Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamist political organization that aims to establish Islamic caliphate by recruiting members and advancing them to positions of power. Russia considers them a terrorist organization, which is ridiculous as they never commited or were known to plan any acts of terror.
Huh? If an organization ‘aims to establish an Islamic caliphate by recruiting members and advancing them to positions of power’, that certainly seems like planning acts of terror.
Surely there’s some more sympathetic organizations that could have been used as an example?
(Especially since a majority of readers on LW are based in North America, UK, Europe, etc., which have huge segments of the population that would sooner support Russia then support an Islamic Caliphate.)
I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror. I don’t know if the accused people actually belong to the organization, I suspect most don’t. All accused but one deny it, some evidence was forged and one person said he was tortured. Ukraine is supported by the West, so Russia wouldn’t accuse Crimean activists of something West finds sympathetic. They’re not stupid.
So the overwhelming majority of persecuted Crimean Tatars are accused of belonging to this organization. I could go pick some more sympathetic examples, of course, but that wouldn’t paint an accurate picture. I’m trying to describe things as I see them, not create propaganda.
I know almost nothing about the history of Hizb ut-Tahrir anywhere in the world, but in Denmark one of the leaders of Hizb ut-Tahrir once got convicted for threatening the prime minister.
The question of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir is worth forbidding and the question of whether those people are actually guilty of being members are two very different questions.
There are from seven to ten thousands of Hizb ut-Tahrir members and followers in Crimea according to the data of law-enforcement bodies. However, the committee on religion’s estimate of Hizb ut-Tahrir members is from five to six thousands. Mustafa Djemilev, the head of Crimean Tatar Mejlis, thinks “There are 500-600 wahabis in Crimea. Among them 70-80 people are active members and the rest are gapers”. Refat Chubarov, the first deputy head of Mejlis, also does not agree that there can be seven thousands of Hizb ut-Tahrir followers in Crimea.
[...]
However, Crimean Verkhovna Rada [that’s their parliament] intends to ban this organization. The bill was going to be put on its agenda in April, 2008.18 However, Crimean government has no power to ban this organization as Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada did not delegate such authority to Crimea.
[...]
Crimean Mufti strongly opposes Hizb ut-ahrir: “Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party, not religious. There is no such a thing as a political party in Islam. They just use the name of Islam. It is interesting that the authorities do not consider Hizb ut-Tahrir a threat or a harmful organization. The mufti institution was against its registration but when these people registered in the republican committee on religion, they did not say they were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
[...]
After the mosque was restored, the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir changed the keys there. We [Crimean Mufti] also had a photo of them breaking the door, we sent it to the police but they did not take any actions because they know what kind of organization Hizb ut-Tahrir is. We know that the law enforcement bodies neither support, nor defend us.”
[..]
There is also a widespread perspective that Russian government pursues its own interests by using Hizb ut-Tahrir’s destabilizing potential and it might even fund and support this party politically. Refat Chubarov, in his interview to news agency “Kontekst-media”, Chubarov asserts that some foreign country funds the organization, he even assumes that financial assistance comes from Russia.
Given that background 300 people doesn’t seem to be an unrealistic number.
It also suggests that Hizb ut-Tahrir does not speak for all Muslims.
It estimated the total number of conflict-related detainees subjected to torture and ill-treatment in 2014-2021 at around 4,000 – 1,500 at the hands of government agents and about 2,500 by separatists. They included an estimated 340 victims of sexual violence.
I find the torture happening on both sides terribly sad. The reason I continue to support Ukraine—aside from them being a victim of aggression—is that I have hope that things will change for the better there. While in Russia I’m confident that things will only get worse. Both countries have the same Soviet past, but Ukraine decided to move towards European values, while Russia decided to stand for imperialism and homophobia. And after writing this, I realised: your linked report says that Ukraine stopped using secret detention facilities in 2017 but separatists continue using them. Some things are really getting better.
I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror.
This does not seem credible. Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror. This is significantly different from ‘establishing and living by Islamic laws ’, and even then the overlap would likely not be zero.
I’m trying to describe things as I see them, not create propaganda.
The writing is not neutrally worded, contains highly emotional language, and clearly can affect readers into changing their views regarding a political topic, so it counts as propaganda by any dictionary definition.
If you didn’t intend to create propaganda, try looking into how the major news media from neutral countries such as India, Israel, Brazil, etc… are writing about the conflict.
>> Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
I say I am not writing propaganda because I am describing my honest impressions and opinions on the matter, not cherry picking facts or telling lies to manipulate you. If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument. When it comes to emotions, I do not believe it is necessary, or rational, or virtuous, to see injustice and pain and remain impassive and neutral. So thank you, but I’ll pass.
If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument.
If you got the impression that I was offering my own definition, instead of following standard definitions available in popular dictionaries, then you should reread my comment.
Online versions of the major English dictionaries exist and anyone can read them, so no one has to take my word for it.
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
Regardless of what has been done, is likely to be done, etc., I was addressing your claim that:
I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror.
Which does not seem credible. As there are genuine reasons to believe that such groups may not use entirely legal means to advance their goals.
Whether or not this occurred in fact, or is in fact planned to occur in the future, isn’t something that can be proven either way without on-the-ground investigation, nor are they the claims that I’m addressing.
Huh? If an organization ‘aims to establish an Islamic caliphate by recruiting members and advancing them to positions of power’, that certainly seems like planning acts of terror.
Surely there’s some more sympathetic organizations that could have been used as an example?
(Especially since a majority of readers on LW are based in North America, UK, Europe, etc., which have huge segments of the population that would sooner support Russia then support an Islamic Caliphate.)
I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror. I don’t know if the accused people actually belong to the organization, I suspect most don’t. All accused but one deny it, some evidence was forged and one person said he was tortured. Ukraine is supported by the West, so Russia wouldn’t accuse Crimean activists of something West finds sympathetic. They’re not stupid.
So the overwhelming majority of persecuted Crimean Tatars are accused of belonging to this organization. I could go pick some more sympathetic examples, of course, but that wouldn’t paint an accurate picture. I’m trying to describe things as I see them, not create propaganda.
I know almost nothing about the history of Hizb ut-Tahrir anywhere in the world, but in Denmark one of the leaders of Hizb ut-Tahrir once got convicted for threatening the prime minister.
The question of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir is worth forbidding and the question of whether those people are actually guilty of being members are two very different questions.
When trying to understand the organizations role in Crimea I found https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125726/RU_41.pdf (of course I don’t know fully how trustworthy everything is):
Given that background 300 people doesn’t seem to be an unrealistic number.
It also suggests that Hizb ut-Tahrir does not speak for all Muslims.
Torture is obviously bad, but it’s not one-sided in the conflict https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-n-documents-prisoners-torture-abuse-in-ukrainian-conflict:
Unseen harms happen on both sides.
I find the torture happening on both sides terribly sad. The reason I continue to support Ukraine—aside from them being a victim of aggression—is that I have hope that things will change for the better there. While in Russia I’m confident that things will only get worse. Both countries have the same Soviet past, but Ukraine decided to move towards European values, while Russia decided to stand for imperialism and homophobia. And after writing this, I realised: your linked report says that Ukraine stopped using secret detention facilities in 2017 but separatists continue using them. Some things are really getting better.
This does not seem credible. Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror. This is significantly different from ‘establishing and living by Islamic laws ’, and even then the overlap would likely not be zero.
The writing is not neutrally worded, contains highly emotional language, and clearly can affect readers into changing their views regarding a political topic, so it counts as propaganda by any dictionary definition.
If you didn’t intend to create propaganda, try looking into how the major news media from neutral countries such as India, Israel, Brazil, etc… are writing about the conflict.
>> Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
I say I am not writing propaganda because I am describing my honest impressions and opinions on the matter, not cherry picking facts or telling lies to manipulate you. If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument. When it comes to emotions, I do not believe it is necessary, or rational, or virtuous, to see injustice and pain and remain impassive and neutral. So thank you, but I’ll pass.
If you got the impression that I was offering my own definition, instead of following standard definitions available in popular dictionaries, then you should reread my comment.
Online versions of the major English dictionaries exist and anyone can read them, so no one has to take my word for it.
Regardless of what has been done, is likely to be done, etc., I was addressing your claim that:
Which does not seem credible. As there are genuine reasons to believe that such groups may not use entirely legal means to advance their goals.
Whether or not this occurred in fact, or is in fact planned to occur in the future, isn’t something that can be proven either way without on-the-ground investigation, nor are they the claims that I’m addressing.