Haitham al-Haddad – Can the Home Office Ban Hizbut Tahrir in UK

			The government is set to prescribe Hezbollah Harriet, as a terrorist organization.
		

			Can you give us some comments about this? Yeah, okay. Hang on hamdu lillah wa salatu salam ala
Rasulillah. I have actually three or four comments on that. Yep. Let us start. So the first one is,
		

			this is a very dangerous precedent. Why? Because we don't see
		

			legal due process. And, you know, it is, it is even a British value to follow the rule of law. So
what is the rule of law here? Where is the legal due process? Have they held hands with the head
accountable before the court, and they accused them of what they accused them, and then they
listened to the defense of his victory, this should be this should be the case. And I remember
mentioning many times that proscribing an organization internationally as a terrorist organization
		

			should not be politicized. Otherwise, governments states will use this as a weapon against any group
that descends to what they say or disagrees to what they say or oppose them. And this leads to a
kind of political dictatorship, which many governments would like to see. So this is the first point
where is the legal due process to to ban them?
		

			hesitated we know that has been done here is the same as has been done 20 years ago, and they were
on maybe more than that, of course, you might disagree as an individual, we might disagree with
their tactics with some of their views with some of their statements. But that doesn't mean that
they should be proscribed as a terrorist organization, because a terrorist organization has so many
consequences, even ethically, it has so many organizations and imagine you call someone Oh, you
		

			belong to a terrorist organization, you are a terrorist, individual. This is a big thing. It's not a
small thing, let alone the the the legal consequences on that. And that, you know, brings the can of
what is it open, opens the can of worms in regarding the government's legislation regarding tourism,
has it been subjected to a legal due process?
		

			And many people, many commentators have suggested that the whole thing should be reviewed? Because
it has been heavily politicized. So this is, this is one thing? Yeah, by the way, I was saying that
his material is the same. That, okay, 2030 years ago, and David Cameron, he was the first one to, as
far as I remember, to suggest banning husband to heal, and he could not do so because there is not
enough legal ground. As far as I remember. Also, the previous Home Secretary, Sarah suela provident,
		

			she also wanted to do that, but she couldn't do so. And you know, he only Blair wanted to ban them
as well. Tony Blair. Oh, yeah. It's true. Yeah. Tony Blair, even before David Cameron, and but now
we see that they have rushed it and they will put it before the parliament in just a matter of few
days just to ban them which you can see that there is a political motivation behind that. Okay. The
the second point, see,
		

			if they managed to do that, then what does that mean? It means that they are infringing on a very
basic right. British citizens have already have and they are trying to limit this right, which is
freedom of speech.
		

			Yes, we agree that certain elements of freedom of speech should be controlled limited, but that
doesn't mean that you criminalize anyone who is observing freedom of speech as far as he did not
incite a criminal offense or he is promoting, promoting crimes, okay? So, or let alone of course
infringing the rights of others and
		

			and putting others in danger or humiliating other people. So we agree that there are limitations but
but if you just criminalize someone because of the freedom or free speech that they are enjoying,
then this will set a precedent for the government and will pave the government that will pave the
way for the government to stop any other group that they disagree with. And this will lead to maybe
criminalizing thoughts.
		

			Okay.
		

			And it will lead to what they call as the thought policing, because he's with the heavy rain.
According to the policies that they've been stressing on for a long time. They say that they are a
non violent organization. They don't endorse terrorism, they don't endorse violence. They keep
saying this, and they have intellectual, they are willing to go into intellectual debates, political
debates, etc. You might disagree with them, you might not like them, but you should not go that far
		

			to criminalizing them or fouling them, or prescribing them as a terrorist group. Now, see, the
government, it claims that they have been here, they endorsed terrorism by glorifying the
		

			mass and saying that Hamas people they were heroes are those who
		

			those who are involved in October 7, yet attacked Israel, they are they are heroes has potato said
that they are heroes, they also said that has been the Harrier is an anti symmetric, okay? These are
the two main reasons now anti symmetric, they could not prove prove any.
		

			They could not prove it. What is where is the proof that has been really anti semitic. And see the
government wants to make any criticism of Israel? Yeah, not any criticism. They want to slowly
slowly to stop any criticism for this right? By starting by threatening people that once you
criticize Israel openly and strongly, then you might be labeled as anti Semite, hence, you have to
be careful not to criticize Israel even
		

			that much. Okay. This is one thing. And by the way, once we say anti semitic anti semitism, that's
an that needs to be defined, yes.
		

			What is the legal definition of anti semitism? This is number one. Number two, when they say that
has been tolerated, endorses terrorism by calling those who were involved in October 7 heroes as
heroes now, okay, if one of the members of Hezbollah Harriet have said it is not the entire has been
here, then that person should sit before a court. And what does that mean? Maybe he will, maybe he
will charge as committing
		

			maybe a criminal offense, but not to say that they are all should be classified as a terrorist
group, even calling this as a as a criminal offense, this needs a legal due process, and we have to
be we have to have a balance between freedom of thoughts and also criminalizing someone for you
know, for for his ideas or for his thoughts. This is also they say that well, husband tehidy
remembers, they were chanting Jihad Jihad jihad. Now
		

			is now jihad. We see it in the Quran. Yeah, Allah Allah, Allah Allah mentioned, you had
		

			so many times in the Quran, with a jihad as a, as a resistance as a as a physical resistance, or
jihad with thoughts. But the word jihad is a legitimate Islamic term. And the meaning of jihad is
known that it includes any struggle, whether physical or non physical, against the enemies of Islam
when they commit certain crimes against you. So, so thou
		

			But you cannot use that as a reason for prescribing an individual or a group as as a terrorist
organization. Otherwise, later on, you will criminalize all Muslims.
		

			And this leads me to the third point, which is where are they going to stop? So now it is his bid to
hurry up, okay. And then violent organization, then they will go to any non violent organization
that disagrees or criticize the government's policies. So, they will go to Joomla. Islamia, for
example, in Pakistan, because they say, well, Joomla Islami, you have endorsed terrorism before
maybe again, it's Paxton against Pakistan, because they have their own ideas of jihad, etc, they
		

			might just find anything, they might even criminalize day when the movement because shift, money is
a big trigger, or he's the biggest figure of day when the movement, he endorsed hummus in recently,
when he was talking about, you know, in a convention in Pakistan, they will even criminalize
Sophie's, because so many sofas are supporting Palestinian resistance or maybe supporting hummus. So
oh, they are supporting a terrorist organization. So we need to criminalize them, they are
		

			supporting Hamas. Now, see, you will end up in criminalizing all Muslims,
		

			all Muslims. And this leads me to the fourth point, which is now if the government behaves like
this, now, Muslims will feel alienated, and there will be polarization,
		

			most of the Muslim community in one side, and the government or the policymakers in one side, and
this polarization is very dangerous for the for the society, and Muslims will lose the trust. And
they will say, well, the government is against Islam. They are using Hamas as a as a, what is it to
cover their hatred of Islam? And they know that the entire Muslim Ummah, they are supporting the
legitimate Palestinian resistance, they know this, no one will they can see this, okay, then are
		

			they going to label the entire Muslim Ummah, as supporters of Hamas. Now, if Muslims feel this, then
Muslims will feel that well see, this is a proof that the British government hates Islam and Muslims
and they want to criminalize Islam and Muslims, but they are doing it in a subtle way. So, this is
really quite dangerous. And see, we have to say that the British government is one of the best
governments in the world, in terms of fairness and in terms of following the rule of law. And we
		

			want to maintain that, because if that is not maintained, then the government will become
		

			a form of dictatorship, intellectual dictatorship, and this kind of dictatorship will not allow will
not allow the right infrastructure for the government to flourish for the for the for this country
to flourish, and the polarization will pave the way to internal conflict and mistrust between
different communities within the British society. So that's why it is a quite dangerous
		

			maybe see all these are four points, if I may add the fifth point.
		

			I know I took a long time, but the fifth point which is it is a very deep intellectual point
		

			which is the relationship between what is ethical and what is legal.
		

			Okay. Now
		

			is everything that is ethical, should be legal, is everything that is legal should be ethical. And
it seems that the policy makers in non Muslim countries are unable to have
		

			to have a just formula a fair formula to
		

			To judge that to judge the relationship between anything that is illegal, and anything that is
ethical. And of course Islam provides the solution for that. And Allah Allah Allah Allah command
commanded us to establish justice. Yeah, you already know. Amina Bill Christie show her that Allah
and Islam wants us to have that balance. Okay. I'll give a simple example.
		

			You know, the other day, one brother asked me about sending his father's to the kale home. Yeah. So
now that is legal
		

			to send your father, the elderly father to the care home. But is that ethical?
		

			It is not ethical. Yeah. So now if it is legal, does it mean that it should be ethical? No. Okay.
Even disturbing someone in the street, it might be within the legal framework, but it is not
ethical, ethical, okay, drinking alcohol, it is legal, but it is not ethical.
		

			How to Treat neighbours, sometimes you are dealing with them according to the law. But that doesn't
mean that it is ethical. So we cannot say that everything that is illegal is ethical. Now, what does
that mean? Okay, maybe there are
		

			maybe,
		

			you know, implementation of Sharia implementation of Sharia. Here in this country. There are certain
elements of Sharia that are already implemented, even the court the judicial system is already
implementing some elements of Sharia. Okay, why? Because Sharia is based on justice, and there is a
good level of justice here within the judicial system. And as we said, that Allah Allah, Allah
commanded us to establish justice, yeah, you already know who know a Wamena will Christie Shahadat
		

			Allah and Allah Allah, Allah, Allah says in Aloha mobile, I delivered SN, et cetera. Now, there are
some elements that are not legal elements of Sharia that are not legal in this country. Now, do you
want me to feel that those elements that are illegal here to feel to believe that they are
unethical?
		

			This is impossible. Now, you are infringing
		

			the people's freedom of thoughts of belief and belief, thoughts and belief you are infringing into
that okay, you are interfering into their own belief system? Yes, maybe they cannot.
		

			They there is even even if they want to call for something that is illegal, that is not illegal call
for something challenging the legal system, it is not illegal, okay. There are certain laws maybe
that they are not implemented. And we want them to be implemented. So are you going to criminalize
me because I am challenging the law and I want to change the law. If that is the case, then there is
no need for the parliament, there is no need for consultation, there is no need for voting, there is
		

			no need for the right to dissent. Because the whole purpose is for people to recommend to so just to
call for some elements that they believe that they are, they should be part of the legal system. So
anyway, this is a very deep discussion. The point here is okay, if we don't believe if Muslims don't
believe in eternity, that the Palestinian resistance is or is or are maybe because there are
different groups are classified as
		

			as terrorist groups. They don't believe that the Palestinian resistance in general as a concept is
is part of terrorism. Okay, this is the belief of Muslims. Now, are you going to criminalize that
belief? Okay, just because you want your you deem it to you deem that to be illegal. You want to you
want it to be unethical as well. This is a big problem.