A tale of intolerance
"There is actually not much difference between the "moderates" and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Islamic teachings stipulate that if a Muslim ever happens to find himself in a position of power, no matter where he is, then there is a clear religious obligation upon him to implement the laws of Islam. That is what Muslims usually described as moderate or traditional believe. The main difference is that moderates believe that the establishing of Islamic Shari'ah is conditional, since it depends upon having a Muslim in power in the first place. If there is no Muslim in power, then there is no religious obligation to reach that point. However, they have every desire to implement Shari'ah, given that Islam's own vision of itself has become locked such that it cannot pretend to exist as a minority culture. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, on the other hand, believes there are no strings attached in the pursuit of power. The reign of Islam is religiously obligatory, and whatever leads to it also becomes automatically obligatory. Both are deeply anti-Semitic, anti-women, homophobic, anti-science, and anti-freedom. They are dangerous movements and need to be combatted strenuously. Moderates and militants differ in degree, not in kind. One is not the solution to the other."
Read the rest.