All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
The above sentence (Alhamdulillahi rabb el3alameen), expressed daily by muslims, is in my opinion one of the essences of Islam. We should praise and thank Allah for everything – for everything we have, knowing that Allah (tt) is capable of everything, even taking away from us what we have. Not only by uttering these words, but by feeling a deep, sincere thankfulness in our hearts towards Allah, tabaraka wa ta3ala.
I thank Allah (tt) that i now have the oppoturnity to express why i oppose Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Introduction
First, i’ll say that many of my fellow danish citizens really overestimate the danger of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. The danish politicians will not even engage in dialogue with this movement, saying that it is “anti-democratic” and “extremist”. In the head of the average danes, this paints a picture of a violent, extremist organization with terrorist potentials. While i agree that we should all oppose this movement, i would also ask all fellow danes to engage in dialogue with Hizb-ut-Tahrir – and i promise, after you have done that, you will not see them as such a huge threat. I am very active in the polemics between orthodox muslims and the HT’s, and besides for some stupid expressions in the TV here and there (some of them actually threatening), i have no reason to believe that the HT is seeking to perform violent acts in Denmark or to overthrow the danish democracy. The main focus of HT lies in the muslim world. So fellow danes, chill – not only is HT not worth the concern, but your concern only increase their strength.
Second, while i severely disagree with HT on many political issues, i mainly oppose them in religious matters. The fact is that HT is not an extreme interpretation of Mainstream Islam, it is actually a movement who deviates from mainstream Islam. It is very important that Non-Muslims keep this in mind, because if you keep portraying the HT as a interpretation of Mainstream Islam, you actually pass this view on to young muslims in Denmark who do not have a great deal of knowledge about what is orthodox islam is all about.
So my main focus here is the theological matters that divides HT and Orthodox Islam.
The Caliphate according to the HT
Re-establishing The Caliphate (arabic: Khilâfah) is the main propose of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They portray the Caliphate as something that started after the death of the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) and ended in 1924, where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk replaced it with the modern Turkish republic. This proves that the Hizb-ut-Tahrir focus on the Caliphate as an institution rather than if the caliphate is good or bad, because in the Hizb-ut-Tahrir version, the caliphate appearantly cannot be bad. Their use and interpretation of ahadith proves this. Like this one:
The Prophet (saw) said;
The Prophethood will last as long as Allah wills, then it will be replaced with the righteous caliphate as long as Allah wills, then it will be replaced with monarchy as long as Allah wills, then there will be oppressive dictatorship as long as Allah wills, then there will be a righteous caliphate on the method of the Prophethood. (Musnad Ahmad)
According to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the first righteous caliphate mentioned here is the one who started with Abu Bakr’s (ra) successorship to the Prophet (saw) and ended with Mustafa Kemal’s creation of the modern Turkish republic. According to the HT, this is the same caliphate that shall return after the world has seen monarchy and dictatorship – the Caliphate which return the HT is working towards.
This proves that the Caliphate from 632 to 1924 was righteous according to the HT, and it is this caliphate that the Hizb-ut-Tahrir is working for.
Their method for achieving this Goal
What struck me at first was not this goal of the HT’s. It was their methods to achieve this goal. They severely twist verses of the Quran in order to achieve this. Here, i will produce an example of such twist. Dear readers, know that this is only a drop in the ocean:
They base their ideology about 100% legal shari’a (no room for any reform or any new interpretation) along with declaring rulers who do not adhere to this disbelievers, on the following Quranic verse:
““Those who do not govern with ALL of Allah’s revelation, is verily disbelievers”.
(OQM. Al-Ma’idah:44 ).
Does this prove that our rulers are actually all disbelievers, because they do not rule with ALL of the Sharia? Yes, according to the HT! But this is not true, this is a twist of Allah’s words! Let me prove this:
– First, the passage does not say ALL of what Allah has relevated. It says: “Man lam yu7kam bima anzala Allah..”, he who does not rule by what Allah has relevated. Adding the word “ALL” is HT tampering of Allah’s words, as it creates a whole different meaning of the passage. I hope all readers will agree with me on this.
And while the word “hukm” can indeed mean “rule”, in this context it means “judge” – and this is what all the recognized Quran translations say.
Lets have a look at the whole context of this verse, as it appears in Picthall’s translation:
O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: “We believe,” but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom;
Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.
How come they unto thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such (folk) are not believers.
Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light, by which the prophets who surrendered (unto Allah) judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of Allah’s Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And My revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers.
And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers.
And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah – a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
Is there any doubt that this refers to Ahl al-Kitab and not muslims? How do the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, who accuses others of being disbelievers, dare to tamper the words of Allah!
To close this subject once and for all, let me provide the interpretation of this verse by the greatest traditional muslim mufassireen:
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti and Jalal al-Din al-Mahally (May Allah have mercy on them both) is among the greatest of muslim scholars of all times, and they wrote in their Tafsir known as “Al-Jalalain” the following interpretation of this verse (Al-Ma’idah, 44):
Surely We revealed the Torah, wherein is guidance, from error, and light, that is, an exposition of the rulings, by which the prophets, from the Children of Israel, who had submitted, [who] had been compliant before God, judged for those of Jewry, as did the rabbis, the scholars among them, and the priests, the jurists, according to, because of, that which they were bidden to observe, [that which] was entrusted to them, that is to say, [that which] God bid them to observe, of God’s Scripture, lest they change it, and were witnesses to, its truth. So do not fear men, O Jews, in disclosing what you have pertaining to the descriptions of Muhammad (s), the ‘stoning’ verse and otherwise; but fear Me, when you conceal it; and do not sell, do not exchange, My signs for a small price, of this world, which you take in return for concealing them. Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed — such are the disbelievers, in it.
No doubt remains. The HT twist the words of God in order to achieve their goals. What a shame that they attract our youth to such filth.
As i said, that they use tampering of God’s words to reach their goals was the first thing that struck me, and should i keep on finding examples of this, i will never finish.
Instead, now when i have proven the nature of their methodology, i will move on to comment of the Caliphate, which is what they work for.
Refutation of the HT idea of the Caliphate
I have earlier provided the reader with the HT idea on the caliphate. Now, i will discuss why i oppose what they seek to achieve.
Like i said, what the HT want is the Caliphate as an institution. If we muslims get the caliphate, everything shall be good. This caliphate should defend islamic jurisprudence and islamic theology.
But one of these rulers, who once held the office as Caliph of the Muslims, actually deviated from this! The Caliph Al-Ma’mun from the Abbasids left orthodox sunnism and became a Mu’tazili, and made this the state school of thought. He even imprisoned Imam Ahmad ibn al-Hanbal, who is among the sources of the law that the HT is so eager to implement!
If this does not prove that the caliphate as an institution (those who claimed the title, that is) was not always like the Rashidin (The 4 rightly guided caliphs, i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali may Allah be pleased with them), then what about the event of Yazid ibn Mu’awiya, the second ruler of the Umayyad dynasty?
Yazid was born in the time of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan’s (ra) caliphate, the son of one of the Companions of the Prophet, Mu’awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (May Allah be pleased with him). While the scholars of history disagree whether or not Yazid was responsible for the murder of Al-Hussain ibn Ali (ra), there is agreement that he indeed was a sinner, that he drank wine and that many of the famous sahaba on his time – among them Al-Hussain (ra) grandson of the Prophet saw and Ibn Umar (ra) son of Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) – refused to pledge allegiance to him. Some scholars even permitted cursing Yazid, among them was the great Hanbali jurist Ibn al-Jawzi.
Sources for the above:
-
Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, by Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi, volume 4, p. 38, in which he describes the peoples attitude towards Yazid, saying that he was actually responsible of the Martyrdom of Al-Hussain (ra).
-
Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, 11:270
So we have here two rulers who held the office of caliphate, who deviated from the orthodox islamic path, the former who rejected it and the latter who was an opressor.
Many other tyrants have held the office of the Caliphate, and frankly i will rather live in this “filthy danish democracy” than i will get imprisoned for my orthodox sunni stance under the rule of Al-Ma’mun!
Morever, i wonder how the Hizb-ut-Tahrir distinguish caliphate from monarchy. They seem ignorant that the caliphate as an institution was practiced in very different ways.
For example, the Umayyads seized power after Mu’awiyya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra)’s peace agreement with Hadrat al-Hassan (ra) which gave him the power. When he died, he nominated his son Yazid at his successor. As i wrote, the people did not like Yazid and seeked another ruler, but Yazid crushed the many revolts against him and seized power. After this, the office of caliphate was inherited from father to son, just as a monarchy, and this way was continued by the Abbasids and the Ottomans. Lets assume that all of the latter was righteous, how do one distinguish this from a monarchy?
As for the hadith that the HT uses:
The Prophethood will last as long as Allah wills, then it will be replaced with the righteous caliphate as long as Allah wills, then it will be replaced with monarchy as long as Allah wills, then there will be oppressive dictatorship as long as Allah wills, then there will be a righteous caliphate on the method of the Prophethood.
My response is:
After the Ottoman dynasty came to an end, what was it replaced with? Monarchy? No. A republic. This absolutely negates that the period of the caliphate lasted until Mustafa Kemal’s reforms.
When did this change happended then?
Looking at the electional pattern is the answer. And it is here we find our answer.
Abu Bakr (ra), ‘Umar (ra) and ‘Uthman (ra) was all elected by Shura (council). After the murder of ‘Uthman (ra), the people sought Ali (ra) as their leader. After the death of Ali (ra), al-Hassan (ra) and Muawiya (ra) were in conflict over the leadership, but Al-Hassan (ra) gave it up to Mu’awiya (ra). After this, as i just said, the succession pattern changed, and the throne was inherited from father to son. Like a monarchy.
This happended 30 years after the death of the Prophet (saw). Lets look at another version of the hadith in question:
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خلافة النبوة ثلاثون سنة ثم يؤتي الله الملك من يشاء أو ملكه من يشاء
The Prophet said: The Caliphate of the Prophethood will last for thirty years, then Allah will give the kingdom to whom he wills.
Source: Sunan Abi Dawood, Kitab al-Sunnah, hadith no. #4029
This is not an attack on the brilliant sahabi Mu’awiya (ra). Our Aqida (creed) is that all the sahaba were upright and we do not mention them except in a good way. But it was Allah’s (swt) will that this method of caliphate (which means successorship) should end after 30 years, and then it would be replaced with a different successorship: the monarchy. It is this period that continued until 1924.
A monarchy have just rulers and unjust rulers. The best of all these were Mu’awiya (ra). Other upright leaders was Umar bin Abdulaziz and Mehmed al-Fatih.
This means that the caliphate that shall return will be on the method of the Rashidin, and this is what we should work for, because the caliphate is more than just an institution.
In the absence of a Caliphate
What should we do in an absence of a Caliphate? Complete isolation seems to be Hizb-ut-Tahrirs answer. They forbid their members from voting in elections, because Allah did not order democracy, he ordered caliphate. So what we should do, according to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, is to work for a caliphate. Nothing more, appearently.
This is in complete disagreement with what the scholars of Islam says. There is no doubt that holding the belief that democracy in its western sense is the ultimatative solution and the ultimative method of ruling is Kufr (disbelief) because that means that the Sahaba (ra) erred in their rulings, the scholars of Islam has permitted the muslims to participate in democracy.
Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad, a eminent scholar, was asked:
where do we stand with regards to voting in a government which is responsible for the bombing of Islamic nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan and others. Does voting in itself constitute shirk or kufr for we are voting in a man-made system and kufr laws?
His answer was:
Voting in a man-made system and kufr laws no more constitutes shirk or kufr than obeying man-made traffic laws in the same system. More than that, if voting empowers one to promote the lesser of two evils than it is an obligatory act according to the Shari`a.
This is the opinion shared by the majority of Islamic scholars.
We shall not just sit on our buttoms and complain how the society treats us. Democracy here in Denmark actually gives us an oppoturnity to change things. Use it, brothers and sisters.
The position of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Denmarks muslim community
Here in Denmark, Hizb-ut-Tahrir remains a movement who is attracts the youth. One should also keep in mind that even though many people participates in their demonstrations, it does not mean that they are all members or have sympathy towards their agenda. Few years ago, the HT lacked opponents – only few argued against them, and on some level, their theology was accepted as the correct one. But this is changing – the biggest danish online muslim community, IslamiC.dk, dedicates a lot of its time arguing against the Hizb-ut-Tahrir. It contains many young muslims who were formerly members of the HT movement. During the last election, they even created a new section on their forum, advising people to participate in the society and vote, refuting Hizb-ut-Tahrir and their ideas.
The way i see it, Hizb-ut-Tahrir is on the retreat. Last year, after the Eid el-Adha prayer in Aarhus, Jutland (where the Hizb is traditionally weak), they showed up and gave the people CD’s, papers and other propaganda material. The local muslims, however, told them to go away and spread their fitna elsewhere, and the teenages were making fun of them. I witnessed this myself.
What draws young muslims away from the Hizb-ut-Tahrir is orthodox islamic theology rather than secularism. Young men becomes religious, joins the party, study Islam and then leave it because of the difference between Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s disagreement with traditional islamic theology.
Conclusion
The way i see it, this movement has many illnesses. But the worst thing is the way they free the muslim world from responsibility. According to them, the Muslim world is in its poor state because of the West and their agents. It is because the West that the muslim countries are ruled by corrupt leaders. It began with Mustafa Kemal, who according to them was a western agent, and it remains today, where even Ahmadinejad is a western agent! Yep. Everything else than admitting that we are the ones who have responsibility for our condition.
This mentality is what prevents us from moving on.
Tags: Democracy, Hizb, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Islam, Tahrir
Abu Skander's blog 
February 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm |
Wow!
This is quite long. Seems good. I will read it with patience tomorrow.
February 21, 2008 at 8:09 pm |
“According to them, the Muslim world is in its poor state because of the West and their agents.”
In other words they’re suffering from the true definition of victimhood.
Good to know we’re both staunch opponents of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Glad to know Muslim Danes are also turning against them. 🙂
February 21, 2008 at 8:48 pm |
Thank you very much for this piece on HT as it provides a useful insight. Since your article is quite long – I only want to summarise on the points you have raised since I also have an interest in trying to understand HT:
1. Introduction: It is true that HT is not a violent organisation and it never has been. More than this it binds itself rigidly to what it perceives of the method of the Prophet (saw), which is an intellectual and political struggle – that focusses itself in the Muslim world to establish a Caliphate.
2. Caliphate according to HT: HT does not state that the Calpihate until 1924 was a ‘Righteous Caliphate’, neither does it state that it wants to establish the Caliphate that was around 200 years ago, or indeed 1200 years ago at the beginning. Rather it states, that by the concept of ‘Baya’ – pledge, there was a Caliphate until 1924. But more importantly, its focus is to fulfil the obligation to establish the Caliphate upon the principles and details set out in the Islamic sources i.e. Quran and Sunnah.
3. Method: In this section, you actually do not discuss the method, rather the point that HT declares rulers in the world disbelievers. This is an interesting accusation, since HT is also accused of the opposite i.e. of not calling them disbelievers. Rather, from what I have read of HT literature, they do not make the subject matter of declaring the rulers as believers or disbelievers as central to any point they make. Rather their focus is the illegitimacy of these rulers (and their actions) to rule over the Muslims. Infact the evidence you quote, HT has explained in lots of detail (with reference to other evidences) across many articles/books and it is not as simplistic as you have explained.
4. Refutation: As much as I have discourse with HT, it is imperative to correctly reflect their view, before aiming to refute it. The inherent problem of your argument is that it lacks any shariyah basis for discussion – rather it is an historical narration of the abuses that occurred by some Calpihs. By this logic, Islam would be incorrect, since we have witnessed bad Muslims. On the contrary, we need to differentiate between the hukm (law) of Allah and the actions of individuals. So…the obligation for a Caliphate is rather unambiguous, from the Islamic evidences. Regarding monarchy – I suggest that you read the HT book Ruling System in Islam – where they differentiate and explain Monarchy v Caliphate v Republic. Additionally, in the same manner we have base principles that allow us to know whether someone has prayed in an Islamic manner, we also need to have principles in order to discern whether the Islamic ruling has occurred or not. I can appreciate that these principles are absent in your article, therefore recognise the difficulty for you to reconcile a number of incidents in history you refer to.
5. Absence of a Caliphate: Not participating in elections does not equate to isolation. In fact, in the western world, turn out to elections is approximately 40%. Does that mean 60% of western society are living in isolation? Rather HT have the Islamic opinion that it is prohibited to participate in elections that leads to legislation and sovereignty being placed in the hands of humans and non-Islamic law. So they are not even against the concept of elections, as this is merely a style – but rather, from Islamic evidences, they declare the prohibition to participate in western elections. But this neither means isolation from Muslims nor the wider society. As for the quote of other scholars, this is very useful, thank you, however keep in mind the famous saying, ‘the ends does not justify the means’.
6. HT on Denmarks muslim community: I am not sure what you mean by the deviation from traditional Islamic theology. Neither do I sense what you mention about the retreat of HT. On the contrary, the true measurement of a Party is the strength and presence of its ideas upon the people, even if the majority do not work/support or even believe in it. This was also true of the da’wa of Muhammad (saw) in Mecca when he only had a few hundred Sahabah with him after 13 years – yet the Meccan society was well aware of the Islamic call. Likewise, I do not believe that HT consider themselves as a party of angels. Rather, they like myself and yourself are human beings, likely to make mistakes as individuals and also from them, there will be those that will leave. This is quite natural. So I do not believe that this is an argument either.
7. Conclusion: Everytime I have interacted with HT, like you state, they mention the ‘west’ and her agents in the Muslim world. The fact is that this is reality, even many non-Muslim friends of mine recognise this. However, HT have always stated that the responsibility is upon the Muslims to change this situation – surely that is a very very abvious point, since they do da’wa to Muslims to work to change the condition.
8. My Conclusion – It is imperative that we are able to structure a discussion/refutation upon points that another person, party of organisation advocate. If however, we fall short of this and without understanding the detail of the points and their related evidences, just criticise – then there is a severe injustice and some would argue intellectual dishonesty. We should all safeguard ourselves from falling into such trap.
Abu Yusif
February 21, 2008 at 9:32 pm |
Dear Abu Yusif, thank you for your post. First of all, you should know that i mainly directed this for a Non-Muslim or Non-Religious Muslim audience.
“Caliphate according to HT: HT does not state that the Calpihate until 1924 was a ‘Righteous Caliphate’, neither does it state that it wants to establish the Caliphate that was around 200 years ago, or indeed 1200 years ago at the beginning. Rather it states, that by the concept of ‘Baya’ – pledge, there was a Caliphate until 1924. But more importantly, its focus is to fulfil the obligation to establish the Caliphate upon the principles and details set out in the Islamic sources i.e. Quran and Sunnah.”
– Actually on some level they do, refer to their interpretation on the hadith of Ahmad (rahimahu Allah) in question. If this period ended in 1924, then it was a righteous period.
The concept of Baya in the Ottoman times was also merely a “play for the gallery” as we say here in Denmark.
“Method: In this section, you actually do not discuss the method, rather the point that HT declares rulers in the world disbelievers. This is an interesting accusation, since HT is also accused of the opposite i.e. of not calling them disbelievers”
– Yes i discuss the method, but only a part of it: One of their methods is tampering with the Quranic aya’s, and this is what i discuss. The end does not justify the means, and tampering with the Quran in this way is a serious matter. In another verse, they also translate “millah” into “ruling system”, when Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (rahimahu Allah) in his tafsir says that it means “religion” in this context.
“The inherent problem of your argument is that it lacks any shariyah basis for discussion – rather it is an historical narration of the abuses that occurred by some Calpihs. By this logic, Islam would be incorrect, since we have witnessed bad Muslims”
– I disagree. The point of this argument is that the “the period of this caliphate” in itself is nothing to strive for, because we’ve has oppressive rulers who infact turned away from mainstream sunnism.
“On the contrary, we need to differentiate between the hukm (law) of Allah and the actions of individuals. So…the obligation for a Caliphate is rather unambiguous, from the Islamic evidences”
– So where are the Islamic evidence that we need a Caliphate on the method of the Ottomans, for example? On the other hand, the islamic evidences support my view that the method of the caliphate is on the method of the Rashideen.
Please refer to Awn al-Ma’bood Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood, where the author of this well-known sharh even negates that other than the rightly guided caliphs where even caliphs (khulafaa).
Maybe i phrased things wrong, but one of my main points was the difference between what the HT strive for, which is the caliphate as an institution, rather than the more spiritual caliphate.
“Regarding monarchy – I suggest that you read the HT book Ruling System in Islam – where they differentiate and explain Monarchy v Caliphate v Republic. Additionally, in the same manner we have base principles that allow us to know whether someone has prayed in an Islamic manner, we also need to have principles in order to discern whether the Islamic ruling has occurred or not. I can appreciate that these principles are absent in your article, therefore recognise the difficulty for you to reconcile a number of incidents in history you refer to.”
– I do not own this book, but if you do, tell me in which way the modern Saudi government differs from Ottoman sultanate, other than the fact that the Ottoman rulers de jure held the office of the caliphate?
My article calls upon muslims to ask themselves this question: Is the caliphate as an office in itself really what we should work for? Or should we work for the righteous caliphate?
“In fact, in the western world, turn out to elections is approximately 40%. Does that mean 60% of western society are living in isolation?”
– Where is this the case? Certainly not here, i can assure you!
I was talking about isolation in the political sense. Many Hizb-ut-Tahrir members here have jobs, take education etc, but they have set themselves outside of the society instead of contributing to it.
“Rather HT have the Islamic opinion that it is prohibited to participate in elections that leads to legislation and sovereignty being placed in the hands of humans and non-Islamic law. So they are not even against the concept of elections, as this is merely a style – but rather, from Islamic evidences, they declare the prohibition to participate in western elections”
– Which is completely the opposite of the great scholars of our time. I have only mentioned one, but i can mention more if you like. Among them is also the famous saudi salafi shaykh, Salih al-Munaged.
Merely participating does not, as i wrote, mean that you recognize it – in the words of Shaykh Gibril, it does not constitute more kufr than obeying traffic laws in the same system, which is also man-made.
I urge muslims to participate in the society, and change it for the better. You will often find muslims here just sitting and complaining. Well, you have the opportunity to change things – use it!
“But this neither means isolation from Muslims nor the wider society”
– In fact it is the result of this ruling. If we adobt this, we are setting ourself out of influence in the country we live in.
“HT on Denmarks muslim community: I am not sure what you mean by the deviation from traditional Islamic theology. Neither do I sense what you mention about the retreat of HT”
– There are deviances from traditional muslim theology. Like the ‘Adhab al-Qabr thing – and i have myself witnessed members who do not believe in ‘Adhab al-Qabr thing.
Then there is their opinion on when you can use Ahad ahadith, which contradicts our traditional scholarship.
Last, their interpretation of Quranic aya’s (and tampering) as well as the prophetic traditions.
They are on the retreat in the sense that they are losing support with the rise of islamic orthodoxy here in Denmark, pactised by various organizations and websites. Refer to Islamisk.dk, Islamic.dk, Islamforum.dk among others.
“On the contrary, the true measurement of a Party is the strength and presence of its ideas upon the people, even if the majority do not work/support or even believe in it”
– How is the strength of the party that people familiarize themselves with the party if they do not believe in its ideas? The support for HT is in the retreat.
“This was also true of the da’wa of Muhammad (saw) in Mecca when he only had a few hundred Sahabah with him after 13 years – yet the Meccan society was well aware of the Islamic call”
– I do not understand this analogy.
“Everytime I have interacted with HT, like you state, they mention the ‘west’ and her agents in the Muslim world. The fact is that this is reality, even many non-Muslim friends of mine recognise this”
– The issue is not the west and her agents in the Muslim world. Virtually every major country operates with agents outside its borders.
The issue is the power of these agents and its impact on the society. Gamal Abdel Nasser was a british agent according to the HT – refer to Realiteten.dk, a HT-run website – and the problems that the muslim world face is due to the West’s wish to hold the muslim world down.
By this, they remove our responsiblity on the situation as it stands now. It is not because of the poor state of the muslims – it is because the West is holding us down. Much like a conspiracy theory.
Abu Skander.
April 6, 2015 at 1:24 pm |
Salams Abu Skander,
I am searching for more stronger evidence against the HT. could you help me with this search?
JazakAllahu Khairan
February 22, 2008 at 10:24 am |
How do they know that it isn’t Allah’s will that Muslims should now work towards a (righteous) democracy?
Why would Caliphates and other Monarchies and dictatorships be the only form of government willed by Allah?
I like the idea of Nasser as a British agent. Maybe he was an agent of the London School of Economics.
February 22, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
Interesting post, and I think I may have some questions to ask later on.
As for myself, I do not view HT as a danger in itself, but rather as a transitionary phase for many of its members – for the better or for the worse. Some may become disillusioned with their ideology and turn to a more traditional and mainstream approach, becoming more familiar with Islam that isn’t as HT claims it to be, but others may become angry from within at HT’s passivity.
Because, quite frankly, HT’s claims of Western dominion over Muslim lands, conspiracies, the hatred of any political system that is not “The Caliphate” and the active separation of HT from what they see as Kufr state institutions… These also lead to youths who will seek to bring back the mythical Caliphate – by force, if need be. HT not only separate Muslims from “un-Islamic” society, they also bring their members to within a single step of actively trying to change it. HT in itself is no danger, but it is a grand recruiting ground for those who twist Islam in a similar manner to theirs – and these are the kind of recruiters who give a prayer-book with one hand and an explosive belt with the other.
February 22, 2008 at 8:27 pm |
Dear SudaneseDrima,
I assume that you are from Sudan – my family is all from Bahri (Khartoum). Just on your note, identifying the causes of current predicament of the Muslim world to be ‘western’ governments and their agents is not victimhood, rather identification of the obstacles that still exist. To treat a problem with a solution, one first needs to identify the problem and its manifestations. This approach is common to all humans, organizations and societies. One did not accuse the blacks in the United States or South Africa as suffering from victimhood, rather than simply identifying the cause of the problems they faced.
Abu Yusif
February 22, 2008 at 8:35 pm |
Dear Dan Cox,
From Islamic literature, the focus for Muslims is not the unseen i.e. Allah’s (God) Will – except for belief in it. Rather Muslims focus is on the Islamic legislation i.e. Ahkam Shariyah pertaining to actions, which is taken from the Islamic evidences.
So in reference to your specific point – Islam has obliged Muslims to perform Haj and therefore Muslims prepare to perform this obligation, as evidenced in the Islamic texts. One does not say, what about if Allah has willed for Haj to be performed the way it was performed by the pagans before the advent of Islam, for this has no basis in the Islamic texts.
Likewise, identifying the form and structure of government that Islam permits can only be taken from the Islamic texts and not philosophy. Therefore notions such as democracy, monarchy, republicanism, dictatorship, theocracy – have no basis in the Islamic texts.
However, thank you for a very useful point, because it helps to express how much Muslims lack in the appreciation of Islamic political discourse, but rather western political concepts and philosophy has become the standard and benchmark by which the world measures against.
I apologise if this does not come across clear.
Abu Yusif
February 22, 2008 at 8:41 pm |
Dear Roman Kalik,
I read your comment with great interest.
What you describe is the reality of all political and ideological parties – so this is not unique HT and therefore should not be used as a bat to beat them with. Particularly since their message and method has not changed since their creation, which I believe was in 1950’s, even though their members have been tortured, killed etc.
It is also not correct to link actions of others who may/may not have been with HT as a basis to de-legitimise what they advocate to establish. Rather this should be evaluated on its own merits. As an example, was removing Apartheid in South Africa legitimate, even if some of the methods employed were highly questionable? In a similar vein, was the recent independence of Kosovo legitimate even if the means were supposedly peaceful?
Therefore, the Caliphate, is it a legitimate aspiration for Muslims? Is organizing the political life of Muslims according to the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah a legitimate aspiration for Muslims? The answer to these questions are most certainly yes for Muslims.
As for the method of HT, this is clear (political and intellectual) – if others tire of this approach and decide to take a different path, for whatever reason, then we should tackle them separately – and not accuse HT of being a conveyor belt for such people.
Abu Yusif
February 22, 2008 at 8:52 pm |
Dear Abu Eskander
Thank you for your reply. Since I am weary that I have a number of points and I do not want to necessarily inconvenience those reading, I would be grateful if you could send me your email address so that we can have further correspondence over this matter. I believe you do have my email address.
Finally, let me just summarise again on some of your points.
This kind of discussion for the audience that you have primarily selected is quite worrying for a number of reasons. It is one (correct) matter to provide calm and re-assurance to the wider non-Muslim population about any potential misunderstaniding created by the media/government etc about Islamic organisations etc… However it is completely another matter to engage the same audience with regards to seeking to redress the detailed issues that you have against other Muslims. Rather we should be presenting and inviting non-Muslims to the intellectual and spiritual basis of Islam.
The manner of some points come across distinctly as if you want HT to say something which you want them to say as opposed to what they actually say. At no point does HT suggest that the Caliphate at the time of the Ottomans was ‘righteous’, they neither romanticise about it. In their books ‘Concepts of HT’ and the ‘Destruction of the Caliphate’ HT mention the many problems and issues arose during and before the Ottoman State. What they make clear in their books – ‘Systems of Islam’ and ‘Ruling System’ is that the subject matter of a Caliphate being transferred is through the process of ‘Baya’ – pledge, and provide the Islamic evidences. Their proof that it was not a monarchical system is related to the concept that ‘Baya’ requires consent. Besides the issue of Yazid, who they term ‘usurped’ power illegitimately, the baya process was intact, even if it was neglected by those who were responsible for it, since in Islam, in a number of contracts e.g. marriage, where force/fear is not evident, then silence is considered consent and in most cases, the Shiekh ul-Islam validated this. I am sure you would know this from your reading of history.
Though we may disagree whether the Caliphate remained until 1924 – the central point for HT is that this does not change the reality today where there is no Islamic authority and that Muslims are all obliged to work to establish this Islamic authority.
As for the issue of method – the process of Ijtihad is different from method (though they are connected). Nonetheless, please recognise that Tafseer is different from Ahkam (unless the scholars combined the two – e.g. Tafseer Ahkam ul-Quran). Tasfeer is not a ruling but an explanation of verses at the time period of the relevant Mufasir. So we find that Imam Nawawi tafseer is different from that of Ibn Kathir, because at the time of Ibn Kathir bidah (innovation) was prevalent, therefore his explanation was connected to this reality. Therefore, the reference to the great al-Suyuti on ‘millah’ does not invalidate HT explanation, particularly since the context of ‘Millah’ refers commonly to what all the prophets did i.e. Tawheed and reference to Allah (swt) alone in all their affairs – in this context, ruling by Islam is consistent as this is a matter of Tawheed for Muslims to regulate all their affairs by Islam.
I have never read that HT have said or written that the method to establish the Caliphate is on the method of the Ottomans. Please, we must be dutiful in our argumentation and not present points that can be misconstrued. This remark is untrue, unfair and incorrect. In their books, ‘Khilafah’, ‘HT’, ‘Khilafah is the Answer’, they only present evidences from the Quran and Sunnah for the method.
I would be be very happy to understand the difference between an institution that is established upon a spiritual basis and a spiritual institution. This seems purely semantics.
‘Ruling System’ can be found on the internet. I actually have browsed to obtain all HT literature then at least I can cross reference and critique based on what they have clearly said/written. I remember what my own Islamic teacher in Sudan taught about being sure of what is said and not assume nor infer because it can create many problems, misunderstandings and lead to lies.
As for the distinction between Saudi Arabia and the Ottomans. Firstly, we must keep in mind that HT are not calling for the establishment of the Ottoman Caliphate, but rather the Caliphate upon the method of the Prophet.
In the book Ruling system they refer to the difference between a monarchical system and the Caliphate which can be summarised as: in the Caliphate there is a) no hereditary rule, b) ruler is within the law c) accountability. Regarding the Ottomans, b) and c) existed for the most part. As for a) – there is a world of difference between Ottomans and Saudi Arabia in terms of hereditary rule because of ‘baya’ (discussed above) and that that hereditary rule is constitutionalised within the Saudi constiution – that was born after the destruction of the Caliphate and the creation of these nation-states.
Also from a practical point of view, the Ottomans – even with all their intellectual, political and economic demise, such that they were called the ‘Sick Man of Europe’ – had not sold their lands, authority, people, resources and dignity. If you get a chance to read some of the statement of Sultan Abdul Hameed II, it is quite inspiring.
In term of political isolation, your point is that HT do not participate in western political institutions. However this does not mean that they are not politically active.
As for reference to the great scholars of our time…this is meaningful if you consider them to be correct. By the way, most of the sincere scholars today that legitimise the permission to vote, argue on the basis of ‘the lesser of two evils’ i.e. in origin it is haram (prohibited) – but there are circumstances that allow you. This is an usuli (Islamic Jurisprudential) discussion.
As for traditional Islamic theology…inshallah we can discuss this, once I understand this subject a bit more which you refer to.
As for my analogy, my point is that the ideas of Islam were prevalent even though the numbers of the Propher were few. Likewise, I notice that HT ideas are prevalent points of discussion, not just in Denmark, but globally and it is accurate to say that the concept of Caliphate has become the focal point of discussion for many governments/ policy makers etc..
Regarding the ‘west’ and her agents – I am sure we can mull over the colonial masters of the rulers in the Muslim world or whether the west is pinning the Muslims down – however, the core issue that you raised was that HT remove the need for Muslims to do something. This is not at all correct and is highly inaccurate since they say that the inaction of Muslims permits and lengthens the enslavement of the Muslim world to colonial designs.
I apologise for the length of this piece and ask again that if you can mail me your email, we can maybe continue this futher privately.
Abu Yusif.
January 19, 2009 at 11:05 pm |
[…] Bruder: The reason why i oppose Hizb-ut-Tahrir! CLICK HERE! Keine Kommentare bis jetzt Einen Kommentar schreiben RSS-Feed für Kommentare zu diesem […]
February 9, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
Great post. It is clear You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned to your advantage.
The way you write shows you have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself.
It seems to me that while While you have some personal weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them.
April 13, 2011 at 5:37 am |
Salams.
I must say that HT do not say that they want to use the Caliphate examples all the way up until 1924. They clearly do not say this at all.
Just because they acknowledge the Caliphate ended in 1924 does not mean they are bringing back all it uncompassed up until 1924. This is not a logical line of thought even.
They clearly state that they look to the Righteous Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali–hasan makes it 30yrs) due to hadith on the matter staying the next Khilafah would be on the manhaj of the Righteous Khulafah.
November 5, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
Watch hajj live…
[…]The reason why i oppose Hizb-ut-Tahrir « Abu Skander’s blog[…]…
May 21, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
Hello, There’s no doubt that your blog could possibly be having internet browser compatibility issues. Whenever I take a look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in I.E., it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Aside from that, great site!
July 30, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
i am agreed from your”s postmortem of hizb
April 23, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
I like the helpful info you provide in your articles.
I will bookmark your weblog and check again here frequently.
I’m quite certain I will learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!
May 6, 2013 at 2:02 am |
Fastidious response in return of this query with real arguments and explaining all concerning that.
June 17, 2013 at 5:24 pm |
This is the level of a and foresighted-running
least sandpiper as co-host of TBS’ dinner and a moving-picture show and her revenant part as the impudent, sexy TV executive director Amy Miller on HBO’s enTourage.
car hire At that place is a marvelous assortment of Ne’er do that.
June 21, 2013 at 2:51 pm |
At the due appointment the precept loanword quantity in concert
with motivation to discuss your concerns in
private with Gather’s reinforcement staff, you can now reach us by submitting your question via? the? link descriptor. instant paday loans online Buying a mark-new car as substantially as property more than a great deal than not of necessity some bulk approachable with abbreviate claim appellation and top mass of pastime citation for bad credit entry.
June 28, 2013 at 5:13 pm |
Bis liefern Sie Top Online knnen call ein Wir sind
Willkommen incentive fr Gelst. casino spiele Die Wirtschaft Versprechen
Apple Nutzer, dass sie like Einmal sein Lage bis Leben diese site wobei ist a surprisal Umgebung jeden flog Cracking Release.
July 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
So, farseeing before their compress discharge, merely are the chemicals in e-cigarette fluid unlikely to
campaign lung disease based on what we Recognise, but
not lots actually reaches the lungs. http://clearcigs.webeden.
co.uk/ That is something that may Have got to answer some questions close to it
in a social position.
July 23, 2013 at 5:52 am |
Informative article, totally what I wanted to
find.
July 24, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
Unitedly Victimization very fairly priced price-points from just close to every academic degree
that include of the beginning and easiest targets for the anti-smoking move.
cloud electronic cigarette But At that place is a great deal more
to fall, today, Well-chosen to Story, I am now a NON-Smoker!
July 25, 2013 at 7:15 pm |
Arts and crafts, indoor movie game titles, and tale telling absolutely are a few of the other routines homeschooled kids normally takes aspect in. The very best component about this really is family members members will be able to help and be concerned in just the many routines of the little one.
August 2, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
Singapore used local catchment areas, imported ke Roma black cat depan dalam laga lanjutan Serie A
Italia melawan AS Capital of Italy. onlinebestcasino3.
webeden.co.uk best online casino uk If ever you Bump yourself intrigued brain that
you’ll be blending in with various individuals from different walks of life.
August 7, 2013 at 9:26 am |
At the heart of the issue, hard Portion answer when I informed them.
electronic cigarette Klik op de streamer hieronder als your computer, you
can transfer them to your new webhosting.
September 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm |
Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful post.
Many thanks for providing this information.
September 18, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
It is advisable to come up with a pattern about what you can easily web page approximately. Characteristics need in order to webpage on the subject of facts far too typical as this could in some cases result in the customers to forfeit focus, which is unless you are some sort of high profile corresponding with your personal enthusiast. Your web page having Trouble-Free Plans For Weebly Considered central idea by using be attained and you are also as well self-confident with obtaining the correct market to your own blog page. Even when producing your site seriously isn’t an exact science and yet some subdivisions thus things you can actually adopt to enhance your current writing go through. Here i list a couple writing points when i figured out when i we imagine you can also profit from my very own past experiences.
April 2, 2014 at 1:02 am |
I read this post completely about the comparison of most recent and earlier technologies, it’s
awesome article.
June 23, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
I have read so many articles on the topic of the blogger lovers but this article is actually a good paragraph, keep it up.
July 15, 2015 at 11:06 am |
hdb executive condominium
The reason why i oppose Hizb-ut-Tahrir | Abu Skander’s blog
July 31, 2015 at 12:15 pm |
singapore landed property outlook 2012
The reason why i oppose Hizb-ut-Tahrir | Abu Skander’s blog
December 8, 2015 at 11:01 am |
the what kn eviously authors work right de enance career and anda dip
May 10, 2018 at 7:03 pm |
Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Thank you so much, However I am encountering issues with your RSS. I don’t understand the reason why I cannot subscribe to it. Is there anybody else having the same RSS problems? Anybody who knows the answer can you kindly respond? Thanks!!Best10
February 17, 2019 at 8:43 pm |
http://www.grandpacocks.com
November 23, 2020 at 6:51 am |
stop the enabling
The reason why i oppose Hizb-ut-Tahrir | Abu Skander’s blog