Hizb ut Tahrir professes to be a non violent organisation and is seeking to avoid a ban on the basis that they do not incite their members to violence and specifically do not permit violence against civilians. On their page: "FAQ About Hizb ut-Tahrir", the party states: The rules of Islam forbid any aggression against civilian non-combatants. They forbid the killing of children, the elderly and non-combatant women even in the battlefield. They forbid the hijacking of civilian aeroplanes carrying innocent civilians and forbid the destruction of homes and offices that contain innocent civilians. All of these actions are types of aggression that Islam forbids. http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/index.php?id=2160_0_44_0_M92 That is, literally, a true statement. It is however deliberately misleading. It is clear that Hizb ut Tahrir are using the word "innocent" in its technical legal sense only. If you click on the link below you can read Hizb ut Tahrir's learned and authoritative statement on the position. The ruling in question dates from 1988. It is Hizb ut Tahrir's present policy. It has not been rescinded, and it has not been superseded. http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/Hijacking.pdf It provides that - Aeroplanes from an "Islamic country" is "Muslim property" and cannot be hijacked. - Aeroplanes from a "Kafir state with whom there is no direct war with Muslims" may not be hijacked. - Aeroplanes from a "country which is at war with the Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it , for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it and their property and we should treat them as being at war with us". In that case it is permitted to hijack and destroy the aeroplane and terrorize and kill the passengers. I imagine the United Kingdom now falls into this category. Hizb ut Tahrir is a racist theocratic totalitarian political party which has been trying to make itself look itself look respectable, particularly since it now faces banning. Just as the BNP has tried to play down its racism, Hizb ut Tahrir has also been airbrushing away as much racist material as it can find from its website, in order to give the false impression that it is not a racist party. http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/08/03/hizbut_tahrir_airbrushes_racism_from_its_past.php When I pointed out what Hizb ut Tahrir was up to in my Open Democracy article (http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article.jsp?id=2&debateId=124&articleId=2750), Abdul Wahid claimed in response that "the decision to remove some of our overseas literature from our British website was a considered response to the legitimate proposition that people who read it out of its context might see it as offensive". http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/criticism_2755.jsp I do not believe that for one minute. His party removed the racist literature because it showed, too clearly, the true face of Hizb ut Tahrir. And now they have been caught out again. Hizb ut Tahrir is a party whose existing policy sanctions the hijacking of aeroplanes, and the killing of their passengers.