Talk:Hizb ut-Tahrir

Listing former members who have been in the news

I just figured it makes sense considering how much coverage they get in the Media. --Doctorkc (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)aa

This Article needs to be nuetral, not constantly portraying HT as victims, nor constant insinuations of terrorism or anti-semitism

The controversies related to violence need to be in a concise form in the "position on violence" section as is the case with controversies related to anti-semtisim. Using the word 'terrorism' or 'terrorists' is also highly debatable according to wiki guides as it has not fixed definition anyway. Only credible sources can be quoted using this word, but it cannot be used in the passive wording of this article.

The article is a mess, i.e. a random section on some Turkish case. The intro is poisoned from the begining with propoganda and heavily loaded words such as 'Islamist'. There are FALSE references to HT believing in hijacking, when their website says the opposite, FALSE references to holocouts denial etc etc.

I will try to clean up, but give me some time Aaliyah Stevens (talk)

It does need to be cleaned up but their website is not a reliable source, as recently as 2005 it had very radical Islamist and violent/revolutionary material on it (unfortunatelly I do not have a copy of the old version). A lot of the controversy comes from confusion created by Hizb-ut Tahrir groups engaging in propaganda campaigns and also from whistleblowers/ex-members (such as Ed Husain)who have stated that HB is in fact a terrorist organization that advocates violence. As for use of the word "Islamist", it is a bit of a loaded term but also an accurate description of HB's stated goals (creation of a unified Islamic state). Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Husain hasn't stated that. The trouble with the article is the very repetitive effort to tie the group to terrorism and the use of violence. Yes, this contention should be stated, with perhaps the most compelling evidence (if there is any; good evidence is not a long list of people just stating the contention) and then countervailing evidence including the group's response, and then move on. For those who want to make this an "anti-Hizb ut-Tahrir" article, I suggest a more fruitful path is simply to describe the group's various (to me) paranoid positions on a wide range of issues. This would be allowed under NPOV.Haberstr (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not harp on points that are unsource, however, HB engages in deliberate disinformation and propoganda campaigns that cloud the issue of their actual agenda. They have also implicated in revolutionary activities in Egypt. And Ed Husain does say in "The Islamist" that Hizb Ut-Tahrir advocates violence, just not publicly. Voiceofreason01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Incorrect Quote?

Re "In March and April 2002, Hizb Ut Tahrir handed out leaflets in a square in Copenhagen, and at a mosque. The leaflet, which also appeared on the Danish groups internet site, makes threats against Jews, using a quote from the Koran urging Muslims to 'kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have been turned you out.' The leaflet also said, 'The Jews are a people of slander…a treacherous people… they fabricate lies and twist words from their right context.'"

Is this in incorrect quote or is the error in the original? The text "from where they have been turned you out." makes no sense at all.

Also, it's ironic that the words "fabricate lies and twist words" appear in the paragraph after the 'quote' "kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have been turned you out [sic]". In M. A. S Abdel Haleem's annotated edition of the Qur'an, he explains the real context of this quote, and what it means when taken in the context of the text proper. He says that this (assuming this is the part he explains on page xxiii, which it appears to be) pertains to a specific historical, situation where the 'them' refers to a specific group of pagans that, inspite of having a treaty with the (very early) Muslims, repeatedly ignored it and attacked them. Even then, in the context, he says that it refers only to self-defence and then only with other limitations attached, in the full context of the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.211.79 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

POV tag added

Just for starters, the group explicitly has always condemned terror and the killing of innocents, but this article at present features 25 uses of the word 'terror' or its variants. The sheer repetitiveness of that POV-problematic word, is absurd here in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry about this emphatically NON-terrorist group. The group _does_ by Western standards take some odd positions, on sex education, homosexuality and in its advocacy of a caliphate, for example, but these are under-emphasized in the obvious campaign by ideologues who have infiltrated this supposed-to-be NPOV encyclopedia to stain HuT with words like 'terrorism', 'suicide bomber' and 'violence'.Haberstr (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made some initial rough improvements.Haberstr (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

one of the most notable things about Hizb Ut-Tahrir is that they are often classified as a terrorist organization and have been banned in several countries as a result. I would like to remind you and all editors that this is an encyclopedia and words like "terrorist" should not be used for shock value but if that is the language that our sources are using and they are relevent to the article then that is the langauge that we should be using and it should not be whitewashed out of the article, please review wp:weight for the relevent policies. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Western countries ... Australia

Since when was Australia a western country? Seems to be as east as east gets. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In the contemporary religious and respectively cultural meaning, the term Western world refers to the countries of Western Europe as well as countries of European colonial origin in the New World such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile.[2][3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world 06:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Marlon Monroe (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia accounts for about 99% of this parties publicity =

In basically every template for "political parties in (insert name of Muslim country here)," this party is listed. That despite the fact that it's never taken part in any election and I've never heard it referred to on the news. I don't think this party is nearly as significant as the people pushing it on wikipedia would like us to believe 173.171.38.14 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be right --Doctorkc (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)