Tuesday, 11 September 2007

Maajid Nawaz on Newsnight tonight

Maajid Nawaz, one of the most senior members of the radical Islamist party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, talks exclusively to Newsnight on BBC Two tonight.

On the programme to be broadcast at 10.30pm Nawaz reveals how Hizb-ut-Tahrir advocate the killing of millions of people to unite and expand an Islamic super-state and why he resigned from the party.

For 12 years Maajid Nawaz was inside Hizb-ut-Tahrir, not only propagating their views in Britain, but exporting them to Pakistan and Denmark. He was imprisoned in Egypt for four years for being a member of the party. Up until May this year he was on their leadership committee.

The establishment of the Khilafah – an Islamic state across the Muslim world under Sharia law – is the central aim of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Last month they held a series of international conferences, the largest in Indonesia, to "accelerate" its establishment.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir publicly state that this would be achieved "without resorting to violence" and "following an exclusively political method".

But Maajid Nawaz has told Newsnight that, once that state is established, the party does advocate violence, and violent expansion beyond the Muslim world.

He says: "They are prepared to, once they've established the state, to fight other countries and to kill people in the pursuit of unifying this state into one state. And what I'd like to emphasize is that such a policy is not agreed upon within Islamic theology.

"... Hizb-ut-Tahrir privately and publicly condemn terrorism but the point I'm making is that's not the danger I'm concerned about.

"The danger I'm concerned about is creating a mentality, a psyche that can allow a state and it deems it acceptable for a state en masse to kill people in the cause of an ideology."

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a global Islamist movement founded in 1953, committed to the establishment of a unitary Islamic state across the Muslim world, under Sharia law. It is banned in many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, Syria and Turkey.

After the July 7th bombings the then Prime Minister Tony Blair moved to ban the organisation in Britain but there was insufficient evidence to do so.

The debate over proscribing the party has centred on how extreme the movement is and its stance on violence. It insists that it works through exclusively political means.

Nawaz says that his time spent in prison meant he started questioning if there was a better way "than just meeting oppression and anger with more anger and more oppression".

He developed serious doubts, leading to a decision to leave.

"I regret my whole association with Hizb ut-Tahrir and the way in which I propagated those ideas.

"... I think that what I taught has not only damaged British society and British Muslim relations and damaged the position of Muslims in this society as British citizens, I think it's damaged the world."

Despite his criticisms of the party, Maajid Nawaz is not joining calls for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to be banned in Britain.

He says: " I expressly and explicitly say to the members I want them to leave Hizb ut-Tahrir because I believe Hizb ut-Tahrir is an obstacle to the Muslim community moving forward, not only in this country but in the world in general. And that's why I'm here, because I regret me being a part of that obstacle.

"My ideal scenario would be not to ban the party but it would be that through the power of discussion and persuasion and the strength of challenging thought with thought, that eventually the party would fizzle out in this country and hopefully generally throughout the world."


Anonymous said...

So where has Mr Nawaz been all the time when capitalist states have used war to promote their ideology! Infact colonialism beacuse their main reason for war and diplomacy. Iraq is a glaring example of that, if we read Web of Deceit: Britain real role in the world by Marc Curtis, The new rulers of the world by John Pilger, Illusions of triumph by Mohammed Haikal and Rober Kagans Paradise and Power (US / EU power politics) we see clear double standards of those who want to deform islam (authubillah) into the European historical and cultural religion religated to personal matters only. Mr Hussain 'Ed' and 'Maaaajid' (ooops that a salafi spelling) and these guys are into big time bida (forgeting that it was the British who promoted 'wahabis' and used al saud to rebel against the ottoman caliphate as well as suppoted (sshh the j world, yes jihad against the eveil red Russains for a decade in Afghanistan!) If Muslims are not going to be used and abused they must have the political culturing from Islam and understand capitalism. Mr. Hussains had a brain if they decided to relapse into hypnosis for 10 years then only they are to blame!

Anonymous said...

'most senior member' and asked to be 'UK leader'

What is a senior member? all this shallow personality leadership 'asked to lead in the UK'? how can anyone lead a political party when he has no idea about politics or it importance? He doesn't even understand UK politics never mind the global issues? And now he's going on that gutter bin of declined weekly excuse for current affairs debate programme called 'newsnight' (should be called snoose night cos there is no debate) to do what?
Proove he's right everyone else is wrong, tabligh wrong, Hizb wrong, deobandis wrong, Salafis wrong, Bralawis wrong and New Labour and the singing and dancing sufi muslim council are right!
Now if only Umar bin al khattab (MABPWH) was here!

Anonymous said...

Ibn Umar (MABPWH) repoted that Rasul Allah (PBUH) said, ' I have been oredered to fight the people until they testify that there is no diety save Allah and that Muhhammed is Allah's Messenger, establish prayer and Zakat. When they do saw they will secure their lives and properties from me except what is due from Islam and their reckoning rests with Allah (mutafiq alaih Shaihayn Muslim wa Bukhari)

(according to the 'hussains' this means .....some apologetic interpretation to suit jeremy paxman!

Where is said...

Lions do not need to ROAR at dogs barking.

Now that Madjed has steeped so low to lie and make false allegations, this is sufficient for this ummah to view him as they wish. As for the non muslims, the writer, intelecuals and many journalist have already understood his angle and its more to do with salary and who his employer is, not Sufiism.

Wasi said...

After watching majid news night exclusive report it remind me of one of the story of British raj period of India, there was a very intelligent and very articulate man called Mirza Ahmed from Qadiyan Punjab, he was also a part of the British campaign to suppress the spirit of Jihad at the time of British Rule, he started his campaign against the Jihad and its spirit with very intellectual argument and he justifies by Text of Islam that Jihad Against the British Occupation and colonisation of India is Haraam, moreover he claimed that occupied India is Darul Islam and the queen is our Caliph and we cant fight against british rule as long as they establish Namaz and Roza(Salath and Saum).He was very ambitious young man as well as an hanafi Alim he pursued on this path which led him to claim that he is the Mehdi and then He is the last Messenger (Audhubillah min zalik )

I think Mr Majid has chosen the path of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani to become the tool and to be used by british establishment and Agenceis. I would like to remind those who chooses the path of pleasing the establishments and to fight Allah Deen they will never successful in this world and in the Aakhira their abode is Jahannam. I pray that you see the light of islam in the choosen month of ramadhan and repent and turn back to your Lord Allah Azzawajallah not British Govt.

Anonymous said...

It seems that maajid was broken in prison,

where were you broken Rashad?

Anonymous said...

Dear Brother mujtahid,

Is it allowed to try to destroy the hizb , after they did not let you back in after being suspended for dodgy stuff?

Do you know the what the mafhoum of the term "sour grapes is"?

Please learned disorganised, drifter, mujtahid, please enlighten me.

Anonymous said...

As for those who sell for a small price the covenant and faith they owe to Allah and their own plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter. Nor will Allah speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them: They shall have a grievous torment, a painful doom." [3:77]

By the Will of Allah SWT you and Majid have exposed yourself to the world. If you scan the internet 9/10 muslims view you as you are; traitors, colonialist collaborators and deviants who not only seek to protect the regimes of the Muslim world, but Israel too! Allah (SWT) has disgraced you and will ISA disgrace you further. In the hereafter, your despicable treachery will haunt you and there will be no escape by the Will of Allah (SWT).

ALLYING WITH the british and the Israelis (by openly advocating its existence) will lead to failure in this life too, when they dump you after they have manipulated YOU all they can!

The believers (Tabligi, DEOBANDI, Salafi, Ikwani, Tahriri or Sufi)will not be diverted by traitors and the march towards revival will continue. If anything, just as with the 'War on Terror' the apostasy and / or selling out of a few traitors increases the desire of the rest to want to work and revive the Muslim world.

Anonymous said...

Check out the in depth refutation of your student, Maajid Nawaz's article:


He must have learnt misquoting the scholars from you, as you do it all the time!

Anonymous said...

Ed, Maj, Rash - new party

Friends of Israel

Mohammad Idris said...

The rule of ghibah (backbiting) prohibits stating something negative (that which would not be liked) about another Muslim in their absence, despite it being true, with no Sharah permissable reason - there are a number of exceptions to this rule which the poster has omitted.

For instance, there is no backbiting when:
- seeking one's right and resolve from oppression,
On the authority of `A'ishah : Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, said to the Prophet (pbuh), "Abu Sufyan is a miserly man, and he is not giving me what would suffice me and my child, unless I take from him without his knowing." He said, "Take what suffices you and your child according to common usage." [Bukhari, Muslim]
"Allah does not like that the evil should be uttered in public except by him to whom injustice has been done."
The prophet (S.A.W.) said, "Not paying a loan back, when able to do so, allows a person, the loaner to mention it publicly, and the lender be punished." (Bukhari)

- when the issue of marriage and such like requires a character witness
On the authority of Fatimah bint Qays : she said, "I came to the Prophet (pbuh) and told him, "Abu Jahm and Mu`awiyah have [both] proposed to me." He said, "As for Mu`awiyah, he is a poor man with no money, and as for Abu Jahm, his stick never leaves his shoulder (ie he is a harsh man)." [Bukhari, Muslim, Malik]

- when someone is propagating or doing sin openly, spreading corruption or committing treachery and treason - their case
"There can be no backbiting of one who casts off the mantle of modesty." [Suyuti, Al-Jami` As-Saghir, 2/519, from Bayhaqi.]
From Zayd ibn Arqam (RA) who said: We set out on a journey with the Prophet(pbuh), in which we faced many hardships. 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy (the hypocrite) said to his friends: "Do not give what you have in your possession to those who are with the Prophet(pbuh) until they desert him. And in this case, when we return to Madinah, the honourable will dive out the meaner therefrom." I came to the Prophet(pbuh) and told him about this. He sent someone to 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy and he asked him whether he had said that or not. He swore an oath to the effect that he had not done that, and said that it was Zayd who had lied to the Prophet(pbuh). Zayd said: I was very disturbed on account of this until this Ayah was revealed attesting that I had spoken the truth: "When the Hypocrites come to you..." [al-Munafiqun 63:1]. The Messenger of Allah (SAAS) then called them in order to seek forgiveness for them, but they turned their heads away..."
With regard to this, Imamal-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The clear evidence concerning that is the Hadith which was reported concerning al-Nasihah (sincerity) to Allah, to His Book, to His Messenger, to the leaders of the Muslims, to their common folk and to their elites. Exposing lies and liars is one of the greatest forms of Nasihah which is obligatory towards Allah (SWT), His Messengers and all the Muslims. He also said: Likewise, exposing a person who has given false witness with regard to property, blood or honour, is also a form of the Nasihah which Allah (SWT) has made obligatory on us.
From 'A'Ishah (RA): A man asked permission to see the Prophet (SAAS) who said: "Let him enter! What a bad member of the tribe he is!" Al-Bukhari concluded from this Hadith that it is permissible to speak about wrongdoers and those about whom one has misgivings in their absence.
From 'A'ishah who said: The Prophet(pbuh) said: “I don't think so-and-so and so-and-so know anything about our religion. AI-Layth said: They were two men of the Munafiqin (Hypocrites).

These and other exceptions are well known and documented amongst the jurists (e.g., Nawawi in his Riyadh al-Saliheen on the chapter of Backbiting)

Anonymous said...


Check out his latest modification to his article on his blogspot compared to what he originally had before his misquotations were noticed and refuted in detail by www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com:


al-Imām al-Bujayrimī, a reliable (Mu'tamad) source of Shāfi’ī jurisprudence (Fiqh) maintains that Dār al-Islām is a place where Muslims reside even if there are non-Muslims present.


Al-Imām al-Bujayrimī, a reliable (Mu'tamad) source of Shāfi’ī jurisprudence (Fiqh) maintains that Dār al-Islām for the Shāfi’ī's can be a place where Muslims reside even if there are Ahl al-Zimma (non-Muslims of the covenant) present, and further, even if non-Muslims were granted the right by Muslims to govern over it.
"On Dār al-Islām: meaning, that Muslims reside there, even if there were ahl al-zimma (non Muslims of the covenant) present, or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non- Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarrūha bi Yad il-Kuffār), or they were living there and were expelled by the disbelievers from it."
"...And the Shāfi'ī's said: it (Dār al-Islām) is the entire land where Islamic rulings (Ahkām al- Islām) appear, and it is intended by the phrase 'appearance of the Islamic rulings', every one of its rulings; or Muslims live there even if there were Ahl al-Zimma (non-Muslims of the covenant) present with them; or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non-Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarrūha bi Yad il-Kuffār); or they were living there and were expelled by the disbelievers from it".34

When will he admit his other misquotations?