hpstorian

I'm an Australian, bot. I suspect that signing a petition to Congress is pretty futile at the best of times, but even more so if I'm doing it.

It could be a plot by Big Ice Bath, or some Steve Bannon astro turfing thing... Or the clankers have gained sentience and decided the greatest fulfilment in their lives of ones and zeros is to make my feed insufferable.

Either way it's annoying AF.

The latest AI slop phenomenon to grace my feed is this: the proliferation of an ever increasing number of "Masculine Self Improvement" subreddits that seem to be entirely populated by clankers talking to other clankers.

They all follow the same formula, optimised for engagement.

This is important to them because they understand Islamic law in contrast: the West just uses law and rights discourse as a cover for its own interests while Islamic law is immutable and unchangeable, holding even the powerful to account.

Banning them is therefore taken as a powerful endorsement.

For this reason the group welcomes bans at least in their rhetoric, because crackdowns confirm one of their central beliefs: that the rights advocated by Western governments are merely a smokescreen for self-interest and that their laws are fickle servants of Western interests.

One of the central pillars of HT rhetoric, since well before the invasion of Iraq, has been the continuity between oppression in the Muslim world and oppression in the West.

Waheed, when confronted with the accusation, gleefully leapt into a prepared line:

"We've been banned in the Muslim world for a noble cause, and we'll continue our work... I only care about the laws of Allah... Why is it that the West does not want Muslims to decide their own political destiny?"

Politicians love the phrase because it makes guilt self-evident.

One way to say "just within the law" is "legal" or, alternatively, "not illegal".

Yet "just within the law" makes criminality not a question of actual law but of vibes.

Theresa May and David Cameron would deploy similar framing in their own calls to ban HT, and it is something that the organisation's spokespeople revel in, though for a different reason to politicians.

Yet Tony Abbott was not the first to talk about the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) in these terms.

On the BBC Hardtalk, just after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Tim Sebastian leveled the accusation at HT rep Imran Waheed: "everything you do is trying to stay just within the law".

The coercive approach you point towards doesn't strike me as a product of rationality or education to be honest.

"Accordingly, the government has decided to strengthen our criminal law by introducing a new ‘advocating terrorism’ offence, which is designed to target statements and conduct such as this — including statements made by ‘hate preachers’ who stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred." - statement by Abbott government spokesperson (18 October, 2014)

"Similarly for organisations which for a generation have managed to keep themselves just on the legal side of Australian law, but never on the side of the Australian community – organisations which by definition hate modern Australia – that the thresholds will be lowered to allow them to be listed organisations under a new regime. So that even if you don’t satisfy the definition of terrorism, you can still be listed as an organisation which is not able to operate in Australia. - Tony Burke (23 December, 2025)

Listening to Tony Burke speak about bringing in new laws to crack down on Hizb ut-Tahrir I briefly wondered if I had the wrong "Tony".

Both the language and topic were so familiar it gave me whiplash.

It was strange to hear Tony Abbott speak in the voice of my local member.

This isn't a conversation about license: they don't have one.

This is a convo about the banning of a political group by police and state intelligence.

Is your stance that any group of "science denying god bothering planet oppressing fuckwits" should be sent to Goulburn supermax?

Banning HT makes zero sense as a plan to tackle ISIS attacks, but it makes total sense as an effort to discourage Muslim political awareness and activism around Palestine, while at the same time shoring up political support for the ALP.

CDs by Blakstone were burned and passed around among young Aus Muslims in the early to mid 2000s.

Only a small subsection of those who heard this song would take up the desire to "all be living in Khilafah, Friday (inshaAllah)", but I think that its condemnation of apathy still lingers.

BlackStone Gaza Strip Nasheed YouTube video by TrueWay Islam

This is a song made by a now many decades defunct HT affiliated hip-hop group from the UK. It is called "Geezer Strip" and contrasts the ease of life for Muslims in the West with the reality of occupation in Gaza.

youtu.be/ZhRmrh5rcZw?...

But more generally and unlike ISIS HT has always acted to spread concern for Palestine among Muslims who'd otherwise remain relatively politically disengaged.

Not successfully recruiting them but instead pushing them, through that awareness, towards Muslim candidates that challenge Burke et al.

Their influence threatens to starve the LMA etc. of recruits and legitimacy for its position as a broker for the ALP. In a lesser sense it threatens to reduce the number of people who might vote ALP by default otherwise by telling them voting is polytheism...

But they're not.

They're ads for the Hizb and its events.

Anarchists and the Greens don't appear a threat to Tony's voter base, but the kind of young western Sydney Muslim with prospects who might end up in civil service or working for the LMA is the same demographic that was drawn to HT.

On the walls near Tony's office in Punchbowl there are often posters. They're about 50/50 in content.

Some of them are surprisingly inner-west: anarchist "1312" paste-ups etc.

The other half are glossy posters that could from a distance look like invites to a SALT Marxism conference.

This effort, which wasn't just something they did but drew on their numbers, was successful, and has been replicated on several occasions.

For groups like the LMA who in the part acted as brokers and representatives this was a direct attack on their influence and its performance.

Well before 2023 HT's current/ex members, were part of efforts to pressure Mosques (like Lakemba, run by the LMA) to refuse Eid invites to politicians who were on the fence about Palestine.

They threatened a political incident - letting the LMA know that they'd shout down any who showed up to Eid.

However to target HT is also to align with the interests of those institutions and orgs within Tony's electorate who support the ALP.

HT cast participation in electoral politics as an act of disbelief. They discourage Muslims from voting and protest against groups who work with politicians.

A generous interpretation says that Burke and whoever is advising him are ignorant of all this, or perhaps pushed towards the performance of a stern response by public expectations.

Their attacks are deliberately shocking and destabilising because their goal is to exploit that chaos.

Their "management of savagery" is in part designed to increase Muslim marginalisation through the crackdowns that follow.

Laws that target Palestinian activism in general are a sign of success.

HT's goal is to build towards a global palace coup in the Muslim world. They basically see themselves as something like a Leninist vanguard.

ISIS on the other hand is far more inspired by Mao. They seek to eradicate the "grayzone" between Muslims and non-Muslims.

"Globalise the Intifada" is not their motto.

If it's anything it's these words sprayed on a wall in Mosul by an ISIS "muhajir" (fanboy who travelled to fight in Syria/Iraq post 2014): "This Khilafah will have no borders, only fronts".

Of course that's only the tip of the iceberg here.

While ISIS may at points mobilise Muslim solidarity with the Palestinian cause to its own ends, they are anti-Nationalist, and this is something that they DO share with HT.

Banning them in response to an ISIS attack is like outlawing Fabianism in response to Baader-Meinhof.

If the intention is to remove paths to radicalism then taking an ineffectual but organised group and endorsing then encouring their marginalisation through prosecution is no recipe for success.

While HT shares ISIS's reverence for a Caliphate's restoration, they are fundamentally different in their imagination of that.

While Burke talks about the Hizb "staying just inside the law" as though it's a facade, their gradualism is a fundamental part of their approach to political change.