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.