_ living islam : islamic tradition _   
  http://www.livingislam.org/



In The Shadow Of Hizb Ut-Tahrir

As a modern Islamic party championing the caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT)
is a paradox. Like any other power group, HT is centered on politics and
proclaims on its official website that it is "a political group and not
a priestly (sic) one. Nor is it an academic, educational, or a charity
group." Try for a moment to put such a self-definition in the mouth of
the scholarly, humanitarian and devout Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab and
you will see why HT hardly evokes the mentality and behaviour of the
Islamic caliphate.


HT members are modernist Islamists or, metaphorically speaking, tie-clad
purists. They're very much anti-monarchy and they believe that kingdom
and caliphate are mutually exclusive. They would consider the Caliph
Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan unqualified for caliphate, as he was the first
king in Islam, even if the _Ummah_ became immeasurably stronger under
him.
 

HT makes a great deal of "restoring the caliphate"; but which caliphate
exactly? The Ottomans were deposed in 1924 but the North African Idrisi
caliphate not only was never deposed, it survives to this very day!
Should HT object that the Idrisis are kings, well, so were the Ottomans.
Indeed, the Idrisis were a strong power as well and they never
recognised the Ottoman caliphate's primacy, as shown by Khalid
Blankinship in his book, _The History of the Caliphate_.
 

Out of respect for the Prophet's hadith that "The Caliphs are from
Quraysh," the Ottomans never called themselves caliphs but only sultans.
King Muhammad VI of Morocco and King Abdullah of Jordan descend from
Quraysh. True supporters of caliphate should begin by proposing someone
like one of them to lead the _Ummah_. It is agreed, incidentally, that a
caliph doesn't have to possess the most knowledge or the greatest
character to be caliph.
 

HT speakers called upon the polices and armed forces of Muslim countries
to "implement the Shariah" - a call redolent of sedition and a
thorough flouting of the true Islamic requirement of such implementation
which is topdown and horizontal, not from the ground up. No wonder: HT's
supposed commitment to peace has been called wholly tactical. And HT
Indonesia spokesman Ismail Yusanto's words to _The Brunei Times_ (Friday
10 August, 2007 issue) could not have sounded more hollow: "Islamic
kingdoms such as Brunei Darussalam will fare the same way the other
Islamic kingdoms used to fare under the caliphate." Hello? _The
Caliphate itself_ was an Islamic kingdom for 1,262 of its 1,292 years!
 

Of paramount importance for a Muslim's _aqidah_ and politics, the Holy
Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, categorically prohibited the
overthrow of rulers as long as they do not prevent people from
worshipping. The pious early Muslims always emphasized that the dua and
support for the sultan is dua and support for all the Muslims under him.
"The sultan is the shadow of Allah on earth," said Kaab al-Ahbar. They
did not look at politics as a pure power play in materialistic terms the
way Islamists do today. Rather, they considered the regime a direct
reflection of the population's own goodness or evil. Sadly or happily,
we deserve one another.
 

If the political order is unislamic, the whole practice of Islam is
undermined and made insignificant as it becomes confined to mosques and
religious schools without enlivening other important institutions or the
crucial aspects of an individual's daily life. But a just, pious ruler
who makes a constant effort to remind people to obey Allah and the
Prophet in every detail of their lives such as the Five Pillars,
transactions, and character, is a Khalifah right there in front of our
eyes. It would not be he who is "not right islamically"; it would be we
who are failing to follow islamically.


A BBC correspondent cited a correct assessment questioning whether HT
was a global force. "The evidence suggests it is a fringe group with a
utopian agenda and a skillful command of public relations," it said.
What is more important for Sunni Muslims to know, HT was founded by a
man whose beliefs were outside the pale as well. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani
wrote in his books _al-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah_ (The Muslim's
Personality) and _Nizam al-Islam_ (The Islamic Order) that "human acts
are not part of _qada'_ but are a matter of free will" and "guidance and
misguidance are from the acts of creatures and not from Allah". Anyone
who studied basic aqidah or has read the very first hadith in Sahih
Muslim knows that this is textbook qadarism, the equivalent of
ultra-libertarianism which is considered a rank heresy in Sunni Islam.


By protesting, out of the blue, that they're "a political group and not
a priestly one", HT may be saying they want power but they're not
Ayatollahs - an admission of sorts that they aim at a Sunni version of
the Iranian revolution. Therein, perhaps, lies the secret of their PR
success in parts of the Muslim world. Many modern Muslims are fond of
the idea of radical change and will respond positively to a panislamic
call - as almost every Muslim would want to - even if its promoters'
model offers nothing to write home about.


[GFH]
2008-08-18

Q-1:
The Ottomans, to my knowledge, implemented the Shari'ah but can the 
same be said of King Muhammad or King Abdullah other than that they 
may perhaps implement some aspect of Islamic family law? Do they 
even claim to implement the Shari'ah?

A-1:
We might find more candidates than we think who would fare worse 
among past caliphs (may Allah have mercy on all of them). 
But do those presently in office meet the standards for caliphate of, say, 
established Ottoman legal theory or not? If yes, why does HT not discuss it?

7 More Questions And Answers:

Q1:
 "As far as I know only four of the three sunni madhaahib hold this 
 thesis not to overthrow the leader of an islamic country. Shia and 
 Shaafii deem it to be right to do so...
 Am I responsible for my leader, such as Saddam, [who] is evil?

A1:
Regardless of the reply, the Prophetic prohibition holds.

As for the question: Allah Most High does not change the condition of a
people until they change what is in themselves.

Q2:
 Saudi kings forbid people to do tawassul or to pray in a certain 
 manner (by different methods), should one then regard them as 
 islamic or not?"

A2:
They do not forbid tawassul in absolute terms. Nor do they enforce a ban
on the Ja`fari method of praying, so the premise of the question is
flawed.

Nevertheless, even if the premise were true: yes, one should still
regard them as Islamic because obeying them in the two matters mentioned
does not take one out of the pale of Islam.

Q3:
 It is not some historical caliphate that is to be restored, but the 
 living, vibrant institution of the central leadership of the ummah.

A3:
True.

Q4:
 Implementing the shariah is redolent of sedition??

A4:
The Hizb al-Tahrir way is.

Q5:
 All aspects of a muslims life, individual and collective, are ruled 
 by Islam. The implementation of the Shariah is a necessity.

A5:
Both statements are false: in communist China, for example, all
aspects of the lives of Uighur Muslims, individual and collective, are
not "ruled by Islam."

Nor is the "implementation of the Shariah" a "necessity" but an
obligation, moreover variously discharged depending on one's status.

Q6:
 Finally, as to the issue of forbidding the overthrow of rulers, is 
 the hadith:
 "to die without a Khaleefah is to die the death of Jahiliyyah". 
 A muslim must strive for the establishment of the Khilafat.

A6:
HT's misinterpretation of the above hadith is notorious. The death
of Jahiliyya is for those who are tasked with a legitimate bay`a and
wrongfully refuse to give it, not for every single Muslim on the face of
the earth who does not literally give bay`a.

Q7:
 [And] if an Imam (leader) or Amir (ruler) becomes corrupt he should first 
 be given a call to Islam (submission) in private, or possibly in 
 public if his evil deeds were done in public. If he does not turn 
 away from his evil deeds, he should be overthrown or removed from 
 position. However, in the process of removing him from position, he 
 should not be physically fought, such as waging war with weapons. 
 This is because the ruler is still muslim, and the muslims are not to 
 attack or kill another muslim. If, however, the Muslim leader or 
 ruler completely abandons his salat, he nullifies his Islam and can 
 be fought if necessary. (However, to prove this, it would take an 
 Islamic court or similar situation in which the person could defend 
 themselves against all accusations).
 
 Hadith - Sahih Muslim 4569, Narrated Umm Salamah, r.a.

A7: [ARABIC = below in English]

    satakuunu umaraa'u . fa-ta`rafuuna wa tunkiruuna .  
    faman `arafa bariy'a . wa man ankara salima .
    wa lakin man raDiy wa taaba`a .
    qaaluu: afalaa nuqaatiluhum? qaala: laa, maa Sallaw . 
 
    "Leaders will emerge. You will approve of some of their deeds and
    disapprove of others. Whoever approves is absolved from blame and
    whoever disapproves is safe (in his religion), but not whoever is
    content and imitates." They asked: "Should we not fight them?" He said:
    "No, as long as they pray."

The above hadith is explained as forbidding any fighting as long as the
ruler does not prevent Salat as mentioned in another hadith, or "as long
as the ruler does not change something in the foundations of Islam"
(al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim).


GF Haddad
2009-04-14

.-.