Hizb-ut-Tahrir Statement On Australian Politics – Mendacious, Or Refreshingly Honest?
by CatStrangler101 (December 2013)
I have been inspired to write this essay due to a statement from Hizb-ut-Tahrir that was brought to my attention recently. The statement was written in September 2013, before the Australian election, and although there has now been a change of government in Australia and there have been promises of a crackdown on illegal immigration, especially in regards to the so-called “boat people” arriving from Indonesia and beyond, I feel that many issues that Hizb-ut-Tahrir have touched upon in this statement are likely to remain unaddressed. They should indeed be addressed, but perhaps not in the way that Hizb-ut-Tahrir intended.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir Statement – 02 September 2013
It was revealed last week that the Coalition, under the leadership of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, if elected, would seek to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir and prevent its members abroad from visiting
, one from among a range of proposed policies related to Islam and Muslims. Australia
In this regard, Hizb ut-Tahrir
, emphasises the following: Australia
1. This is classic populist politics from the Coalition and the Opposition Leader. By portraying a tough stance against “extremism”, finding the burqa “confronting”, being a strong (read: blind) ally of “
” and generally being against Islam and Muslims, Tony Abbott seeks to court the vote of the Islamophobic elements of the electorate. Israel
This is the same Tony Abbott who in an interview with Alan Jones on 2GB in July 2010 said in response to the proposition that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed that, “The general principle in this country is that you don't punish bad thoughts. We don't even punish bad words, as long as those bad words don't amount to an incitement to break the law.” Evidently this “general principle” is expendable for the facilitation of cheap populist politics.
2. What Hizb ut-Tahrir carries of thoughts and ideas – the superiority of Islam over other ideologies, the establishment of Islam in the Muslim world in the form of the Caliphate, the political unity of the Muslim world, the sovereignty of God, and the like - are shared by millions of Muslims globally. Criminalising them is to criminalise the ideas of millions of Muslims. Indeed, it is to criminalise Islam itself, as these are fundamental ideals of Islam.
3. The reality is that Mr. Abbott, and the political establishment more broadly, has a problem, not with Hizb ut-Tahrir, but with Islam itself. Lacking the courage to admit this they adopt covers in the form of Islamic symbols, attire, values, rules, and organisations. It is what Hizb ut-Tahrir stands for they have a problem with: the removal of Western interference in the Muslim World and the rejection of integrationist policies locally.
4. Criminalising ideas instead of debating them only reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of those who take such a path. Suppression of ideas through force of law is the way of autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, regimes propped up and supported as allies by western governments. The west lost the battle of ideas in the Muslim world a long time ago, resorting to dictators to suppress the political and societal expression of Islam. Will they now take the same path here in west?
5. On our part, we are ready to substantiate our positions intellectually and to show that secular liberalism, not Islam, is the problem. Tony Abbott made similar claims against Hizb ut-Tahrir in the election campaign of 2010. At the time we challenged him to debate us publically, if he has the courage befitting a statesman, instead of hiding behind cheap election politics and fear mongering. We challenge him again now to the same. We are ready to debate Mr. Abbott at the place and time of his choosing.
02 September 2013
Contact: Uthman Badar, Media Representative, on [email protected] or 0438 000 465.
This refutation addresses specific points in the Hizb-ut-Tahrir statement, and is not intended to be an all-encompassing condemnation of the political ideology of Islam. Nevertheless, if some of my assertions go beyond simple refutation of those points, I hope that the reader may appreciate their relevance.
First of all, I would like to reiterate that there is NO SUCH THING as Islamo-phobia. Islam, as a totalitarian political ideology, seeks to overthrow and destroy all Western Governments and societies based on Judaeo-Christian principles, which arguably represent the best framework to date for the advancement of humanity, not only for our generation, but for subsequent generations, and that framework is undeniably superior – on EVERY measurable scale - to anything that Islam has to offer. The religious aspects of Islam are of no interest to non-Muslims, but to be concerned about the effects of the political ideology of Islam on our civilisation is not Islamo-phobia, it is Islamo-REALISM.
Using the description of “classic populist politics” indicates a desire to demonise any discussion of the truth about the political ideology of Islam. If the truth about Islam were universally understood, if everyone were fully conversant with the commands in the Qu’ran to convert, subjugate or kill non-believers, and if the punishment of death for apostasy (leaving Islam for another religion or for no religion at all) did not exist, Islam would long ago have crumbled into dust.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is right when it says that it carries the thoughts and ideas of millions of Muslims around the world, concerning the superiority of Islam over other ideologies , the establishment of Islam in the Muslim world in the form of the Caliphate and the political unity of the “Muslim World.” What it does NOT say is that it seeks to impose Islam on the rest of us via Sharia Law, which would eliminate all the hard-won democratic freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for over the past few hundred years – such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and equality for everyone before the law, regardless of race, creed, color or gender.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is also right when it says that the political establishment has a problem with Islam and lacks the courage to admit it. This lack of courage is a global phenomenon amongst our political elites and is due to a combination of spinelessness, abject dhimmitude, a desire to court the Muslim vote, fear of the power of the Muslim petrodollar and the disruption of oil supplies to Western economies, and a lack of long-term thinking concerning the well-being of Western civilisation in favor of short-term fixes and keeping the lid on the situation long enough for those same politicians to retire with their gold-plated pensions to their gated communities in the sun, far away from the havoc they will have unleashed on the rest of us if they continue to do nothing to stop the spread of Islamisation in our countries.
Most politicians in the West condemn “Islamic extremism” without pointing out that it is the core teachings of Islam (in the Qu’ran and Sunna) that inspire the behaviour of Muslims around the world to commit numerous atrocities (acts of Jihad in the name of Islam) ranging from the murder of off-duty soldiers such as Lee Rigby in Woolwich to the massacre of innocent shoppers at the Westgate mall in Kenya. If they were HONEST, they would admit that Islam is indeed the problem (not “Radical” Islam, “Extremist” Islam or “Fundamentalist” Islam - but Islam itself) and move to reclassify it as a totalitarian political ideology rather than a religion, considering that it is every bit as pernicious as the Nazism of the 1930’s in Europe, and far more dangerous at this point in time because we have allowed so many of its adherents to live within our Western borders.
As far as criminalising ideas instead of debating them is concerned, is it not the OIC (the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) itself that seeks to criminalise criticism of Islam through pressuring the UN to adopt resolution 16/18? Hizb-ut-Tahrir states that the battle of ideas was lost by the West in the “Muslim World” a long time ago, but the truth is that the battle of ideas has been suppressed in the “Muslim World” because Muslim political elites instinctively realise that to expose Islam to the light of truth and the rough-and-tumble of criticism, ridicule and mockery that all ideas in the Western world have been exposed to for centuries would inevitably mean that the political ideology that underpins Islamic supremacism and the Global Jihad would simply cease to exist.
Hizb-Ut-Tahrir, in their statement, say that they stand for the removal of Western interference in the “Muslim World” and the rejection of integrationist politics locally. There would of course BE no interference by the West in the “Muslim World” if the political ideology of Islam did not mandate the conversion, subjugation or death of ALL non-Muslims everywhere. Given that the political ideology of Islam does indeed mandate these things, making them incumbent on all devout Muslims everywhere to implement them in whatever way they can whenever the opportunity presents itself, it’s hardly surprising that the West should seek to defend itself by whatever means possible. If anything, the West has been too slow to take the steps necessary to control and constrain the political ideology of Islam due to political correctness and the fear of offending cultural sensitivities, which have taken precedence over the common-sense issues of national security and true community cohesion. (I use the phrase “true” community cohesion to differentiate it from the phrase “community cohesion” that politicians routinely use when they mean “don’t say anything offensive about Muslims or Islam for fear of rocking the boat.”)
As far as the rejection of integrationist policies locally are concerned, if Muslims do not wish to integrate or assimilate, then they should not be allowed to come to Western countries, full stop. There is a good case to be made for a moratorium on ALL Muslim immigration to Western countries, and every step should be taken to stop the spineless appeasement and dhimmitude that characterises our relationship with Muslims already here. Muslims should be held to account in the same way that the rest of us would be if WE indulged in the same childish, antisocial and criminal behaviour that Muslims routinely exhibit. In addition, there is an equally good case to be made for encouraging Muslims already here to emigrate back to the Muslim world, perhaps with generous financial inducements. Considering that the alternative will be far more costly, not only in financial terms, but also in terms of lives lost when the inevitable civil wars break out as Muslims become more numerous and more emboldened, it is a price that, in my opinion, would be well worth paying.
Catstrangler101 – not a cat, not a strangler, not 101
Follow The Cat @catstrangler101 on Twitter
To comment on this article, please click here.
To help New English Review continue to publish interesting articles such as this, please click here.
If you enjoyed this article and want to read more by CatStrangler101, please click here.