BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Investigating Hizb ut-Tahrir

Peter Barron | 15:28 UK time, Wednesday, 15 November 2006

Many viewers have written to complain about Newsnight's film on radical Islam (which we broadcast yesterday, and you can watch here), and particularly the accusations made in the course of the film concerning the grouping Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Newsnight logoSome believed that the film was politically motivated and that we had set out with an agenda to discredit Hizb ut-Tahrir. That was not the case.

This joint File on Four/Newsnight project set out to look into the radicalisation of British Muslim youth across a broad range - in mosques, universities and on the internet. In the course of that investigation we came across a range of evidence, including first-hand accounts from four key contributors about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and some of its adherents.

These contributors were Sheikh Musa Admani, Imam at the London Metropolitan University, Shuaib Yusaf, a trustee at Croydon mosque, a former Hizb ut-Tahrir supporter called Jawad and an anonymous undercover researcher who we called J, who has attended Hizb ut-Tahrir meetings. I believe their allegations - which directly contradict the organisation's publicly stated position - are serious and worthy of examination.

As well as many emails of complaint, Newsnight has been contacted since the broadcast with further expressions of concern based on first-hand knowledge of Hizb ut-Tahrir's aims and methods.

Some viewers complained that the Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Dr Abdul Wahid, who appeared live on the programme to discuss the film, was unfairly interrupted by Jeremy Paxman (you can watch the interview here). I agree that following a lengthy segment detailing several accusations about the organisation Dr Wahid needed time to respond properly. Jeremy Paxman's interview was typically robust, but during the course of the four-minute interview Dr Wahid was given an ample opportunity to put across his position and address the key issues raised by the film.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 04:15 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

Peter,

You are doing a service to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. It is a job that needs to be done, keep it up. HT found it necessary to tell its supporters “…we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.” (It makes you wonder what the tone would have been otherwise). You will probably find that the tone will degenerate now that you are putting your heads above the parapet to expose the Islamic underground. Good luck.

  • 2.
  • At 04:20 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • AbdAllah wrote:

With all due respect, this Newsnight edition was merely a dramatised fairytale of islamaphobic ignorance. Using material from UNRELIABLE sources such as Musa Admani clearly displaying the shoddy journalism, OBVIOUSLY editted recordings, taken out of context, in order to scare monger the already Islamophobic community of the UK! Your broadcast was little more than a theatre production based on the fairytale dreamt up by the likes of anti HT's and ANTI ISLAMIC self proclaimed scholars such as Imam Admani.

How you managed to display a PUBLICLY available chatroom on paltalk as some undercover operation, and added "voice recognition has confirmed this is the voice of Shaykh OBM" is hilarious, because as anyone that has since or previously been into that room will tell you. He nor anyone else hide that fact! So there is in actual fact no need for any mindless individual to attempt to SPY. Because the mind of the spy is a dangerous place...when they don't find anything juicy enough to promote hatred of Islam, they begin to create the fairytales you displayed in your broadcast.

It is obvious to any right minded individual in the UK what the real motives behind this and every other newsnight broadcast is (obviously to promote hatred towards Islam and Muslims). The difference between you and the Muslim protestors is, the Muslim says it straight, you have to make a fairytale/horror movie to get anyone to notice. To believe that anyone in this county REALLY wants community cohesion is ridiculous. If thats what you wanted, why would you go out of your way to promote Islamaphobia??? you have noone to blame but yourself for creating anger amongst the youth. Whoever knocked the camera had every right outside croyden mosque, as you have no right to film somebody without their permission/consent.

I thank you for the broadcast, because despite the attempt to massacre the few REAL muslims in this country with your falsehood. You made yourselves look like fools trying to create a drama serial for BBC, not a documentary. Try as you may, you can not destroy the SOLID belief and commitment each and every true Muslim in the UK and worldwide holds to be true to themselves, God (Allah), the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) and the ONE true message of ISLAM!

  • 3.
  • At 04:42 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • david wrote:

Did you see the programme....Did you see the programme...Did you see the programme...Did you see the programme......

I somewhat recall this "robust" questioning for a whole minute!

Ample of time....what a joke!

  • 4.
  • At 05:12 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Mark E wrote:

In response to AbdAllah:

I (and I expect many others in the UK) do not rely on TV programs to shape our world view, everyone is perfectly able to build their own opinion from consulting more then one source.

Reading your response you are suggesting that Imam Admani is against Islam, but isn't Imam a word for an Islamic religious leader? Why would a spirital leader attack his own religion?

I personally feel that the greatest harm to Islam's image is those who protest publicly proclaiming death to those who do are not Muslim. There is a big difference between isolated radicals planning attacks and large groups protesting and calling for the murder of innocent people here in the UK. If those who are calling for the death of non-muslims are the minority in these groups then why do the majority not stop them?

All this gives is the image that their is large sections of the muslim population who support those who call for "death to the non-believers".

  • 5.
  • At 05:35 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • saghir wrote:


Looking at the comments it seems that the general opinion about HT tends to be contrary to that portrayed by your program. Not only was your report biased it was not even balanced. I think is disgraceful you are able to air such ill reasearched propoganda.

In order for Newsnight to regain any credibility you need to give HT airtime to properly respond to your allegations. You mention that 4 minutes were provided for Dr Wahid, in order to respond to the allegations. However, Mr Paxman didn't really let Dr Wahid respond. I can certainly remmember Mr Paxman shouting over Dr Wahid.

It seems that the BBC is now also involved in playing the politics of fear.

Peter, it was a great piece of investigative journalism on the HT last night (an organisation banned in many countries, including Gernamy)and we have a right to know about it. Dr Wahid was given plenty of opportunity to put forward his views, and Jeremy did a brilliant interview. If people want to listen to a propoganda piece by the HT, then they shouldn't expect to see it on any non-militant supporting channel. Good on you for having the courage to do it.

PS I'm still waiting to see Jeremy's book "On Royalty" be featured on Newsnight Review, after all, Bill O'Reilly not only gets to promote and talk about his book on Fox News, he also has permanent links to all his books on the Fox News website. So when are we going to see it?

  • 7.
  • At 05:52 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Rick B wrote:

Mark E - your logic is not particularly good. For instance is every Catholic responsible for what the IRA did?

Also, I find it a great shame that the Neocon agenda has finally been totally discredited and trounced in the USA (as per the Democratic landslide in the recent elections) but we're still subjected to the very same neocon tactics here in the UK.

I hope that if/when Gordon Brown takes over he will do his utmost to bring all Britons together and not follow the Blairite tactic of division and scaremongering.

  • 8.
  • At 05:58 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Abdullah Hassan wrote:

I was horrified to see the report last night on your program regarding HT. I have known men and women in HT through their activities in London for many years and have never ever seen such rubbish being peddled about their activities.

This was clearly a program aimed at trying to vilify an organisation that has never condoned violence in any shape or form. Even ex-members that I have met have said that despite any differences f opinion they may have developed with the organisation, one thing they are not is insincere to islam. They always take the intellectual route in their arguments. Clearly freedom of speech has not worked where the Labour party and its friends at the BBC are concerned ....you obviously feel that you have to slander people to make them unpopular if you cant ban them. This kind of reporting can be seen through very clearly by islamically minded people in this country - we are not naive as Muslim - the last few years has made us very astute in understanding attacks on our faith - from whatever angle they come.

The attack on the Muslim veil recently has led to an increase in women wearing them - doesnt this tell you something?!


I remind you of two famous people in history - Muhammed (pbuh) and Ghandi ...both went through such vilification and look how it turned out. Let me quote Ghandi : First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Shame on you BBC - you are the creating angry Muslims - Muslims who want to lead peaceful lives in this country as they have done so for generations.

  • 9.
  • At 06:08 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Khalid wrote:

Mark: "If those who are calling for the death of non-muslims are the minority in these groups then why do the majority not stop them?"

This is very much like me saying to the host community: "Rightwing facists want to kill us, why don't the rest of you stop them?"

My moderate British friends would not know where to start to try to stop and change the views of BNP or NF members - they mix in different circles.

Similarly, moderate muslims do not mix with the radicals who preach death and hatred - we really would not know where to start. We mix in different circles.

The vast majority of muslims wish for peace, but a very small minority now take the view that the only way they can stop the West from killing innocent muslims (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine) is to start killing innocent Westerners - because all other forms of protest have been largely ignored. I personally disgaree with this point of view and tactic, but it must be accepted that out of a population of 1.4 Billion muslims worldwide you are bound to get a few who will seek violent revenge for the atrocities that the West is carrying out in muslim countries.

I ask you: if the West was not killing muslims, would they have reacted this way? Who started this war? Muslims or the West? Did muslims invade the USA and UK, or did the UK and USA invade muslim land (Iraq, Afghanistan)?


The fact that the unidentified man who acted aggressively during the interview between Newsnight and some of the attendees of the Mosque in Croydon (hitting out in all directions) was .... anonymous, or did not belong to 'either side' (Dr Abdul Wahid claimed to not know who he was, if I rightly recall) just serves to highlight the unpalatable truth that there is in all countries a hidden '3rd force' of agressors that's hired by whoever's got the money and interests, to 'stir it up' and cause trouble. Like South Africa; America. Everywhere.

  • 11.
  • At 06:32 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Syed Hasan Turab wrote:

This clash of culture & societies will be benificial for our future generations at least this debate is providing a chance to each & every one to sort out gold from the old on the basis of universal thoughts. We are going through a critical time of modernasisation & civilisation gap, as the speed of modernasition is in the interest of corporate world this is why more investment, projection & attraction is available in the life, though popularity is limited to certain age & group of people or establishment & disolving process is on fast track.
On the other hand civilisation is moving very slow and is not in corporate interest.
Infact this clash started from industrial revolution & first name of this clash was generation gap.
Any way we will overcome this temporary problem with the education & ideological approach as we all believe life is the best choice.

  • 12.
  • At 06:49 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Gamal Mustafa wrote:

The film was sensationalist and made a big deal about nothing. It was contrived, heavily edited and politically motivated. Kudos to Dr Wahid for exposing the lies.

If HT are guilty of any criminality, then you might as well throw all the Muslims in jail. We are all HT now.

  • 13.
  • At 06:58 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • John Hudson wrote:

Peter, you obviously believe that "all publicity is good publicity". You are however defending the indefensible

?Taaji mustefa was on Radio 4's PM programme and he really showed what gutter journalism last night was.

You interviewed 1 trustee - what about the other trustees who disagreed. You haven't even passed on any evidence of HT wrongdoing to the police. You, and Vigil, are harbouring "j", a fugitive from British justice. Why don't you name who his "mushref" was and why don't you say who else was at the meeting? The police have said today that they have received nothing from Richard Watson. The Home Office have also received nothing. The reports about the synagogue also seem to be fictitious from my enquiries in the Jewish community in South London - but of course Mr Watson has his 'sources'.

Where was the balance in Richard Watson's piece - it seemed that the case against the Islamist organisation was made on the basis of a 'mole' called 'J' and a previous associate called 'Jawad'.

Mustefa said clearly on the PM programme that "Jawad" was not a member of the organisation.

As for the 'mole' I was surprised that he was not even a BBC source but was provided to the BBC by the organisation "VIGIL". His credibility was said to revolve around Dominic Whiteman saying that he was credible as a witness. Well "J" has been working for "Vigil" - could Mr Whiteman have conceivably said that "J" was not reliable.

I note that the programme did not allege that "Jawad" was a member of the Islamist group - he was called an associate or something similar. For me, this seems very vague - what is an associate? Is it that he attended 1 meeting or that he once sold a member of the organisation something from his corner shop?

Even if the BBC wanted to make these allegations, the piece was not balanced - why not include comments from members of the Muslim community in South London who disagreed with Watson's findings? Why was no one from the police interviewed in relation to the alleged attack on a synagogue? Why were no academic experts like Dr Farouki from the University of Exeter not interviewed for their views on the organisation's methodology?

If Newsnight wants to maintain any kind of reputation then it must pass on to the police the entire dossier of evidence. If nothing comes of this, then nothing short of a public apology can atone for these glaring errors in the production of this report.

Newsnight may argue that it gave the organisation a right to reply - however that seemed shambolic - the spokesman was obviously taken aback by what he saw and heard and Mr Paxman hardly let the poor chap speak. You cannot give balance to an almost 20 minute piece by interrupting a nervous interviewee repeatedly over 2-3 minutes. You must also have other contributions to the overall piece.

I think such sensationalist journalism will backfire on the BBC. Judging by the responses so far, few of your viewers can believe the claims that this is some sort of shadowy organisation.

Just last Friday, Kirsty Wark seemed to harangue another of their spokesmen for not partipating in parliamentary democracy, while last night you criticise one of the members of this group for working as a civil servant. Do you not see the contradiction?

Yours,

Professor John Hudson

  • 14.
  • At 07:43 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • shaz wrote:

A 20+ minute report of accusations and only 4 minutes to repond to he allegatios - yet the editor calls it ample opportunity, that would would be laughable had the subject matter not been so serious.

Newsnight has done it self no favours as many 1000s of muslims konw full well that the Hizbut tahrir organisation does not encourage violence or use of foul language and certainly does not call its supports to stay away from non-muslims, such propaganda only makes msulims realise how anti- islam the establishment really is and does not creat an enviroment of cohesion.

Finally i found it absurd that the watson crew spent time chasing a muslim who is a supporter of Hizbut tahrir and lo and be hold has a job at the home office. Hello since when was that illegall??? What crime has he commited?? evidence please not hear say? Many peopel of various political backgrounds continute to work in society and are productive menbers of the society. after all what happened the ideas that peopel cab believe what they like as long as it doesnt harm any one else?

  • 15.
  • At 07:57 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Kamraan Rashid wrote:

Despite proscribing other groups, Mr. Blair has been unable to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir.

He once used the "Dodgy Dossier" as a pretext to invade Iraq and now it seems that this "Dodgy Report" has been "sexed up" as a pretext to proscribe HT.

Heavily edited soundbites coupled with unrelated images and voiceovers are reminiscent of Labour spin.

I believe that your discerning viewers clearly saw the politically motivated agenda.

It is not befitting of Newsnight to lower itself to such dishonest and lazy journalism.

Let us hope that in the aftermath of this "Dodgy Report" that another De Menezes or Kohar is not shot or another Dr Kelly does not die in mysterious circumstances.

  • 16.
  • At 08:06 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Alan wrote:

@2 AbdAllah

It’s a phobia when they AREN’T trying to blow you up. So enough of the Islamophobia already! Newsnight may well have got this HT story wrong, if so I am sure HT’s good name will be cleared in court. When REAL Muslims can accept that Salman Rushdie has the right to live in peace and security in his own country (Britain), without fear of some nutcase trying to implement a fatwa decreed by some other nutcase, then we will have peace and harmony between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Any cultural conflicts are of your own making. It’s NOT Israel, it’s NOT Britain’s foreign policy, it’s NOT the USA, it’s NOT the Jews.

It’s you.

Here are a few words from a man you respect:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? / Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.”

  • 17.
  • At 08:32 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • cairo wrote:

Islamophobia at its best. No such thing as an islamic underground. No one is calling for anti-nonmuslim anything. They may call for infliction of pain on those who would harm muslims but thats not the same thing as a general call to arms against non-believers.
You can get any stooge to say negative things about anybody. That shouldnt mean they represent the majority. Even if the stooge is a self professed leader people are not robots and will think and act independently. Even if someone calls himself an alqeda member, or leader, of I will never believe the group even exists. These groups are something someone cooked up in a goverment lab.

AS far as your reporting on this, they are probably a fake group that are paid to misinform the Brits about Islamic beliefs. THe real group probably got canned by the government

  • 18.
  • At 08:38 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Zamir wrote:

As someone who knows Hizb-ut Tahrir I was amazed that newnight could run such a report as they did yesterday. I am sure thousands people who have come across Hizb-ut Tahrir would acknowledge that the program had no factual basis whatsoever. This type of reporting puts Newnight into to same category as the gutter press who make allegations purely to increase sales regardless of the facts.

  • 19.
  • At 10:16 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Dominic Whiteman, VIGIL wrote:

In response to AbdAllah:

As United Kingdom spokesperson for the VIGIL group, who partook in this Newsnight investigation, I'd like to make absolutely clear that our network is far from "Islamophob(ic)".

While many of our members are Muslims, we do not have a religious or political bias. We are simply a pragmatic, honest, level-headed, highly efficient anti-terror organisation, which has no fear of terrorists, who we believe are the worst of the weakest of cowards and should be exposed as such. (And no we're not Mossad, as some HT website postings have suggested!).

We are all about helping to root out terror organisations - displayed by our recent stings on the LTTE (Tamil Tigers...incidentally, mostly non-Muslim), Al Mujahiroun and others. Also to highlight for the authorities the (correctly named) "conveyor belts" to terrorism.

The VIGIL infiltration of the Al Mujahiroun Paltalk room goes much further than mere recording - it has uncovered fundraising networks, IP address data and other quantative evidence which is valid in courts of law round the world. (For the record - to correct you, AbdAllah, with peaceful respect - Omar Bakri does not use his real name, nor do ANY of the core participants in the chatroom(s)).

Mainstream Muslims are the key raison d'etre of VIGIL's anti Radical Islamist operations division - for it will be a fine day when mainstream, moderate Muslims win their religion back.

One last point - you say "To believe that anyone in this count(r)y really wants community cohesion is ridiculous". On this point you are terribly wrong, AbdAllah, and I reach out warmly to you with my answer: Of course no-one, save a very few, wants to suffer a Hizb ut Tahrir style Caliphate, based (if you look at their draft constitution , cached HuT website online) on many divisive and brutal tenets - a lasting, tolerant peaceful society is the goal of the overwhelming majority, who include the good, peaceful citizens who built the West Croydon mosque. Community Cohesion is paramount.

Newsnight has sparked an important debate with its programme. The future is bright for this Kingdom - United. Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Secularists and others united in a free and peaceful world, far from governments run by those who feel they have "absolute truth" over all things. A world of the middle ground. When this happens, VIGIL members (there are plenty over the age of 65)will happily retire.

  • 20.
  • At 10:24 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Abdul Hamid wrote:

I want to complain about the opening/leading story on last night's newsnight which attempted to highlight how young british muslims were being radicalised. The coverage was severely biased, completely one-sided and factually incorrect on many points. In particular, the allegations made against Hizb ut Tahrir party by the presenter of the story demonstrated an acute sense of demonisation. Firstly, of course those individuals who were interviewed were not forced by the Newsnight journalist to make those statements and clearly these were their own opinions. But we must always remember that opinions are not the same as facts. All the opinions solicited by BBC journalist were all negative about HT, why was this? Either, he could not find anyone to give a different opinion about HT or no one from the muslim community has a good opinion about HT or he intentionally chose only to include opinions which are negative. The first 2 options are logically not possible as there are many muslims and non muslims who hold views that completely contradict all the opinions given by the lead story. Therefore, the fact these different opinions were not included demonstrates clearly suggests biased reporting by BBC newsnight. The BBC have a moral responsibility to give a balanced report which includes consideration of different views, this was clearly lacking in the story. It is not enough to say that Newsnight gave HT the opportunity afterwards in the studio because the complaint i am making is against the leading story not about the subsequent interview. Please provide evidence to suggest that the journalist to contact individuals who held a different view about HT. 2. Jeremy Paxman seemed to suggest that the HT person giving out leaflets threatened and attacked the cameraman and/or journalist. What a gross mis representation of your own video. It is clear that the person who who reacted negatively to the presence of the cameraman was not the one giving out the leaflets. However, Mr Paxman clearly suggested that it was HT. How can Mr Paxman suggest that the person who reacted negatively to the cameraman was HT? Please provide your reasons why Mr Paxman said it was a member of HT or a supporter of HT who reacted negatively to the cameraman. BTW just because two individuals are standing together in a crowd doesn't mean that they are linked to a common political purpose. 3. Why was the journalist harassing the person giving out the leaflets outside Croydon mosque? It was clear the he did not want to be interviewed in that situation but the journalist insisted on asking him ridiculous questions like why are you giving out leaflets when the chairman doesn’t want you here. If we are examine this situation closely, a number of issues are raised. The gentleman was giving out leaflets which was advertising a public intellectual debate about the Bush/Blair war on terror. 1. Why was the BBC Newsnight journalist harassing someone who was advertisng a debate on British foreign policy? 2. The journalist said to the gentleman that the chairman doesn't want them to give out leaflets that in inviting muslims to discuss the British Foreign policy. It seems that BBC newsnight journalist had no interest in freedom of speech in this instance. Why did the journalist not question the chairman of the mosque who is clearly against muslims wanting to debate British foreign policy? Why is he harassing a muslim from giving out leaflets which clearly invite people tp discuss British Foreign policy? The only logical conclusion is the both the British Government and its mouthpiece, the BBC, find it unacceptable for muslims to criticise British foreign policy from a non-secular and Islamic basis.

  • 21.
  • At 10:27 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Nusret wrote:

The Newsnight report against HT was pure lies and propaganda and should be seen in the context of a concerted attack by the government and its cronies in the media to demonise any muslim who dares to expose the neo-colonialist foreign policy of the government. For 20 years I have seen how HT act and work as a responsible political party, full of compassion and integrity. Such ridiculous attacks will only serve to make the group more popular I'm sure.

  • 22.
  • At 10:39 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • James Foley wrote:

Peter, have you totally lost the plot? Producing drivel like this, you must think the British public are complete idiots. You're a fool if you think your lack of integrity is hidden by your shallow statements.

  • 23.
  • At 10:49 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • YH wrote:

Mark E: which Muslims are you referring to that are calling for 'death to all non-believers'- HT's material and events are all public, none say anything of the sort, in fact they clearly state they are strongly opposed to isolation of muslims.

This program has taken the unsubstantiated comments of a few individuals, without any idea of their own backgrounds and agendas, and made them out to be fact.

The Croydon mosque incident is a perfect example- the program finds one guy who blames HT, yet it seems as though every other person who witnessed the event saw a different version, in which HT were actually trying to stop the gang fighting, and were not part of it. So which version looks more credible to you?

And furthermore, why is it that the BBC are insistent on painting this picture of HT despite all the evidence pointing the other way?

I really applaud the BBC for its coverage of radical islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. At last you presented some real picture of Islam in Britain. The problem of radical isalmic indoctrination on campuses in mosques and in legal islamic organisation is really appalling. But most coverage of Islam in the BBC and in other media is fine chat about magnificence of Islam which is in my opinion absolutely false. I hold the BBC against its coverage of Islam where you don't include hardly any criticism of that religion. But how can you lead serious debate when only pro islamic voices are included? Therefore I truly welcome the Newsnight programme and its sincere investigation of the radical Islam. There should be more investigations on other islamic organizations about its funding, about its links to terrorist organisations and about sermons in mosques where radical ideas are taught.

There should be also more criticism of Islam. Since you present people who converted to Islam and their feelings you should present feeling of apostates of Islam. There should be more voices that challenge official, politically correct version of Islam presented to us in order to get better picture of that religion. People have a right to know of criticism of Islam. Of course, as always there will be angry reactions from radical muslims (AbdAllah in the previous post) but BBC's duty is to present wide range of differing voices in order to present the WHOLE picture of the problem. BBC's duty is not to deliver corrected image of the harsh REALITY nor to CONCEAL facts, and certainly not to APPEASE radical muslims, even if this means violence. Facts are sacred.

  • 25.
  • At 11:20 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Abu wrote:

Peter, you said that you 'believe' that those specific people who made wild accusations against Hizb ut Tahrir 'contradicted the publicly stated position of the organisation', and 'are serious and worthy of investigation.' Well, now that many prominant Muslim leaders, Lawyers, Doctors, youth workers and ordinary people have contradicted the 'publicly stated position' of those who were intervied by newsnight and made statements of support for Hizb ut Tahrir, do you now think it is serious and worthy of an investigation of your sources. If you have any journalistic integrety, you will order an immediate investigation as to how easily newsnight were duped.

I will like to know what stringent criteria the programme used to verify the authenticity of the claims made by these people?

As to how Jerramy Paxman conducted the interview; there is a difference between being 'robust' and outright rude. I don't think Jerramy was being robust, he was plainly being rude. He did not allow the Doctor to explain his case and Jerramy kept on interrupting. This reminds of his attitude towards George Galloway when he won the election. The first question Jerramy asked George was 'are you happy, you removed a black woman.' What a stupid, stupid question. I am sorry, but Jerramy was not robust, he was arrogant.

As to whether the programme was politically motivated, it might have not been, although I don't share that view; I think it was. But how do you expect some people to think, when in light of all these media and other form of attack on Muslims and Islam nearly every week, newsnight airs a programme that is un-professional, biased, factually inaccurate and shody.

  • 26.
  • At 11:31 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Salman wrote:

Peter Barron's response shows the level of journalistic enquiry at the state-controlled BBC. The allegations of criminality against HT should be backed up with proof of arrests, convictions, eye witness accounts of muggings etc. Where does any of HT's material call for lawlessness of any nature? How is it that a political party is encouraging criminality and the Police are not interviewed or asked to comment? After all isn't the Labour Party under investigation by the Police for the cash for peers scandal. Have the BBC gone to the police with their findings? How is it that an individual working for the Home Office is pointed out so that his career is undermined when nothing he has done has broken any laws? Where is the credibility of this so-called investigation?

This was nothing less than black propaganda from the state-controlled media of a discredited government desparate to try to build a case for proscription against HT. Time will show where the truth lies.

  • 27.
  • At 11:33 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • Khalid wrote:

Hizb ut-Tahrir? I know these guys. This organisation is a non violent political party who advocates interaction and dialogue with the wider community. Hizb ut-Tahrir has had events with speakers from various backgrounds and creeds such as Peter Hitchens and Edwina Curry. For the programme to say its people are violent and criminals is totally absurd. An honest presentation would have been to show some of these events which Hizb ut-Tahrir holds and talk to the participants and guests.

  • 28.
  • At 11:37 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • S Hameed wrote:

Hi with regards to the above program, i was really shocked how bbc made up these allegation. HT is a proven non violet group which existed for the last 50 years. The government tries to ban the freedom of expression for the muslims and tries to ban the organisation last year, but could not do it because of the lack of evidence. you also need to understand this organisation is monitored by all the police and secret service agencies. My question is after all these agencies are monitoring the organisation but could not prove HT as a violent orgainsation. Now BBC is gone one step ahead try to make some scoop. It is quiet hard to belive HT is asking to rob some one to show allegience. how can they ask such thing when their text books ask to be honest and not to steal some one else stuff. Stealing results the amputaion as per their book which is sharia. So please when u make program do study properly what this organisation stands for and should not to jump into conclusion. Your programs breaks social harmony in the society by portarying muslims as evil

  • 29.
  • At 11:38 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • W. A. wrote:

I think if anything this program did, it proved that the media is now as much on the witch-hunt for the mythical "terrorists" as the Govt. is.

Come on, let's grow up and adopt responsible journalism. Let's not create juicy stories because there are nothing better to do.

If there is any credible Islamic Org. in the Muslim community, Hizb ut-Tahrir comes at the top because it is composed of the best and most sincere of people.

So let us get the story right first and then we can accuse people.

The BBC ought to remember that it owes a duty to report responsibly.

  • 30.
  • At 11:40 PM on 15 Nov 2006,
  • nadeem wrote:

I saw your report yesterday (14th November) on Radical Islam and I was extremely disappointed at the level of your report. Many parts of the report were factually incorrect and made assumptions on the role of the peaceful Islamic political organisation, Hizb ut Tahrir. I have lived in my local community for over 30 years and have come across members of the Hizb who are very polite and hard working and often professionls working in reputable organisations. I strongly disagree with the way your report portraid an organisation that has for a number of years been very busy and active in turning youth away from a life of crime, drugs and anti social behaviour to a life where these youth grow up to become active participants of their communities and seek higher education. The Hizb organisation from my experience of them have been correctly highlighting the wrong and unjust foreign policy of Blair's government and the corruption of dictators in the Muslim world. They do have an alternative political vision for the Muslim world, which means working for justice, peace & security in these lands for both Muslim and non-Muslim people. Some people may agree or disagree with this view but to have a report that is completely off the mark is rather disappointing as I thought BBC where a reputable organisation. Shame on you!

  • 31.
  • At 12:03 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Tauseef Zahid wrote:

1. No evidence was presented to back the arguments about organization criminal or violence.
2. No evidence was presented to show organization is extremist
3. the presenter in the video was biased from the start and reporting as if he got the evidence
4. the findings from Bakri chat room was intermingled with Hizb ut-Tahrir
5. BBC failure to report that guy to police who was forcing criminal action
6. Trustee of Croydon Mosque made vague allegations and then taken as the bases of whole programme
7. no evidence was presented to prove Hizb ut-Tahrir makes recruits commit crimes to test their loyalty
8. no evidence was presented to prove Hizb ut-Tahrir teaches young Muslims that non-Muslims are worthless

I think you're skirting around the issue, Peter. Your piece above doesn't even mention the report's heavy reliance on the shadowy "Vigil" organisation, and "experts" like Glen Jenvey and Dominic Whiteman. For me, that means that you therefore haven't even tried to refute the central point that has been made against the report. I wonder why.

  • 33.
  • At 12:28 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Abdul-Jabbar wrote:

I want to know if what you believe is correct against Hizb ut Tahrir then why have you not informed the police. Also Hizb ut Tahrir is beginning legal proceedings against Newsnight and others and it begs the question why they would do that if your allegations are true.

  • 34.
  • At 12:38 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Saladin wrote:

All I can say from the Muslims I know that watched this, everyone agrees wether be a HT , a supporter or those agaisnt it; it was mostly conjecture. As the Dr pointed out, hand it to police it will not stand and this is what comes across. Only the bigoted or the secular extremist/facist would lap up this report or even find it fair this Paxman interruption.
For the agenda that so clear that being driven through, why not hold a pubilc debate, get things out in the open for it unless you are aware you will not be able to stand up to debate.

  • 35.
  • At 12:53 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Gary wrote:

BIG BROTHER Upsetting and Irresponsible

I have to say that the program on whole was both upsetting and irresponsible.
It is one thing to show people a documentary on a particular subject about a particular person or group and another to not allow them to represent themselves in a clear and uninterrupted fashion, which will allow the viewer to think in a clear and open-minded fashion about both sides of an argument.. After watching Mr Paxman’s handling of the interview with a representative of the Islamic group in question I cannot help but think that there must be some sort of agenda at play here. At the very least this cannot be any good for the Muslim community when you play Muslim of against Muslim or divide Muslim’s into 2 camps then favour one to help whatever agenda that the program was supposed to have sought. It is very clear from Mr Paxman’s handling of the interview that there must be 1 opinion and 1 opinion alone to be taken from the BBC documentary and that being this group is without doubt responsible for radicalising young Muslim men. Whatever happened to free and fair press seeking and reporting the truth whilst allowing fruitful and positive debate I wonder?
It is also a shame for Muslim – Non-Muslim relations given the current political climate this could only serve to create or deepen mistrust or hatred against Muslims thus not doing any favours for all communities up and down the country. Is it that we are all considered sheep that follow without thinking? Or that the media and government should do all the thinking for us?
Hmm BIG BROTHER springs to mind.

  • 36.
  • At 01:14 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • rajah wrote:

I watched the report on Hizb ut Tahrir with utter amazement and disgust. I have known this group for 14 years, have known many of the members, up and down the country, and what you reported was further from the truth than I could possibly imagine that any serious journalism was capable of producing.

Your entire segment amounted to one sided propaganda, and all I can imagine is some lunatic in the home office has forced you to leave your normally high standards of journalism!.

Your editor claims that he had sufficient evidence of wrong doing? He cites an Imam Admani, someone who has been a "government" player in its policy on terrorism. Then there is the "unidentified" mole who was planted in Hizb ut Tahrir? Who was he, was he real, no one knows since you chose to mysteriously keep him secret. Though I have met hundreds of members, and attended hundreds of events, I am yet to come across anything that remotely resembles the outrageus comments that were reported by him.

And lastly your editor cites "one trustee" at the Croydon mosque. Well Hizb ut Tahrir today have written statements from many of the other trustees, including the chairman, that absolutely discredit every single statement mentioned in your programme. How is it then that your research failed to overlook this? Did you look for only those who would bring you the story you were looking for? To pick one trustee over the other seven including the chairman reeks of malice. To pick one unnamed mole, whilst thousands of Muslims in Britain who have known Hizb ut Tahrir for over two decades and yet are ignored by your researchers points to a poisonous agenda on your part.

I request the bbc and newsnight to apologise unreservedly for a substandard piece of journalism, or should i say political propaganda

  • 37.
  • At 09:44 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Reza wrote:

And you want us to beleive that the media in this country is not BIAS?
Paxman had a 4min police interrogation with Dr Wahid, not an interview. and where is the other side of the argument? is this jurnalism? as far as I know HT are still legal, why watson didn't include the official stance of the organisation by interviewing one of its representatives. I have listen to one of them on bbc radio4. He spook very good english and made some very stong point. Shame on Newsnight! I have lost all respect for the program.

A number have viewers have asked about the timing of Tuesday's report, suggesting that broadcasting it on the eve of the Queen's Speech was deliberate and suspicious. In fact, because this programme was a co-production with Radio 4's File on Four the date was set more than two months ago, in line with the way that programme is scheduled, before we knew the date of the Queen's Speech.

Peter

  • 39.
  • At 09:55 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • paul williams wrote:

Anyone who knows ANYTHING about Hizb ut Tahrir knows the true agenda and objectives of this group.

It is an anti-democratic organisation whose objective is to re-establish a Calliphate and from there to export Sharia law throughtout the world.

You do not have to be a brain surgeon to see beneath ths surface - their humourless, dogmatic self-richeous media 'representatives' exemplify what these people are like.

Remember that the 'media representatives' are the front men - the ones that they think are suitable to let the public see. Imagine what the 'backroom boys' are like.

Hizb ut Tahrir are not a bunch of hothead looneys like Al Gharabba or Al Mahajiroun or the Saved Sect. Hizb ut Tahrir's leadership are intelligent articulate professional people, largely western educated and media-savvy.
But their agenda is Islamisation - same objectives as the vocal deranged lonneys al Ghurabaa.
Hizb ut Tahrir are just more subtle - but underneath it's the same anti-western dragon wanting to dominate and subjigate people in a freedomless Islamic state.

  • 40.
  • At 10:03 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • ELIZABETH wrote:

At last some serious journalism! Thank you.

  • 41.
  • At 10:07 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Abdulhafid wrote:

To Mark E and everyone else:

We, the majority of Muslims, do not support, approve or condone the behaviour of idiotic few who choose to act in a completely unacceptable manner. At the same time there is no way we are going to go out and "stop them", as Mark E puts it, for a simple reason that, as Newsnight programme clearly illustrates, there is an ongoing attack on Muslims and Muslim communitites from the media, the government, various private organisations and individuals, and we, as Muslims, while lamenting the outbursts of idiotic behaviour from our community must avoid disunity in the face of a concerted attack against the Muslim communities. We are indeed becoming the new "Jews" of Europe. You may not believe it, but we are in fact "feeling" it.

  • 42.
  • At 10:32 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Deen wrote:

The Newsnight programme has alleged that Hizb ut Tahrir is involved in breaking down community relations and criminality. Anyone who has met HT members or has attended any of their events will tell you this is absurd. There are many from Croydon Mosque who have spoken out against these allegations as well as the local police confirming that HT memebers were involved in stopping gang warfare. When will the BBC stop making ridiculous reports against the Muslims and start engaging in some honest journalism? I'm sure there are many much bigger problems that Muslims and non-Muslims would like the BBC to discuss rather than picking out fairytales!

  • 43.
  • At 10:37 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Deen wrote:

The Newsnight programme has alleged that Hizb ut Tahrir is involved in breaking down community relations and criminality. Anyone who has met HT members or has attended any of their events will tell you this is absurd. There are many from Croydon Mosque who have spoken out against these allegations as well as the local police confirming that HT members were involved in stopping gang warfare. When will the BBC stop making ridiculous reports against the Muslims and start engaging in some honest journalism? I'm sure there are many much bigger problems that Muslims and non-Muslims would like the BBC to discuss rather than picking out fairytales!

  • 44.
  • At 11:03 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Hasseb wrote:

Unfortunately I disagree with Peters assessment of the programme:
Newsnight relied on vague and unsubstantiated sources include a mysterious 'J' who could not even pronounce the name of the organisation properly.Furthermore all the sources in the investigation were one sided with no attempt to provide alternative views.
Jeremy Paxmans interview was a disgrace, he gave Dr Wahid no opportunity whatsoever to respond to the allegations, interrupting him repeatedly.
This simply serves to show that the programme was biased and one-sided, exploiting the current media circus around 'radical Islam' to target a group that is actually open to debate and discourse, something, it appears, that the BBC and Newsnight seeks to discourage.

  • 45.
  • At 11:07 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Quds wrote:

The first message suggests that the organisation is some sort of underground organisation plotting to undermine this country.

How can this be when they are clearly transparent, come on TV when given the chance and have done on many occasions. They have many public events for muslims and non-muslims. Also deal with youth issues and channeling anger from the fringe element of the muslim communuity to political work.

The interveiwees on the report need to provide evidence proving the expressions. Some HT members help saved lives as doctors on 7/7. Does that not tell you about its position on crime and violence???

  • 46.
  • At 11:21 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Mohamed Afzal wrote:

Hi Peter,
I must admit that this Newsnight edition left me very upset. The real reason for my sadness is the inaccuracies and accusations targetted at many Muslim organisations, such as H.T. I once was under the impression that the BBC news programmes were very professional in its conduct and admired world-wide because of this. My impression was obviously wrong.
Journalists as well as politicians have a huge responsibility in reporting the truth as they are shaping the minds of many people within society. Such editions, like this one, full of fabrications, can only lead to the worsening of relations between Muslims and Non-Muslims. Is that what Newsnight wants? To sum up: Irresponsible journalism.

  • 47.
  • At 11:23 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Ard wrote:

In response to Mark E:

Although an Imam is the one who leads prayers for Muslims and therefore would not want to attack Islam, it does not mean that every single Imam in the world is an individual with good intentions.
You have "Imams" who openly support the War in Iraq or the pro-US dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, but you cannot use this fact as a premise to deduce that Islam warrants the War in Iraq or those tyrannical regimes.
In the same vein, you cannot draw conclusions about a political organisation and the character of its members based solely on the accounts and opinions of four individuals. It is tantamount to draw the conclusion that all priests ,and subsequently all those who follow Catholicism, are paedophiles and child molesters because you met four Catholics, including an Evanlegical priest, who told you so.
HuT does not engage in violence because it wants to conciliate Western public opnion but rather because it believes that violence is prohibited by Islam as a mean to establish the Caliphate. This explains the fact that in its 50 years plus history HuT never resorted to militant acts in overthrowing brutal dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, way before HuT`s presence in Western countries.

  • 48.
  • At 11:52 AM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Abu Laila wrote:

Peter,

There is a public interest in understanding why Muslim’s are becoming politicized and assessing whether their grievousness’ are well founded. Newsnight’s role in this should be to establish a “fair and open” playing field to allow debate between muslims and western politicians on the causes of this.

The film yesterday did propagate baseless accusations which undermined the credibility of Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman and Journalism.

A retraction should be published and the debate should be facilitated.

  • 49.
  • At 12:57 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Pippop wrote:

Your post 48 Abu Laila rote, >

This is the debate, and it's open.

One hopes that every objection put forward to criticise Muslim religious thinking is not going to be reduced to the usual shout of "Islamophobia".

If so the opposition will simply go home and build up resentment.


  • 50.
  • At 12:59 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Mark E wrote:

Khalid:

If you read my comment properly you would understand that I was talking about the large groups that protest at the slightest imagined insult to Islam, these are the groups which carry placards calling for death for non-muslims. If the majority of people in these protests do not support the views of the placard carrying racist minority then why do they not stop them?

If your moderate British friends were in a NF protest where members were carrying placards calling for the forced removal of non-whites would you not assume they supported the views of the placard carriers?

The moderate muslims are the ones who just wish to live peacefully. Just as the moderate whites don't get involved with NF protests.

Those who join in these protests support the placard carriers by their actions and as such are not moderate.

The size of these protests would suggest that there is a sizeable section of the muslim population who support the extemist views.

And as for who started the war - well 9/11 was what really forced Bush onto a war footing, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan both can be traced to this event. It didn't start the problems but it did go a long way to polarising the issues.

If you stand side by side withsome calling for death to innocent people then you WILL be judged to support their views. I say again - if the majority of members of the protest groups did not support the extremists who carry the placards calling for death to non-believers then they would have taken actions to stop him.

  • 51.
  • At 01:04 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Ace wrote:

What a joke to make baseless accusation about an orgainisation and not handing any evidences to the police. Is this to safeguard this country and community. Is this not with holding crucial evidences in relation to national security? Or is the BBC making up stories to scare us in to thinking that this political orgainisation HT is involved in terror activities who have been on the newsnight programme many times before. The reporter should have made thing easy for himself by checking the HT website www.hizb.org.uk rather than speaking to four people and making a baseless accusation.

  • 52.
  • At 01:17 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Mark E wrote:

23. At 10:49 PM on 15 Nov 2006, YH wrote:
Mark E: which Muslims are you referring to that are calling for 'death to all non-believers'- HT's material and events are all public, none say anything of the sort, in fact they clearly state they are strongly opposed to isolation of muslims.

In response to YH:

At no point at all did I state that I was speaking about HT - I know little of the group or their actions so can't and won't speak on them.

I was responding to AbdAllah's comment "It is obvious to any right minded individual in the UK what the real motives behind this and every other newsnight broadcast is (obviously to promote hatred towards Islam and Muslims). The difference between you and the Muslim protestors is, the Muslim says it straight"

There are Muslim protesters in the streets of London at the slightest imagined insult to Islam calling for death to non-believers - this is not lies told by the news.

The majority of people believe their eyes over their ears, if someone tells me that Muslim protestors are calling for death to non-believers then I would suspect they had an agenda and would take it with a pinch of salt, if I can see videos SHOWING the Muslim protestors calling for death to non-believers it is a different matter.

Seeing pictures of muslim protestors calling for the deaths of innocent non-muslims will do more to cause distrust of Muslims then any newsnight report.

Any media investigation is taking weeks of research and cutting it to fit a slot of less then an hour - even the best of men could be given a bad press under these circumstances.

  • 53.
  • At 01:30 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • muhammad wrote:

Hi.this is the most disgrace full accusation ever been thrown at ht. You know you can go any anti-ht people and they will tell the truth about this group but I can tell you nothing of this sort. This type of programe only creates more radicals and tension between communities as did the government forigen policy did. to be honest I dont think the british public is that stupid that it belives what ever the government or media says and we can see this from the wider societies responce to many things, thank Allah (God). I think the muslim community and non-muslim community needs to do more to stop this islamaphobic propaganda by the gov and media.

  • 54.
  • At 01:40 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Mark E wrote:

Thank you Ard for your comment. I understand that Imam's are human like the rest of us and have their own failings and viewpoints, I was just curious as to AbdAllah's comment that he was anti-Islam.

People can only judged by their own actions not the actions of others of the same race or religion.

So we should not judge all muslims by the actions of the suicide bombers or protestors or christians by those who do actions in the name of Christ.

However (and this is a point I made in my first comment), when we see protests on the TV we see several extremists who carry placards calling for death to non-muslims, a repeat of 9/11 etc, they might be a minority of the protest but the other protestors by doing nothing to stop the actions of the extremists or distance themselves from it are guilty by association.

Several muslims comment on the BBC web site's HYS and Blogs that they feel that Islamaphobia is growing in the UK, if it is growing I expect it is more because of images of violent Islam portrayed by these protestors more then media reports.

There is a wide mix of races and religions in Britain, but it is mainly Muslims that again and again suggests that they are being victimised. It is not just in this country that there is cultural conflict between Muslims and non-muslims it seems to be a world-wide thing.

  • 55.
  • At 01:49 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • John wrote:

The only shadowy organisation which needs to be investigated is 'VIGIL'.
Peter did BBC put forward the evidences to the police including the criminal 'Jay'?

  • 56.
  • At 02:19 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Kashif wrote:

It is shocking that Newsnight and its editor, Peter Barron, still feel that this feature met any sort of journalistic standards.

Although I am not a member I do know several HT members and of their projects and have had very little reason to believe that they are any other than a non violent group. Their ideas maybe counter productive to some Muslims, however most will agree that they profess only peaceful means at their disposal. Even if you disregard my personal sentiments, nothing shown or any evidence provided on Newsnight swayed me from this view.

It was nothing but good old fashioned scaremongering.

The feature began with Omar Bakri and his controversial statements. Of course he makes them, but it is hardly ground breaking news? Furthermore it has been condemned by most within the Muslim community and several organisations including Hizb-ut-Tahrir. In addition the law of the land has decreed that he is not fit to enter the United Kingdom and was banned from returning after fleeing to Lebanon by British Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

The fact that he is free to continue airing his extreme views seemed somewhat irrelevant within the context of the feature. Indeed, the issue of how individuals outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom have an effect on the fight against terrorism and what the international community is doing to combat it was hardly investigated.

The feature also seemed to rely on generalisations as conclusive proof that HT were considered violent. Furthermore, associating HT with Al Muhajiroun and its controversial nature at several points during the item doesn't necessarily mean that HT adopts the same ideology as Al Muhajiroun! You cannot be guilty by mere association.

Muslims in this country have every right to hold a political opinion as their fellow British citizens, yet when they do (and if they are under 25) then they are labelled radicals and troublemakers.

Newsnight showed no more evidence of HT radicalising such youths than the likes of MPAC or the Muslim Council of Britain. Should we ban these too!?

  • 57.
  • At 02:41 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Sarah Emery wrote:

If Mr Whiteman says that he has evidence that stands up in court - where is it?!

I don't for one minute believe that what we saw on Tuesday night would stand up in any court.

Does Mr Whiteman seriously think that the mix of innuendo and spooky music on Tuesday night would convince a jury? Only a jury made up of similar minds as Mr Whiteman who seems to want to silence any form of Muslim political dissent?

  • 58.
  • At 02:54 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • aaisha wrote:

I am deeply disappointed at the low level of reporting your team showed in the HT report. It was more like News of the World rather than the usual Newsnight. Many Muslims and non_muslims tune in to your show expecting a balanced and fair view on current topics and affairs, yet this report was full of wild allegations and bogus reports that were all unjust and without any proof.
I always thought such media as yourselves tried to report in a much more professional manner and to show a little more respect than the average low class tabloids.
The whole report was shocking and so far from the truth it was ludicrous.
I have known many man and women with the organisation and to think for one minute that they were involved in any of the bogus claims your reports made is crazy. This group has done more for their communities and worked more to build the relations between different people than any other I know, even our own government. While groups like this work to rid our streets of Islampohobia we find media like this working towards it, building fear and hatred within the people.
It was irresponsible for you to show such misconceptions to the public, I feel you should let the people with HT have their say!!
As the rep on the night didn’t get a chance to speak, as he was so rudely interrupted with each word he spoke.
Maybe Newsnight should validate their claims and get the bogus witnesses and the hidden faces on the Tv along with members of the Ht group and lets bash these claims out!!
Lets have fair media and fair treatment of all the people you have on your shows.
Yours aaisha
Ps seems like the timing of your broadcast was a coincidence, lets not let newsnight turn in to another government mouth piece.

  • 59.
  • At 04:49 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Irfan wrote:

THIS PROGRAMME WAS MADE TO DISCREDIT HIZB UT TAHRIR AMONGST NON-MUSLIMS. YOU KNEW THAT THESE ALLEGATIONS WOULD NOT BE BELIEVED BY THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY WHO REALLY KNOW THE ORGANISATION AS A NON-VIOLENT ONE.

YOU HAVE NO PROOF WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST HIZB UT TAHRIR.

THE FEW PARAGRAPHS OF VAGUE JUSTIFICATION MENTIONED ABOVE ARE STILL MEANINGLESS.

GIVE HIZB UT TAHRIR A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN THEMSELVES TO YOU SO THAT A BALANCED VIEW IS PRESENTED AND THEN THE PUBLIC CAN JUDGE.

  • 60.
  • At 05:01 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • J Ahmed wrote:

I was astounded by your programme featuring Hizb ut-Tahrir and its activities in South London.

The clip shown was clearly inaccurate, sensationalised and in many cases factually untrue. I can say this on the basis of knowning Hizb ut-Tahir for some time, in University campuses and in local mosques. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a peaceful Islamic political group, that denounces terorrism and all forms of criminality.

I had always felt Newsnight to be, or at least attempt to be impartial and unbiased, but the way Hizb ut-Tahrir was represented on the programme left me to conclude that there must have been a deliberate agenda to malign and misrepresent the group for some ulterior motive.

In fact, I believe anyone who knows Hizb ut-Tahrir would feel the same way, and by showing this you have discredited your programme, certainly in the eyes of a substantial proportion of the Muslim community.

Were the people in the film paid to say what they were? I suspect that at least some of the clip was staged to generate the desired 'dramatic effect', such as the clip which showed young people shouting in an agitated fashion.

Also, I feel that it was extremely unfair to show a 20 minute (approx.) diatribe against the group, and allow a rebuttal which lasted less than 5 minutes. In fact it was conducted in an extemely rude fashion by Jeremy Paxman, who interrupted the Hizb ut-Tahir speaker many times, and did not really allow him a chance to speak.

I do hope that Newsnight will have the boldness to fully investigate the matter, and present an apology to Hizb ut-Tahrir. Perhaps the truth still has some value in the journalistic world - I certainly hope so.

John (55) Yes, we have made sure that the details of the alleged criminal behaviour in the film are available to the police.

  • 62.
  • At 05:35 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • AbdAllah wrote:

In response to Mr Whiteman from VIGIL.

You state:
"The VIGIL infiltration of the Al Mujahiroun Paltalk room goes much further than mere recording - it has uncovered fundraising networks, IP address data and other quantative evidence which is valid in courts of law round the world. (For the record - to correct you, AbdAllah, with peaceful respect - Omar Bakri does not use his real name, nor do ANY of the core participants in the chatroom(s))."

I would like to know EXACTLY how many people that use chatrooms, MSN, AOL, Paltalk, Yahoo or any other email or messaging service... ACTUALLY use their REAL name????

I'm assured you'll have a statistic for this percentage...since you are obviously a spy and probably have my IP address stored on your system too since i'm a muslim who uses the above mentioned chatrooms and messaging services without my name.

FACT: you too do not use your real name on paltalk. So how you have the audacity to slate Mr Bakri is hilarious. Oh, but i forgot, it's okay for you, cos your not muslim and your a "SPY".

I'd just like to say: as Mr Bakri has stated on many an occasion on Paltalk. He has several id's as he has too many people asking him questions at one time on certain ones, he hence changes them from time to time in order to prevent his system from freezing when speaking...
Anyone with an ounce of IT experience will tell you that is true. Also...when the above statement of AbdAllah refers to "not hiding ones identity"... if you had actually been in the room and PAYING ATTENTION rather than EDITTING your recordings...you would have heard Mr Bakri state his name in FULL on numerous occasions, ON MIC, when asked whom was speaking on the mic.

I hence think that your so called "explanation" is pathetic and immature, and you clearly have NO KNOWLEDGE of how many NON MUSLIM's also do not use their REAL names/id's on messaging and chatroom softwares. Their excuse maybe that there is more than one "John" or "Sarah" using that room, and that will be justifiable to you. When it comes to Muslims, you are so far off the mark that you think anything even remotely pathetic/simple as a ID adds towards some "Conspiracy".

With respect to the above comments on "Mr Admani" and whether or not he is friend or enemy of Islam and the Muslims. That is clear if one pays attention to the unfounded remarks, he declares in the fairytale he presented to the Sunday times last weekend. Those were the words of a clear Hypocrite and his agenda is for the world and increasing credits on his CV, not those that any believing Muslim would associate with the acts of a TRUE Muslim and his responsibility to protect Islam and it's followers.

PS: I look forward to my visit from the police for speaking the truth...because that is apparently a crime in this country...if your Muslim and your beliefs are not corrupted by the west.

  • 63.
  • At 05:45 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • AbuNuha wrote:

I'm a former member of HT and am ready to testify that HT as well as being a global movement that is engaged in non-violent political work which sends shivers down the spines of tyrant dictators in the Muslim world and their materialistic allies in the west (because they seek to remove these dictators with a system that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the people) also gets its new members to stand outside sweet shops and rob young children of their candy to test their loyalties. I'll be your direct source instead of the third party one you had on your programme and not only that I will be a verifiable source as long as I get a brown envelope with wads of cash (Obviously we will deny that I was ever payed and if anyone wants to raise this up, it will be our word against theirs and I'll be more believed because you won't have to mask my identity)

  • 64.
  • At 06:19 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • M Stewart wrote:

I fly no flag for HT. Nor am I a Muslim. I was however pretty surprised by the journalistic values of this piece: for instance using a nasty thug's street aggression to stand in visually for a supposed policy of cultivating links with violent persons (for instance). I would have thought you could get similar material easily enough from any group that feels politically marginalised and threatened (Respect....SWP...far rightists...animal 'so-called' liberationists, hoodies etc.. Some of those are really dangerous, some are not, but the thump your poor cameraman received tells us nothing about HT - just about the aggression some young men feel when a camera follows them against their will.)

It seems likely that HT, as a religious organisation, might have quite inoccuous reasons for involving drug addicts, criminals or other problematic persons in their community - other than building a secret mafia in south London. That possibility was not even explored.

More generally, since HT is a religious organisation it might have been more informative to have some more engaged explanation of its theology. I can well imagine that there are sections of the Muslim leadership that would like to see HT banned for quite other reasons than any actual threat they pose to British citizens. Again that possibility was not considered.

It may well be that HT should be banned - your program provided not one iota of evidence that it should. Perhaps someone else frm the BBC - less in the John Ware mould - will go back and make a more thorough investigation?

  • 65.
  • At 06:45 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • Ibtihal wrote:

I was saddened by the report about Hizb ut Tahrir, since i once had a regard for Newsnight. This was totally sensational and verging on the ridiculous. How anyone can argue that it was objective is beyond any reasonable person's belief. My point here is that it lacked balance, and appeared to be prejudiced. One trustee was contacted, not others, "J" who was said to be a member and reliable source was not ofset by others in the Muslim community who support HT. "J" entire testimony and the way that it was filmed without any independant evidence lacked substantial crediability. To legitimise Mr. Paxman's interview of the hT representative by calling it "robust" is not defining it for it was, evasive and embarrassing for Newsnight. I have read all of the comments and there are a number of non Muslims who have said something similar. I understand that no evidence has been presented to the police, and if no criminal charges are brought do the decent thing and apologise, that's if you ever get around to presenting your so called "evidence".

  • 66.
  • At 07:22 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • CanadianMuslim wrote:

A couple things are clear from the Video:

1. An HT Member was handing out leaflets PEACEFULLY and responded PEACEFULLY when questioned by the Media

2. An UNKNOWN MAN IN A HOODIE was pushed the camera man but WAS NOT AN HT MEMBER.

#1 is Clear for anyone to see. In fact the humble guy refused to even comment.

I can confirm #2 because I have studied with HizbutTahrir in the past but left due to time constaints on the da'wah. HT has a VERY SPECIFIC METHODOLOGY OF NON-VIOLENCE WHICH CORRESPONDS to the MECCAN Stage of the Da'wah during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace by upon him). ANY HISTORIAN WILL TELL YOU DURING the MECCAN PHASE of Islam's development, THERE WAS NO VIOLENCE---In Fact the early Muslims were persecuted, Libelled, Slandered only because they preached publicly the Ideas and Concepts contained in the Qur'aan to the wider Meccan Society. This is exactly the kind of treatment that HT is going through. The Media (BBC) is being used by the Government to create a pretext to proscribe HT and do more damage to them.

It is actually quite silly for you (BBC) to have us believe the garbage you are broadcasting. That person's face was not clear in the video so it cannot be ascertained to which organization he belongs, or who he is. Secondly, the lies regarding the "Mole" "J" were utterly ridiculous. As a former Halaqa Member of HT, I can tell you truthfully that HT NEVER REQUIRES ITS MEMEBER TO SWEAR ON THE QUR'AAN. HT FOLLOWS ISLAMIC RULES (AHKAAM SHARAEEH) and swearing on the Qur'aan has no basis in validating a Muslim's actions or has no gravity in ascertaining a Muslim's loyalty to a group. It was never done in Islamic History. However, the aspect of swearing on any book to ascertain loyalty is a WESTERN IDEA/CONCEPT as seen in the Courts of Law which indicates that whoever concocted these fabrications against HT Are Incapable Liars and Pathetic Storytellers.

  • 67.
  • At 07:41 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

If the BBC investigation can reveal these revelations after only a couple of months, then what about the defence offered by the legions of outraged posters on the Newsnight blog whose alleged experiences * are at odds to the BBC alleged findings

* who claim an association/membership of 'Hizb ut Tahrir', typically between 1-15 years

Two Scenarios:

1. they are right & the BBC is wrong
2. they are wrong & the BBC is right

What do we have to go on to judge both sides?

Based solely on reputation, remit & activity, the BBC's 80+ year old public service history (inclusive & global) across every aspects of the NCA spectrum, eclipses the dubious standing of the extremists organisation 'Hizb ut Tahrir' *

* litany of investigations & issues raised into Hizb ut Tahrir activities have revealed numerous example of telling aims & behaviours of the organisation & its membership [1]

The Beeb does get it wrong on occasion, they are not infallible, but Hizb ut Tahrir' in their history have yet to get it right & the BBC has caught them out.

What the BBC has enabled is another opportunity for moderate British Muslims to wrestle the reputation & activities of the Islamic faith as practiced in the UK from the extremists & radicals.

'Hizb ut Tahrir' attempts at touting unreasonable objectives in a more reasonable manner does not change the core extremism & nature of their agenda & message, esp when such is made against the background of their dual disingenuous approach (saying one thing in public & clearly doing & believing another in private).

vikingar

SOURCES;

[1] http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/choices_2748.jsp

  • 68.
  • At 08:33 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • lulu wrote:

Why can't you just admit you did'nt balance the report? Why did HT have to submit their own references? You gave Dr Abdul Wahid 4 minutes to get a view across while Paxmad attacked. This is not journalism, this is defamation. I wish HT success in their legal action. You have gone to far and perhaps reading your charter again will give you the courage to apologize...

Looking at the number of radical islamic voices from muslims criticising the Newsnight programme at this thread I suspect the Hizb ut-Tahrir has launched a campaign and urged its members as well as sympathizers to denounce in the strongest terms the programme and its author. A feeling that all muslims love Hizb ut-Tahrir and that they are very angry at the BBC right now is an effective way to silence any criticism and any exposure of uncomfortable facts concerning Islam. It happened in the case of Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, it happened in the case of the Pope's remarks, it happens now. I will say to the BBC: stay the course and don't let radicals to get intimidated. Your duty is to report even if certain facts are uncomfortable and touch someone's nerve. We have the right to be informed.

It would be interesting to investigate whether Hizb ut-Tahrir actually launched a campaign of complaints against the BBC and urged its members and sympathizers to denounce the programme. Please check this information. In my opinion it is highly possible .

  • 70.
  • At 11:47 PM on 16 Nov 2006,
  • lulu wrote:

You have lost your integrity to the point where this guy(Nasrallah) makes more sense than you do!

"The elite are the men of religion, political leaders, media and press people, and teachers. Everyone can understand the truth and know what is right. These have the responsibility of showing this right and truth to the people. They should not remain silent....It is the responsibility of people to look for right and truth. As they hear me now, they should not accept everything I say. Even the masses of Hezbollah and the resistance should not do so....Forget what my faith is and what yours is. Hear what I say and see what I do and hear what others say and see what they do, and then decide." (Nasrallah))

Paltalk? Most 12 year olds can manage that - since when does going in a Paltalk room count as "infiltration" of anything?

M/s BBC,
Honestly speaking, I haven't seen any organisation in this country, muslim or otherwisek, engaging in intellectual and idealogical dialogue with the intelligentia or academia from various backgrounds among the wider society. Especially on the most fundamental issues. And as far as I have observed and researched, and based on the testimonies of figures like Ex-Ambassador Creg Murray, the adherence of HT to it's political method of non-violence is astonishing. Even in it's extreme circumstances where many movements historically have inclined towards violence, HT has never seems to have moved an inch from it's method of "non-violent, political and intellectual work" despite scores of it's members have been executed and tortured by dictatorial regimes.
Surely this proves, as HT claims, their unwavering conviction to non-violence must be on the basis of strong intellectual and idealogical grounds.

And clearly, the western establishments and certain lobbies thereof seems to have lost its ground in an intellectual battle against islam and muslims... because almost everyone of these colonial establishments(sp., Britain and USA) are employing sinister tactics of forging false justifications and propaganda to silence islam or lock up muslims... in fact, to silence any political dissent that questions their brutal starategies.
It seems that idealogically the west is now staggering in it's final stages yet desperately trying to defend it's arrogance.
If the western political philosophy has any confidence or high ground then it must not be afraid of dealing it's alternative idealogies in intellectual field... and certainly not on the basis of false propaganda.
And it is pure arrogance on part of the west to measure everyone on the basis of it's percieved and illusionary yard stick.

It sems HT is hitting at the intellectual right-spots.

  • 73.
  • At 04:53 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Rajon wrote:

To Vigil,

Excuse me Mr. Whitman but i have a few issues with your statements.

1) you say you are an anti-terror organisation?

well, with what and whose authority? Surely the best people to police the nation including safeguarding members of you PRIVATE organisation is the police who are trained and equiped to get the job done. surley you cannot claim to be better job than them? also what if what if one of your own moles is mistaken and spied upon by the police, surely you can clear the matter up, but wouldnt that be a waste of police time and tax money and especially stopping the police from focusing its efforts on the real terrorists?
also if one of mole is compromised or say even caught out by a violent group whose responsible?

2)You infiltrate chatrooms,record talks and worryingly gather personal information of any people you may suspect through your unqualified and unwanted eyes?.
I have one thing to say have you heard of the data-protection act? again under what authority are allowed to gather and pass on senseitive information of unsuspecting individuals? most organisations including the BBC by law must state if they are going to use or gather information , have you done this? most ask by law if they may pass on this information that they have been given PERMISSION by the client to pass on? again what legal or political authority do have?
So it seems You are breaching human rights and breaking the law.

3) you say many of your members are over 65 and if and when your demands are met to your standards they will happily retire.

urrm.. its nice to know that you are also against age-dicrimination and employ a good percentage of that age-group. but a question arises, if they are working for VIGIL then they must be paid, if they are being paid you must be recieving financial help to cater for this? so, im guessing here but would i be wrong that since you are not a profit organisation , merely just a bunch train-spotters , you are reciving financial help, well where from?

Lastly you wrote you have kick started a debate, no-doubt!
But its not on HuT as many, by that i mean thousands muslims and non-muslims, wether they be friend or foe and your report has been rubbished by almost all who have knowledge.
But the talking point is your shadowy organisation, You seem to be very covert, undisclosed source of fundings, act as infiltrators and most like agent provocateurs in many of these sites you enter to 'fit in',you illigally gather and spread information, you claim authority police yet you have not been briefed, trained or monitored by the legal authorites, you claim to have no political or religious agenda in the opening yet finish by stating you aim to build an extreme secular state, which by the is a political motivation and it has a biased overview of judgement with a set criteria. if i said tommorrow im working to end monopolisation in order to spread wealth more evenly, no-doubt ill be on list as a threat to free secularism and capitalism, regardless if i accepted the democratic process or not.

To me your not only a shadow and underground group which i hope the police will monitor, but also cyber-criminals who needs to stand in court nad face serious charges.

  • 74.
  • At 08:48 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Saud Qadir wrote:

In response to Mark E:

I wonder what your assetion that the "moderate" Muslim should confront those with threatening banners is based on. To me those protesters I see in the news are COMPLETE STRANGERS. How on earth can you suppose that I should confront a protesting hostile "mob" in order to prove my sincerety as a decent member of society? I do not think the Law Enforcing Authorities would be happy with you advocating such risky and potentially lethal behaviour to any body, leave alone any British Citizen who might be at such protests. Further, your belief in your ability to estimate the proportion of British Muslims sharing the protesters' views by just watching the news smacks of some kind of delusion. No offence intended, but orientation to reality would be really genial.
When radical ideas come from Muslim groups they are condemned as criminals etc. I admit there may be a difference between radical ideas and radical actions. However, radical ideas and actions come from politicians and head of states also, e.g from T. Blair ( listen to his latest Labour Conference speech). Why is he not then described as extremist?
When a Muslim makes a statement about the demerits of democracy s/he is treated as a traitor and demonised, but I have heard no adverse comment against the (non-Muslim) author of the book " The Case Against Democracy". And why should not a political observer or indeed a sociologist examine the apparent failure of democratic processes around and over the invasion of Iraq? What makes it so difficult to accept that the growth of the opposition to the militaristic-capitalistic-democratic-neoconservative ways follows its own logic. It is not only about the increasing hunger for social security benefits and increasing thirst for petrol in countries like UK, but there may also be a religious motivation to the need to "invade" others. The opposition (to the politics of invading others )in all the forms that they present have grown out of a logical need of society. They are here to stay. What makes Islam so attractive as an ideology of society is something I believe a civilised society should try to understand. Instead there appears to be a campaign to insult, attack, ridicule, offend and demonise Islam and practising Muslims. Democratic Britain believes and promotes the idea that it is healthy to "OFFEND". On the other-hand Islam states that it is a sin to offend. For me the latter carries the higher moral ground and is nearer to civilised life. This begs the question: are we as a people (British people) rejecting Islamic values at our own peril?

  • 75.
  • At 10:43 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Max Kahn wrote:

I am from Jewish ancestors, although I am not a jew. The media attack against Islam is what the world witnessed in the 30's in Germany. All decent people need to express their outrage at this and recent reporting on Muslims and Islam.

  • 76.
  • At 10:58 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Sam wrote:

I can't help but compare this case to when the BBC attempted to have the leader of the BNP prosecuted. Of course he was acquitted and rightly so. At a waste of easily a million pounds of tax payers money not to mention the waste of license payers money at the same time.

So whats the BBC's agenda? Well i can only conclude the BBC has some sort of problem with free speech if it is in any way not politically correct.

Failing to publish the cartoons of the prophet muhammed is a good example of this. In my opinion it was the BBC's duty to publish them in order to send a message to the islamic world that in our culture you can say what you like as long as you don't incite violence. Its called freedom of speech.

People can insult islam people can insult the west. It's all acceptable.

  • 77.
  • At 11:28 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • saghir wrote:

Peter, it is quite evident that the report on Tuesday was purely one sided. The image you portrayed in the 20 minutes of the report was anything but balanced. Therefore, in order to obtain some credibility of being balanced, Mr Paxman then interrogated Dr Wahid for approximately 4 - 5 minutes.

It is self dillusionary to suggest that a 4 minute interview brings balance as well as providing an ample opportunity for a response. In order to repair the damage that has been done to community cohesion i suggest you give Hizb Ut-Tahrir a camera in order to make a 20 minute report to refute the allegations as well provide details of the work they are undertaking. It is only then i feel that true balance would have been achieved. Otherwise, i fear you are pampering to the governments scaremongering agenda.

  • 78.
  • At 11:30 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Pippop wrote:

>

Two points I'd like to make Ard in response to your statement above.

Why is the hUt banned in many other countries including some Muslim ones?

Does it actually matter whether they are engaged in overt violence or the subtle violation of a modern liberal democracy in the hope of replacing it with a radically monadic religion of divine revelation?

Islam requires a single community of belief, of an unquestioned a priori truth which is logically in conflict with the intrinsic politics of political pluralism.

Whether you wait patiently for the Sharia moment to arrive or use up front aggression you till present a serious threat to my autonomy, particularly as I am a woman and as long as we still have a democracy functioning here I will oppose your beliefs and aims which are IMO unjust and unjustifiable.

The ubiquitous term "Islamophobia", invented by petulant imams lamenting their impotence in our modern democracies is a misnomer. Phobias are irrational fears. Islam presents a real and serious threat to all modern liberal democracies. This is not just a matter of fact but also a matter of logic. The hUt know this only too well.

  • 79.
  • At 11:38 AM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Jamal wrote:

All those people that were interviewed were making allegations, with no evidence to say that it actually happened or that HT were involved, and if HT are involved in criminal activity then you should send the evidence you have, to the authorities. From what I have heard , evidence has not been submitted, is this because Newsnight has no evidence to back what it claims?

  • 80.
  • At 12:09 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Kathy wrote:

Paxman just showed his usual biased ignorant attitude during this program. It is this attitude that gets him noticed and talked about so he obviously feels he has to keep it up at every possible opportunity. He is nothing more than a bad mannered bully. It would be nice to hear from some of his school chums to see how he behaved in the playground.

  • 81.
  • At 02:24 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Pippop wrote:

owais comment 71. It seems that idealogically the west is now staggering in it's final stages yet desperately trying to defend it's arrogance.
If the western political philosophy has any confidence or high ground then it must not be afraid of dealing it's alternative idealogies in intellectual field... and certainly not on the basis of false propaganda.
And it is pure arrogance on part of the west to measure everyone on the basis of it's percieved and illusionary yard stick.

Please tell me what is arrogant about a culture that requires it's women to be educated, genitally unmutilated, free to marry whom she pleases, that outlaws child marriages and leaves her in control of her own fertility. Please tell me what is arrogant about it?

  • 82.
  • At 02:33 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Mark E wrote:

What makes Islam so attractive as an ideology of society is something I believe a civilised society should try to understand. Instead there appears to be a campaign to insult, attack, ridicule, offend and demonise Islam and practising Muslims. Democratic Britain believes and promotes the idea that it is healthy to "OFFEND". On the other-hand Islam states that it is a sin to offend. For me the latter carries the higher moral ground and is nearer to civilised life. This begs the question: are we as a people (British people) rejecting Islamic values at our own peril?


In response to Saud:

You seem to misunderstand my comments, either willingly or accidently. I am talking about the people who protest - the members of the "mob". If someone is protesting as part of a mob that is calling for the murder of innocent people then it is fair to assume that they agree with this view. After all if they disagreed then they have the option of asking those who ARE calling for murder to remove the placards OR to leave. If they stay and join the protest then they are adding their support.

I do not consider anyone who would be willing to stand behind a banner calling for the murder of innocents to be a moderate.

And as for my "ability to estimate the proportion of British Muslims sharing the protesters' views", well it was not too long ago the BBC published the results of a report (which unfortunately I can not find again after a quick search on this site) suggesting that nearly a quarter of muslims support the use of suicide bombers (and that is just those who freely admitted it) - I would consider that to be a sizeable percentage of the Muslim population wouldn't you? And protests of tens of thousands of people from a population of just over about a million suggests the views are more wide-spread then many would care to admit.

You might consider Islam to be civilized, however from what I have seen countries that follow Islamic law are from from it. I draw your attention to the case of the man accused of murdering a taxi driver, under Islamic law he was to be put to death because the family of the man killed refused "blood money", yet he had been acquitted by a law court of the same charge. It would not take me long to find other brutalities done in the name of "Islamic law. Yes, in Britain we have the right to offend people with our words, many of the things said by the Muslim protestors or Muslim leaders are offensive - yet you say that this is sin under Islam? It seems that under Islam it is only an offense to offend Muslims as it doesn't seem to stop Muslims from saying things which offend non-muslims. At least in the west we freely offend everyone no matter what race or religion.

If the only civilized thing that Islam can bring is to stop acts which offend Islam then we can really live without it.

  • 83.
  • At 02:55 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Miah wrote:

LETS NOT FORGET, BBC IS A STATE OWNED AND REGULATED BODY. HISTORICALLY BBC WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES SUCH AS DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. MORE RECENTLY, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO IT WAS DISCLOSED THAT THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES USED TO REGULARLY VET AND INVESTIGATE JOURNALISTS WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY THE BBC, WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF BBC HIERACHY.
IS THE BBC STILL WORKING FOR MI5?

  • 84.
  • At 04:12 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Stranded in Babylon wrote:

Responding to message 68, posted by Marcus" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/11/investigating_hizb_uttahrir.html )

You say: "A feeling that all Muslims love Hizb ut Tahrir and that they are very angry at the BBC right now is an effective way to silence any criticism and any exposure of uncomfortable facts concerning Islam."

I agree with the point you're getting at, but I don't think the Newsnight programme exposed any uncomfortable fact concerning Islam.

If anyone thought it did, this can only be as the result of mistakenly construing that allegations against Hizb ut Tahrir are allegations against Islam.

The two are obviously completely different, and I don't think the Newsnight programme made any allegations or exposed any uncomfortable facts about Islam. It was certainly not an attack of any kind on Islam and should not be seen as such.

If Hizb ut Tahrir is attempting to portray allegations against itself as an attack on Islam or on Muslims, then it is being disingenuous, and such an act can only raise further questions about the motives of the organisation.

  • 85.
  • At 05:55 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • Stranded in Babylon wrote:

Responding to message 82, by Miah:

As your post itself makes clear, the BBC has never worked for MI5; rather certain personnel were security vetted by MI5, primarily to ascertain any connection with communism.

Therefore, you knew your final sentence to be spurious, and I wonder why you phrased it as you did?

As it happens, MI5 works on behalf of Britain and all British people, so I also question a sentence which seems to portray MI5 as an enemy.

  • 86.
  • At 08:25 PM on 17 Nov 2006,
  • hermosh wrote:

The BBC has now entered the world of Postman Pat investigative journalism ... what happened to serious investigations into dodgy dossiers? Paxman acted like a camp Pantomime Dame - 'typically robust' is no justification for his tossed off the stage impersonation. Bring back serious journalism with authentic sources who have the courage of their convictions to go public.

  • 87.
  • At 01:54 AM on 18 Nov 2006,
  • Mark Preston wrote:

As a reply to AbdAllah:

I also saw the programme, and have also been *in* that chatroom on Paltalk (both visibly and invisibly). I have seen and heard Hizub ut Tahrir in there talking and have heard them locally in meetings close to my home. While you may have issues about the manner in which the case was presented, there is no doubt whatsoever about the truth of the accusations made.

Yes, I have indeed heard the same things myself. Yes, I have seen and heard people spout horrifying and grotesque statements that in my opinion should see them in jail. While I do have time for the good work HT do - and they do do some - it is certainly time that the extremism was rooted out and the organisation cleaned up.

  • 88.
  • At 01:28 PM on 18 Nov 2006,
  • Amjad Ali wrote:

I am not a member of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir but as a Muslim I find it very sad that newsnight has made these allegations. Many muslims may not agree with HT's view but I can guarantee that namy muslim will find these allegations very shocking.

I was a big fun of Newsnight but not anymore!!

  • 89.
  • At 07:37 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • r9ufs wrote:

I have a joke for you...How do you confuse an Irish man? Put him in a round room and ask him to sit in the corner.....

You dont find it funny and nor do i, but this is the type of filth and attitude i witnessed when growing up aginst the Irish community and now the Muslims are the target but at a larger scale. IT is so obvious that the BBC are clearly another Blairs tool. The British public will not fall to such tactics of attempting to hide the truth around the world by distracting us to local issues.
Fiction - the muslims are a threat to Britain.
FACT-Blairs foriegn policy is the cause of the instability in the UK, cause of 700,000 civilians death in Iraq.
Blair and BBC (Blairs Broadcasting Channel) its about time you realised that the British people are not as brainless as you would want them to be.
MR S
Manchester
U.K.

  • 90.
  • At 09:26 PM on 20 Nov 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref JPseudonym #11

I don't know …...

Hopeless, according to the old failing notions e.g. multiculturalism & 'diversity celebration/imposition' (to the point of division) - YES

Hopeless, according to the emerging 'renaissance of rights' in mainstream British society - NO

Though interesting comment in The Telegraph about difficulties Selbourne had in getting someone to publish the book [1]

Personally, there will be an inevitable journey in the UK / Europe getting to grips with radical Islam, one or combo of the following:

1) proactively, state & society continues its 'renaissance of rights' *

* the journey it has recently embarked on ref over turning the failed notion of 'multiculturalism' (as touted & imposed by liberal left / left) & all the problems it brought.

2) reactively, the Islamic terrorists & extremists/radicals yet again ramp up the ante (having no notion of subtlety or knowing when to stop) then state & society react accordingly (piecemeal approach).

As for most of the world, it will about reaction to events.

BBC article with a mention of Selbourne [2]

David Selbourne according to wiki [3]

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/25/nhack25.xml
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5336596.stm
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selbourne,_David

  • 91.
  • At 12:08 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • abu Mustapha wrote:

BBC response to the complaints sent by many is lacking.

I am flabbergasted as to how a case was made against HIzbutTahrir without evidence but only alligations which cannot be scrutinised.

Compelling and convincing is NOT what comes to mid. A stich up does!!

  • 92.
  • At 05:38 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • sohail wrote:

I found it shocking that the BBC could put out such a program, to associate the firebombing of a synagogue to HT was laughable, knowing that they have worked under the most repressive regimes and still kept to their peaceful method. Consider a Muslim making an accusation that MI5 was behind the 7/7 attacks, why? Because someone told me that they did it and I believe the information is credible. What a Joke! Looks like propaganda to me.

  • 93.
  • At 08:30 PM on 21 Nov 2006,
  • Asad wrote:

Very disapointed indeed. I complained to BBC about the newsnight programme on 14.11.06, in particular about the baseless lies against HT and the dictator style harrassing by Jeremy Paxman of Dr Wahid. I get an email giving me a 'response' to the complaints. Shows how much the BBC are really interested in listening to the complaints by simplying reiterating the same old rubbish that was on the programme itself.

**READ THE FIRST COMMENT**

Alan, if you read the comments made on the website of other press/newspapers on articles written especially written by Muslims. The responses include all sorts of extremists such as if you don't like it here get out and a whole barrage of swears. Of course, British Values.

  • 94.
  • At 12:04 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

Ref abu Mustapha #91

"I am flabbergasted as to how a case was made against HIzbutTahrir without evidence but only alligations which cannot be scrutinised"

ahhh herm .....

Anyone interested in 'Hizb ut-Tahrir' would benefit from a review of this international report.

“The Challenge of Hizb ut-Tahrir: Deciphering and Combating Radical Islamist Ideology” [1]

- Produced by The Nixon Centre [2] in October 2004.

Easiest digest via the Executive Summary pages 7-12

Very comprehensive in scope & whom they involved in the study.

Enjoy :)

vikingar

[1] http://www.nixoncenter.org/Program%20Briefs/PB%202004/confrephiztahrir.pdf
[2] http://www.nixoncenter.org/index.cfm?action=showPage&page=about

  • 95.
  • At 09:19 AM on 22 Nov 2006,
  • Mark E wrote:

In response to Mr S:

So you had to suffer Irish jokes? Well my heart bleeds for you, and I am sure you were mentally and emotionally scarred for life. Guess what? Children can be little gits and this type of humour is common. As a child growing up with glasses and a "country" accent I got called "Four Eyes" and "Bumpkin" - it happens, get over it - basically children pick on someone because they are frightened that if they don't they will be picked on. Of course your childhood "trauma" is worse then mine because it is "racial".

From what I have read the "facts" you speak of about the war being responsible for the deaths of are disputed, and include people who possibly would have died under the sanctions imposed on Iraq before the invasion. And, I am sure that many will disagree with me, but while the Muslims as a whole might not be a threat to us, the extremists among them ARE.

Blindly believeing information which supports views that you agree with is a sign of ignorance, and both those who are pro-Blair and against-Blair are guilty of this.

  • 96.
  • At 03:08 AM on 13 Dec 2006,
  • vikingar wrote:

UPDATE:

"Does Newsnight have a case too answer"

Thursday 23 November - Islam Channel (Sky 813) programme 'Ummah Talk' hosted a special discussion between Taji Mustafa (Media Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain) and Peter Barron (Editor of Newsnight). The programme was chaired by former BBC journalist and author Phil Rees [1]

The clips had been added on 30th November 2006 by youtube member called 3days2nights:

Part 1 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=oz14xb1dsCE&mode=related&search=

Part 2 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=vYefyGvN_bg&mode=related&search=

Part 3 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=gXUuchqt4M4&mode=related&search=

Part 4 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=qU0iDxVm0xE&mode=related&search=

Well done Peter Baron.

Hitz but Tahrir does not like being caught out "- they don't like it up 'em" (from a media perspective).

Taji Mustafa should remember that the public & media audiences do have a discerning memory.

That no matter how 'responsible & savvy' Taji Mustafa attempts to appear on those fleeting occasions when he is in the media spotlight & no matter how he prepares & rehearses his contributions beforehand, elsewhere he & Hitz but Tahrir are engaged in their normal methods & real agendas (their own numerous media productions prove that regularly) they are judge by these performances more.

The orchestrated poster blitz by 'members' of Hitz but Tahrir shortly after the broadcast on 14th November 2006 was the comical icing on Hitz but Tahrir embarrassment cake (esp given sameo post constructs) [2]

Lest some choose to forget, Hitz But Tahrir other international face in pursuit of their 'fantasay' - 'THE KHILAFAH IS COMING' [3a] [3b] *

* last frame esp ironic, their Caliphat/Khilafah engulfing the whole world

Further background info on Hitz But Tahrir organisation see #94

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-05/22/article04.shtml
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/11/tuesday_14_november_2006.html
[3a] http://youtube.com/watch?v=D76wQc8fX90&mode=related&search=
[3b] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.