Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Over at the Daily Dish, guest blogger Conor Friedersdorf mentions the questions I have about Imam Feisal, and he notes my skeptical remarks about the Imam's participation in a Hizb ut-Tahrir conference. He asks:
Obviously I cannot know the motivations of Imam Rauf, nor am I familiar with Hizb ut-Tahir, and I certainly don't think that the leader of the Cordoba Initiative is beyond scrutiny or criticism. But I will say that were I a moderate Muslim working to oppose violent jihad, I'd go wherever I was invited in an attempt to win converts. And it seems to me that folks engaged in similar projects often do reach out to some shady characters for better or worse.
Conor, I understand the sentiment. You may even be thinking of the video to which I linked in my post about The Narrative. It shows the former British radical Maajid Nawaz--who in fact had been a leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain--donning a flak jacket, walking into workshops in Peshawar and the Swat Valley, and trying to convince the hostile participants to renounce their support for al Qaeda. I'm sure we both thought Nawaz noble, and hoped for his success, whether or not it seemed likely. You're quite right that there is often much to admire in a man who meets his enemy and endeavors through good will and reason to persuade him to renounce evil.
But there are some people so vile and so committed to evil that to lend them legitimacy by shaking their blood-soaked hands is to harm the cause of peace; and there are some who are just obviously lost causes. Margaret Thatcher said of Gorbachev that he was a man with whom the West could do business. This was not an endorsement of communism, of course. It was a pragmatic judgment: He was reasonable enough, she felt, that some good could now come out of a softened diplomatic posture. She did not feel this way about his predecessors, and she was right not to feel that way.
You note that Clinton sat down with Arafat. That didn't do the world much good, did it? And Arafat was at least by that point willing to pretend to be interested in some way in peace. Hizb ut-Tahrir makes no such pretense.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is vile, and the harm that stands to be done by consorting with them--and thus legitimizing them--is almost certainly greater than any good that might come out of it. This is what any rational person would conclude, looking at what they say and do. Sure, a peacemaking miracle is always a theoretical possibility. Sure, I might be able to sit down with Charles Manson over dinner and convince him that there are more positive and nurturing ways to engage with people than by slitting their throats. But that's a fantasy world, and in reality, it's important for civilized people to send the world's psychopaths a clear message: You're beneath contempt.
You say that you're not familiar with Hizb ut-Tahrir. Perhaps if you were more familiar with them, you'd see why I feel this way.
The group is banned throughout the Middle East and Central Asia--it's too extremist even for the Islamic world. (Why it's not banned in Europe is a question we might all profitably ask ourselves.) From their constitution: "Every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad." ... "[democracy] is a Kufr system because it is laid down by man and it is not from the Shari'ah Laws." ... "Muslims have "the right to participate in the election of the Khaleefah and in giving him the pledge. Non-Muslims have no right in this regard." ... Muslims who "have by themselves renounced Islam ... are guilty of apostasy from Islam and are to be executed."
From other official literature: 'Know that the Jews and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah, be destroyed "until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me so come and kill him."'
At one of their more recent conferences, in Jakarta, the global head of the organization whipped the crowd into a frenzy by calling for a war on Jews. Even the Guardian--no strangers to the idea of excessive tolerance--fired one of their interns when they discovered he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
If consorting with Hizb ut-Tahrir is too radical for the Guardian, I don't think it's evidence of a double standard to say it's too radical for anyone who purports to be the spokesman for a strain of Islam so moderate that Americans should feel perfectly at ease with his plans to build an Islamic center right by the ruins of the World Trade Center, wouldn't you agree?
Basically, he might as well have gone to an al Qaeda conference. Not much difference.
And all this is assuming that we're giving him the lavish benefit of the doubt. Withdraw that benefit, and things look mighty grim indeed.
Related Conversations
HINDERAKER > On the Mosque, Obama Shoots Both His Feet
SAJAK > Ground Zero Posturing
McGURN > Good Citizenship Means No Ground Zero Mosque
LEVY > Hamas Reality Check
More from Claire Berlinski
What Does Imam Feisal Really Believe?
Let's Not Convince Them We Want to Destroy Islam
Looking for Moderate Islam? Start Here.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Why, oh why must so much time be spent in responding to Conor Friedersdorf? I have no idea who he really is (beyond his alleged elite credentials) or why he and his mostly wrong-headed opinions matter in the least. The only thing Conor with one N seems to excel at is baiting writers with better intellects than he as evidenced by the seemingly endless supply of Friedersdorf rebuttals published in the National Review, The American Spectator, etc., etc. etc. Future generations will surely be puzzled wondering what on earth a Conor Friedersdorf was.
Sorry, Claire, I enjoy your writing enormously. It was the Conor Friedersdorf that broke the camel's back.
Jun '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Jeanne, I am nearly rolling on the floor with laughter. I read Claire's post and thought, as I was finishing, why the heck is Claire spending so much time responding to he who I shall not mention. The first comment that pops up is yours. Beautiful. I would never have done as good a job expressing the exact same thought. Thank you. I am sure you have read this, Jeanne, but hopefully it will catch someone's attention who might have otherwise missed it.
By Andrew McCarthy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/tolerant-pose-andrew-c-mccarthy
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Because Conor, unlike Hizb ut-Tahrir, is someone with whom we can do business. He's articulating questions many well-meaning people have. If I didn't know much about Hizb ut-Tahrir, I might ask the same questions. And in the process of discussing this, perhaps, he and I can contribute to helping people become better informed before they make up their minds.
I don't expect the general public to be Hizb ut-Tahrir experts. I do think many of them, if they really got it about this group, would have a different perspective on the news that Imam Feisal attended one of their conferences. Even if Conor can't be persuaded, perhaps someone reading this will be.
And Conor is a member of Ricochet, so please be polite to him. Even were he not, politeness makes the world go 'round--unless you're talking to a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Jun '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
It seems, the most insignificant thing of all, within Islam, is the conscience of the individual. Your imam is not the least bit interested in the whisperings of your heart. Once you're deemed to be a Muslim, you better not change your mind and become something else, or you'll deserve to die. That's Islam. I think if you were looking for the complete inverse of the US Constitution, you couldn't get much closer than the Koran.
Jun '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Please accept my apologies, Claire. Although my sentiments were honest, you are the hostess and I am but a paying guest. Of course you can respond to whoever or whatever you wish. Your work on examining Feisal is to be commended. I wonder how difficult it is for most Americans to see that this man, even though he may be an angel, is building an obelesk honoring Islam, in whose name thousands suffered horrific deaths only a few blocks away. The complete tonedeaf arrogance of this act is apparently something only us knuckledraggers in flyover land can see and feel without any explanation needed. Perhaps it takes a $400000 "Ivy League" education to question one's inate common sense.
Keep up the great work.
Aug '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
HT is often talked about as being a part of the "conveyor belt" of terrorism. This is what differentiates it from a lot of other organizations. It's run by a bunch of jihadi globalists, and once you enter the HT world, you're placed to meet up with the guys who will see to it that you end up in a Yemeni desert, or the North Caucasus mountains, or the Hindu Kush.
There are a lot of bad guys out there. None of them are people we necessarily "want" to "do business with" (as Claire, and the Baroness, said). However, while I don't really like CAIR or ISNA being legitimized by mainstream actors, it doesn't keep me up at night. HT (and Tablighi Jammat) are a different matter. They're bad. They're really bad. They are only one or two degrees of separation away from attacks on western targets, and the attackers (or their recruiters or the logistics cells that outfitted them) probably passed through HT's doors in the past.
May '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
I agree with your latter point. We should know more about Hizb ut-Tahrir. I can't quite get on board with your belief that Conor is asking questions because I didn't see him actually ask a question. He professed ignorance, then plunged ahead with his opinion despite his ignorance on the matter. I suppose that could be a very coy way of asking a question, but not one I'd recognize.
The major flaw in his reasoning is that moderates do not win converts from among the extremists. What changes the mind of a fanatic (and I don't use the word in a negative sense) is another fanatic position that will catch the attention and demand consideration.
Jun '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
This is some excellent investigative analysis done by Claire and Conor. I thank you both. So may we assume the conclusion is that the front man for a group of Muslims wanting to build a $100 million dollar mosque...er,,,community center, tall enough to overlook the sight of an Islamist attack (the most devastating attack in this country's history) that killed nearly 3000 Americans, is associated with Islamic terrorists? Oh, and it was originally called the Cordoba Initiative. Why did they stop calling it that? I have to admit to jumping to a conclusion based on merely feeling the pressure of a giant mosque-like thumb in my eye. You folks took the time to investigate. I admire your calm determination.
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Jimmie Bise Jr
The major flaw in his reasoning is that moderates do not win converts from among the extremists. What changes the mind of a fanatic (and I don't use the word in a negative sense) is another fanatic position that will catch the attention and demand consideration. · Aug 17 at 5:15pm
What did you make of Maajid Naawaz? I didn't think it was necessarily a losing game. And I think part of our strategy in Iran and Afghanistan is--as it must be--to win hearts and minds among extremists. But there's a difference, I'd say, between winning those hearts and minds in that fashion and legitimizing them by participating in their conferences -- which involves lending your name to the conference agenda, its promo materials, being photographed with them, laughing with them ... it's actually a more subtle difference, I think, than the people here are suggesting. I don't think Conor's position need be rejected as beyond the pale. I just don't think it's right.
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
They're generally not so much the terrorists as the terrorists' think tank, but yes. As for thanking me for investigating, you're welcome and it's kind of you.
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Sure he did, he just did it big-fat-Jewish-wedding-family style. I arrive at most of my opinions by arguing about them.
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
cdor: Please accept my apologies, Claire. Although my sentiments were honest, you are the hostess and I am but a paying guest. Of course you can respond to whoever or whatever you wish. ... The complete tonedeaf arrogance of this act is apparently something only us knuckledraggers in flyover land can see and feel without any explanation needed. Perhaps it takes a $400000 "Ivy League" education to question one's inate common sense.
Keep up the great work. · Aug 17 at 12:30pm
Hostess or guest, we must all abide by Ricochet's admirable Code of Conduct. Off the site, we may abuse whomever we wish, but perhaps our time spent here will make us better, more courteous people. I already swear less. It's an improvement. Cdor, if only the knuckledraggers in flyover land get this, what am I doing here?
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Colin: HT is often talked about as being a part of the "conveyor belt" of terrorism. This is what differentiates it from a lot of other organizations. It's run by a bunch of jihadi globalists, and once you enter the HT world, you're placed to meet up with the guys who will see to it that you end up in a Yemeni desert, or the North Caucasus mountains, or the Hindu Kush.
There are a lot of bad guys out there. None of them are people we necessarily "want" to "do business with" (as Claire, and the Baroness, said). However, while I don't really like CAIR or ISNA being legitimized by mainstream actors, it doesn't keep me up at night. HT (and Tablighi Jammat) are a different matter. They're bad. They're really bad. They are only one or two degrees of separation away from attacks on western targets, and the attackers (or their recruiters or the logistics cells that outfitted them) probably passed through HT's doors in the past. · Aug 17 at 2:55pm
Exactly. 100 percent.
May '10
Re: Hizb ut-Tahrir: We Can't Do Business With Them
Yep. Colin's point is the crux. I was coming over to say pretty much the exact same thing, though with the further point that the intelligence services of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan have long contended that Hizb ut-Tahrir actively funnels recruits to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, real gun-toting bad-asses. Obviously, those governments might have their own reasons for saying that (banning HT in addition to the IMU), but it's not a ridiculous accusation. In the ’70s and ’80s, Sinn Féin was accused of doing the same thing in Ireland—scrupulously maintaining a non-violent façade but funnelling people and support to the hard men with guns.