REPORT: A Sunday with Hizb ut-Tahrir: 'forced assimilation' and what the media didn't report

Senior leader Ismail al-Wahwah pointed out that not a single Muslim army was occupying a Western capital while Western armies have occupied numerous Muslim capitals.

The Australian wing of Hizb ut-Tahrir (“Party of Liberation” or HT for short), an organisation ex-PM Tony Abbott wanted to proscribe under anti-terror laws, held its annual conference in Sydney’s Bankstown on Sunday. The theme of the conference was “Innocent Until Proven Muslim” and was promoted with a rather slick video, a Facebook page, another Facebook page, a Twitter presence and no doubt other social media.

The hall was packed with around 700 people, perhaps more. There were more women than men, and the crowd were from all different ethnic backgrounds. There was also a large media contingent, with most TV crews and journalists staying until almost the end. Even an Al Jazeera English crew covered the conference. The scribes enjoyed the free lunch, soft drinks and bottled water along with the rest of the crowd. John Safran was seated up the back and proved to be a huge hit with many outside the hall in the foyer. Two HT guys even posted a selfie with Safran on Facebook.

Outside, police vehicles were doing rounds of the adjacent car park. I had borrowed someone else’s car to get to the conference, and I hope they don’t receive a visit from any law enforcement officials.

Prior to the conference, The Australian took the unusual step of providing prominent space on its opinion page to HT spokesman Uthman Badar. I say unusual because the same newspaper harangued the ABC’s Q&A program for allowing a question from another “radical” Muslim Zaky Mallah. Fairfax also ran a column by Badar.

So how does one summarise in less than 1000 words the themes of the conference and all its speakers, as well as active Q&A sessions, all of which ran for around five hours? Media reports available online appeared to focus on a few key themes: singing the national anthem in schools; the alleged targeting of Muslim-looking people at airports; and the use of deradicalisation policies to bring about some kind of forced assimilation.

I understand it’s hard to cover so much material in a short space. But seriously, the reports I saw and read on the conference were disappointing, more for what they left out than for how they reported it. For instance:

One female barrister from the UK (also an HT spokesperson there) sent a recorded message in which she spoke about the impact of the latest changes to the UK government’s deradicalisation program, Prevent, which targets not only violent extremism but indeed any form of deemed extremism. Professionals such as teachers and doctors apparently now have a legal duty to report children showing “signs of radicalisation”. Apparently, even a child as young as three years old has been picked up by the anti-terror radar in this manner. Some of the case studies she cited, including cases involving children with intellectual disabilities, are horrendous. I was a bit sceptical of her claims until I noticed the mainstream British Press filled with reports of such cases.

An independent Victorian lawyer (who was once a New South Wales police officer) spoke at length about the impact of counter-terror laws including the practices of prosecutors. He also criticised the media reporting of terror cases.

The speech of HT senior leader Ismail al-Wahwah, who earned the ire of Jewish organisations for his remarks during a recent Israeli bombardment of Gaza, barely rated a mention.

Al-Wahwah made a point that seemed to resonate with the audience. He said not a single Muslim army was occupying a Western capital while Western armies (whether directly or through their puppets) have occupied numerous Muslim capitals such as Baghdad and Kabul. His message was that many young people are affected by events overseas, especially now that unfiltered information from war zones is widely available. Our government’s foreign policy inconsistencies and choices do potentially radicalise young people. They do compromise our domestic security. They also create a flow of refugees that no one benefits from except companies like Transfield. No amount of schoolkids singing the national anthem will change that.

In the quality and professionalism of their publications and online presence, HT can match any major media organisation. HT is the only Muslim organisation to have produced a comprehensive (if somewhat jaundiced) guide to the application of anti-terror law and policy for over a decade. But then, these days just about any group — “fringe” or “mainstream” — can do the same. Just about every primary school kid in Karachi or Bangalore is a whiz kid on the keyboard and can navigate multimedia platforms with ease. Meanwhile, if some media reports are to be believed, our Defence Force can barely keep up with the constant stream of Tweets from Islamic State.

HT can also match the most paranoid newspaper columnist or shockjock when it comes to generalising about the “other”. HT talks about “the West” and “Western leaders” in the same manner and with the same lack of nuance that a Rita Panahi or Andrew Bolt would talk about “Muslim leaders” or that mythical and near-mystical entity they call the “Muslim community”.

First published in Crikey on 2 November 2015.

BLOGS/IDIOCY: Tim Blair gives yet more room to Hizbut Tahrir loopies ...

Hizbut Tahrir (or "HT" for short) are a political party that wants to re-establish the Caliphate using various means. These include handing out pamphlets at mosques after Friday prayers, sticking up posters on Matthews Street Punchbowl and holding conferences in various parts of Sydney.

I've been to one of their conferences. Not terribly interesting affairs. But I have written about them. Here's something appearing in The Age some years back:

HT teaches that active involvement in democratic politics represents a fundamental breach of the sacred law. Democracy and secularism are declared un-Islamic, voting is forbidden and membership of secular political parties regarded as virtual apostasy. HT insists Muslims work outside the system and re-invent a more "Islamic" wheel, an approach seen by the well-integrated majority of Muslims as an exercise in futility.

Although HT's goal is the re-establishment of the caliphate, they have no clear plan of action. At this stage, HT does little more than distribute pamphlets and hold conferences.

And for something less serious, here's an excerpt from a piece in NewMatilda:

... the Muhammadiyah, one of Indonesia's two main Islamic 'churches.' At last count, the youth group of Muhammadiyah consists of a handful of members around 10 million. The other group, Nahdhatul Ulama (NU) has around 20 million in its youth wing and around 40 million in its senior wing.

The Indonesian wing of HT has around 150,000 members. Excuse me while I check my blood pressure ...

... HT's clumsily expressed methodology attracts so few people, and their ideology is so fringe, that they'll be lucky to take even a first step toward achieving any caliphate. HT should be compared less to al-Qaeda and more to the galaxy of loony socialist groups on campus seeking to establish socialism.

Suffice it to say that HT can't exactly count me as one of their media buddies. And they know it. Look at what they had to say about my piece at the Muslim Village idiots' forums.

Of course, there are some places where the HT crowd know their message will be reproduced almost unadulterated. Fringe attracts fringe, and the fringe fruitloop who edits the opinion page of Sydney's Daily Teleraph has shown his willingness to print entire press releases of HT as op-eds. Tim Blair is one of the few friends on the media HT can count on.

Which made me curious as to why Blair would describe yours truly as one of HT's "media defenders". Does Blair know something that even hard-headed HT aparatchiks don't?

When it comes to hpolding narrow-minded tunnel-visioned nonsensical positions and attract mainly complete morons to their discussions, Blair and HT have plenty in common.



Words © 2009 Irfan Yusuf


Bookmark this on Delicious

COMMENT: Why Hizbut Tehrir (HT) are no security threat in Australia

The tiny movement known as “Hizbut Tehrir” (translated as the “Party of Liberation” and usually referred to as HT) has In recent times gained a large amount of publicity. Following the London bombing on 7 July, evidence emerged that the suspected bombers had some links to HT and the radical Sheik Omar Bakri Mohamed.

HT are now banned in the UK. ASIO is currently investigating HT’s Australian branch to see if it is a threat to Australia. At this stage, the Attorney-General has indicated that he might consider amending anti-terror legislation to allow groups such as HT to be banned.

But are HT really a threat to national security? And who are their representatives in Australia? What sort of following do they have?

We have seen the Doureihi brothers appear on TV and radio attempting to articulate their message. We have not seen any other HT representatives. Why? Simple. There are none.

HT is largely limited to one family. It has few members outside that extended family. Further, it is frequently maligned and attacked by competing radical Muslim political movements.

HT has been attacked by numerous Salafist groups close to bin Ladin. Salafist groups have accused HT of being a crypto-Marxist organisation, of being little more than Muslim Zionists keen to establish an Islamic state at all costs. At one stage, Salafist groups went so far as to claim that HT had legalised pornography for its members.

The animosity between these two sectors of radical Muslim activism is deep-rooted. There seems little prospect of anything resembling reconciliation. But apart from the Salafist cultists, HT’s relations with mainstream Muslim Australians have also been strained.

In recent times, moderators of discussion forums on the website IslamicSydney.com have been openly supportive of HT and Salafist preachers such as Abdur Raheem Green. But this has not always been the case. HT have been a favourite target for lampooning and ridicule, especially in relation to their isolationist views on Muslim participation in the economy and politics.

HT is a fringe group in the Muslim Australian communities. The largest crowds they gather are below 500, many attending to heckle and disrupt HT meetings. For many young Muslims, HT is a temporary ideological pitt-stop on their way to more refined and sophisticated Islamic thinking.

This group sits on the fringe. It is unable to galvanise the support of mainstream Muslim Australians. However, banning the group will trigger an enormous amount of sympathy among many Muslim Australians who find some aspects of HT rhetoric attractive.

HT speaks of double-standards when it comes to human rights and fighting terror. It criticises Western governments sponsoring tyrannical rulers, generals and kings in many Muslim countries. It wishes to see Muslim nation-states returned to the rule of a single Caliph. It wishes to restore some collective dignity to the world Muslim “Ummah” (faith-community). It rejects Muslim involvement in mainstream discourse because it believes all western institutions to be inherently hostile to Islam.

Many of these views resonate with young Muslims tired of seeing their faith maligned and their sentiments ignored by governments and peak bodies. Perhaps one good antidote to stem the perceived growth of HT influence is for Messrs Downer and Howard to start involving Muslim Australians in the foreign policy discourse. Peak Muslim bodies must also open their ranks to other voices instead of relying on keeping the same tired old faces with poor English skills appearing on the screen.

When Australian governments and Muslim peak bodies ignore the views of young people, the youth are often pushed into the waiting arms of fringe groups like HT. 15 years ago, I used to go to youth camps with the Doureihi brothers. In those days, they were young teenagers with sharp tongues for whom a Muslim youth camp was one of the few opportunities they got to escape their difficult household.

Many in the broader community may wonder why few Muslim Australians lambast the Doureihi brothers. Those of us who know their history, their difficult personal circumstances and the manner in which they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and overcame their restrictions cannot help but admire the Doureihis.

At the same time, many of my and Wassim Doureihi’s generation experienced first-hand the obstacles set for young Muslim Australians wishing to organise activities for their generation. Generally these obstacles were placed in our way by ethno-religious Muslim peak bodies with a first generation migrant mentality. I can understand how the Doureihis ended up where they are. It could so easily been me also.

HT are a fringe phenomenon. A good way to stem their influence is for Australian governments to involve Australian Muslim citizens in the foreign policy process. And for Muslim peak bodies to start listening to Muslim women and youth. A good way to turn HT into a real security risk is to ban them and send them underground. This will galvanise support for HT amongst even mainstream Muslim Australians who feel marginalised and ignored by governments and peak Muslim bodies. Time will tell which way the government inevitably goes.

© Irfan Yusuf 2005

NB: To switch off the funky music, go to the playlist at the bottom of this homepage.


Bookmark this on Delicious