English phrases. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above statement underlines the irrationality of this conversation even taking place. KazakhPol 23:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Australia
Regarding the meeting in Bankstown, being cancelled this alone is not significant enough an event, what's the big deal? And to categorically state that "Hizb ut-Tahrir had booked the venue under a false name (Risala) a tactic frequently used by the group" is POV, because HT have said they have had many meetings under that name, in that hall, many times with their Australian website name ( risala.org), and they never hid the fact they were Hizb-ut-tahrir. Whatever the truth is behind these claims, we cannot state a POV either way as a fact, never mind that it is barely significant to the global picture. Also to categorically state "In response Hizb ut-Tahrir managed to obtain alternative location for the planned Islamic supremacy....during the conference Hizb ut-Tahrir urged its followers to prepare for jihad against anyone standing in the way of the “Islamic superstate” and to kill Muslims and non-Muslims who threaten the unification of the world's 57 Islamic countries under the one leader." is also POV, unbalanced, and unrepresentitive of what was actually said, spun out of some of the poor tabloid coverage given to this ONE meeting in australia. The fact that most, if not all, australian tabloids report that HT is banned in the UK for links to the 2005 bombings is itself a sign of how poorly researched they are.


 * It's perhaps not a big deal and it only takes up half a line, so what's the big deal in including it. And it does go to how the organisation is viewed in Australia.


 * If you think the information is inaccurate or NPOV the correct thing to do is edit the bits you find NPOV, not delete the whole lot. Obviously you'd need to find cites to back up your views. Disregarding the several cites provided as “tabloid” and not attempting to provide your own is simply not up to standard. I have reinserted the bits again. Do not delete large sections without some kind of prior consensus on the talk pages. Rune X2 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the part with the "under a false name", even though cited, then it's tangential to the issue and could be cited further. Perhaps you like it better? Rune X2 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And made some other more neutral phrasing. Rune X2 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also do the UK and Australia need seperate special headings under "The West"? If you insist on the edits, you're going to have to include the responses: http://www.risala.org/content/view/276/28/, which would make an insignificant event, over emphasised in this article, it may be worth you starting a seperate page on Hizb ut-Tahrir in Sydney?? Aaliyah Stevens 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Australia is not part of the UK, so I'm a bit puzzled to see why you'd want them grouped. Rune X2 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Autralia is part of "the west", I think the headings for the UK should be removed too. Please correct your wording to be nuetral, otherwise I will remove it, and take into consideration the above points about poor innaccurate reporting and HT austalia's response. Aaliyah Stevens 12:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually my edits included both the positive HUT statements of the Attorney General (saying there was no grounds for the terrorist accusations) and the supposedly negative HUT statements from their meeting. It has now been cut down to basically just the bare quotes all from the given cites and as such can hardly be seen as NPOV. Again if you have cites that disprove the quotes or give another representation of the events (and preferably not from the HUTs own page), you should put them up, so we can have all angles taken into consideration. Rune X2 12:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've included the full quotes from that article you use, and added a load more information about the conference with context. Please discuss if you don't like anything Aaliyah Stevens 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a few issues with the changes.

1. First, you took a small, terse and to the point section and bloated it up into about twice the size, without really giving any additional information – and even though you thought the original smaller section was overdoing it.
 * 'Small terse and to the point'? it was too small to do justice to nuetrality, it only quoted an unreputable tabloid (see WP:RS) that  sensationalised the whole conference unfairly (see wiki policy on Media bias and sensationalism: Neutral_point_of_view). What I added gives plenty of additional information, about misrepresentation in the media, the elections, Dr Yusanto being a high level 'freind' and adviser of the current government, moderate Muslim opinion, and the context of political parties 'playing politics' with terror. Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

2. You removed the part where there was a call for killing “Muslims and non-Muslims who threaten the unification of the world's 57 Islamic countries under one leader”


 * This is not a quote from any of the speeches they made, it is Justin Vallejo's sensational headline interpretation or  spin of the hadith Mr Amerah quoted. Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

3. “The party planned it's first Khilafah conference” : simply “meeting” is better. Unless you want to go into a longer description of what “Khilafah conference” is, but this not really the place.


 * I agree Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

4. “conference led to many innacurate newspaper reports” is npov. “innacurate” will have to be substituted with a word like “controversial”.


 * Fact: HT is not banned in Britain, it never was, and is not linked to the london bombings. Justin Vallejo's Herald Sun article you quote is innaccurate. These are facts, plain and simple, it is not my opinion, not my 'point of view' (POV), therefore cannot be considered npov. Wiki policy on NPOV states that there is a simple formula to understanding NPOV: "'...assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.' For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.'     Neutral_point_of_view" I have asserted a fact, the newspaper articles were innacurate but I still included Justin Vallejo's incorrect claims. Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

5. “the Palestinian Sheikh Issam Amera quoted a Hadith (a recorded statement) of Muhammad“ You state this without reference. How do you know this? Were you present at the meeting, or did you merely forget to include your references? The reference you do provide is not related to the meeting at all.


 * Sorry, you are right, I watched the freely available web-cast. Now if you don't trust me on this one, and HT don't publish the speeches, look at the sentences before he said that, and the sentences after, to give it context, and then look at the wording in english (which Amerah quoted in arabic, then had translated), it is a hadith regularly quoted by HT & Islamist books, and anyone who knows about Sunni theology will know about that paticular hadith, can reasonably assume he is quoting that hadith, especially since the reporter from Herald Sun is unreputable but he almost quoted it the same from Amera's poor translation. Sometimes reasonable assumptions are valid, especially when the source of info is unreputable; see an example in wiki policy [Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Making_necessary_assumptions] Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

6. “he reiterated Hizb ut-Tahrir's proposed policy on military conscription” This is your interpretation. Unless there's a very good reason, I generally find it suspect to give personal interpretations when the words of the original are there and available. Why not just quote is words verbatim? That way there'll be no bickering over the correct interpretation.


 * It's not exactly my personal interpretation, Dr Yusanto is clearly is talking about defending a future caliphate from foreign invasion: "'If the capital (of the new Islamic state) fell and was occupied by the invading forces, the rest (of the Khilafah) must be involved in an all-out war against the occupiers.'" Because this article has already mentioned military conscription to defend a future state, what is the use of even quoting him on it making the same point again? I suggest we just get rid of this bit, it's a "red-herring". Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

7. to defend the Caliphate with a "Call for all military-aged Muslims to obtain military training and prepare for jihad” - You forgot the bits about the military training being used to wage the “inevitable jihad against the Western powers” which I think is fairly important, considering the locationof the meeting. Rune X2 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Errr.. Read the article you quote again, nowhere does it actually quote any speaker saying that, I can't find it. Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt he "forgot." KazakhPol 23:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * KazakhPol, you have been warned many many times, follow wikipedias guides, or policy, or code or whatever you want to call it, on being civil: Civility. I am a She, and please do not doubt me like that, the quote doesn't exist for me to "forget". Rune X2 I must say how much of a pleasure it has been discussing / debating issues with you, I have found it useful, stimulating, and helpful for work, without all of the uncivil behaviour I have been facing on wiki in the past Aaliyah Stevens 18:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hizb ut Tahrir hijacking of other articles
I just discovered. The HuT editors have rewritten Caliph and also started another, duplicate article called Caliphate, both of which have been rewritten as HuT propaganda. They've also hijacked the Khilafat Movement article. I'm furious. I would appreciate some help NPOVing those articles. Zora 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You will most certainly have the help. It's late where I live (about 1 AM) so I will have to get back to you in a few hours before I make any substantive changes. Thank you for alerting other users. KazakhPol 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I seperated Caliph, from Caliphate, they are two different things, as President, and Republic are. I did it after discussion. Please don't accuse me of being a member of HT, we have already been over this, and don't delete referenced points in any article, discuss what you disagree with first. I have nothing to do with the Khilafat movement article. Aaliyah Stevens 10:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag; facts not disputed
I believe that the disputes over this page are now at a stage of disputed nuetrality, not facts. I suggest we leave it at NPOV, unless someone can point to what facts in this article they dispute? This is not considered vandalism KazakhPol so again, be civil. Aaliyah Stevens 09:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say that edit was vandalism, I referred to you as a vandal as you had just blanked at last two pages, and removed references from another. The introductory sentence refers to Hizb ut-Tahrir as a political party. I dispute the accuracy of this statement on three grounds. 1. I believe this is a terrorist organization. 2. An organization that specifically tells its members not to vote or participate in Democratic elections can hardly be called a political party. 3. Hizb is Arabic for organization, and while it may be translated to political party, I would argue that this is the same use of Hizb as Hezbollah. If the introductory sentence was changed to either "Islamist organization" or "Islamist movement" then I would support changing the template to NPOV. KazakhPol 18:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Political parties can also be terrorists at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. However this organisation is not terrorist according to most experts, except those people who have a vested interest in labelling them as such - but this is besides the point.

2. Political parties can boycott election, without their definition changing. HT as a policy do not reject voting generally, that's why they had candidates in certain countries, but they give stringent conditions.

3. They have named themselves a Hizb, which means party, just as the ruling parties in many arab countries, e.g. Hizb al-Ba'ath, or the Baath party. Actually Hizb is the only word in Arabic used to refer to political parties. Aaliyah Stevens 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol
Please do not remove sections without discussion, the economy section is sourced in it's draft constitution, as the section starts it says that. Also please stop insrting random text in the wrong section, trying to give importance to your selective and unresearched quotes. I have moved the attempted coup quote to the Middle-East section, it doesn't belong in the "Position on Terrorism" and attempted coup is not terrorism. And the quote from an obscure website (axt.org.uk) claims HT is "led by Farid Kassim and Fuad Hussein"??? that it hates sikhs, etc which is obviously not a reliable source of info, alo they claim they are "maintained by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research" which is not an independent source, it's a pro-Israel jewish think tank. Aaliyah Stevens 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an independent source? How is a think tank not 'independent'? Why would its independence even matter? Independence from what? Are you trying to say that Jews are de facto unreliable sources for this terrorist organization? It sures comes across that way. KazakhPol 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, don't imply I'm a racist, I have a Mezraahi jewish background. And you have yet to prove this group is terrorist from any credible source. As I have stated many times, think tanks are not neutral sources, I will quote myself from above: "Think tanks are under no legal obligation, nor do they have an industry code of conduct, to assure the information they provide is accurate. To prove my point, you and the your reference the heritage foundation, claim: "HuT backs the Islamic Salvation Front of Algeria, a radical movement on the U.S. State Department's terrorism list." Well if you look at the U.S. State Department's terrorism list the Islamic Salvation Front is NOT on there". Now regarding this particular think tank, masquarading as simply an anti-racist group, they claim some unknown man called Farrid Kassim and Fuad Hussain lead HT in the UK, which is contradicted by HT themselves, and by all other sources, it also says many other factually incorrect things. They are funded by a pro-Israel jewish group, not neutral, considering HT is fiercly anti-Israel. If it was from JFJFP or IJV  it would be more neutral Aaliyah Stevens 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mezraahi"? Do you mean mizrahi? Sources do not have to be neutral. If they did then you would not be able to reference HuT since it is, for one thing, a terrorist organization, and could hardly be considered a neutral source for discussing itself. You just removed the content because it does not support your position. You have yet to provide any proof that this think tank is unreliable. Once again you are shown to be removing content because it demonstrates HuT's ties to terrorist groups. KazakhPol 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mezrahi, Mizrahi, it's pronounced differently (amiyeh) depending on where your family originate from.


 * Sources have to be reliable, and generally unbiased.
 * If an article is about an individual or an organisation, we can quote them to describe themselves or to quote them on what their policy is, so long as we say it is according to them, what they claim about themselves.
 * I provided the incorrect facts this "think tank" got wrong, e.g. who the leaders of HT are, and even then it does not talk of any "HuT's ties to terrorist groups." as you claim. Aaliyah Stevens 11:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Central Asia
Two points:
 * 1) Afghanistan is not in Central Asia
 * 2) Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in Turkmenistan
 * Therefore Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned throughout Central Asia. KazakhPol 00:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the Central Asia article, there are 3 different definitions, it is ambigious at best, so to say instead that "it is proscribed in Russia, and in some Muslim countries" covers the issue without individually listing every country that allows and bans it, in the introduction, making the introduction a lot easier to read. Aaliyah Stevens 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but the implication of your statement was that I had posted something untrue. The most common definition of Central Asia does not include Afghanistan. Afghanistan is usually considered part of the Middle East. KazakhPol 13:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline nonsense?
I'm sorry but the Timeline section recently added seems to me, to be a whole load of hair splitting nonsense, which was mainly meant for internal communications, and is full of ideological jargon, poorly translated from arabic, which most readers of this article will not appreciate. It adds no value to this article reaching an encyclopedic state. Aaliyah Stevens 12:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that the long-winded quotations will be of limited relevance to most readers, the year "snapshots" give valuable insight into the manner in which the the organisation evolved over the decades, the transition between its key phases of operation, and the language of address towards the Muslim public. With time, the quotations might be deleted or moved elsewhere. I would hope this would encourage the posting of a further timeline highlighting key events in the history of the party, such as the death of the 2 previous leaders and the split in 1996. Jargonistic 13:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that
 * A) We rely on your interpretations of books that are not publicly available


 * B) The snapshot summaries are your POV and analysis on what happened


 * C) This timeline adds no value to the article, and takes up too much space


 * D) The split in 1996 has already been mentioned.


 * E) I still don't see the point of adding all that stuff

Aaliyah Stevens 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This organisation has existed for quite a few decades, and any statements or actions (including the split) cannot be divorced from their historical context, and the status of the party within its elaborate set of 'stages', 'phases' and 'points'. Presenting a chronology of the party's statements aims to address this. It is true that it may be abbreviated and at present it is still quite verbose, and could do with trimming. The reasoning behind the quotes was precisely to protect against claims that this was an opinionated interpretation of history rather than an objective narrative. However the sources are available and easily attributable to the organisation, although as with any secretive organisation, don't expect ISBN numbers. (Q: would it be possible to place the quotations in a separate location, in the interest of brevity?) Jargonistic 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The split has been mentioned already. Even the summaries you have given are in complicated HT jargon, they have poorly translated, which most readers will not understand or appreciate. I still fail to see the point of the whole thing? And your summaries are your own opinions, not facts. Aaliyah Stevens 11:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline has been rewritten to be more readable, and statements of judgement have been removed. The quotations have also been removed. Once this settles down, key events can be added to it, such as the alleged coup attempts etc. The chronological progression of events is important in understanding the present status of any such organisation. Jargonistic 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunni?
As ready as I was to give up on editing this article, I am tempted to re-add the TotallyDisputed template over the fact that this organization is being labelled Sunni when they explicitly accept all divisions of Islam and do not promote a particular school of thought. I dont understand why SlimVirgin re-added the NPOV template... it seems to have been an attempt to get back at me. I fully support a reversion of her edit. KazakhPol 01:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This group is definately Sunni in theology. So what if it accepts all schools of thought as legitimate opinions, it still has it's own. Just because you are sunni, doesn't mean you reject all schools of thought.

They are Sunni because:
 * 1 They believe that the Caliph should be elected via Shurah, not an Imam descended from Ali who is divinely appointed and infallible


 * 2 Thier founder was a Sunni Sufi


 * 3 Thier sources for Islam are Quran, Sunnah, Ijma, and Qiyas, not ahl al-bayt like the Shia believe. Aaliyah Stevens 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a compromise to say somewhere that, they are Sunni, but accept all schools of thought? Aaliyah Stevens 11:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo Candidates
HT Students from the guardian newspaper:

Banners 1:

Leader of HT in UK, Jamal Harwood Female leader Dr Nasreen Nawaz: Dr Imran Waheed, UK spokesman: demo 1: demo 3: Demo in Hebron, Palestine: Conference in Lebanon: Rally in Al-Quds: and:  Aaliyah Stevens 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any relevant picture(s) is/are fine. You decide. KazakhPol 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

federalism
While I understand that principle of federalism is dear to the heart of an active editor here, it is NOT a principle of HT. I quote you the "Draft Constitution of Hizb ut-Tahrir":


 * THE RULING SYSTEM


 * Article 16
 * The ruling system of the State is that of a unitary ruling system and not a federation.

--Leroy65X 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I'll remove that. Aaliyah Stevens 10:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sugarcoating
This article is sugarcoating hibut-tahrir to make it look for palitable to Western (or as Hizbut-tahrir would say kuffar) eyes.

Hense the HB call for a return to gold and silver coinage valued on the ratio used at the time of the first caliphs is termed "gold standard". HB's stand against personal, political and religious freedom is ignored, then after its added, its deleted and quotes from an HB document describing freedom are replaced with a toned-down much tamer sounding "Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects the notion of absolute political freedom in capitalism" etc. with the explanaation that it was an "outdated quote from old website" and the new source is "academic" and thus better. This seems problematic since the idea of OUTDATED? The whole idea of HB is to return to the unchanging truths of the sunna and Quran.

This is not accurate. This is not good. This makes wikipedia look like a sanatized propaganda source. Let Hizb ut-tahrir be Hizb ut-tahrir. --Leroy65X 15:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leroy again. It is very obvious from your above statements that you already hold a very anti-HT POV. There has already been a huge and extensive discussion on this group, and this edit was a result of a long long process as you may see.


 * do not have an anti-HT POV --Leroy65X 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your specific points:

It is a noun, not necessarily a derogatory term, or loaded with hatred.
 * There is a difference between Kufr, and Kafir in arabic, and non-arabic speakers/non-Muslims & the media often fail to distinguish between the two. Kufr means unIslamic, or non-Islam, and Kafir means non-muslim.


 * Not sure about that. kafir means "coverer", as in covering the truth of Islam. So there is sometimes a element of derogatoriness in its use. HB uses the term a great deal, no? But in any case let's say it's mostly used as synonym for non-Muslim. --Leroy65X 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually coverer is "مغطي". I think you're alluding to tri-root of K-F-R, which if extracted into various nouns and verbs has many meanings not one. Kafir is simply a noun for non-Muslim.

HT here in the UK have shared many platforms with "kafir", and done joint demos etc, they are in no way against cooperating with the 'kafir' people of the world.Aaliyah Stevens 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gold Currency

 * The Gold Standard is exactly what HT want, what's the problem with that? I cant see how a goal of having an Islamic gold dinar system is so unpalatable "to Western (or as Hizbut-tahrir would say kuffar) eyes." so I can't see why calling it a gold standard would be sugarcoating it for "Western (or as Hizbut-tahrir would say kuffar) eyes." The specific weight in gold against the respective currency stayed pretty much the same until Bretton Woods Conference. Please see the article on the Islamic gold dinar, it is gaining a resurgence even in Malaysia and Dubai.


 * Do you see a difference between pegging the value of a currency to a quanity of gold, and HBs rather detailed prescription of currency values as divine law?
 * It is the duty of the State to print dinars and dirhams in a shape and style unique to the Khilafah State, and to fix the weight of dinars equal to the Shari'ah dinar or 4.25 grams for one dinar, which is the weight of one Miskal, and to fix the weight of one silver dirham equal to one Shari'ah dirham, which is called the weight of seven i.e. every 10 dirhams have the weight of seven Miskal. Therefore the dirham has the weight of 2.975 grams.
 * What's unpalatable, or at least might be unpalatable to non-HB people both kuffar and Muslims, is the rigidity. Whatever, it is exactly the unique, controversial attribute of HB that people read articles on wiki to find and should be in the article. --Leroy65X 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, what you think is unpalatable is besides the point. The fact that they peg the currency to a very specific amount of gold, and silver, doesn't mean it is not the Gold Standard. Here's a solution, let's agree to have both, the talk of Gold standard, and if you really want, the value HT place on the currency with the quote? Aaliyah Stevens 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

freedom

 * The bit about HT "rejecting" freedom, it is western/capitalist political freedom they refer to, not all freedom, i.e. they don't advocate slavery.


 * Yes, sure. So lets put in what HB says.
 * Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects the "'rights' (freedoms) of man. ... freedom of belief, freedom of speech, freedom of ownership of capital, and personal freedom," holding that these "are in conflict with the laws of Islam." --Leroy65X 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A current academic university quote and explanation is much more authoritative than our own selective interpretations & quotes from outdated local branch websites. Aaliyah Stevens 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Authoritative? Are you seriously suggesting that readers are going to be more interested in Professor David Commins opinions on the difference between capitalism and socialism, than in HB's belief that the "'rights' (freedoms) of man. ... freedom of belief, freedom of speech, freedom of ownership of capital, and personal freedom," are "in conflict with the laws of Islam"?
 * As for it being a local branch website, well, you did quote it when it came to "the gold standard." www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english doesn't sound very local.
 * Questions: Is there anything on the current international HB website about HBs position on freedom? It not, I propose we give a short quote from the hizb-ut-tahrir.org archived website something like:
 * An archived page by www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org, no longer on the web, rejects the "'rights' (freedoms) of man. ... freedom of belief, freedom of speech, freedom of ownership of capital, and personal freedom," as "in conflict with the laws of Islam."
 * and then say something like "the current website does not deal with this issue" or "in contrast the current website says ..."
 * and shorten the "authoritative" quotes by what's-his-name.
 * I will look at the current site for more information. --Leroy65X 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Professor David Commins is not giving his own opinions on the difference between capitalism and socialism, and absolute freedom. He has written probably one of the only studies of HT beliefs I have found by an academic, for an academic purpose (not a "think"-tank), on the net. He is purely describing HT beliefs on freedom etc, more thoroughly and authoritatively than a few sound bites from an old website. He is quoting and referring to the many HT books he has. Aaliyah Stevens 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are making an artifial distinction between think tanks on the web and academics. The rambling watered-down opinions of a minor academic are NOT more relevent than a think tank, and certainly less relevent than the statements of HT.--Leroy65X 15:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The website is "old"? http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org is very much alive. It is the page that is old, i.e. was deleted.
 * If, say, Tony Blair was found to have a statement on his website that a seat in the House of Lords was available for a million pounds but then later deleted it, would you make sure that statement never found its way into a wikipedia article because it was from an "old website"? Would you replace it with a rambling, sanatized statment by some academic about how Blair was very concerned about the financial solvency of his party and sometimes showed his appreciation to those who were generous? --Leroy65X 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The only book I have found officially snactioned on policy is here: http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/PDF/EN/en_books_pdf/system_of_islam.pdf This is the founding book, by it's founder leader, most other stuff is written by local leaderships. Have a look at the other books here: http://www.khilafat.pk/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=66 Aaliyah Stevens 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The learned professor David Commins

 * "The primary difference between capitalism and socialism is that the former gives primacy to the individual and his freedom whereas socialism gives precedence to the social collective, which is expressed in the state...(But in Islam) Individuals do not have absolute freedom as in capitalism: Apostasy, adultery, alcohol, and certain economic practices are forbidden. But within well-recognized bounds, the Muslim enjoys much freedom. The means for maintaining the social order is the (Caliphate) state, but the state is not the source of the order. It is an instrument, not an end. The sovereign is the sharia. The state serves the nation by seeing to the observance of the sharia. Moreover, because Islam is rooted in a transcendent authority, its order is fixed and unchanging, guaranteeing forever human dignity, security, life, and property"[16]"

Now what does execution of someone for abondoning the religion of Islam (Apostasy) have to do with capitalism and socialism? I put it to you this not an authoritative source as it makes very little sense. -- Leroy65X 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not, it matters that he is a credible reliable reference according to wiki standards. He is the only academic writing in an academic capacity in his University (not for a think tank) on the net to give a through outline of HT ideology. Read the whole document. It makes perfect sense if you understand the history of capitalism, socialism, and their underlying philosophical principles. Aaliyah Stevens 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to Aaliyah Stevens and possible HT sympathizers
Paragraphs written by me on criticism of HT have been rewritten by Stevens and others. They're not only more convaluted and boring but include rambling accusations against the critics. They now read like pure propaganda.

Yes, you can delete or attack and slander the integrity of any critic of HT. With hard work you ensure no criticism of HT remains in this article and paint a picture of HT being percecuted by enemies of Islam for no apparent reason.

But I ask you, What's the Point?

This the internet. The criticism won't go away. Articles from the New Statesmen, Foreign Affairs and who knows how many other sources, telling readers what you have editted out of wikipedia will be high on the list of google queries.

You can not prevent criticism of HT! You can only make Wikipedia look like an unreliable source taken over by propagandists!

Are you really doing God's work and Defending Islam? Please think about this. --Leroy65X 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaliyah Stevens is not a member of HT.  ITAQALLAH   17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, consider it an Appeal to Aaliyah Stevens and other members or strong, strong, strong supporters of HT. --Leroy65X 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

-

Argument over "Appeal to Aaliyah Stevens and possible HT sympathizers"
Hi Leroy, I assure you that I am not a member of HT, and I disagree with many of their policies, e.g. barring women from being governors. Even if I was, that would be irrelevant, because I would be bound by the same wiki policies as everyone else, accusing me in the past has been a way of subverting the discussion


 * I assure you I am not trying to subvert the discussion. I am only trying to salvage the article from being a propaganda piece of the kind that turns off internets users off of using wikipedia. --Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well accusing me added nothing to the debate Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On their views on ridda and women being Caliph they hold the most widely accepted opinion in traditional Islamic law, so I can't really diss them on that, that is an issue in Islam, not unique or peculiar to HT, see article called ridda.


 * Wait a minute. Whether HT position on ridda is wise or misguided or whatever, why wasn't it included? Why with all the work you've done on this article, the irrelevant comments on Plato or socialism and so on, (What does Plato have to do with the Sunna and the Quran?) did you never bother to put it in?--Leroy65X 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was and is included!???? In the section called 'law'.


 * But why is it not explained in readily understood English terms? Why is it buried after


 * ''"every individual is innocent until proven guilty", "no person shall be punished without a court sentence" and that "torture is absolutely forbidden and whoever inflicts torture on anyone shall be punished."


 * And then
 * Article 7 of the constitution institutes capital punishment for ridda (see ridda article for various definitions). 


 * Torture, trials, etc., all in English. Why not in arabic, like ridda? HB itself translates it into english: Those who are guilty of apostasy (murtadd) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy, provided they have by themselves renounced Islam ... It's only two lines long. Could it possibly be you are doing what I earlier called "sugarcoating," to not scare off the kuffar?--Leroy65X 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just a big red-herring, the law on ridda already exists in most arab countries, so HT are not saying anything new, so it doesn't need to be put to the top of the agenda in this article. The article on e.g. Yemen or Saudi Arabia doesn't start of even contain mention of it's ridda laws, so why are we obsessing or being sensationalist about HT having them, when it is not anything special or unique to them.
 * I think what is more important to highlight is what NEW things HT would introduce if they took power, that are not currently in law. Anyway it is included so what's the problem? Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How about these: "every individual is innocent until proven guilty", "no person shall be punished without a court sentence." They are new? (yes, they aren't followed in practice, hT in power might not follow them either, but are they new in constitutions?) Or a mostly private economy with public ownership of the a few sensative sectors? When Nabhani wrote this it was standard third world ideology.  Not exactly new or original. --Leroy65X 18:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Relative to the current situation in the Muslim world, they are rather progressive compared to others, on women, etc see comment by TV presenter Dr Habibah Ellahee, from the Hassan And Habibah show here.


 * I am happy to hear HT is progressive. My issue is not whether it is progressive, regressive or anything else. It is making sure that issues surrounding the HT -- that can be found easily in many other places on the internet -- are not censored from wikipedia. --Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * :Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of all opinions from the internet about HT or anything else, it is supposed to be an impartial, non-emotional, non-sensationalist, non-tabloid encyclopedia. What else is said on the net is irrelevant especially when it is the rantings of right-wing think tanks.Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I found your edits sensationalist or alarmist, extensively quoting one journalist's writing (Shiv Malik) (see WP:undue weight) or right-wing US think tanks and not adding any balancing quotes from the very same articles or from others.


 * using two articles from one journalist along with quotes from three other sources is undue weight? --Leroy65X 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The three other sources are (1) quoted by that same journalist shiv (2) are from biased think tanks. Anyway I haven't removed them so what the problem?Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true. You ignore an article in NS by Ziauddin Sardar. The quote by Ziauddin Sardar (an academic! not a think tanker!) you incorrectly describe as being in Shiv Malik's article. --Leroy65X 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway I haven't removed them so what the problem?Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC


 * humdullah. but aren't you complaining about my bias? Why the article clean of them before? --Leroy65X 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

or using right-wing US think tanks and not adding any balancing quotes from the very same articles or from others.


 * Again, these are not my opinions, they are controversies surrounding HT that have excluded from the article (or perhaps buried somewhere at the bottom. It's hard to read long propaganda pieces).


 * As for balancing quotes, you have nine paragraphs explaining how HT is innocent and unfairly accused of terrorism. Don't you think readers might want to know what the fuss is all about? --Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I have nine, and a another 20 waiting, because they are from notable, reliable sources, e.g. national governments, academics at universities, TV presenters, etc not primarily from 1 or 2 "obsessed" journalists (according to the guardian), and the right-wink think tanks they quote. There is no controversy, it is universally agreed among academics HT are not terrorist and do not support terrorists. It is not Wikipedias job to list what non-reliable right-wing think-tanks think is a controversy when there wouldn't be one if they didn't label it as such.


 * No controversy? Why did Blair promise to ban HT?
 * And the nine and 20 more quotes you have, do they contradict mine? "has found no clear ties between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activity;" "will not directly advocate violence;" "have yet to see convincing evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organization advocates violence or terrorism." Not exactly iron clad endorsements. These quotes don't contradict the idea that HT's radicalism may contribute to terrorism. --Leroy65X 17:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can get notable, reliable, neutral academic or governmental sources saying things that would be acceptable. Many of the notable reliable controversies are included e.g. Tony Blair's mention of banning them, etc. I don't think it's helpful to include every quote and opinion on HT in the world here, it needs to be restricted otherwise this article would get too long, it already is too long and doesn't really give the reader an idea of what the thrust of HT philosophy is (which is not primarily bringing in laws for the murtad or supporting the intifadaAaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on "god's work", accusations of slander, and me painting a picture of "of HT being persecuted by enemies of Islam" are not very civil, and presumptuous!


 * I submit that the long awkward rant against Shiv Malik by someone of questionable notability (Yusuf Smith is worth quoting but not anyone from "a think tank"??? Why six lines of quote when the only specific complaint is that Malik didn't talk to Baran in person???) is at least close to slander. --Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a personal appeal to you and other HTers. I'm sorry you found it presumptious. --Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is notable, if you know the magazine in the UK, and the whole paragraph is building up to that point. It is also notable because Shiv Malik unsuccessfully threatened to sue Smith, so he obviously thought Smith was a notable worth a response and threat, which he did not in the end carry out. However I agree the whole article needs to be reduced in size maybe. The I have faced in this regard is different people keep coming along, picking up on the millions of pages on the net about HT and adding their accusations here, which then needs to be balanced out with responses, so the article has got longer and longer Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my edits, it is a shame I had to


 * Replace "Accusations of HTs involvement in terrorism" with "Accusations of HT's moral support for violence", as there are no accusations of ''involvement'.


 * There have been accusations of inciting terrorism. I admit incitement is more accurate than involvement.  Why don't we compromise and head the section Accusations of HTs incitement of terrorism?--Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NO, incitement to, or glorification of terrorism has a specific definition and is a specific offense in the UK, with specific laws introduced in the terrorism act 2006, and HT have not been found to be in violation of those laws. "Position on terrorism" is fine, because it does not lead the reader in any way, because the position could have a negative or positive "position". Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Append onto the end of "(suicide bomber) Sharif's e-mail inbox, examined by police after his death," shows two of the "three e-mails he received on 29 April, the day before his attack", as being from "1924.org, an HT outfit. The second e-mail urged him to " 'destroy the hegemony of the colonialist powers.' " with the adiitional text from the article you quote: "Despite extensive investigations by the police and security services, including legal proceedings against members of the Sharif family, no link to Hizb ut-Tahrir has ever been proven." .


 * This is HT's claim. I don't know if it was true. It was long. The article is long already. It didn't make the cut.
 * No it is not just HT's opinion, if it was not true they would have ended up in court too, with Sharif's family, which they didn't so it is accurate, the police did not make any accusation against HT. Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know drug takers, alcohol drinkers and fornicators who all receive HT mailshots regularly, it is called E-mail spam at worst, or using subscriber lists, it means nothing, HT send out news to tens of thousands of people almost every week. This is purely insinuation and sloppy journalism, considering the police didn't think anything of it.


 * The combination of his heavy involvement with HT as a college student and the fact that he was still on the their email list (if it was just spam why weren't there dozens of other spams instead of 3 emails?) make the fact notable.--Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know there was not dozens of other spams in his inbox?!? All we are told (by Shiv Malik) is that his inbox contained 3 HT spam mails? As I said Walmart probably has him on their E-mail list too! It means nothing.


 * What evidence do you have that Shiv Malek was lying? What evidence do you have there were more than 3? --Leroy65X 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * HT is according to most sources the UK's largest Islamist group so loads of people have regularly attended HT meetings at university. This whole Sherif thing was a red herring created by Shiv, and it adds nothing to the article,


 * But this your POV. You have to have evidence for it for personal attacks like this. --Leroy65X 18:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * if I had my way I would delete it or at least summarise it down to 1 line. But anyway, I left it in the article so what's the problem? Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Add that Sharif's attendance of HT meetings was 9 years earlier in his student days, not as the article led the reader to postulate; reasonably before he attempted to bomb Israel.


 * The original edit by me gave the date of his school years and the date of the attempted killings. You should give readers credit for basic arithmetic --Leroy65X 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Add left-wing criticism ( from 'The Sharpner') of Shiv's journalism on HT, to give balance, and context. And had to add the fact that Shiv issued unsubstantiated threats against critics of his poor journalism and reliance on agenda driven Washington based right-wing think tanks.


 * ... But left-wing criticism is not "agenda driven"? Why not have both left and right? And the Guardian and the New Statesman, they're not "left-of-center"?


 * I fully accept any right wing newspapers being quoted e.g. The Times or The Daily Telegraph, not think-tanks be they right or left, they do not meet wikipedia's standards of reliablity. I could quote you think-tanks that say all kinds of POV things, they are not reliable or accountable Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Added the point about Shiv and other right-wingers by The Guardian Newspaper which was National Newspaper of the Year in the British Press Award last year, so you can hardly call it conspiracy theory, rambling with accusations or propoganda. Shiv Malik as a journalist has had his style and research on HT, subject to a lot of criticism, which has to be included, it is your POV that the critic of Shiv is rambling accusations and propoganda, it is a notable reference: The Guardian Newspaper
 * Here's an example of my complaint: You say "Shiv Malik was `also briefly a Guardian intern` who later accused their employee of mounting `a sting by Hizb ut-Tahrir to infiltrate the mainstream media`"
 * What does Malik say? Here his line from the Independent:

"Speculation is mounting that it may have been a sting by Hizb ut-Tahrir to infiltrate the mainstream media."
 * This is an "accusation"? I put it to you this is an untrue accusation against Malik, i.e. close to slander. An example of digging deep to find dirt on HT critics but not lifting a finger to see if they're true or not. raw POV-pushing --Leroy65X 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not my opinion, that is taken from The Guardian Newspaper, and it is true. Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove "talking "a fine line in its activities in order to remain legal in the UK"


 * This quote is in the edit I made.

and elsewhere while leaving the actual armed struggle to others." Which is not from a source that meets wikipedia standards on nuetrality or notability for sources, it's just another think tank, not accountable to any laws for accuracy of opinions, or nuetrality.


 * New Statesman thinks it notable. Do we have to censor quotes from newspapers and magazines that quote think tanks, i.e. research insitutions?

Please specify exactly in what paragraph, sentence and words you consider factually incorrect, as opposed to not neutral), then specify what words you believe to be not neutral separately to warrant the current tag, as opposed to the standard POV tag. By the way I have not deleted any of the criticism (except from terrorism.com), I only added balancing views, Think Tanks generally are not acceptable sources.


 * (repeat) Here's an example of my complaint: You say "Shiv Malik was `also briefly a Guardian intern` who later accused their employee of mounting `a sting by Hizb ut-Tahrir to infiltrate the mainstream media`" (
 * What does Malik say? Here his line from the Independent:

"Speculation is mounting that it may have been a sting by Hizb ut-Tahrir to infiltrate the mainstream media."
 * This is an "accusation"? I put it to you this is an untrue accusation against Malik, i.e. close to slander. --Leroy65X 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not my opinion, that is taken from The Guardian Newspaper, and it is true, we can re-word it as "who later accused their employee possibly of mounting". Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps mangled up criticism is a better choice of words. You did delete HT comments on freedom from their archived english language page. --Leroy65X 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What's not included and why?

 * My main complaint is what the article doesn't say. Here are some quotes from articles on HT:
 * 1)Plans to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, the radical Islamic group, have been dropped in the past few days following intense discussions between Number 10 and legal advisers. Counter-terrorism sources said Tony Blair had been warned that banning the group, which campaigns for Britain to become a caliphate - a country subject to Islamic law - would serve only as a recruiting agent if the group appealed against the move.


 * Whoever wrote this article has obviously got confused, and not done their research well on WHERE HT want a Caliphate. This article is unreliable due to this blatant mistake, however the facts it mentions are already in the article under the United Kingdom section Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the Guardian was an award winning newspaper! :-) Now that the shoe is on the other foot you do your research and dig up an error (or alleged error). If the Guardian agrees with you then its an award-winning newspaper and the quote is good enough. --Leroy65X 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they have corrected themselves, see: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1980617,00.html


 * 2)Last month a BBC investigation claimed to expose its methods to radicalise young British Muslims. It reported that in Croydon, south London, Hizb ut-Tahrir encouraged an undercover researcher posing as a recruit to commit crimes to 'prove his loyalty'. Hizb ut-Tahrir has denied this and said it intends to sue the BBC.


 * This has been included!! See the section under "United Kingdom", perhaps you should read the article before comlaining, this is the third time I have pointed out that you are duplicating information already mentioned Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is. Buried at the end of the article. Again with a long explanation about how HT was innocent: "The short documentary ended with the reporter claiming that the gang maybe a lone out-of-control group simply influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir's notoriety. ..." A claim I haven't time to verify. --Leroy65X


 * 3)The group's British wing has distanced itself from the more radical views of international sister organisations such as those expressed on leaflets handed out by Hizb ut-Tahrir supporters in Copenhagen which claimed suicide bombings in Israel were 'legitimate' acts of 'martyrdom'.


 * This has been included!! it has been reported by the BBC as quoted at the top of the position on terrorism section, thats the fourth now Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a more specific explanation. I put the original BBC one in. I should thank you for not deleting it. My question (again) is why with all the time you've spent on this article with all the controversy around HT was there nothing about it? --Leroy65X 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 4)Scotland Yard is investigating comments allegedly made by a spokesman for a fundamentalist Muslim group based in London that Tony Blair is a "legitimate target" for Muslims. A Pakistan-based spokesman for Al Muhajiroun is alleged to have said that anyone who "wants to get rid" of the prime minister would "not be punished under Islamic law but praised". 


 * WRONG GROUP! That is al-muhajiroun, not HT.Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is muhajiroun? An HT splinter group. The head of muhajiroun is the former head of HT in UK. Why nothing about his leadership? Nothing about when, how, and why he split off? Why a paragraph on HT "conceded their past failings" but nothing on what those failings were???? --Leroy65X 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are these factiods relevant? There not from Shiv Malik. Not from a "right wing think tank." Why didn't you ever find time to breath a word about them? --Leroy65X 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * NO :-). Can you reference them please. Actually don't bother because more importantly, as you can see from my comments above: point 4 is irrelevant - wrong group, points 2 & 3 have been already included in the article, and everything in point 1 is already mentioned in the article except the inaccuracy about making the UK a caliphate which is contradicted by the Guardian here . Aaliyah Stevens 11:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You win
You're a hard working, first-class marketer.

I've changed the "totally disputed" tag to POV. This article is the worst case of POV-pushing I've seen on wikipedia, but it is POV. I would have to spend much more time then I have to find inaccuracies beside the relatively minor one that Shiv Malik was accusing that intern when he actually only said "speculation is mounting."

One other thing,

Think Tanks generally are not acceptable sources, see the repeated on this above in the previous debates on this talk page. Aaliyah Stevens 12:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where will the censorship go next? Probably the major foreign policy journal in the U.S. is Foreign Affairs. Zeyno Baran wrote an article for it on HT a couple of years ago. If I quote it, will his comments be deleted or mangled with weasel words because he's from a "rightwing think tank"? --Leroy65X 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be quoting Baran. And inshallah I'll have time to read and quote more of Sheikh Taqiuddin al-Nabhani's books. --Leroy65X 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh... Baran is a woman. Please see the article on Zeyno Baran. KazakhPol 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Shortening and Condensing as Censorship
Discuss please. Much relevant and sourced material was deleted under the guise of "Shortening and Condensing" by Stevens. The intent seems to be to remove anything remotely controversial or unflattering to about HT, no matter how relevent.

At the same time long-winded quotes by apologist bloggers and minor academics remain. This is blatant POV-pushing. --Leroy65X 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not exactly a fair and balanced criticism of him,


 * Why we need five lines of vague quote from a minor academic (David Commins) when the article is in need of "condensing" is beyond me. --Leroy65X 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a blog quoted in this article,
 * its thesharpener.net. And who is Yusuf Smith? Does ponificating in the blogesphere make him noteable?  Does an article in need of condensing need six lines of his opinions on anti-Muslim bias? --Leroy65X 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

except by a TV presenter, and an ex-British Ambassador of Uzbekistan which is considered OK, because journalists or notable politicians reporting stuff on their own blogs is considered reliable. The fact that steven deleted reference to seperate education and sports is OK, because that occurs all over the world, no big deal,


 * Well by that standard 95% of wikipedia is "no big deal." Nonetheless it's a fact someone might be interested in knowing. --Leroy65X 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

there are boys only or girls only schools all over Europe,


 * Do you see a difference between having the option of going to an all-girl or all-boy school, and of having constitutionally mandated separation of the sexes? We are talking about 2 lines of article, not a section, not a paragraph: "Article 109 of the party's draft constitution outlines segregation of the sexes in public institutions and during sporting events" --Leroy65X

Iran hosts the international womens olympics, why include it here for HuT?


 * Yes, it occurs in Iran. If one country has a policy, does that make its adoption by a party in another country so insignificant no mention of should be made?  It's relevant to sports in Iran, it's relevant to HuT. --Leroy65X 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we trying to include significance to something insignificant for the sake of hoping it will imply some sort of sinister talibaneque nature of HT in readers minds?


 * This is the problem. Protecting the readers from "insignificant" facts like HT constitution mandates "separation of the sexes in public institutions and during sporting events." Why keep it a secret? Why not be proud of it if you think it's part of Islam? And if you do keep it a secret, might that not backfire?  Nothing like a secret uncovered to make a news story. And it's not like no kuffar will find out. The constitution is pretty easy to find on the web. --Leroy65X 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can't see the big deal in including or not including "unitary" government, except as a point scoring match between you two editors.


 * It one word! And it describes the constitution that HuT proposes to govern 1+ bililon people, and eventually for the world. --Leroy65X 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is this talking anyway? wiki automatically puts ISP numbers or wiki editor names on Talk comments. This wouldn't happen to be a .... sock puppet would it? --Leroy65X 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, we can discuss shortening later. Please address the point about narrating Aaliyah Stevens 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Zeyno Baran & right-wing think tanks
Discuss please. She works for right-wing think tanks and her opinion cannot be reproduced as facts, or narrated in a passive voice. Actually her opinion that HT refuses to field candidates is clearly contradicted in the same section by HT's attempts in municipal elections in Kyrgystan, so she seems to be getting her facts wrong. Aaliyah Stevens 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, we can discuss shortening later. Please address the point about narrating Aaliyah Stevens 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sentence now reads: Although hizb means party in arabic, HT often does not registered as a political party or attempt to elect candidates to political office in the countries were it is active, according to Zeyno Baran of the Washington-based Nixon Center think tank. --Leroy65X 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've amended it slightly so that the fact that it is a right-wing think tank is mentioned. Aaliyah Stevens 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have any doubt about her right-wing hawkish nature read these: Trying to redefine Islam with disregard for Hadith, claiming Hadith are not a primary source: [http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=4042 The truths of the Muslim faith are in its primary source: the Quran. The hadiths (words) and sunnas (deeds) of the Prophet Mohammed are only secondary, used in cases where there is uncertainty.]

Giving support or asking for moderation towards a potential military coup by the army in turkey against the democratically elected government:

And arguing that the west should not ever use or co-opt the support of non-violent, anti-terrorist, moderate Islamists in the war against terror:

Aaliyah Stevens 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not commented here in a while but your comment amuses me. Right-wing? Her views on ahadith and Turkish coups are right-wing how? You appear, judging by the link you present, to be insinuating that the Muslim Brotherhood is "non-violent, anti-terrorist, [and] moderate." The 'brotherhood' is a widely designated terrorist organization that openly calls for killing all Jews. KazakhPol 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

actually the entry on Baran itself needs updating.

Dear KazakhPOl, the MB is neither terrorist nor wanting to kill all jews, that is absolute rubbish. The MB is not banned in any western country at all, it is open in America and the UK, and it condemns 9/11 and al-qaida. See the article entitled "The moderate Muslim Brotherhood" linked in on the MB page in wikipedia by a nuetral non-Muslim expert. 80.38.230.248 14:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 193.115.70.9

 * "Why was the one-state quote removed? This is refereneced and indicates an evolving stance." HT believes that "only a one state solution will work" in for Israel and the Palestinians 

HT wants to abolish the state of Israel, not find a solution that "will work for Israel and the Palestinians." The HT solution will leave "one state" where there was Israel and the PA, but the HT constitution does not allow non-Muslims to vote. What one one-state solution proposal doesn't allow non-Muslims to vote for its state's head of state? --Leroy65X 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your moralistic judgment on how "right" THEIR one-state solution is, it doesn't mean you can deny they have called for a one-state solution. They DO allow non-Muslims to vote for their own representatives in the parliament (Shurah), just because some don't like the fact that non-Muslims can't choose the spiritual/political head of Islam you can't deny that they believe in a one-state solution - at least they are not like other Palestinians groups who called for the "jews to be driven back to the Mediterranean sea" - they accept that they are there to stay. Lastly the constitution you quote is a "proposed" constitution of Nabahani from the 50s - not a definitive blueprint, party members & the party as a whole are not obliged to believe in every point within it, it is a snapshot of their historical development and an example of constitution to illustrate a point.Aaliyah Stevens 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These are facts not "moralistic" anything. Non-Muslims might have representative int he parliament but they have no power, they cannot vote on laws. What one one-state solution proposal doesn't allow non-Muslims to vote for its state's head of state? --Leroy65X 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But you cannot remove a referenced quote from them calling for a one-state solution, just because you don't like the political structure of that one state solution, please see WP:NPOV. The quote is referenced, and it is already mentioned elsewhere that the Caliph can only be Muslim. (Anyway thinking about it, considering that Jews are a majority in Israel proper (not west bank, or gaza) they would have a local prime minister type representative who would sit on the national Majlis) and Muslims would not be allowed to participate in the elections for the Jewish representatives.<--- This is all besides the point BTW) Aaliyah Stevens 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Why use a normative statement as "controversy surrounds" when there is little controversy around this issue, if there was Cameron would have used it)"

You may not think there is any controversy but Cameron does, or he wouldn't have mentioned it in his article. Cameron thinks HT may have played a part in bomber decision to bomb. HT does not think they did. That's the controversy.--Leroy65X 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Cameron never raised the names of Omar Sharif or Asif hanif regarding HT, provide the link if you can.Aaliyah Stevens 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-read the article please. --Leroy65X 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You said "Cameron does, or he wouldn't have mentioned it in his article", please provide a link to where Cameron talks about the 2003 attempted Israel bombings by asif hanif et al.


 * "Why put words in their mouths? let the quote speak for itself"

Some introductory explanation helps. Many people would think professions of "non-violence" and being "at odds with, or even in conflict with, every other civilisation or ideology`," are contradictary. An encyclopedia is not just a list of facts or quotes.--Leroy65X 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But you can't put your own point of view in! Especially when the quote you are explaining with your own opinion, is shorter than it with your explanation added. This is straight POV. They are clearly talking about ideological conflict as per their usual obsession with thoughts and ideas, but anyway, that is my opinion too, but i won't put it in. Aaliyah Stevens 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not POV but common sense. We can't whitewash anything that might alarm non-Muslims about HT by calling it POV. --Leroy65X 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's such "common sense" why don't you let the quote speak for itself, rather than giving your own interpretation of it? Aaliyah Stevens 15:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of source material by Stevens
Please do not continue to delete sourced text. The following has been deleted several times without explanation:

''Some observers doubt the sincerity of HT's non-violence. According to author Olivier Roy, "the Hizb ut-Tahrir position against the launching of jihad is purely tactical. The organization believes that the time has not yet come for jihad, but that it is a compulsory duty for any Muslim." [16] The Terrorism Research Center complains that the initial responce to the London 7/7 bombings by the website HT 1924.org was not to condemn the killing of civilians, "but to urge British Muslims to be strong in the face of an anticipated backlash. The letter [on 1924.org] accuses [G-8] world leaders of taking advantage of the London attacks "to justify their ‘war on terror.'"[17]'' --Leroy65X 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? Deletion of source material by Leroy
1 . ''"According to Jacob Townsend, research analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and co-author of a paper on the Hizb ut-Tahrir presence in Australia. "“The biggest risk from Hizb ut-Tahrir is if, and I say 'if', it acts as a conveyor belt for extremism, moving people from radicalisation and towards violence ideologies. There is only suggestive evidence, not conclusive evidence that around the world Hizb ut-Tahrir itself has ever been implicated in violence. So, we have to be careful in the sense that on the basis of evidence, 'no', Hizb ut-Tahrir does not authorise or organise violence”.""''


 * OK, let's summarize this: Jacob Townsend, at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says there's no evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir "authorise or organise violence”. --Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

2 . ''"Noman Hanif (lecturer in radical Islam, terrorism, and energy security at the University of London) argues that "'just as there exists no hard empirical evidence to substantiate Zeyno Baran’s conclusions..... Suffice it to say that Baran’s ... enterprise is comprehensively dismantled by former Swiss civil servant and historian, Jean-Francois in his research paper entitled “Hizb -ut Tahrir--The Next al-Qaeda, Really?” and by the only established research on HT by Exeter university academic Suha Taji Farouki, which categorically discounts their logic...the attempt to link HT with terrorism lacks evidence and objectivity because in essence it forms part or part of a broader political strategy engineered by the British Home and Foreign Office towards political Islam and HT in particular.'""''


 * Here's Hanif's conclusion to a long article on the failure of "Secular liberalism and its Capitalist derivative": The conflict now rages in the Islamic world to transform itself from a stateless phenomenon into a Caliphate in order to practically display its message in the global theatre with the aim of attracting universal man. The Message
 * Could it possibly be Hanif is a supporter of new HT-style Califate? Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? --Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

3 . However Sardar points out; "“The suggestion that the radicalisation of Muslim youth can be laid firmly on the door of Hizb is also hard to swallow. The anger of young Muslims against the West has a much broader context. There was a great deal going on during the 1990s that agitated young Muslims and brought anti-Western sentiment to the fore - from the first Gulf War to the genocide of Muslims in Chechnya.”"


 * So HT is not the only thing radicallzing Muslim youth? This is news? This is worth five lines of quote? --Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain you're 3 deletions of sourced material? Now my 3 quotes are from credible sources, lecturers, etc your quote from terrorism.com (so called terrorism research centre -see above discussions on psuedo think tanks on such dubious outfits) is from a clearly right-wing website, not credible according to wiki rules,


 * Anything rightwing (or dub rightwing by you) is "not credible according to wiki rules"?--Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

and most importantly which is actually factually incorrect, because this wiki article has the text that terrorism.com alleges HT omitted a condemnation of 7/7 in it, and it includes that statement that 7/7 was haram so your quotes seem to contradict the reality: ''
 * not true. terrorism.com alleges that HT's first comment on 1924.org was not to condemn the attacks "but to urge British Muslims to be strong in the face of an anticipated backlash. The letter [on 1924.org] accuses [G-8] world leaders of taking advantage of the London attacks "to justify their ‘war on terror.'"
 * they never alleged HT didn't condemn the attack (and add "when fingers will be pointed at us from the wider community we need to come together") when pressed the next day.--Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Explicit Condemnation of July 7th Bombings in London

The day after the 7th July attacks in London, the party issued a nationwide leaflet which said: "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.[62]" ''

I highly doubt your claim about Olivier Roy, it is not sourced to anything verifiable, and according to online reviews he does not consider HT potentially violent:


 * Published books are not "verifiable"? Not legitimate wiki sources? --Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Hizb ut-Tahrir was called UFO that is Unidentified Fundamentalist Object, because the author did not know whether to classify it as neo-fundamentalistic or rather connected with political Islam" (not jihadist which is his other category)

and here: "Included (in the book) are all types of immigrant Muslim communities in the West; transnational evangelical Muslim movements such as Tablighi Jama’at; transnational Wahhabism and other forms of Salafism; radical Khilafist groups such as Hibz ut-Tahrir, which are struggling to establish a utopian Caliphate ruling over the global ummah but without any territorial basis; and of course global jihadist terrorist networks such as Al Queda." 


 * Neither quote says or implies HT is not violent. --Leroy65X 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And to whoever keeps adding the naqitheen paragraph, that is totally unreferenced. Aaliyah Stevens 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

 * There are a number of problems with this article:
 * Editor Aaliyah Stevens deleting quotes without explanation
 * When pressed, editor Stevens explaining that quotes from "rightwing" think tanks "are not credible according to wiki rules", whereas quotes from university or college lecturers are; and that she "highly doubts" another quote she deleted though it came from a well-known and respected book on Islamism.
 * Stevens piling up excessive number of excessively long quotes of questionable relevence and notability to "disprove" any statement from any journalist or researcher about HT that might alarm non-Muslims. (Your devotion to HT is admirable Stevens, but out of place in an encyclopedia.) These need to be trimmed down and irrelevent ones deleted. --Leroy65X 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is part of the same discussion. I will respond soon, some of your earlier points about reduction in length & summarization is valid not just for my quotes, but also for the many other quotes some of which you have added. Lets first agree on what quotes to add, and then try to slim them down. I'll reply in full soon Aaliyah Stevens 16:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

New proposed shorter "position on violence" section
I propose this shorter more succinct first part to the section,


 * What? Succinct?
 * First off, what HT believes about use of force is the most talked about issue in regards HT. If there is a lot to say we should say it, even if it takes up a lot of space.
 * And second why is the succinctness come from cutting the critics of HT and not the long sprawling sections on how HT is anti-violence? --Leroy65X 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

instead of the current one. This reads a lot easier
 * disagree --Leroy65X 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

and summarises the views of both sides, I must remind everyone that this section was supposed to be HT's referenced and quoted position on violence,
 * Why? Why aren't other notable sources relevent? If an organization (like HT) is, was or is planing to be engaged in illegal activity, it is not likely to advertize that fact in its official positions. Why shouldn't the article ALSO include the evidence and even opinions of notable sources?  --Leroy65X 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

not what other people theorise about their intentions:

Accusations of supporting of violence by HT have been limited to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2003 HT members were quoted saying that Palestinian suicide bombings against Israel were legitimate acts of resistance
 * made a slight revision but kept it short.--Leroy65X 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Shiv Malik said in a New Statesman Magazine that the attempted 2003 suicide bomber in Israel, Omar Sharif according to an old friend, 9 years earlier was heavily attending all HT-organised circles for his first semseter at University in 1994. Shiv Malik also reported that his E-mail inbox contained a HT mailshot with the words "' ... destroy the hegemony of the colonialist powers...".
 * Is there some wiki regulation against singling out an author as though the article was on his blog instead of in the "left-of-center" New Statesman? --Leroy65X 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

HT flatly denies that Sharif had any "affiliation whatsoever with Hizb ut-Tahrir," and says that, "Despite extensive investigations by the police and security services, including legal proceedings against members of the Sharif family, no link to Hizb ut-Tahrir has ever been proven." Noman Hanif, lecturer at the University of London agrees with HT saying Sharif was not very fond of HT and that "there is again more than enough doubt to even suggest a link between (attempted bomber) Asif Hanif and HT. "
 * This is very sloppy. Who said Asif Hanif had anything to do with HT???? Not Malik. --Leroy65X 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An argument theorised primarily by conservative American think-tanks against HT is that although it may not promote or engage in violence, it acts as a "conveyor belt" for young muslims who leave HT to join more radical groups, some of which may possibly be violent. This theory was championed by Zeyno Baran of the Nixon Centre, and Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation.

According to author Olivier Roy, "the Hizb ut-Tahrir position against the launching of jihad is purely tactical. The organization believes that the time has not yet come for jihad, but that it is a compulsory duty for any Muslim." .
 * Is Roy a "conservative American think-tank"? --Leroy65X 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

HT's use of the word Jihad is not limited to violence, according to Jean-François Mayer of the University of Fribourg writing for the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs; "Hizb ut-Tahrir insists that Islam ‘obliges the Muslims to oppose the rulers with opinion [only] and to account them for their actions’, quoting the Messenger of Allah, who is reported to have said that ‘The best jihad is the word of truth spoken to a tyrant ruler’. This is exactly what Hizb ut-Tahrir has been doing in various parts of the world,"  Mayer ridicules the insinuation that HT could turn violent in his paper "Hizb ut-Tahrir – The Next Al-Qaida, Really ?".

Noman Hanif concludes in one of his papers; ''"Attempts by US think tanks to insinuate a link between HT and terrorism in order to frame it under the war on terror have conclusively failed." --

Aaliyah Stevens 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC) --

"Shorter position on violence section" is just a POV edit
Only quotes and positions of people or groups criticizing or doubting HuT have been removed. That's the only thing shorter about the section.

I propose that if it is agreed the section is too long we spin it off into a separate article. The issue of whether HuT is violent or potentially violent is a central isue. It's why there's been talk of banning HuT in UK --BoogaLouie 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

HT in the UK
Documentry airs on monday on the BBC. ( Hypnosadist ) 23:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

NUS resolution
There was a long piece of text on an NUS resolution:

''... However, at an NUS Policy conference, motion 804, the conference believed that;

<BR>''24. A motion passed at 2004’s NUS annual conference falsely accused the Islamic political party Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) of being racist and extremist. During the debate at conference, HT was wrongly accused of organising an event to celebrate the attacks in New York. <BR>''25. HT is an intellectual and political entity that seeks to changes people thoughts through intelligent discussion and debate. <BR>''27. HT has condemned the terrorism, which occurred in New York in 2001, Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005. <BR>''30. Government proposals to ban non-violent Islamist organisations such as Hibz ut-Tahrir (HT), combined with the failure to address the fascist BNP reveals the hypocrisy and Islamophobia behind the ‘anti-terror’ measures. <BR>''31. There is a mass support from a wide range of organisations against the possible state ban on HT, including FOSIS, The Muslim Association of Britain, The Muslim Council of Britain, Respect, Stop the War Coalitions, Yvonne Ridley and others.... <BR>''...Conference resolved: <BR>''25. To remove Hizb ut-Tahrir from NUS’s no platform policy.[80] The Foreign Affairs Journal claims a report that argues Hizb ut-Tahrir "dominates the British Scene" with some eight and a half thousand members in the United Kingdom; "while the MAB could only boast 1000"[81]

''Delegates at this particular NUS Conference did not get the chance to vote on the motion. However, it is generally agreed that the No Platform for Hizb ut-Tahrir would have been upheld. Particularly in the wake of anti-Semitic materials being distributed by the General Union of Palestinian Students earlier in the Conference.

This is a minor point with much POV and OR ("However, it is generally agreed that the No Platform for Hizb ut-Tahrir would have been upheld") and zero sources, so I trimed it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NUS resolution reconsidered
The link to the reservation says nothing about the Policy conference, when or where it was. There is also nothing else on the internet about the conference. So I have cut the part still further to one sentence.


 * However, at a recent NUS Policy conference, a motion allegedly passed stating the early motion "falsely accused" HT, as the party "has members from both sexes and different races" and so is not racist. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NUS still maintains a No Platform policy against Hizb ut Tahrir. All contrary information should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukhari (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Morris" :
 * Morris, Nigel. "PM forced to shelve Islamist group ban", The Independent, July 18 2006.
 * Morris, Nigel. "PM forced to shelve Islamist group ban", The Independent, July 18, 2006.

Complaints about the article
There are significant problems with this article - as many contributors have noticed it "starts to read like HT's defence...blatant politicking" [1]

In the real world, HT has been repeatedly accused of supporting violence and terrorism. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564616/Islamists-'urge-young-Muslims-to-use-violence'.html http://www.newstatesman.com/200511140010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm

In the very first section, however, the article claims that the only controversy surrounding HT and violence is that it believes violence may be at some stage in the future necessary, while HT is associated strongly with the word "victim".

Observers differ as to whether HT is a victim of unjust and untrue allegations of connections to terrorism, [10] or is only opposed to "the use of violence now," not to "violence as such."[11]

This article has long been the subject of an editing war, as a small hardcore group of users consistently delete all references to criticism of HT.

(quote from Article Grading at top of page) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to add some of the content from the links and satisfy the complaint. I have to agree the article leaves a lot to be desired. There were for example several redunant articles quoted about why the government decided not to ban HT in UK but nothing about why some wanted to ban it in the first place. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Is there any reason for the POV tag?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure who added that - the pro or anti-HT editors. -BoogaLouie (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * .... And is there any reason for the weasel word tag? There is no specific complaint that I can find on the talk page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel word tag
If no one has any complaints I'm going to remove the weasel word tag. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objections i removed it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting part of Antisemitism controversy
Have deleted the text: ''It should be noted that any verse of the Qur'an cannot be explained except by one qualified to do so. It is claimed that the statement refers to the situation at the time the Antichrist (dajjal) has descended and the Muslims stand united fighting the Jews, who will take the Antichrist to be their God and Saviour. With the help of Isa, even the stones and rocks will call out and say, "There is a Jew standing behind me, come and kill this Jew'' <BR>... as there was nothing in the citation (an article in the guardian) refering to any of this.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a well known prophecy of Muhammad, and will provide the reference soon Aaliyah Stevens (talk)