"To equate HT’s ideology with violent extremism not only misrepresents their stated principles but undermines the credibility of your reporting. Such framing conflates peaceful political advocacy with terrorism, perpetuating sensationalism over substance. If we are to foster informed and meaningful public discourse, accuracy and nuance must take precedence over fear mongering rhetoric."
January 17, 2025
To:
Rob Robert, Editor-in-Chief, National Post
Adrian Humphreys, Reporter, National Post
Mr. Robert and Mr. Humphreys,
I am writing to express my concerns about your article titled “Radical Islamic group cancels Ontario conference under pressure of being named a terrorist group”, published on January 14 in the National Post. While I believe it is important to report on the activities of Islamic fundamentalist groups and their activities in Canada, I believe the language and framing by Mr. Humphrey in your coverage misrepresents Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) and contributes to sensationalized and Islamophobic narrative that generalizes political Islamic theoretical discourse as inherently extremist, which is not always the case. In regards to this report, I believe Mr. Humphreys should have taken more time to do background research on Hizb ut-Tahrir as his story has a lot of factual inaccuracies and contextual gaps about the fringe group.
Revise your headline
First, I take issue with the headline itself. Using terms like “radical” and “terrorist group,” sensationalizes and misleads readers. Indeed, Hizb ut-Tahrir (Ht) is a global Islamic organization that advocates for the establishment of a Caliphate in the Muslim world, however, it explicitly rejects violence as a method for achieving its goals.
There is extensive research and articles about HT that illustrate their political goals and the method they aspire to achieve their aims through non-violence. We don’t have to endorse their beliefs, but as a journalist, you do have the responsibility of covering the group based on facts.
Here is a list of sources from western media and academic scholars on the group:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/7/6/islamic-states-caliph-lauds-iraq-rebellion
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/explainer-what-is-hizb-ut-tahrir/3kz6k5yjh
https://mondediplo.com/2008/06/04caliphate
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/7/6/islamic-states-caliph-lauds-iraq-rebellion
I highly suggest you take a look at this chapter titled Hizb ut-Tahrir: Dreaming of Caliphate by Meerim Aitkulova from the peer reviewed academic text “Handbook of Islamic Sects and Movements.” I’ve attached a pdf copy in this correspondence.
The characterization of HT as a “terrorist group” is unsupported by evidence and contradicts the organization’s long standing ideological stance against armed struggle. It also undermines your journalistic integrity by implying guilt through association rather than relying on substantiated facts.
Your article claims that HT promotes a “revolutionary ideology calling on governments to be overthrown and replaced with a unitary, authoritarian Muslim Caliphate.” While HT critiques democratic systems and advocates for a Caliphate, this vision is based on 20th century Islamic political discourse that emerged from Muslim thinkers such as Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida who believed in the need to revive Islamic governance and reject colonial impositions. The idea of pan-Islamism and resistance against Western imperialism resonated with the founder of HT Taqiuddin al-Nabhani.
This is an extensive historical breakdown which would be incredibly long-winded to summarize in this correspondence, but the point I’m trying to make is that HT and its political ideology is rooted in its critique of colonialism and imperialism even though their alternative political model is controversial.
Simplifying their political ideology as “authoritarian” aligns them with oppressive regimes, despite the fact that HT has never governed in any political capacity.
What security issue?
I also take issue with numerous claims made in this graph:
“Late on Monday, federal minister of Public Safety David McGuinty issued a statement saying Hizb ut-Tahrir’s history of ‘glorifying violence and promoting antisemitism and extremist ideology’ and supporting terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah ‘are entirely contrary to Canadian values,’ and asked them to scrap their conference, scheduled for this weekend, while security and intelligence agencies assessed whether the group should be listed as an official terrorist entity.”
The article repeats unsubstantiated claims about HT’s “support for terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah” and “glorifying violence.” This is factually incorrect. HT has publicly criticized groups like Hamas and Hezbollah which they view as compromising Islamic principles.
Canada’s anti-terrorism laws require substantial evidence of violent activity or direct support for terrorism to designate an entity as a terrorist organization. HT’s history does not meet these criteria, as it operates within legal frameworks in countries like Australia, where similar accusations have not resulted in proscription.
Ahistorical reporting of Islamic political movements
Moreover, your portrayal conflates HT’s anti-Zionist stance with antisemitism, which is a distinction critical to understanding their ideology. While HT opposes the State of Israel on political grounds, their rhetoric does not equate to hatred of Jewish people as a whole. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani’s draft constitution from 1953 of the future HT Caliphate that contains a code of laws for the political, economic and social system of the state and its foreign policy, according to the constitution, “the state will be governed by sharīʿa law and that people of the book (Christians and Jews) will be allowed to practice their religion freely by paying jizya (a special tax, historically levelled on Christians and Jews), while other faiths will not be tolerated until they convert to an acceptable religion within the Caliphate.”
Again, as documented by scholar Meerim Aitkulova, HT has faced severe repression across various regions globally, despite its explicitly nonviolent stance. This repression is particularly stark in Central Asia, where governments in countries like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan have banned HT outright, citing national security concerns. Members of the organization have been subjected to mass arrests, lengthy prison sentences, and even torture. These measures are often justified by vague accusations of extremism or terrorism, even in the absence of evidence linking HT to violent activities.
In the Middle East, governments such as those in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have similarly banned HT, viewing its calls for the re-establishment of a Caliphate as a threat to state sovereignty and political stability. Members of HT in these nations often face detention, close surveillance, and suppression of their publications and activities. These actions highlight a pattern of conflating political dissent with security threats, which stifles legitimate political engagement.
I exemplify these abuses because I want to illustrate that characterizing HT merely as a "radical Islamic group" without acknowledging this context oversimplifies the issue and risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes about Islamic political movements.
Orientalist view of Shariah Law
I also take issue with this statement:
“The group’s Khilafah Conference 2025 was promoting a revolutionary ideology calling on governments to be overthrown and replaced with a unitary, authoritarian Muslim Caliphate where everyone lives under strict Islamic Shariah law.”
I’ve brought up this point before in a previous letter, but could the National Post clarify what it means by “criticized… for advocating for Sharia law”? Moreover, I would request clarification over the National Post’s editorial stance when reporting on Muslim-Canadian communities.
The term “Sharia law” is often deployed in Western media as a vague and inflammatory catch-all term, frequently disconnected from its actual meaning within Islamic tradition.
Sharia, at its core, refers to the divine principles of conduct and ethical guidelines derived from Islamic teachings. It is not a fixed, codified legal system but rather an evolving framework that has informed diverse interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence over centuries. These interpretations are shaped by cultural, historical, and regional factors, reflecting the plurality of Muslim societies. Importantly, Sharia is not monolithic. Its application and understanding differ significantly between Sunni and Shia traditions and among various communities worldwide. The reductionist framing of “advocating for Sharia law” ignores this diversity and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that conflate Islamic legal thought with authoritarianism or extremism.
By using the term “Sharia law” without nuance or explanation, the National Post is perpetuating Islamophobic tropes that paint Muslim beliefs and practices as inherently suspect. This editorial choice appears to cater to a narrative of fear and prejudice rather than fostering informed discourse. I urge the National Post to adopt greater precision and context when discussing Sharia to avoid reinforcing harmful biases and misrepresenting the lived realities of millions of Muslims globally.
What definition of Jihad are you using Humphreys?
I must challenge your characterization of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s manifesto as “starkly anti-democratic, totalitarian, misogynistic, intractably monotheistic, militantly antisemitic,” and advocating for “unprovoked jihad.” Such claims are not only grossly inaccurate but also perpetuate harmful misconceptions.
The assertion that HT endorses “unprovoked jihad” is demonstrably false. Islamic scholar Meerim Aitkulova reminds us that jihad is a nuanced concept: while it can include physical struggle, it primarily refers to an inner, non-violent struggle against one’s ego and moral failings—a principle often referred to as the “greater jihad.” HT’s approach aligns with this nonviolent tradition. The group explicitly rejects offensive jihad, violence, and terrorism as methods for achieving its political goals. Its vision of a Caliphate is rooted in intellectual and political engagement, not armed struggle.
To equate HT’s ideology with violent extremism not only misrepresents their stated principles but undermines the credibility of your reporting. Such framing conflates peaceful political advocacy with terrorism, perpetuating sensationalism over substance. If we are to foster informed and meaningful public discourse, accuracy and nuance must take precedence over fear mongering rhetoric.
Legitimizing one fringe group while pressuring another
While we don’t agree with their political views, framing HT as a security threat has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the immediate misrepresentation of the organization. By equating nonviolent intellectual debate with extremism, such reporting risks criminalizing legitimate political discourse, thereby undermining the fundamental democratic values of freedom of expression, thought, and assembly. These principles are cornerstones of a free society, ensuring that diverse perspectives can be debated without fear of persecution or marginalization. I was under the impression that the National Post was a champion of freedom of expression but editorial stances with your coverage of Islamic groups you disagree with reveal such a blatant double standard.
For instance, NP has repeatedly provided a platform to far-right fringe pro-Israel groups such as Tafsik. Groups like Tafsik openly espouse ultra-nationalist views, often advocating policies that have been widely criticized as discriminatory against Palestinians and other marginalized communities. Despite their fringe status, your newsroom frequently legitimizes them in Canadian media as defenders of democratic values or representatives of Jewish advocacy. They are seldom subjected to the same level of critical reporting or alarmist framing as HT. This selective scrutiny fosters an implicit narrative that far-right Jewish advocacy is acceptable, while any political movement rooted in Islamic ideology is inherently suspect.
Such a disparity in treatment perpetuates harmful stereotypes about Muslims and reinforces Islamophobic narratives that frame Islamic political movements as uniquely threatening. It also contributes to an environment in which Muslim communities are disproportionately surveilled, marginalized, and excluded from the political sphere. At the same time, it emboldens far-right groups by granting them a veneer of legitimacy, even when their views conflict with the values of pluralism and equality that democratic societies purport to uphold.
This inconsistency is not only unethical but also undermines public trust in the media as a source of balanced and objective information. When readers see that groups like Tafsik are given a platform to voice their views without the same degree of skepticism or critical interrogation, it exposes a troubling bias in journalistic priorities. This bias contributes to a distorted public discourse in which fringe ideologies from one community are amplified, while peaceful advocacy from another is mischaracterized and suppressed.
In this context, media outlets have a profound responsibility to approach these issues with nuance and accuracy. Sensationalized coverage not only fails to inform but also deepens societal divides, eroding trust between communities.
As a journalist, your platform carries significant responsibility. I encourage you to prioritize accuracy, refrain from inflammatory language, and engage critically with nuanced perspectives on complex issues. Islamophobic tropes not only undermine public discourse but also detract from the credibility of your publication.
I hope you will address these concerns in future reporting and consider issuing clarifications or updates to your coverage of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Anthony Issa
Media Analyst
CJPME