Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir banned from Instagram and TikTok after jihad chants at London protest
Social media accounts for an Islamist group that sparked controversy after chants of “jihad” were heard at its pro-Palestinian protest in London have been removed.
Meta – the parent company of Facebook and Instagram – and Tik Tok confirmed they had taken down pages of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is banned in parts of Europe and the Middle East.
The Government is under pressure to proscribe the group in the UK after anger over chants of “jihad” at a rally on Saturday outside the embassies of Turkey and Egypt.
The Metropolitan Police has said no offence was identified by the chanting, sparking criticism from Government ministers.
It is understood Meta designated Hizb ut-Tahrir a “dangerous organisation”, which means it cannot have a presence or co-ordinate on its platforms, with its Instagram page now removed.
The Islamist movement’s Tik Tok account was also banned. It is understood this was for violating community guidelines.
An Instagram account for Luqman Muqeem, who spoke at the rally and who features in a video on the Hizb ut-Tahrir website, has also been removed.
Following the Hamas attack in Israel on 7 October, which killed more than 1,400 people, Mr Muqeem hailed Hamas as “heroes”.
He said in a video posted on social media: “This morning the heroes of Raza [Gaza] broke through the enemy lines of the yahood [Jews].
“They stormed through the stronghold of the enemies and blackened the faces of the cowardly people. The people of Philistine [Palestine], as well as the rest of the entire ummah [Muslim community] woke up to news which made us all very, very happy.”
Downing Street indicated that there were no plans to change the law, despite concern over footage from the demonstration by Hizb ut-Tahrir on Saturday, which was separate to the main, bigger, London rally in support of Palestianian civilians.
Footage at the Hizb ut-Tahrir protest showed a speaker addressing the crowd, asking: “What is the solution to liberate people from the concentration camp called Palestine?” to which chants of “jihad, jihad” were heard.
Banners calling for “Muslim armies to rescue the people of Palestine” were also seen. However, the Metropolitan Police said they had concluded no offences were committed as the phrase jihad has “a number of meanings”.
The following day, Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick said: “I think a lot of people will find the Metropolitan Police analysis surprising, and that is something we intend to raise with them and discuss this incident with them.
“The legality is ultimately a question for the police, but the bigger question to me is that there should be a consensus that chanting ‘jihad’ is unacceptable.’”
He added: “In the context that was said yesterday, that is an incitement to terrorist violence.
“Ultimately it’s a decision for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but beyond the legality, there is a question of values, and I would hope there would be a consensus that chanting ‘jihad’ is completely reprehensible.”
This week, Rishi Sunak indicated the police were unlikely to be given fresh powers and instead said ministers would work to “clarify the guidance” for officers to tackle people who are “inciting violence and racial hatred”.
The Prime Minister told the Commons: “Calls for jihad on our streets are not only a threat to the Jewish community but to our democratic values and we expect the police to take all necessary action to tackle extremism head on.”
In a statement posted on X/Twitter and on its website after their social media accounts were removed, Hizb ut-Tahrir said that “due to our stance on the Zionist genocide in Palestine we have been banned by Facebook and TikTok”.
In a video posted on a new Instagram account, Mr Muqeem said: “If the only response you’ve got is to try and ban and shut down an idea, then that actually show that the inherent weakness from your side”.
A Government spokesperson said: “Whilst the Government keeps the list of proscribed organisations under review, we do not comment on whether a specific organisation is or is not being considered for proscription.”
