|
|
|
|
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.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
