Islamic Revival

On 19/1/2015, the UK Government wrote a letter to Muslim leaders demanding they do more to counter ‘extremism’ and that Mosques and other institutions should push “British values”. As soon as Muslims voiced criticisms, Prime Minister David Cameron closed down the debate saying that anyone who disagreed “had a problem” – addressing Muslims as though they are his subjects, not citizens that Prime Ministers are ‘supposed’ to serve. This letter appears to target three things: Firstly , it fuels propaganda in the context of the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill currently before parliament. This letter and other statements sustain a false narrative that the more Islamic you are, the more of a threat you pose. This is the flawed logic upon which the UK’s entire anti-terror policy is built. It deflects attention from foreign policy and the persistent abuse of Islam on an industrial scale. Even former intelligence chief Eliza Manningham-Buller admitted that the Iraq war fuelled t...

Dr Abdul Wahid, Chairman of the Executive Committee of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, will be writing to Imams and mosques across the UK this week. This follows the intimidatory letter issued by Eric Pickles on behalf of the government, in which he attempted to place responsibility – for acts of violence like those committed in Paris – on Islam and the entire Muslim community. In the letter, Dr Abdul Wahid asks Imams to resist the pressure to create a “British” or reformed Islam that is pleasing to the government, but which compromises the tenets of Islam itself. He asks Imams to play a crucial role in guiding the community and not succumb to the fear of being labelled “extremists” asking, “if those who have this sacred knowledge do not teach people, then who will?” He further states: “Muslims living in Britain have a choice similar to that Quraysh offered to Rasool Allah (salallahu alaihi wasallam). Either to adopt Cameron and Pickles’ values and stay silent at the munkar around u...

The announce­ment by Saudi state  TV , of the death of King Abdul­lah bin Abdu­laziz, aged 91, will bring to an end the sec­ond gen­er­a­tion princes who have ruled the King­dom for most of its 80 year his­tory. It now ush­ers in a third gen­er­a­tion of princes who num­ber in the thou­sands. We are repub­lish­ing this 2012 analy­sis which analysed the House of al-Saud By   Adnan Khan Saudi Ara­bia, with the world’s largest oil reserves, is a crit­i­cal piece in the jig­saw of inter­na­tional order. With the pass­ing of King Abdul­lah, the sec­ond gen­er­a­tion princes who have ruled the coun­try for most of its 80 year his­tory is effec­tively at an end rais­ing the prospects of poten­tial insta­bil­ity due to a power strug­gle amongst the rul­ing family.   Mod­ern Saudi Ara­bia was a cre­ation of the Sykes-Picot Agree­ment in 1916,  a secret under­stand­ing between Britain and France defin­ing their respec­tive spheres of influ­ence after World War I. King...

The scale and immediacy of the politicisation of the Charlie Hebdo incidents last week necessitates an exposition on the issue that would otherwise be undeserving. People are killed everyday around the world in numbers and in circumstances that should put the events in France in perspective. The selective moral outrage displayed by some serves only to devalue the countless more lives lost every other day. It seems some in Australia are arrogantly and irresponsibly heedless of the fact that provoking and insulting a people’s core beliefs is a matter that can only end in acrimony for everyone concerned. If that wasn’t enough, the biggest criminals of the world like Obama and Netanyahu are already seeking to exploit the events of last week for their predictable but nefarious purposes, despite the dust not settling and facts yet to be confirmed. For these reasons, we would like to deliver clear messages to the politicians of Europe and to Muslims. A Message to Europe's politic...

Francois Hollande, the French president said in a speech before the annual meeting of French ambassadors and diplomats on Friday, 16/01/2015:  "We are not fighting a religion in France, but we are fighting terrorism and hatred."  He stressed the commitment of France to  "freedom of expression and will never negotiate it."  This speech by Hollande comes at the wake of the attack, in which two young Muslims avenged the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and punished the criminals of the Charlie Hebdo Newspaper who insulted the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. In 2007, two Muslim groups in France sued Charlie Hebdo for its decision to publish dozens of Danish caricatures (cartoons) representing Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم; but the French courts dismissed the case on the grounds that "the cartoons come under the laws of freedom of expression, and it is not an attack on Islam."  Also the Judicial Defense of the Muslims' Association filed a law...

In the aftermath of the events in Paris, with perpetrators still on the run, the West’s press and politicians have set a narrative across the world – that the journalists at Charlie Hebdo were killed as part of a war on free speech and as such they died as martyrs. We could go around in circles with arguments and counter arguments. ‘Had there been no provocation there would have been no backlash’ versus ‘violence is never justified when insulted’. One thing is for sure, in my view. Had any government in the Muslim world taken a robust stand on the on-going insults to the Prophet – peace be upon him – threatening diplomatic action or to cut trade relations over the insulting depictions – I do not believe individuals would feel the frustration to retaliate. This is one of the reasons why calls for the restoration of a legitimate Islamic polity in the Muslim world continue to resonate so strongly amongst Muslims globally – to return stability and independence to the region. ...

Following is the comment from Uthman Badar's  facebook  page  - a w ell renowned writer, activist & media representative of Hizb-ut-tahrir Australia: 1. It’s important to judge the provocation and reaction together, separately and in context. Together, because one leads, in part at least, to the other. In context, because neither arise in a vacuum. And separately, in the sense that the justification or otherwise of one does not mean the other is likewise; there is world of understanding and explanation beyond the shallow realm of mere justification or condemnation. Those who stifle discussions of context, by charging those who bring these up with being apologists for terrorism, are in fact themselves the apologists because what they seek to hide exposes a much greater, systematic, persistent terror – the terror of states. 2. All this "we stand for free speech" talk, in this context, actually means "we stand for freedom to insult". This is because the ...