Sunny Hundal (London, Pickled Politics): In between all the debate around the latest terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow, a salvo was fired by David Cameron over what is becoming a familiar battleground - whether to ban the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Conservatives say it needs to be done. Our new Prime Minister, a bit taken aback by Cameron's specific focus on HuT, had to be helped out by previous Home Secretary John Reid.
To briefly regurgitate some of the arguments. There are various reasons why we should be wary of HuT. Its propaganda has crossed over into, or borders on, anti-semitism; its members have been convicted or banned in European countries for distributing inflammatory literature; it campaigns against engagement in British political structures such as voting in elections - opening the door to more subversive activities. It brainwashes susceptible Muslims into believing the world is against them and something should be done to fight the enemy. It may be, therefore, that it also sows seeds of frustration that may lead its recruits to breach HuT's stated committment to non-violence.
But is this reason enough to ban it? The police certainly do not think so, and neither do I, for various reasons. First, despicable as their world-view may be, it is no worse than that of racists such as the BNP or, even worse, the National Front who, in their own words, "advocate a mono racial society". Yet no major party has called for them to be proscribed even though several of their members have been convicted of attacks. If these are not banned and HuT is, it will hardly be a surprise if some young Muslims see it as provocative discrimination and draw their own conclusions. For it will appear that the British state permits the legal activity of racist organisations provided they are white.
Many liberal Muslims also point out that HuT is too big (roughly, supporters number several thousand) to be banned and would only be driven underground. Others argue that HuT's aversion to violence may even help draw in disturbed individuals who could join a more extremist group. In other words it may even act as a safety valve. Lastly, many argue that keeping it within the fold of legal speech and organisation helps to push it towards reform. There is much evidence it has tempered its rhetoric over the years.
This debate does not give us reason to breathe easy of course, especially in the current climate. We should neither ban or ignore HuT but learn more about their past and their present activities, and openly challenging them at every opportunity. They should not be allowed to become part of mainstream discourse and Muslim organisations need to be encouraged to take a more active role in challenging their theological arguments. It's going to be a long battle; quick-fix solutions may end up backfiring in our face.
