http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GH11Ag02.html Aug 11, 2005
In defense of an Islamic identity Note: British Prime Minister Tony Blair said last Friday that Britain would ban the Hizb ut-Tahrir's (HT's) British offshoot as part of measures in response to the London bombings on July 7, when four British Muslims killed themselves and 52 others on three underground trains and a bus. Mahan Abedin conducted the following interview with Dr Imran Waheed, the HT's spokesman, on July 31 at the St Georges Hotel in London. In light of the British government's announcement that it planned to proscribe the HT, a brief follow up interview was conducted on August 7. Mahan Abedin: Please provide a brief biography. Imran Waheed: I was born in 1977 in Birmingham. My parents are from Lahore, Pakistan. I studied medicine at Birmingham University and currently practice as a psychiatrist. MA: What is your position in HT? IW: I joined HT in 1993 and I am currently their media representative. MA: What is the position of the HT on the London bombings and its aftermath? IW: We made our position clear soon after the bombings: Islam does not sanction these actions. MA: But do you accept the attacks were carried out by Muslims? IW: That is what the initial evidence suggests, but we can't say that the Muslim community has real confidence in the police and the intelligence services. MA: What is your reaction to the announcement by Tony Blair that HT would be added to the list of proscribed organizations? IW: We condemn outright the announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair proposing a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir, a well-known non-violent Islamic political party. The banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir has as its aim the curtailment of legitimate Islamic political debate. Even though the party has been open to intellectual debate and even though the prime minister said that he wanted a battle of ideas, it became apparent that this government could not face the party through such avenues and resorted to such draconian measures. Placing a ban on a political party with a 50-year history of non-violence will lead many to question the talk of freedom of speech, tolerance, people power, human rights and democracy. MA: How does the proscription process work, for instance when are you likely to be banned? IW: We are working hard to prevent any such ban as we believe it is a serious misjudgment. We are consulting with our lawyers about the proscription process. MA: You said you will fight any proscription through the courts, how confident are you of success? IW: We will use all legal avenues available to fight any ban on the non-violent political work of our party. If the matter is looked at fairly by the legal system, then it will be clearly apparent that Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a terrorist organization. MA: If you are banned, would you consider reemerging under a different name, or is the HT brand too deep-rooted and emotive to abandon? IW: From a legislative perspective it is not as simple as that. We will work with the Muslim community and wider society to prevent such a ban. In the case of a ban, our first priority will be to challenge it through the legal avenues available to us. MA: The government also intends to ban the successors of the al-Muhajiroun organization; do you think that proscription is fair in light of the fact that these organizations have openly supported the terrorist attacks in London? IW: Hizb ut-Tahrir has no association with al-Muhajiroun or its successor organizations by word or deed. If people or groups are accused of breaking the law, then it is for the state to bring such cases to court. [Islamist preacher Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, who left Britain for Lebanon at the weekend after learning he could face incitement charges, will be banned from returning if he fails to come back before the end of the month. Bakri is the former leader of the al-Muhajiroun.] MA: Are you now fearful for your own future in this country? IW: We are not fearful at all and we feel our work continues to grow. MA: Some countries have successfully banned HT. IW: In the Western world, only Germany has done this, and the Germans have proscribed HT-related activities, not membership of the party. This is subject to a legal challenge and we are pursuing this through the courts. Generally the only countries that have banned the party are countries where legitimate political dissent is not tolerated, like Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Egypt. The party continues to work and grow in Western Europe, the US, Canada and Australasia. [Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia will be banned if intelligence authorities judge it a terrorist threat, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said on Monday.] MA: So you don't envisage the authorities deciding to suppress your party, even in the event of successful proscription? IW: It is not that we don't see any prospects of that kind, but you asked me whether we are fearful of it. We are banned throughout the Muslim world but we continue to grow there as well. We have seen the West throw away many of its principles in recent years in this so-called war on terrorism, so we will not be surprised by any actions. MA: OK, you may not be fearful, but you would not be surprised if the British decided to clamp down? IW: We don't feel for one moment that the British authorities want to do us any favors. MA: Have they sent you any signals to that effect in recent weeks? IW: No, we have not been given any signals, although they have said very clearly that they want to deal with extremists, and their definition of extremists are people who want to revive the caliphate. MA: Have you ever communicated directly with the British government? IW: Last year, we issued a response to a Home Office document called "strength and diversity" as part of the consultation process. This was a consultation document that discussed Muslim integration in the UK. More recently we have made requests to the Home Office and the Foreign Office under the Freedom of Information Act for access to restricted documents related to HT. Our request was granted by the Home Office and we are waiting for a reply from the Foreign Office. MA: Has the government ever approached you for security-related matters? IW: No. MA: Do you think you can play a counter-terrorism role in the UK and elsewhere by publicly and unequivocally condemning acts of violence committed by Muslims in the West? IW: We feel we are playing a counter-terrorism role by exposing the terrorism of Western governments. We are speaking out against what we regard as state terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Of course we engage Muslims and channel their energies into peaceful activities, but our main objective in this field is to counter state terrorism. MA: What is your assessment of the bombers' profiles? IW: I have very little to say on this, except that there are extensive attempts to profile would-be suicide members and so-called al-Qaeda sympathizers, but all end up making ridiculous assumptions about members of the Muslim communities. The reality is that the vast majority of Islamic activism in this country is directed towards peaceful activities and in my long involvement in Islamic activities I have not even once encountered any individuals, whether in mosques, community centers or elsewhere who indicated they wanted to engage in acts of violence. MA: But if there are such individuals in the Muslim communities of this country, do you think it is right that members of these communities should identify them and alert the authorities to their activities; to spy on them in effect as the establishment is now asking the Muslim community? IW: The real issue here is that the Muslim community at large is not guilty of any crime and it should not accept responsibility for anything it is not guilty of. How can you hold an entire community accountable for the acts of a very few? In terms of working with the security services and the police, it is apparent that even the parents and close family of the perpetrators of the attacks were not aware of their activities and intentions; so how could the community at large known about anything? It is the responsibility of the intelligence services to detect and foil these kinds of conspiracies. MA: I suspect what the authorities might say is that they need cooperation from the communities. IW: But a number of assumptions are made here. For instance, these individuals may not be overtly operating inside the Muslim community such that they can be easily detected. It is the police and intelligence services which have the capability to carry out this work. What they are asking from us is unreasonable and impractical. MA: But if some Muslims do come across information that could be useful, should they share this with the relevant authorities? IW: If any Muslim citizen had information pointing to a possible act of violence, then he has a duty to prevent this from taking place. But there is massive distrust of the police and security services, especially when some government ministers have come out and said that people of "Islamic" appearance can expect to be stopped and searched on a regular basis. This does not help in developing a good relationship between the Muslim community and the government. MA: Some people are saying that the high concentration of Islamic activists here in the UK may have been a factor in the bombings. IW: I don't accept that at all. In fact the opposite applies, the many thousands of Muslims who support HT is indicative that Islamic sentiments can be channeled into peaceful and legitimate political activities. And looking at this more broadly, Muslim people all over the world are showing a remarkable degree of restraint in the face of relentless attacks and provocations. Since the slaughter of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, the United States has invaded and occupied two countries. If you consider the atrocities committed against Muslims by Western and Israeli armed forces, the events in London and elsewhere really pale in comparison, for we are witnessing a 9/11 every few months in the Muslim world. HT's presence in the UK has ensured that the frustration of Muslims in this country is channeled into peaceful political activities. MA: Are you saying that you absorb elements who may be predisposed to violence and make sure their energies are spent on peaceful activities? IW: I would not say that we absorb people who may be predisposed to violence, rather we teach people to channel their anger and frustration at Western policies in the Muslim world, into peaceful and effective political activities. MA: Where and how were the bombers radicalized? IW: The single-most important factor for radicalizing these people, the so-called "conveyor belt" of terrorism is Western foreign policy in the Muslim world. It is the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the support for tyrannies in the Muslim world, like the [President Islam] Karimov regime in Uzbekistan and the [President Hosni] Mubarak regime in Egypt that is alienating and radicalizing Muslims across the board. I am not just referring to young Muslim males, but all Muslims irrespective of age and gender. MA: But do you accept that Western governments, specifically the UK government, is unlikely to change its foreign policy - in the short term at least - to accommodate these grievances? IW: While it may be unlikely to change, the HT is working hard to bring the government to account. MA: Many people would probably agree with you that the Iraq war has radicalized a lot of people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but in the case of Muslims some say that there is an ideology that transforms frustration and radicalism into terrorism. IW: The real issue is anger and frustration and its origins are Western foreign policy in the Muslim world. You could argue that there is a radicalization process and that these people justify their actions in the name of Islam, but in any case this is a very small minority and the Muslim community at large cannot be held to account for the actions of a very few. MA: How do you assess the policy of the UK government toward Islamic activists in this country, both indigenous and foreign? Some American and continental European commentators have claimed that the British have a very lax policy, which has enabled the radicals to grow in strength and influence. IW: I don't have a detailed analysis on this issue, but many Western governments have had liaison with Islamic groups over the years. The Americans, British and other Western governments have courted Islamists over the years. MA: How important is the deconstruction and de-legitimization of the jihadists' ideology to the counter-terrorism effort? IW: The reality is that the so-called war on terrorism is a much wider campaign and is not only directed at violent groups and individuals. Increasingly many quarters in the West are making it clear that the real war is against ideological Islam. MA: Is this a feasible project? IW: No, because this is striking at the heart of Islam and Muslims will never accept it. The idea that Muslims should not live under the caliphate and should not be subject to Islamic law and that the West and Israel should be allowed to occupy our lands or station their forces on our territories cannot be deconstructed because they form the core beliefs of Muslims. The Muslim masses want to live under an Islamic state and want to see an end to Israeli and Western occupations. This has nothing to do with the jihadis but constitutes the beliefs of the vast majority of Muslims who are engaged in peaceful struggle. MA: What is your analysis on the Salafi-jihadi mindset? IW: This mindset is not widespread among Muslims. MA: If you accept the premise that these people are harming Islam, then what is the best way of countering them? Please discuss in relation to non-foreign policy matters. IW: Let us be very clear here, because I think you are using the term "jihadis" very loosely. If you are referring to people in Iraq who are fighting for their land and their dignity, then that is their right and we endorse that. They are engaging in defensive jihad. But we condemn without qualification the actions of the London bombers. Britain is not a battlefield and these actions are to be categorically condemned. MA: If we accept the premise that Western foreign policy in the Muslim world is unlikely to change in the near term, then what is the best way of countering people like the London bombers and those who stand behind them? IW: Why do we have to accept the premise that Western foreign policy is unlikely to change? Western policy must change and the reality is that they recognize that political circumstances in the Muslim world are changing, thus boosting the fortunes of Islamists. The CIA [US Central Intelligence Agency] has mentioned in one of its strategic papers that there is a 20/20 scenario of the caliphate being reestablished in the Muslim world. There is a growing realization that their policy of supporting the dictators has failed. MA: On that point, how do you assess America's democratization drive in the Middle East? IW: These are destined to fail, because democracy is on the retreat in the Muslim world. MA: But people point to successful elections in Lebanon and Iraq. IW: I dispute that as I don't think there can be successful elections under occupation. MA: How about the pressurization of friendly regimes, like the House of Saud and the Mubarak government in Egypt? IW: These are cosmetic measures. For our part, we think that the return of the caliphate is imminent. MA: Do you really believe that? IW: It is my sincere belief that HT is in the final stages of its work. MA: What is your role here in the West? IW: We don't strive to establish an Islamic state here, but we aim to safeguard the Muslims' identity and heritage through education and consistent political activism. We also try to be a voice for those who live under the oppression of the rulers of the Muslim world. MA: Some people regard you as an overly intellectual party, but then others say you have a different side, and they point to alleged thuggish behavior by some of your members, particularly on university campuses. They also accuse you of anti-Semitism. IW: We reject these allegations; there is no thuggish side to HT at all. All of our members go through a process of intellectual and political culturing and central to that process is the methods we use to change peoples' thoughts, and you don't achieve that through thuggish behavior. As for anti-Semitism, we are wrongly accused of this because of our opposition to the state of Israel. Even non-Muslim intellectuals are often accused of anti-Semitism because of their opposition to Israel. The treatment of Jews under Islam is well known. They sought refuge under the Islamic caliphate in Istanbul as a result of persecution by the Spanish Inquisition. Anti-Semitism has no place in Islam whatsoever. MA: What about allegations that you are merely a propaganda outlet insofar as your Western operations are concerned? Basically what these critics are saying is that you are not a grass-roots organization. IW: But then how can we bring a thousand people to an event with three days' notice? This means that we have significant support in the Muslim community. We deal with people directly and year on year we have held the biggest Islamic events in this country. MA: You have consistently refused to reveal membership details on security grounds; are you willing to discuss this issue? IW: We have refused to do this on two grounds: security is one aspect, as a rule parties around the world do not reveal their membership details; in our case we don't know what is around the corner and what the authorities are planning for us. But more importantly we focus on awareness rather than membership. We are not a commercial company and as such we do not feel the need to produce annual reports. MA: Explain the range of your activities in the UK. IW: The fundamental aspect of our activities here in the UK and everywhere else is the dissemination of thought. We use various means to achieve that, including leafleting, publications, meetings, study circles, lectures, seminars, conferences and round-table and panel discussions. In short we utilize all methods that modern political parties use to convey their message to the people. MA: One of your speakers has described "integration" as a loaded word riddled with corruption. How do you explain that? IW: It depends on what you mean by integration. If integration means speaking the English language, eating fish and chips and wearing pinstripe suits, then we have no problems with that. The issue of contention is that the authorities have not defined integration properly. They say people ought to adopt "Britishness" but they have not defined what Britishness means. The most succinct definition of integration is where a host community requires the incoming community to give up something in order to gain something. What Muslims are being asked to give up is their political values and this is unacceptable because we can't give up our fundamental beliefs. MA: But there has to be deep integration at some levels for countries to retain their cohesion; don't you think? IW: This dichotomous argument, meaning that if you don't want integration you must want isolation, is dishonest. We feel there is a third way, and that is premised on interaction. We don't see any contradiction in a Muslim living in this country as a good citizen and at the same time holding fast to his beliefs and Islamic identity. MA: Do you have a problem with the notion of a "British-Muslim" identity? IW: It is vague. A Muslim is neither British, nor Pakistani, nor Saudi, simply because Islam transcends nation-states. But this does not stop anyone from being a good citizen. MA: Given the events of the past few weeks, and if there are further bombings, there may come a time when the government and the public demand that Muslims in this country make deeper divestments and commit themselves more to the UK. IW: We have a divine obligation to hold onto our Islamic identity. We are not going to give this up for all the gold in the world. But we are not a fifth column here in Britain; we are good citizens and are making effective contributions to society. MA: You don't think the manifestation of Islamic political identity in this country has a security dimension? IW: No, I don't. MA: Do you think Muslims in this country suffer from under-representation? IW: I think there is an artificial leadership with which the government interacts. When Tony Blair held a summit with Muslims leaders, we issued a press release saying this is a meeting of like-minded people. This close proximity to government does not afford this leadership any credibility in the Muslim community. MA: Who are you specifically referring to; the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)? IW: I am not specifically referring to anyone. But anyone who has assumed the mantle of leadership should not be too close to government. MA: What are your views on the MCB? IW: Our view of all these Muslim organizations is that they are our Muslim brothers and in accordance with Islamic etiquette we do not criticize them harshly. We meet with these organizations, including the MCB, and we exchange ideas and we tell them what we think. We tend to avoid public criticism because we don't want to lend credence to this moderate versus extremist dichotomy which the government is keen to promote in order to divide the Muslim community. MA: Do you think the proliferation of Muslim organizations in this country is a problem insofar as it is obstructing the emergence of large and effective organizations? IW: Not at all, because all these organizations are performing different roles. But what we can't have is an imposed leadership from the government. MA: How can Muslims in this country develop effective leadership? IW: I think the existing organizations should get together and discuss a model for leadership. One of the most important principles must be independence from government. Maybe there is a potential for drawing up a contract between the Muslim community and the government outlining the rights and responsibilities of the community. MA: Could this contract have a security dimension? IW: We are not going to spy on each other, if that is what you mean. Security-related matters are the function of the police and the intelligence services. MA: How about regulating the activities of imams? IW: But they have done this already insofar as they have de-politicized our mosques. They have brought Third World corruption into our mosques. MA: What do you mean by that? IW: Some Labour councils say if you don't talk about the war in Iraq we will give you planning permission for your mosque. They have used the Charity Commission to threaten mosques with removal of their charitable status if they talk about politics. We know cases of imams who have been threatened in terms of their immigration status and told they would be sent back home if they don't toe the government line. They are trying to develop a government-friendly clergy to legitimize government action in the same manner that rulers of the Muslim world have done. But everybody knows that these state clerics have no credibility in the eyes of Muslims. MA: How extensive is the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the UK? IW: I don't think they have that much influence. Our main issue with the MB is their pragmatic methodology; in some countries they have fought the government and in others they have joined it. As far as we are concerned the methodology of Islam is rooted in the divine texts and not dictated by time and place. MA: Some people in the US are saying that HT is a "conveyor belt" for terrorism, in effect saying that you may be peaceful but your ideology is the same as the jihadists' and that you prepare individuals for terrorist recruitment further down the line. What do you say to this? IW: We reject this completely. As I said earlier if there is a "conveyor belt" of terrorism, it is Western foreign policy. HT is a non-violent Islamic party and it has epitomized non-violent struggle throughout its 53 year history. Despite the harshest of repressions in certain countries, for instance the boiling alive of our members in Karimov's Uzbekistan, our people have remained peaceful. As for the ideological comparison, if the issue is the reestablishment of the caliphate then this is a goal shared by Muslims generally. This is not an ideology unique to HT or the jihadis, this is Islam. MA: Some people say your analysis of global politics and in particular US foreign policy is very radical. IW: I don't think it is radical at all. What we are saying is that US foreign policy is not charitable, it is not altruistic and it is designed to meet US interests. And the highest US interests dictate the prevention of the return of the caliphate. This is not radicalism, this is reality. In fact what we are saying coincides with the position of the US neo-conservatives, who have made it clear that America's primary foreign policy goal ought to be the prevention of the return of the Islamic caliphate. Moreover, they say that if this prevention requires the occupation of Muslim countries and the imposition of democracy, then so be it. MA: Some of your critics say that you operate in the West openly, while at the same time adopting a radical oppositional posture. In short you are not loyal to the states which allow you to operate. IW: Sometimes loyalty requires saying unpalatable things. The suffragettes were described as disloyal. MA: So you are loyal to Britain? IW: Our responsibility to the people of Britain is to present to them Islam - if we failed in undertaking this responsibility then we would have been disloyal to them. Mahan Abedin is the editor of Terrorism Monitor, which is published by the Jamestown Foundation, a non-profit organization specializing in research and analysis on conflict and instability in Eurasia. (Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) Milis Wanita Muslimah Membangun citra wanita muslimah dalam diri, keluarga, maupun masyarakat. Situs Web: http://www.wanita-muslimah.com ARSIP DISKUSI : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/messages Kirim Posting mailto:wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com Berhenti mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Milis Keluarga Sejahtera mailto:keluarga-sejahtera@yahoogroups.com Milis Anak Muda Islam mailto:majelismuda@yahoogroups.com This mailing list has a special spell casted to reject any attachment .... Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
