abujamal
18-10-2007, 03:46 PM
Fuad Hussain, the former Masool of HT in the UK, wrote a lengthy defence of their adopted book containg many violations which Geezer FE has been denying throughhis teeth. This was the detailed response which destroyed his shallow justifications:
It is worth reading to see further details how the former leadership of the party was destroying the idea:
Having reviewed the essay, I would like first of all to make two remarks:
1-The author of the essay has confined his reaction to the redress movement that took place in the Party, to what was published in the leaflet issued by Hizb-ut-Tahrir on 22nd October 1997. Furthermore, he confined his reply to some points raised in the leaflet about the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah- Duties & Attributes”. This leads one to think that after his reply about those meanings and after lifting the doubt and the ambiguity surrounding the book, that all that was mentioned in the Book is a sound thought that does not contradict the adoption of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and a sound opinion that cannot be wrong. This is what the author of the essay imagined.
2- This deliberate selective style and deliberate short reply would also give the reader the impression that there had been nothing wrong with the Party, be it in terms of its progress, its leadership, its administration and its political opinions. Evidence of this is reflected in the fact that the author of the essay deemed the issues of the Party’s progress, leadership, administration and political opinions to be part of the personal news and doubtful opinions; just like that, without any elaboration or specification. Hence, one is led to believe that once a reply is given about what is mentioned in the Leaflet, which incidentally represents only part of what was mentioned in the Book, the problem facing the Party is over and that any talk or debate in this matter is considered as a rebellion and a treason and that any action to redress the Party is considered a violation of the oath and a disengagement from the Qassam.
Let us now look into how sound the issues mentioned in this essay are:
1-Emulating the Shari'ah of our ancestors:
The author of the essay defends the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah” and its author by using the style of interpretation and justification, rather than using the style of intellectual reception which the Party insists on and which the nature of the intellectual texts necessitates. This matter is tangible throughout the whole essay. I do not know how the author of the essay failed to perceive the fact that the meaning of any intellectual text can only be perceived from the indications of its expressions and not the intentions of the writer or the reader or the commentator. The words and the synthesis of such an intellectual text, especially when it is issued by the Party, must be characterised by precision, specification and investigation, and this is what the author of the essay lacked and so did the author of the Book.
Let us now highlight this in detail and with evidence.
1- The author of the essay interpreted the text mentioned on page 5 of the book. “and if a Muslim undertakes the same action in emulation to them and in abidance by their order, i.e. to carry the Da'awah after them, he will have performed the best and the noblest action possible.” Despite the clarity of this text, the author claimed that the intended meaning of undertaking the same action of the past prophets, emulating them and abiding by their order is not to follow their Shari'ahs, but rather to characterise oneself with their conditions with regard to the seven attributes mentioned on pages 32 to 37 in the Book of Carrying the Da'awah.
However, the fact is that the talk about these seven attributes is in relation to the lessons and the examples that can be benefited from the stories of the prophets and this emulation has nothing to do with the actions of the prophets and the abiding by their order, i.e. “carrying the Da'awah after them”.
Those lessons and examples have no relation to the matter of legislation expressed by the author of the book on page 13 “Hence, this action of theirs was the best and the noblest action ever to be attributed to a creature. Therefore, if a Muslim were to emulate them and perform what they had performed, i.e. if he were to spread the guidance, teach the Shari'ahs and carry the Da'awah, he would undoubtedly draw near their status in Heaven.”
The author of the book did not say “teach the Shari'ah or the Shari'ah rules”, but he said: “teach the Shari'ahs” like this, in the plural form and not the singular form. Meanwhile Allah (swt) says: [5-48] "To each one among you We have prescribed a Law and a method.." T.M.Q. The question is, how could the author of the essay claim that the emulation of the prophets means following their condition and not follow their Shari'ah? How could he also claim that the emulation includes all the prophets and messengers including Mohammed (saw)? By Allah! How could the Da'awah carrier combine the emulation of all the past prophets and messengers with the emulation of the Messenger of Allah (saw)? Besides, does the Sira of the Messenger of Allah (saw) hold the same status as that of the stories of past prophets and messengers, so as to consider the emulation as inclusive of all of them? Is this not a contradiction and a violation of the Shari'ah rule, which confines the taking and the following solely to the Messenger of Allah (saw)?
Allah (swt) says: [33-21] "Indeed you have in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful example." T.M.Q. Allah (swt) also says: [59-7] "Take whatever the Messenger brought to you and refrain from whatever he prohibits you ." T.M.Q.
This is the style which the author of the essay follows. The style of justification and interpretation which gives the expression a different meaning to the one that its synthetic context and its linguistic and Shari'ah meaning indicates. On page 302 of the Islamic Personality Volume 1, Hizb-ut-Tahrir says: “The Qur'an has related to us the history of the prophets and some other nations as a lesson with regard to Iman and to the obedience of Allah and to highlight the consequence of he who disobeys Him, not to take their stories and actions as a method to proceed by.” The author of the essay continues with his style of justification and says defiantly on page 2 of the essay: “And if they really mean that the book has made the orders of the prophets and messengers a Shari'ah for us, let them bring even one single order the book mentions from among these orders of the prophets, and what is the Shari'ah rule which this order invites us to?”
I do not know how the author of the essay failed to read intellectually and with enlightenment what is mentioned in the book on page 28. To quote from the book: “Hence, just like we are commanded by the Aqeedah, commanded by the rituals, commanded by the rules of transactions and contracts, and commanded by all the Shari'ah rules, with regard to learning, teaching and acting upon them, we are therefore undoubtedly commanded to learn, to teach and to act upon all the verses of the Qur'an, including the verses of the Qasas i.e. Stories; otherwise there would have been no meaning to their intensive mention in the Qur'an, and otherwise, they would not have been revealed to us by “Al-Haqq”; and Allah (swt) is far above play and drivel.”
This text contains two flagrant errors that contradict what is adopted by Hizb-ut-Tahrir:
First error: The author of the book is inviting us to learn, teach and act upon the Ayat of Qassas, which are part of the Qur'an; this invitation is by way of obligation and decisive request. The meaning of this is that the author of the book is not only calling us for one single order from among the orders of the prophets but for several orders that have come in the verses of the Qasas. And look my dear brother how many rules from the previous Shari'ahs we are invited to take according to the author of the book, this by learning, teaching and acting upon them, be it with regard to the life of the individual, the state or society. The verses of the Qasas do contain rules from the previous Shari'ahs, and these contradict the rules brought by Islam. Whoever wishes to know more about the rules of previous Shari'ahs which contradict Islam, he should refer to the Book of the Islamic Personality Volume 3, page 405, 2nd edition.
In order to refute the challenge of the author of the essay, let us mention one single rule we are invited to take from among the orders of the prophets, mentioned in the verses of Qasas: In the Shari'ah of Yusuf Allah (swt) says: [12-75] "They said: The penalty should be that he in whose saddlebag it is found, should be held as bondman....." T.M.Q. This means that the penalty of the thief is to enslave him; whereas Islam has made the penalty of theft is cutting off the hand. Is this not a Shari'ah rule that the author of the book has invited us to take from the previous prophets and messengers, by way of learning, teaching and acting upon? This is what the author of the essay failed to comprehend. Hizb-ut-Tahrir mentions in the book of the Islamic Personality Volume 3- Second Edition, page 404, the following: “Those verse which have come with the rules of our ancestors are not considered abrogated with regard to their rules, meaning that their rules have been abrogated by other rules as is the case with the abrogation in the rules. They are rather considered as part of the Shari'ah of our ancestors, and we are not commanded by them. This serves as proof that the Shari'ah of our ancestors is not Shari'ah for us.”
Hence, while Hizb-ut-Tahrir says that we are not commanded by the verses which have brought the rules of our ancestors, we find that the author of the book insists that we are undoubtedly commanded to learn all the verse of the Qur'an, to teach them and to act upon them, including the verses of Qasas.
Second error:
In the text mentioned earlier of page 28 of the book, the author of the book deduced for us the Hikma (wisdom) which he understood from the extensive mention of the Qasas in the Qur'an. Here he has blundered twice and the author of the essay failed to spot this double blunder in his fifth point. The first is that he mentioned the Hikma as understood by his own reasoning and not as indicated by the Shari'ah texts; he even contradicted the Shari'ah texts which mentioned that the Hikma from the Qasas is the lesson and the example and the strengthening of the Messenger of Allah (saw)’s morale; whereas the author of the book understood the Hikma behind the extensive mention of the verse of Qasas is to learn, teach and act upon them. He did not stop at that but he committed another blunder by making this Hikma as a Illah (Shari'ah reason) that serves as a motive to the legislation of the rule, and then he went on to deduce a Shari'ah rule from it, which is the obligation of learning, teaching and acting upon all the verses of Qasas, and which according to what he mentions in the book on page 37: “They are all a valid substance of deduction (Istinbat), because as we had stated they are all models for the method of carrying the Da'awah.” Having elaborated this matter, the challenge raised by the author of the essay becomes irrelevant; it even becomes disintegrated. It is as if someone is attempting to hide the sun with a sieve. The implication of the verses of Qasas being as a whole a valid substance of deduction, and of us being obliged to learn, teach and act upon them means that not only is the Shari'ah of our ancestors a Shari'ah for us, but also it means that we should abandon our Shari'ah. On this basis, those who champion the participation in government according to the action of Yusuf (peace be upon him) are absolved of blame. Also those who permit drawing, sculpturing and the taking of statues in emulation to Sulayman (peace be upon him) are blameless. There is also no harm if one were to call for peace with Israel because the Arabs and the Jews are descendants of Ibrahim (Peace be upon him), and so on.
2-The issue of Doubtful Aqa’id :
The second point addressed by the author is related to the Ghaybyyat, i.e. the Unseen Matters. He is correct in citing the opinion of Hizb-ut-Tahrir on page 4 of his essay. He wrote: “It is permitted to study the Unseen Matters even if their evidences were doubtful, on condition that these matters are not considered part of the Aqeedah due to what the Party has adopted in relation to the fact that the evidence of Aqa’id must be decisive. We therefore trust these matters but do not believe decisively in them.”
Indeed this statement is correct and known to Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Shabab. However, the author of the essay blundered when he attempted to interpret what the author of the book wrote. He laid on the text a meaning that it does not carry, for he failed the read the text in an intellectual manner, but rather in an interpretative manner that is other than the intent given by the author according to the meaning of the expressions.
Let us now look at the texts which dealt with this topic in the book, to find out whether the author of the book has confined himself to dealing with Aqeedah matters that have doubtful evidences, as claimed by the author of the essay, or he has considered these matters as part of the Aqeedah by way of decisiveness and certitude.
1-The Issue of Uzayr:
On pages 39 & 40 of the Book “Carrying the Islamic Da'awah -Duties & Attributes” the author wrote the following:
“However, there exists a difference between the general universal Ayat, i.e. the creatures in this universe, and the universal Ayat that are specific to the prophets and messengers. This difference is reflected in the fact that the general universal Ayat are indeed signs proving only the existence of the Creator Al-Qadeer, and they do not prove more than this. Whereas the universal Ayat that are specific to the prophets and messengers are signs proving two matters: The existence of the Creator Al-Qadeer and the fact that the individual who brought it, or it came at his hands, is in fact a prophet and a messenger of this Creator Al-Qadeer. In other words, the general universal Ayat are valid to believe (i.e. to have Iman) in Allah (swt) only; whereas the specific universal Ayat are valid to believe (i.e. to have Iman) in the Shari'ah and the Deen which was brought by that prophet, in addition to the Iman in the Creator Al-Qadeer. By reviewing the specific universal Ayat we find that these are two types: One type was brought by the prophet and the messenger in contradiction to the universal laws, in order to be a miracle for him before his folk, proving his Prophethood and his message, such as the coolness of the fire and dispossessing it of the quality of burning, as mentioned in the story of Ibrahim; and such as the transforming of the rigid stick into a living snake, as mentioned in the story of Moussa, and such as the revival of the dead and the restoration of eyesight, as it happened with the prophet of Allah Issa. Another type was not brought by the prophet as a miracle to him, but the prophet himself was the miracle. This is like the birth of Issa from his mother without marriage, meaning that Issa himself constitutes a miracle as such; thus, his birth from a mother without marriage is an intrinsic miracle to his and an intrinsic miracle for his mother. Allah (swt) says in Surah Al-Mu’minoon : [23-50] "And We made the son of Maryam and his mother as a sign. We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs." T.M.Q. And like the death of Uzayr and this life and his resurrection anew, and Uzayr is a prophet from among the prophets of Bani Israel, and he is the intended in Allah (swt)’s saying in Surah Al-Baqara: [2-259] "Or like the one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: Oh! How shall Allah bring it ever to life after its death. But Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up again. He said: How long did you tarry. He said: I tarried a day or part of day. He said: No you have tarried a hundred years. But look at your food and your drink, they show no signs of age; and look at your donkey and that we may make of you a sign unto people....." T.M.Q. Hence, Issa is himself a sign and Uzayr is also a sign.” End.
We have listed the whole text despite its length in order to let it reflect through the purport of its expressions and the composition of its synthesis, the clear meanings mentioned in it which could not bear any interpretation or excuses from the author of the essay. The meanings of this text are so clear that nobody could argue about them. This texts stipulates the following:
One- The pondering over the general universal signs, according to the book, would only lead to the Iman, i.e. the decisive belief in the existence of the Creator (swt).
Two- The pondering over the specific universal signs in both their types would lead to three matters: 1- Iman in the existence of the Creator. 2- Iman in the fact that the individual who brings this sign is indeed a prophet and a messenger. 3- Iman in the Shari'ah and the Deen which is brought by that prophet and messenger.
Three- The context of the topic is not a mere research in unseen matters or a mere mention of an example, but it is a deduction of a Aqeedah in order to believe in it, regardless of whether the matter is related to the general or the specific universal signs. Are the stories of Ibrahim, Moussa and Issa a mere research and a mention of an example or Aqeedahs in which we are commanded to believe in decisively?
If the answer is yes, on what basis and by what right did the author of the essay exclude Uzayr and considered him a mere example, or a mere research in unseen matters which do not entail Iman? Did the author of the book not say in an assertive and affirmative form, using the form of restriction “Wa Huwa” (i.e. and he is) “A prophet from among the prophets of Bani Israel, and he is the one intended in Allah’s (swt) saying in Surah Al-Baqarah.”?
According to the author of the book, do the miracles and the specific universal signs which he mentioned not serve as proof of Prophethood for he who brought them?
Would it be conceivable, according to the wording of the text that we quoted, to say that we must believe in Issa and that Uzayr is a mere example, mentioned in the context of researching unseen matters which do not entail any Iman?
I do not know how could the answer be yes when it comes to Ibrahim, Moussa and Issa, and how could the answer be no when it comes to Uzayr? Why argue, interpret and justify a text that clearly indicates that the point at issue is one of Iman in Allah, in the prophet and in the Deen of that prophet as a result of pondering over the specific universal signs?
2- The issue of the “Triumphant Faction”:
We again ask the same question: Is the topic of the "Triumphant Faction" in the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah-Duties and Attributes” a mere research in unseen matters that have doubtful evidences? Or is it a clear invitation to take these doubtful matters as an Aqeedah for us? If this is the case, then the author of the book and the author of the essay have both violated what Hizb-ut-Tahrir has adopted with regard to the fact that Aqeedah matters can only be taken on the basis of decisive and conclusive evidence.
Let us review this. After listing the attributes of the "Triumphant Faction", the author of the book went on to explain that these attributes apply exclusively to the reality of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and then he arrived at the following conclusion on page 58:
“Therefore, the praise mentioned in these Ahadith must be devoted to every Muslim affiliated to the Faction or the Party.” Is this conclusion, that the author of the book reached “with a sound evidence” -according to his statement on page 56-, a mere research in unseen matters, which we assent but not take as Aqeedah? Or, is it a decisive request to devote and confine the praise to every Muslim who belongs to Hizb-ut-Tahrir? The author of the book goes on to say on page 54 that the Truth i.e. “Al-Haqq” is held by this Party and not with those who contradict and betray it.
This decisive request is not related to any action, nor does it entail any action so as to say that it is a Shari'ah rule that can be taken with the least amount of doubt. It is rather a matter in which we are requested to have Iman in. Hence, to say that the praise must be devoted and confined exclusively to Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an Aqeedah that has been taken by way of doubt; consequently, the author of the essay who defended the author of the book has violated the Party adoption when he ordered us to take a Aqeedah matter by way of doubt.
To say that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a "Triumphant Faction" is not only contradictory to the method of adoption in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, with regard to the fact that the Aqeedahs can only be taken by way of certitude, and also to the fact that Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopts only what is necessary for its progress, it does also strip the Party from its function as a Party, which is to be of service to the Ummah. It makes the Party prone to the class danger and threatens the Party with extinction. It also leads the Ummah to forsake the Party instead of giving it her leadership. This is mentioned in the Book of Takattul Page 54 (Arabic version).
We conclude this point with a quote from a leaflet published on 21st April 1974, which explains the reality of the Party vis-a-vis the Ummah.
“Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a group of Muslims who structured themselves on the basis of the ideology of Islam in order to establish it in society and carry it to the world. Hence, it is based upon the ideology of Islam and it follows the Prophet and Messenger of Islam (saw). It proceeds according to his guidance and does not emulate anyone else but him; and it does not lend any weight to any other human being. Hizb-ut-Tahrir is part of the Islamic Ummah, and as one of the Muslims it does not distinguish itself from the smallest of Muslims in anything, except in the fact that it carries the heaviest of burdens and that it is the most hopeful in seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt). Hence, the Islamic Ummah, of whom Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an integral part, is the one who represents Islam and she is the one who is considered as the group of Muslims, not any of the structures whatsoever.”
3-The issue of obeying the competent person:
Let us now look into the issue of obedience. The author of the essay described everyone who participated and followed the New Leadership of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a violator of the oath, who disengaged himself from the Qassam without a Shari'ah justification. He also falsely claimed on page 8 of his essay that the New Leadership of Hizb-ut-Tahrir had said that “The aware obedience is the obedience that is confined to what one is convinced of.” In order to highlight this false allegation and the error of what he concluded, it is imperative to differentiate between three matters, which the author of the essay failed to perceive despite the fact that these are evident in Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This is what led him to flounder and to use the wrong evidence from what Islam legislated and what the Party adopted.
The three issues that one must differentiate between are:
a-The competent person and giving preponderance to the sound opinion.
b-Obedience to the competent person.
c-Party adoption and Party decision.
a-The competent person and giving preponderance:
It is obvious that the person who holds the right of outweighing what is sound is the competent person himself. However, this outweighing does not take place as he pleases, but according to a host of specific regulators related to the type of soundness one is seeking to outweigh. Hence, it is this competence that is restricted by a host of principles and not the obedience. This matter requires elaboration.
As for the Khalifah, his obedience is obligatory as long as his orders are within the boundaries of Islam, regardless of whether this matter were conclusive or doubtful with regard to being from Islam or not. This is so because the order of the Imam is binding openly and secretly and because the order of the Imam settles the difference in case the opinions diversify and one opinion must be adopted. Also, it should be made absolutely clear that according to Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s adoption in the Draft Constitution, the Khalifah himself will be obligated to adopt the Shari'ah rules that are deduced exclusively from the four evidences, which are the Qur'an, the Sunnah, Ijma'a of the Sahaba and Al-Qyyas; otherwise the Shura Council would account him and the Court of Mathalim would take action against him.
As for the Amir of the Party, he also reserves the right of outweighing the sound opinion, whether the matter is related to adopting opinions, by way of initiation, cancellation and alteration, or to issuing instructions. However, it must be made absolutely clear that there exists a difference between adopting an opinion and issuing an instruction. Hence, with regard to adopting the thoughts, the rules and the opinions, the Amir is confined to the Party’s method of adoption and the principles of seeking an opinion, whether this were related to Aqeedah matters or thoughts or rules or political opinions, or styles and means, in which case the Amir would only adopt what is necessary to achieve the objective according to the Party’s requirements. However, when the matter is related to outweighing the soundness with regard to issuing instructions and orders, the competent person must be obeyed as long as he has a vague evidence i.e. “Shub’hat Dalil” from Islam and he deemed it as such. To disobey him in this matter would be sinful and rebellious because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If an Abyssinian servant ruled over you, you must listen to him and obey him as long as he leads you with the Book of Allah.”
b-Obeying the competent person:
Obedience to the competent person is confined to the specifications of his Imara, whether he were a Khalifah, or an Amir of a party, or an Amir of a journey or a Director of a department or any other competent person. His obedience is not automatically and independently derived but rather acquired through a contract or an oath or a delegation or a common matter. Hence, the Khalifah must be obeyed due to the contract of Baya'a which stipulates that he should implement Islam domestically and carry it to the world on behalf of the Ummah. This Baya'a is a contract that obliges the Khalifah to govern people’s affairs according to Shari'ah and obliges the Ummah to obey him as long as he does not order a sin. Allah (swt) says: [4-58] "Allah does command you to render back your trusts to those whom they are due and when you judge between people that you judge with justice. Truly how excellent is the teaching He gives you, for Allah is He who hears and sees everything. O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you. if you dispute about a matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement.." T.M.Q.
As for the Amir of the Party, his obedience will be subject to what is within the boundaries of his jurisdiction, which is to achieve the Party’s objective, i.e. to resume the Islamic way of life. It is true that his obedience is absolute, and not subject to the approval or disapproval of the instructed person; however, the instructed and the instructor do understand that obedience is within the boundaries of Islam and subject to the specifications of the Imara. Just like the Khalifah is forbidden from forcing people to violate the Shari'ah rule and from forcing people to undertake a matter that Shari'ah made it Mubah to individuals, such as marriage or having children for instance, the Amir of the Party is also obliged not to deviate from Islam according to the Party’s understanding of Islam and he is also restricted by the Party’s principles of adoption; this includes not forcing the Shabab to undertake actions related to matters in which the Party has not adopted, such as learning the rules of Tajweed. As for the issuing of instructions, the Amir reserves the absolute competence in this domain as long as he has a vague evidence from Islam.
Therefore, the Amir who holds the competence to outweigh soundness should differentiate between adopting a thought or a rule or an opinion for the whole of the structure and issuing an instruction that must be executed. It is forbidden for the Amir of the Party to issue the adopted thought in the form of an instruction and impose it upon the Shabab as if it were an order that must be executed. This is because the issue of obedience to the Amir in the Party -as long as he has a vague evidence- is other than the issue of the competence of the Amir with regard to adoption. Obedience to the Amir is a must when he issue an order or a decision, as long as this order or this decision is within the boundaries of Islam, and as long as he has a vague evidence. However, adopting an opinion in the Party is not on the basis of a vague evidence. Such a notion does not and should not occur in Hizb-ut-Tahrir; because Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not a Mujtahid, nor a School of thought, nor an order, so as to say that it could adopt an opinion according to the vague evidence.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an intellectual entity that adopts the opinion according to the strength of the evidence not on the basis of the vague evidence.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir highlighted this in an answer to a question published on 21st April 1974. To quote from the leaflet: Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a structure built upon an ideology whose individuals have believed in, with the determination and resoluteness to establish it in society, in one part of the world first, then in the whole of the world. Hence, it is a group of individuals and a group of apparatuses that have structured on the basis of Islam in its quality as an ideology. Hence, it becomes adverse, even unfeasible to attribute Ijtihad or Taqleed i.e. imitation, to the structure. It is not fitting and impossible for the structure to be a Mujtahid or a Muqallid. The party however adopts a host of thoughts and rules from the Islamic Shari'ah either by way of Ijtihad or by way of Taqleed, which it calls for and works towards implementing. However, these thoughts and rules are taken by the party from the Mujtahideen, whether they were from among its own members, i.e. from among individuals within the structure, or from other people, past and present. The adoption of these thoughts and rules are only adopted by the party on the basis that they are from what the Revelation has brought, or deduced from what the Revelation has brought, not on the basis of interest, nor on the basis of their suitability in dealing with the problem. Hence, it adopts them according to the strength of the evidence and nothing else. If their evidence were strong, it would adopt them, and if it were weak, it would discard them, even if these were prevalent among the Muslims, and even if they did solve the problem and even if it were in its interest to adopt them. This is so because the party adoption of the thoughts and the rules is based on the strength of the evidence, i.e. on the basis that they have been brought by the Revelation or deduced from what has been brought by the Revelation.
In the light of this elaboration, can anyone claim that the Amir is entitled to adopt, by way of initiation, cancellation and alteration, according to the vague evidence and that he must be obeyed in this? Such a claim has no reality in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, because the issue of “Vague evidence” is only related to orders and decisions and does not exceed it to the issue of adopting the thoughts and the rules. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Amir reserves the right to retract from a thought that he had adopted for the structure as long as he has a vague evidence, or the right to “freeze” a thought that he had adopted, just for the sake of gathering the Shabab around an opinion which is in the interest of the Muslims. Such a notion does not and must not occur in Hizb-ut-Tahrir for two reasons:
1- If the thought is necessary for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to proceed as a Political party, it must therefore adopted according to the strength of the evidence, and if on the other hand it is abandoned, it must be abandoned according to the strength of the new evidence. This will be on the basis of our adopted principle that stipulates that the Party proceeds towards perfection.
2- It is the Mujtahid or the Muqallid in the Party who should abandon his opinion and adopt all that which the Party has adopted. The evidence pertaining to the fact that the Party is allowed to impose upon every individual to abandon his own opinion and to adopt all that which is issued by the Party is derived from the Ijma'a of the Sahaba, which stipulates that the Mujtahid can abandon his opinion if it meant rallying the Muslims around one single opinion. Hence, it is the person affiliated to the Party who abandons his opinion to that of the Party, because this will rally the Muslims around the opinion of a structure whose establishment is necessary in order to restore the rule by what Allah has revealed, and it is not the person with the competence to adopt who should retract from a thought that he had adopted under the pretext of uniting the Muslims around one single opinion. Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the competent person in Hizb-ut-Tahrir do not adopt for the sake of rallying the Muslims around one opinion, but exclusively on the basis of the strength of the evidence and nothing else.
c: Party adoption and Party decision:
In the Party Qassam (oath), a new member would promise by Allah (swt) to: “adopt the opinions and constitution of this Hizb-ut-Tahrir; executing its decision even if they contradicted my own opinion…” This means that there is a difference between adopting the thought and executing the decision. In order to perceive this difference, it is imperative to perceive what is the Party. The Party is a structure based upon an ideology whose members believed in, with the determination and resoluteness to establish it in society. The structure is the gathering of a group of people around an idea. Hence, what the structure adopts is in fact an adoption for each individual in it. The adoption is not a decision or an order that requires execution and to which the statement of “Even if it differed from my own opinion.” applies. Therefore, the issue of obedience to the competent person as long as he has a vague evidence is rejected, for it has no reality in this context. This is so because the issue of adoption is either to agree with the adopted thought and accept the requirement of membership and affiliation to the Party, or disagree and consequently quit the Party; thus, it would be wrong for any member in the Party to reject any thought adopted by the Party, even one single thought, because he would in this case reject the concept of adoption as a whole which means rejecting the fact that the structure is based upon the idea.
When the Party adopts a thought, it adopts it and diffuses it in its quality as an opinion for the whole structure, and every individual in the Party reserves the right to discuss the adopted thought with regard to its soundness, the strength of its evidence and its conformity with reality. He continues to discuss it as his own opinion and if he perceives the aspect of adoption and the strength of the evidence, it becomes his opinion and if he did not perceive this, it becomes his opinion as well. If he rejects the opinion of the structure when he does not perceive the aspect of adoption and if he maintains his own opinion, he should immediately leave the structure because he will have forsaken his Party membership, because the thoughts which the Party adopts are thoughts for every member of it. As for the decisions, these are orders to be executed even if they contradicted one’s opinion, and the aspect of soundness in these orders is not subject to questioning, for it would be sufficient to know that they are within the boundaries of Islam. Hence, the Amir and any competent person must be obeyed with regard to orders as long as he has a vague evidence that it is from Islam.
Having differentiated between Party adoption and Party decision, it becomes clear when the issue of obedience within the boundaries of Islam occurs, as long as the competent person has a vague evidence. Therefore, every Shab in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, including the Amir, must adopt what the Party adopts, because this matter is imposed by the requirement of affiliation and membership in the Party. Although the Amir reserves the competence to adopt, according to the Party’s method of adoption, the Amir himself and the ordinary Shab are equal with regard to being obliged to submit to the conditions and principles of adoption. If either of them were to violate these principles and persisted on doing so, he would take himself out of the Party even if he remained administratively affiliated to it. As for the issue of instructions and executing decisions issued by the competent person, the Shab must obey the competent person as long as he has a vague evidence from Islam, even if the order or the decision contradicted the Shab’s opinion.
In order to confirm this meaning and this Party perception with regard to obeying the competent person, it is worth shedding light over the difference between the adoption of the Khalifah and the adoption of the Party.
The adoption of the Khalifah is an order or a decision issued by the Imam and all the Muslims must execute what the Khalifah adopts, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with their opinion. Hence, the Khalifah’s adoption of an opinion is not an adoption for the Muslims like the Amir of the Party’s adoption, which is an adoption for every member in it. This is because while every Shab would be requested to adopt what the Party adopts, otherwise he will leave the Party, the Muslims would not be requested to adopt what the Khalifah adopts, but rather to act upon what he adopts because it is an executive matter to the Muslims and a decision which they must obey, even if it did contradict their opinion. However, they would not be obliged to adopt it; they would rather adopt, propagate and teach another opinion. As for the adoption of the Party, it is not like the adoption of the Khalifah, i.e. a decision that must be executed and an order for the competent person that must be obeyed. The adoption of the Khalifah is like the Party order or decision in which the competent person must be obeyed as long as he has a vague evidence from Islam, and this is not subject to the approval or disapproval of the ordered. As for the issue of Party adoption, it is perceived like we just elaborated and as stipulated in an Answer to Question published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir on 14th August 1967. To quote from the leaflet: “…Therefore, the issue is not an issue of Taqleed, or following, or Ijtihad, so as to explore whether the opinion is taken by way of conviction or non conviction, or by way of the strength or weakness of the evidence; the point at issue is that of a structure to whom one becomes affiliated on condition that he adopts what the structure adopts. If he accepts the condition, he will be part of the structure and if he does not he will not enter the Party.”
4-The reality of the Party:
We come now to the final point in this topic, which the author of the essay touched upon in his introduction. He wrote: “The quotes related to the progress of the Party, its leadership and its administration are personal opinions that lack evidence and that are exaggerated; in addition to the fact that the practical reality of the Party and its progress refute and nullify such opinions.” As for the quotes related to the political opinions issued by the Party in the past, he mentioned that: “These are also personal opinions that lack any evidence to reinforce them; in addition to the fact that the political opinion is in essence doubtful and no one can decisively establish its soundness.”
Before we begin the refutation of such statements, let us make the following remark:
1- The author of the essay mentioned in his introduction that he would be confining his effort to discussing the opinions of the New Leadership pertaining to the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah -Duties and Attributes”. He said: “One can discuss their viewpoint elaborately because it is a sheer intellectual matter.”
Despite the fact that he failed to elaborate in the discussion, but rather confined his answer to some issues which we had earlier outlined their inconsistency and contradiction, and despite the fact that it is false to say that each one has his own viewpoint in these purely intellectual matters, because the issue is one of principles and Usul which Hizb-ut-Tahrir has adopted and upon whose basis these matters are perceived, intellectually acquired and politically carried; despite all this, we remind the author of the essay of some thoughts mentioned in the Book. Those thoughts that have brought back to the idea of Islam the ambiguity and the vagueness which Hizb-ut-Tahrir had worked towards removing the dust from them in order to restore their clarity and purity after all that the idea had suffered due to the decline and the distortion perpetrated by the Kuffar.
The author of the essay confined his effort to the first leaflet published by the New Leadership and to some points raised in it which were related to the Book. He did not bother to review all that was mentioned in the Book so as to make sure that this Book, -which has been frozen since February 1998-: “Does not contain any erroneous concept, nor any concept that contradicts the Shari'ah rules or what the Party has adopted” according to what the removed Amir confirmed with his own writing and signature. Since the author of the essay deemed it possible for one to discuss what was mentioned in the Book with some elaboration, because it was a “sheer intellectual matter that does not rely on hearsay and does not require any authentication”, why did he not discuss all that was mentioned in the Book? Why did he not discuss issues other than that of Uzayr, the "Triumphant Faction", the Shari'ah of our ancestors and the issue of taking the Hikma from reason (Aql)? He should have also tackled the other issues mentioned in the Book and he should have compared them with the adopted thoughts of the Party. We will be addressing some of these issues without attempting to refute them because their contradiction of the Party’s adoption is so clear and every Shab will be able to perceive it. For instance, here follows some of these issues mentioned in the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah -Duties & Attributes”:
One- The reality of reason, thought and perception to the Jinn, to the Muslim and to the Kafir under the universal procession, and how reason is a result of contemplation and a fruit of it. This is mentioned on pages 8, 9, 23 and 24.
Two- The definition of Iman as being the decisive assent that agrees with reality and based on evidence, or as being the belief by heart, or as an action and a saying, or as being an action. This is mentioned on page 69.
Three- Defining the Da'awah in a vague manner that does not conclude how to achieve the objective, nor does it explain the method. This is mentioned on page 107 and it is contradictory to what Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopted in The System of Islam -How to carry the Islamic Da'awah- on page 54.
Four- Defining Islam as being the group of thoughts and Shari'ah rules on page 107, in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. This definition is contradictory to that of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which is also mentioned in the System of Islam on page 64. Also, the author of the book does not differentiate between the Iman in Islam and understanding its rules, as mentioned by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the Book of Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, page 60.
Five- Claiming that there are many models in the method of carrying the Islamic Da'awah which can be obtained from the stories of past prophets and messengers. This is mentioned on pages 29 & 30.
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Not only do the thoughts mentioned in the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah -Duties & Attributes” obscure the idea, but they do obliterate it and bury it under the sands which the Party has been working ever since it came into being towards removing, so that the ideology remains clear and pure in its idea and its method.
2- Let us now discuss what the author of the essay deemed it part of the personal opinions that lack evidence, i.e. his reference to the progress, leadership and administration of the Party and to the political opinion.
With regard to the progress of the Party, the Shabab are questioning the leaflets which dealt with this issue and which are related to the Party’s plan of action.
By reviewing the leaflets which have touched on this aspect, we noted that these have come in the shape of recommendations rather than thoughts that lead to tangible actions. These leaflets are in general styles which the Shabab are invited to adopt, without any pursuance and monitoring from the Party apparatuses; hence, they remained mere ink on paper. As a result, the Party became idle and unable to advance towards achieving its objective.
We invite the Shabab to review the leaflets related to this issue, lest our statement is also deemed to be part of personal opinions as the author of the essay claims. For instance, the leaflets of “The Practical style to develop the supporters” and the leaflet of “Review” or “Reappraisal” dated 1985.
These leaflets lacked any plan of action, thus making the Party unable to undertake the actions that lead to achieving the objective; consequently, our presence in the Party under such a state of affairs is no longer rewarding and cannot relieve the sin from our necks., because the removal of the sin occurs when all the Shabab and all the apparatuses of the Party undertake the necessary actions, even if they did not achieve the objective due to the obstacles that prevent them momentarily from achieving this. However, the truth of the matter is that the Party was not working towards achieving its objective due to the absence of a plan of action according to which it should have proceeded. This is why the Party regressed. The question is: What was really the cause of regress?
By reviewing the culture of Hizb-ut-Tahrir related to the progress of the Structure, we find that regress occurs when the Party aspires to take people’s leadership without undertaking the actions that achieve this. It is as if someone is trying to reach home by simply standing at the station. Hence, the regress in the Party does not occur because people become idle, nor because society becomes idle, nor because the Shabab as a whole become idle; The Party rather stagnates and regresses when its leadership fails to draft a plan that contains fresh actions in which the aware purpose is manifested, which enables the Party to move to the next stage or to a new phase of the same stage.
We have been hearing for many years that the Party is on the brink of seizing power and yet we could not see any tangible and effective presence of the Party within the Ummah, despite the fact that she has been on the boil due to the major events that shook and ravaged her and due to the taming of all the movements including the Islamic ones.
The intellectual and political scene is void of any thought that could lead people apart from the ideology of Islam and from any party worthy of leading the Ummah apart from Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Hence, would it be conceivable for the leadership of the Party to retreat from drafting a plan of action that would lead to achieving the objective of the Party, which is to seize power through the Ummah and then establish the Khilafah and carry the Da'awah by way of Jihad to the world.
As for the administration of the Party, we can mention for instance of the person who was given a senior responsible position while he was yet to become a member, as happened in Britain; we can also mention the one who organised the Khilafah Conference in London without the permission of the leadership, knowing that Khilafah cannot be established through conferences. We can also mention the one who gives the Halaqa using a blackboard or the Masool who sets off on a European tour to teach the Shabab the rules of Tajweed, or the other Masool who relates the stories of Jinn. This is what we have witnessed with our own eyes in Europe about the administration of the Party. These are not doubtful news so that they can be rejected, they are rather events which we have endured, sensed and complained about but to no avail.
Would it be fitting to claim after all this that the talk about the reality of the leadership, the progress and the administration is part of doubtful news and personal opinions as author of the essay wants us to believe? Or is it a judgement of a reality sensed by every Shab who is intellectually and emotionally yearning for the Party? Is this matter a secret that the Shabab do not know of or an enigma whose solving is impossible? Or is it a reality that has become evident even to the Dariseen and the supporters?
Let us now discuss the last point related to the reality of the Party, which is the political opinion. the author of the essay said that what the New Leadership raised is merely personal opinions that are devoid of any evidence,, in addition to the fact that the political opinion is in essence doubtful and no one can establish conclusively its soundness. In order to find out how sound is this claim, which has come in the shape of a justification for the errors of the removed leadership with regard to the political opinion, we will address this issue by differentiating between three types of political
opinions as the Party has outlined especially in the Book of Al-Tafkeer (Thinking).
1- The political opinion as a political analysis: This is obviously a doubtful opinion that relies on gathering information, the soundness of this information and on the pursuance of the news related to the event or the person that one wishes to give an opinion on, such as for instance saying that such and such ruler is an American or a British agent, or that the visit of an official to a certain country is for such and such purpose. This type of political opinions includes also the political predictions, such as for instance saying that this or that ruler is going to win the elections.
Such a political opinion is usually related to the knowledge of the essence and the truth of the news or the person or the event or the situation. Therefore, the aware politician who works towards leading his Ummah should pursue with depth and innovation the events and the personalities who make the events and the influential powers in the world, so that he could expose the schemes and plans and draw the counter plans. He should be in the first instance drawing the plans that make the event and confuse the enemy, because this is his daily bread that distinguishes him from other people. The true politician is not a journalist who reports news, nor is he a political analyst who comments on events, he is rather a statesman who looks after the affairs of his Ummah, whether he is in government or outside it.
It is mentioned in the Book of Al-Tafkeer on page 154, that: “Political thinking is the hardest type of thinking if it is related to news, events and to the linking of events. This is so because the lack of a basis upon which one can build and measure, would throw the thinker into a dilemma and would make him at first prone to many errors and a prey to illusions and mistakes. If he does not live the political experience and does not constantly pursue and pay attention to all the daily events, it will be difficult for him to grasp the political thinking.”
If we were to apply this first type of political opinion, which is a political thinking related to news and events, to what the former leadership issued, we find that this leadership has ruled out the military option in the second Gulf War, and that it has also ruled out Europe’s backing of America in this war. It has also predicted that Bush would defeat Clinton in the presidential elections. These errors are possible and they could happen, though it should not have come from the leadership of the Party, especially that it has acquired this long political experience, and this awareness about events and especially that it has gathered a large amount of information, ample to make it perceive the reality of events and news. If these errors were repeatedly perpetrated by the Party, the confidence of the Shabab in the leadership would be shaken and the standing and presence of the Party in the Ummah would be lost.
2- The political opinion as a study of a reality in order to recognise its essence:
This is an opinion aimed at giving a judgement about a political term or an intellectual concept related to managing people’s affairs. This type of political opinion is like the former, i.e. it is part of political thinking, but differs from it. If the former is a thinking about news and events, the latter is a thinking about texts and studies; in other words it is a study of reality which one aims at giving a thought that conforms with them. Examples of this are numerous, such as the definition of the state, the meaning of the authority or the determination of the international situation and its reality, or outlining the reality of the independent state, and the state that proceeds within the sphere of another state, and the subordinate state. Therefore, if the error could occur in the political opinion if the first type, if the matter were for instance related to knowing whether such ruler is an American or a British agent, it should not occur in the second type of political opinion, if the matter is related to the study of the reality of the ruler in person, whether he is an agent or independent.
This type of political analysis is very similar to the intellectual thinking, though it occurs in the political events and studies. Hence, it differs from the first type of political opinion in terms of error and soundness. It is mentioned in the Book of Al-Tafkeer, on page 152 and 153: “Political thinking and intellectual thinking are almost one single type. They are equal and similar to a great extent. However, in the intellectual thinking, the previous information must be at the level of the thought being studied even if they were not of its type but merely related to it. As for the political thinking, although it requires previous information at the level of the thought, it also requires previous information in the same topic, and it would not be enough if it were only related to it or similar to it, or part of what is useful to explain the thinking. Hence, thinking about the political texts is one type of thinking about the intellectual texts.”
By applying these meanings mentioned with regard to the political opinion of the second type, we find that the former leadership failed to adhere to what Hizb-ut-Tahrir had adopted in this type of political thought. In the leaflet of Palestine published on 7th June 1993, it said that the State comes into being by the presence of a land, a people and a political leadership . This clearly contradicts what Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopts with regard to the definition of the State. Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopts that “the State is an executive entity implementing the host of concepts, criteria and convictions which the Ummah or the stronger faction within her has embraced. This means that the State comes into being through the generation of a host of thoughts about life which emanate from either a comprehensive idea or a general idea. Hence, if we wish to seize power, i.e. the authority, i.e. to assume looking after people’s affairs, we only have to change their viewpoint towards the interests by changing their viewpoint about life. In other words, by generating a host of concepts, criteria and convictions which the State will assume their execution.”
What a difference between this understanding and this definition of the State, and the definition of the State brought by the removed leadership; a definition taken without any political thinking of the type known as political science. Such a definition of the birth of a State corroborates the concept of the homeland with its geographical borders that are internationally recognised. It also consolidates the meaning of patriotism as a bond between people. As for the term “People” it is not intended to refer to a linguistic stretch between a group of people, it is rather a political term that refers to a group of people living over a piece of land that acts as the bond between them, i.e. patriotism is the bond of the people. This is what the same leaflet mentioned when it used the term of the “Palestinian People” or the term of the “Algerian People” as mentioned in another leaflet about Algeria. As for the political leadership, it is a leadership for the brethren of the land, i.e. the people that are united by the trials and hopes, not by the concepts, criteria and convictions.
This is just one example, and there are many more like this, outlining the deviation of the removed leadership from what is adopted by the Party and its use of the Western political thoughts without any prior political thinking.
3- The third type of political opinion is the one related to the Shari'ah rule or related to legislation. Many of the political studies are based upon the Aqeedah of separating the Deen from life and of separating the Deen from the state; thus they include a host of thoughts and rules related to the solving of problems and not to management of affairs, i.e. they are part of the legislative thinking and not part of the political thinking. This is where the danger of these thoughts and rules lies, because they are proposed on the basis that they are plain general humanistic thoughts and that they have no relation with any viewpoint about life. For instance, the term “Democracy” cannot be used to refer to the meaning of Shura or electing the Khalifah; because the expression and the meaning of democracy indicate that sovereignty and legislation, just like the authority, are to the people. This contradicts what we have in Islam in that sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah and the authority belongs to the Ummah.
It is mentioned in the Book of Al-Tafkeer, on page 156: “Although we prefer to treat the texts of political studies that are related to legislation in the same way that we treat Western legislation, thus they do not get studied nor taught, because they contain what is related to legislation as oppose to politics, such as the ruling systems, however, due to the fact that they are of the intellectual studies type and that they contain some political studies, there is no harm from this aspect to read and study them, but with awareness and caution.”
Let us now see whether the removed leadership has treated some of the Western political texts and terms, that are related to legislation with awareness and caution, and whether it perceived that it is forbidden for us to adopt most of the Western terms and meanings, because Islam has not brought them and because Islam has forbidden us from taking them.
For instance, In the Book of the Islamic Ruling System 3rd Edition, it is mentioned on page 15 that “he Islamic State is a political and humanistic, not a divine and spiritual state.” As for the fact that the Islamic State is a humanistic and not a divine state, this is a true statement and it agrees with its reality, because the Khalifah does not rule under the theory of the divine right, but rather according to Shari'ah. Hence, he does not enjoy any papal sanctity nor any infallibility in execution. As for the fact that the Islamic State is a political state and not a spiritual one, this is false because it makes the Islamic State like the capitalist state, i.e. not built upon a spiritual basis and it separates the political authority from the spiritual authority. If we were to judge this thought by the Islamic Aqeedah , we would find that it rejects it and forbids its taking, because Islam is not a Deen and a State, it is rather a Deen and the state is part of it, just like Salat is part of it.
As for the second example, this is mentioned in two leaflets published by the former leadership. The first is dated 26th January 1991and the second dated 7th June 1993, in which the former leadership used the term of “Occupied Territories”. This term is a political reference to the lands that were occupied after 1967. As for the lands occupied in 1948, these are recognised by the whole world, including the states established in the Islamic world, be it openly or secretly, that they legitimately form part of the Jewish state. Hence, the use of such a term by the Party means that the Party has become like the rest of the world, i.e. that it recognises the state of Israel and that it works towards liberating the lands that have been occupied after 1967 in order to establish the Palestinian State over them, next to the state of Israel, just like what America wants. Even the word Palestine, it no longer means geographically and politically the whole of Palestine, but merely the lands occupied after 1967, as endorsed by the Palestine National Council last year.
The use of the term “Occupied territories”, or the use of the word Palestine to refer to the lands of 1967 would lead us to Haram without any shade of a doubt, and it would make us accept the Jewish usurping of our lands, especially if these lands have been blessed by Allah (swt) and they contain the first Qibla and the third holiest mosque.
Finally, having highlighted the difference in the political opinion, would it be correct for the author of the essay to claim that the political opinion is in essence doubtful and that no one can establish its decisiveness, just like that, and without any elaboration?
Would it be also conceivable to consider what the New Leadership has outlined in terms of errors and violations as mere exaggerated personal opinions that lack evidence? We do not know whether what the author of the essay mentioned is based on an understanding of the Party culture or a defence and justification of the errors and violations perpetrated by the removed leadership.
May Allah make us of those who listen to the speech and follow the best of it. Ameen.
Assalamu Alaykum
Abu Ahmed 28th May 1998.
Member of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Belgium
It is worth reading to see further details how the former leadership of the party was destroying the idea:
Having reviewed the essay, I would like first of all to make two remarks:
1-The author of the essay has confined his reaction to the redress movement that took place in the Party, to what was published in the leaflet issued by Hizb-ut-Tahrir on 22nd October 1997. Furthermore, he confined his reply to some points raised in the leaflet about the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah- Duties & Attributes”. This leads one to think that after his reply about those meanings and after lifting the doubt and the ambiguity surrounding the book, that all that was mentioned in the Book is a sound thought that does not contradict the adoption of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and a sound opinion that cannot be wrong. This is what the author of the essay imagined.
2- This deliberate selective style and deliberate short reply would also give the reader the impression that there had been nothing wrong with the Party, be it in terms of its progress, its leadership, its administration and its political opinions. Evidence of this is reflected in the fact that the author of the essay deemed the issues of the Party’s progress, leadership, administration and political opinions to be part of the personal news and doubtful opinions; just like that, without any elaboration or specification. Hence, one is led to believe that once a reply is given about what is mentioned in the Leaflet, which incidentally represents only part of what was mentioned in the Book, the problem facing the Party is over and that any talk or debate in this matter is considered as a rebellion and a treason and that any action to redress the Party is considered a violation of the oath and a disengagement from the Qassam.
Let us now look into how sound the issues mentioned in this essay are:
1-Emulating the Shari'ah of our ancestors:
The author of the essay defends the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah” and its author by using the style of interpretation and justification, rather than using the style of intellectual reception which the Party insists on and which the nature of the intellectual texts necessitates. This matter is tangible throughout the whole essay. I do not know how the author of the essay failed to perceive the fact that the meaning of any intellectual text can only be perceived from the indications of its expressions and not the intentions of the writer or the reader or the commentator. The words and the synthesis of such an intellectual text, especially when it is issued by the Party, must be characterised by precision, specification and investigation, and this is what the author of the essay lacked and so did the author of the Book.
Let us now highlight this in detail and with evidence.
1- The author of the essay interpreted the text mentioned on page 5 of the book. “and if a Muslim undertakes the same action in emulation to them and in abidance by their order, i.e. to carry the Da'awah after them, he will have performed the best and the noblest action possible.” Despite the clarity of this text, the author claimed that the intended meaning of undertaking the same action of the past prophets, emulating them and abiding by their order is not to follow their Shari'ahs, but rather to characterise oneself with their conditions with regard to the seven attributes mentioned on pages 32 to 37 in the Book of Carrying the Da'awah.
However, the fact is that the talk about these seven attributes is in relation to the lessons and the examples that can be benefited from the stories of the prophets and this emulation has nothing to do with the actions of the prophets and the abiding by their order, i.e. “carrying the Da'awah after them”.
Those lessons and examples have no relation to the matter of legislation expressed by the author of the book on page 13 “Hence, this action of theirs was the best and the noblest action ever to be attributed to a creature. Therefore, if a Muslim were to emulate them and perform what they had performed, i.e. if he were to spread the guidance, teach the Shari'ahs and carry the Da'awah, he would undoubtedly draw near their status in Heaven.”
The author of the book did not say “teach the Shari'ah or the Shari'ah rules”, but he said: “teach the Shari'ahs” like this, in the plural form and not the singular form. Meanwhile Allah (swt) says: [5-48] "To each one among you We have prescribed a Law and a method.." T.M.Q. The question is, how could the author of the essay claim that the emulation of the prophets means following their condition and not follow their Shari'ah? How could he also claim that the emulation includes all the prophets and messengers including Mohammed (saw)? By Allah! How could the Da'awah carrier combine the emulation of all the past prophets and messengers with the emulation of the Messenger of Allah (saw)? Besides, does the Sira of the Messenger of Allah (saw) hold the same status as that of the stories of past prophets and messengers, so as to consider the emulation as inclusive of all of them? Is this not a contradiction and a violation of the Shari'ah rule, which confines the taking and the following solely to the Messenger of Allah (saw)?
Allah (swt) says: [33-21] "Indeed you have in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful example." T.M.Q. Allah (swt) also says: [59-7] "Take whatever the Messenger brought to you and refrain from whatever he prohibits you ." T.M.Q.
This is the style which the author of the essay follows. The style of justification and interpretation which gives the expression a different meaning to the one that its synthetic context and its linguistic and Shari'ah meaning indicates. On page 302 of the Islamic Personality Volume 1, Hizb-ut-Tahrir says: “The Qur'an has related to us the history of the prophets and some other nations as a lesson with regard to Iman and to the obedience of Allah and to highlight the consequence of he who disobeys Him, not to take their stories and actions as a method to proceed by.” The author of the essay continues with his style of justification and says defiantly on page 2 of the essay: “And if they really mean that the book has made the orders of the prophets and messengers a Shari'ah for us, let them bring even one single order the book mentions from among these orders of the prophets, and what is the Shari'ah rule which this order invites us to?”
I do not know how the author of the essay failed to read intellectually and with enlightenment what is mentioned in the book on page 28. To quote from the book: “Hence, just like we are commanded by the Aqeedah, commanded by the rituals, commanded by the rules of transactions and contracts, and commanded by all the Shari'ah rules, with regard to learning, teaching and acting upon them, we are therefore undoubtedly commanded to learn, to teach and to act upon all the verses of the Qur'an, including the verses of the Qasas i.e. Stories; otherwise there would have been no meaning to their intensive mention in the Qur'an, and otherwise, they would not have been revealed to us by “Al-Haqq”; and Allah (swt) is far above play and drivel.”
This text contains two flagrant errors that contradict what is adopted by Hizb-ut-Tahrir:
First error: The author of the book is inviting us to learn, teach and act upon the Ayat of Qassas, which are part of the Qur'an; this invitation is by way of obligation and decisive request. The meaning of this is that the author of the book is not only calling us for one single order from among the orders of the prophets but for several orders that have come in the verses of the Qasas. And look my dear brother how many rules from the previous Shari'ahs we are invited to take according to the author of the book, this by learning, teaching and acting upon them, be it with regard to the life of the individual, the state or society. The verses of the Qasas do contain rules from the previous Shari'ahs, and these contradict the rules brought by Islam. Whoever wishes to know more about the rules of previous Shari'ahs which contradict Islam, he should refer to the Book of the Islamic Personality Volume 3, page 405, 2nd edition.
In order to refute the challenge of the author of the essay, let us mention one single rule we are invited to take from among the orders of the prophets, mentioned in the verses of Qasas: In the Shari'ah of Yusuf Allah (swt) says: [12-75] "They said: The penalty should be that he in whose saddlebag it is found, should be held as bondman....." T.M.Q. This means that the penalty of the thief is to enslave him; whereas Islam has made the penalty of theft is cutting off the hand. Is this not a Shari'ah rule that the author of the book has invited us to take from the previous prophets and messengers, by way of learning, teaching and acting upon? This is what the author of the essay failed to comprehend. Hizb-ut-Tahrir mentions in the book of the Islamic Personality Volume 3- Second Edition, page 404, the following: “Those verse which have come with the rules of our ancestors are not considered abrogated with regard to their rules, meaning that their rules have been abrogated by other rules as is the case with the abrogation in the rules. They are rather considered as part of the Shari'ah of our ancestors, and we are not commanded by them. This serves as proof that the Shari'ah of our ancestors is not Shari'ah for us.”
Hence, while Hizb-ut-Tahrir says that we are not commanded by the verses which have brought the rules of our ancestors, we find that the author of the book insists that we are undoubtedly commanded to learn all the verse of the Qur'an, to teach them and to act upon them, including the verses of Qasas.
Second error:
In the text mentioned earlier of page 28 of the book, the author of the book deduced for us the Hikma (wisdom) which he understood from the extensive mention of the Qasas in the Qur'an. Here he has blundered twice and the author of the essay failed to spot this double blunder in his fifth point. The first is that he mentioned the Hikma as understood by his own reasoning and not as indicated by the Shari'ah texts; he even contradicted the Shari'ah texts which mentioned that the Hikma from the Qasas is the lesson and the example and the strengthening of the Messenger of Allah (saw)’s morale; whereas the author of the book understood the Hikma behind the extensive mention of the verse of Qasas is to learn, teach and act upon them. He did not stop at that but he committed another blunder by making this Hikma as a Illah (Shari'ah reason) that serves as a motive to the legislation of the rule, and then he went on to deduce a Shari'ah rule from it, which is the obligation of learning, teaching and acting upon all the verses of Qasas, and which according to what he mentions in the book on page 37: “They are all a valid substance of deduction (Istinbat), because as we had stated they are all models for the method of carrying the Da'awah.” Having elaborated this matter, the challenge raised by the author of the essay becomes irrelevant; it even becomes disintegrated. It is as if someone is attempting to hide the sun with a sieve. The implication of the verses of Qasas being as a whole a valid substance of deduction, and of us being obliged to learn, teach and act upon them means that not only is the Shari'ah of our ancestors a Shari'ah for us, but also it means that we should abandon our Shari'ah. On this basis, those who champion the participation in government according to the action of Yusuf (peace be upon him) are absolved of blame. Also those who permit drawing, sculpturing and the taking of statues in emulation to Sulayman (peace be upon him) are blameless. There is also no harm if one were to call for peace with Israel because the Arabs and the Jews are descendants of Ibrahim (Peace be upon him), and so on.
2-The issue of Doubtful Aqa’id :
The second point addressed by the author is related to the Ghaybyyat, i.e. the Unseen Matters. He is correct in citing the opinion of Hizb-ut-Tahrir on page 4 of his essay. He wrote: “It is permitted to study the Unseen Matters even if their evidences were doubtful, on condition that these matters are not considered part of the Aqeedah due to what the Party has adopted in relation to the fact that the evidence of Aqa’id must be decisive. We therefore trust these matters but do not believe decisively in them.”
Indeed this statement is correct and known to Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Shabab. However, the author of the essay blundered when he attempted to interpret what the author of the book wrote. He laid on the text a meaning that it does not carry, for he failed the read the text in an intellectual manner, but rather in an interpretative manner that is other than the intent given by the author according to the meaning of the expressions.
Let us now look at the texts which dealt with this topic in the book, to find out whether the author of the book has confined himself to dealing with Aqeedah matters that have doubtful evidences, as claimed by the author of the essay, or he has considered these matters as part of the Aqeedah by way of decisiveness and certitude.
1-The Issue of Uzayr:
On pages 39 & 40 of the Book “Carrying the Islamic Da'awah -Duties & Attributes” the author wrote the following:
“However, there exists a difference between the general universal Ayat, i.e. the creatures in this universe, and the universal Ayat that are specific to the prophets and messengers. This difference is reflected in the fact that the general universal Ayat are indeed signs proving only the existence of the Creator Al-Qadeer, and they do not prove more than this. Whereas the universal Ayat that are specific to the prophets and messengers are signs proving two matters: The existence of the Creator Al-Qadeer and the fact that the individual who brought it, or it came at his hands, is in fact a prophet and a messenger of this Creator Al-Qadeer. In other words, the general universal Ayat are valid to believe (i.e. to have Iman) in Allah (swt) only; whereas the specific universal Ayat are valid to believe (i.e. to have Iman) in the Shari'ah and the Deen which was brought by that prophet, in addition to the Iman in the Creator Al-Qadeer. By reviewing the specific universal Ayat we find that these are two types: One type was brought by the prophet and the messenger in contradiction to the universal laws, in order to be a miracle for him before his folk, proving his Prophethood and his message, such as the coolness of the fire and dispossessing it of the quality of burning, as mentioned in the story of Ibrahim; and such as the transforming of the rigid stick into a living snake, as mentioned in the story of Moussa, and such as the revival of the dead and the restoration of eyesight, as it happened with the prophet of Allah Issa. Another type was not brought by the prophet as a miracle to him, but the prophet himself was the miracle. This is like the birth of Issa from his mother without marriage, meaning that Issa himself constitutes a miracle as such; thus, his birth from a mother without marriage is an intrinsic miracle to his and an intrinsic miracle for his mother. Allah (swt) says in Surah Al-Mu’minoon : [23-50] "And We made the son of Maryam and his mother as a sign. We gave them both shelter on high ground affording rest and security and furnished with springs." T.M.Q. And like the death of Uzayr and this life and his resurrection anew, and Uzayr is a prophet from among the prophets of Bani Israel, and he is the intended in Allah (swt)’s saying in Surah Al-Baqara: [2-259] "Or like the one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: Oh! How shall Allah bring it ever to life after its death. But Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up again. He said: How long did you tarry. He said: I tarried a day or part of day. He said: No you have tarried a hundred years. But look at your food and your drink, they show no signs of age; and look at your donkey and that we may make of you a sign unto people....." T.M.Q. Hence, Issa is himself a sign and Uzayr is also a sign.” End.
We have listed the whole text despite its length in order to let it reflect through the purport of its expressions and the composition of its synthesis, the clear meanings mentioned in it which could not bear any interpretation or excuses from the author of the essay. The meanings of this text are so clear that nobody could argue about them. This texts stipulates the following:
One- The pondering over the general universal signs, according to the book, would only lead to the Iman, i.e. the decisive belief in the existence of the Creator (swt).
Two- The pondering over the specific universal signs in both their types would lead to three matters: 1- Iman in the existence of the Creator. 2- Iman in the fact that the individual who brings this sign is indeed a prophet and a messenger. 3- Iman in the Shari'ah and the Deen which is brought by that prophet and messenger.
Three- The context of the topic is not a mere research in unseen matters or a mere mention of an example, but it is a deduction of a Aqeedah in order to believe in it, regardless of whether the matter is related to the general or the specific universal signs. Are the stories of Ibrahim, Moussa and Issa a mere research and a mention of an example or Aqeedahs in which we are commanded to believe in decisively?
If the answer is yes, on what basis and by what right did the author of the essay exclude Uzayr and considered him a mere example, or a mere research in unseen matters which do not entail Iman? Did the author of the book not say in an assertive and affirmative form, using the form of restriction “Wa Huwa” (i.e. and he is) “A prophet from among the prophets of Bani Israel, and he is the one intended in Allah’s (swt) saying in Surah Al-Baqarah.”?
According to the author of the book, do the miracles and the specific universal signs which he mentioned not serve as proof of Prophethood for he who brought them?
Would it be conceivable, according to the wording of the text that we quoted, to say that we must believe in Issa and that Uzayr is a mere example, mentioned in the context of researching unseen matters which do not entail any Iman?
I do not know how could the answer be yes when it comes to Ibrahim, Moussa and Issa, and how could the answer be no when it comes to Uzayr? Why argue, interpret and justify a text that clearly indicates that the point at issue is one of Iman in Allah, in the prophet and in the Deen of that prophet as a result of pondering over the specific universal signs?
2- The issue of the “Triumphant Faction”:
We again ask the same question: Is the topic of the "Triumphant Faction" in the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah-Duties and Attributes” a mere research in unseen matters that have doubtful evidences? Or is it a clear invitation to take these doubtful matters as an Aqeedah for us? If this is the case, then the author of the book and the author of the essay have both violated what Hizb-ut-Tahrir has adopted with regard to the fact that Aqeedah matters can only be taken on the basis of decisive and conclusive evidence.
Let us review this. After listing the attributes of the "Triumphant Faction", the author of the book went on to explain that these attributes apply exclusively to the reality of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, and then he arrived at the following conclusion on page 58:
“Therefore, the praise mentioned in these Ahadith must be devoted to every Muslim affiliated to the Faction or the Party.” Is this conclusion, that the author of the book reached “with a sound evidence” -according to his statement on page 56-, a mere research in unseen matters, which we assent but not take as Aqeedah? Or, is it a decisive request to devote and confine the praise to every Muslim who belongs to Hizb-ut-Tahrir? The author of the book goes on to say on page 54 that the Truth i.e. “Al-Haqq” is held by this Party and not with those who contradict and betray it.
This decisive request is not related to any action, nor does it entail any action so as to say that it is a Shari'ah rule that can be taken with the least amount of doubt. It is rather a matter in which we are requested to have Iman in. Hence, to say that the praise must be devoted and confined exclusively to Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an Aqeedah that has been taken by way of doubt; consequently, the author of the essay who defended the author of the book has violated the Party adoption when he ordered us to take a Aqeedah matter by way of doubt.
To say that Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a "Triumphant Faction" is not only contradictory to the method of adoption in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, with regard to the fact that the Aqeedahs can only be taken by way of certitude, and also to the fact that Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopts only what is necessary for its progress, it does also strip the Party from its function as a Party, which is to be of service to the Ummah. It makes the Party prone to the class danger and threatens the Party with extinction. It also leads the Ummah to forsake the Party instead of giving it her leadership. This is mentioned in the Book of Takattul Page 54 (Arabic version).
We conclude this point with a quote from a leaflet published on 21st April 1974, which explains the reality of the Party vis-a-vis the Ummah.
“Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a group of Muslims who structured themselves on the basis of the ideology of Islam in order to establish it in society and carry it to the world. Hence, it is based upon the ideology of Islam and it follows the Prophet and Messenger of Islam (saw). It proceeds according to his guidance and does not emulate anyone else but him; and it does not lend any weight to any other human being. Hizb-ut-Tahrir is part of the Islamic Ummah, and as one of the Muslims it does not distinguish itself from the smallest of Muslims in anything, except in the fact that it carries the heaviest of burdens and that it is the most hopeful in seeking the pleasure of Allah (swt). Hence, the Islamic Ummah, of whom Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an integral part, is the one who represents Islam and she is the one who is considered as the group of Muslims, not any of the structures whatsoever.”
3-The issue of obeying the competent person:
Let us now look into the issue of obedience. The author of the essay described everyone who participated and followed the New Leadership of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a violator of the oath, who disengaged himself from the Qassam without a Shari'ah justification. He also falsely claimed on page 8 of his essay that the New Leadership of Hizb-ut-Tahrir had said that “The aware obedience is the obedience that is confined to what one is convinced of.” In order to highlight this false allegation and the error of what he concluded, it is imperative to differentiate between three matters, which the author of the essay failed to perceive despite the fact that these are evident in Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This is what led him to flounder and to use the wrong evidence from what Islam legislated and what the Party adopted.
The three issues that one must differentiate between are:
a-The competent person and giving preponderance to the sound opinion.
b-Obedience to the competent person.
c-Party adoption and Party decision.
a-The competent person and giving preponderance:
It is obvious that the person who holds the right of outweighing what is sound is the competent person himself. However, this outweighing does not take place as he pleases, but according to a host of specific regulators related to the type of soundness one is seeking to outweigh. Hence, it is this competence that is restricted by a host of principles and not the obedience. This matter requires elaboration.
As for the Khalifah, his obedience is obligatory as long as his orders are within the boundaries of Islam, regardless of whether this matter were conclusive or doubtful with regard to being from Islam or not. This is so because the order of the Imam is binding openly and secretly and because the order of the Imam settles the difference in case the opinions diversify and one opinion must be adopted. Also, it should be made absolutely clear that according to Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s adoption in the Draft Constitution, the Khalifah himself will be obligated to adopt the Shari'ah rules that are deduced exclusively from the four evidences, which are the Qur'an, the Sunnah, Ijma'a of the Sahaba and Al-Qyyas; otherwise the Shura Council would account him and the Court of Mathalim would take action against him.
As for the Amir of the Party, he also reserves the right of outweighing the sound opinion, whether the matter is related to adopting opinions, by way of initiation, cancellation and alteration, or to issuing instructions. However, it must be made absolutely clear that there exists a difference between adopting an opinion and issuing an instruction. Hence, with regard to adopting the thoughts, the rules and the opinions, the Amir is confined to the Party’s method of adoption and the principles of seeking an opinion, whether this were related to Aqeedah matters or thoughts or rules or political opinions, or styles and means, in which case the Amir would only adopt what is necessary to achieve the objective according to the Party’s requirements. However, when the matter is related to outweighing the soundness with regard to issuing instructions and orders, the competent person must be obeyed as long as he has a vague evidence i.e. “Shub’hat Dalil” from Islam and he deemed it as such. To disobey him in this matter would be sinful and rebellious because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If an Abyssinian servant ruled over you, you must listen to him and obey him as long as he leads you with the Book of Allah.”
b-Obeying the competent person:
Obedience to the competent person is confined to the specifications of his Imara, whether he were a Khalifah, or an Amir of a party, or an Amir of a journey or a Director of a department or any other competent person. His obedience is not automatically and independently derived but rather acquired through a contract or an oath or a delegation or a common matter. Hence, the Khalifah must be obeyed due to the contract of Baya'a which stipulates that he should implement Islam domestically and carry it to the world on behalf of the Ummah. This Baya'a is a contract that obliges the Khalifah to govern people’s affairs according to Shari'ah and obliges the Ummah to obey him as long as he does not order a sin. Allah (swt) says: [4-58] "Allah does command you to render back your trusts to those whom they are due and when you judge between people that you judge with justice. Truly how excellent is the teaching He gives you, for Allah is He who hears and sees everything. O you who believe obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you. if you dispute about a matter, refer it to Allah and the Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement.." T.M.Q.
As for the Amir of the Party, his obedience will be subject to what is within the boundaries of his jurisdiction, which is to achieve the Party’s objective, i.e. to resume the Islamic way of life. It is true that his obedience is absolute, and not subject to the approval or disapproval of the instructed person; however, the instructed and the instructor do understand that obedience is within the boundaries of Islam and subject to the specifications of the Imara. Just like the Khalifah is forbidden from forcing people to violate the Shari'ah rule and from forcing people to undertake a matter that Shari'ah made it Mubah to individuals, such as marriage or having children for instance, the Amir of the Party is also obliged not to deviate from Islam according to the Party’s understanding of Islam and he is also restricted by the Party’s principles of adoption; this includes not forcing the Shabab to undertake actions related to matters in which the Party has not adopted, such as learning the rules of Tajweed. As for the issuing of instructions, the Amir reserves the absolute competence in this domain as long as he has a vague evidence from Islam.
Therefore, the Amir who holds the competence to outweigh soundness should differentiate between adopting a thought or a rule or an opinion for the whole of the structure and issuing an instruction that must be executed. It is forbidden for the Amir of the Party to issue the adopted thought in the form of an instruction and impose it upon the Shabab as if it were an order that must be executed. This is because the issue of obedience to the Amir in the Party -as long as he has a vague evidence- is other than the issue of the competence of the Amir with regard to adoption. Obedience to the Amir is a must when he issue an order or a decision, as long as this order or this decision is within the boundaries of Islam, and as long as he has a vague evidence. However, adopting an opinion in the Party is not on the basis of a vague evidence. Such a notion does not and should not occur in Hizb-ut-Tahrir; because Hizb-ut-Tahrir is not a Mujtahid, nor a School of thought, nor an order, so as to say that it could adopt an opinion according to the vague evidence.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is an intellectual entity that adopts the opinion according to the strength of the evidence not on the basis of the vague evidence.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir highlighted this in an answer to a question published on 21st April 1974. To quote from the leaflet: Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a structure built upon an ideology whose individuals have believed in, with the determination and resoluteness to establish it in society, in one part of the world first, then in the whole of the world. Hence, it is a group of individuals and a group of apparatuses that have structured on the basis of Islam in its quality as an ideology. Hence, it becomes adverse, even unfeasible to attribute Ijtihad or Taqleed i.e. imitation, to the structure. It is not fitting and impossible for the structure to be a Mujtahid or a Muqallid. The party however adopts a host of thoughts and rules from the Islamic Shari'ah either by way of Ijtihad or by way of Taqleed, which it calls for and works towards implementing. However, these thoughts and rules are taken by the party from the Mujtahideen, whether they were from among its own members, i.e. from among individuals within the structure, or from other people, past and present. The adoption of these thoughts and rules are only adopted by the party on the basis that they are from what the Revelation has brought, or deduced from what the Revelation has brought, not on the basis of interest, nor on the basis of their suitability in dealing with the problem. Hence, it adopts them according to the strength of the evidence and nothing else. If their evidence were strong, it would adopt them, and if it were weak, it would discard them, even if these were prevalent among the Muslims, and even if they did solve the problem and even if it were in its interest to adopt them. This is so because the party adoption of the thoughts and the rules is based on the strength of the evidence, i.e. on the basis that they have been brought by the Revelation or deduced from what has been brought by the Revelation.
In the light of this elaboration, can anyone claim that the Amir is entitled to adopt, by way of initiation, cancellation and alteration, according to the vague evidence and that he must be obeyed in this? Such a claim has no reality in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, because the issue of “Vague evidence” is only related to orders and decisions and does not exceed it to the issue of adopting the thoughts and the rules. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Amir reserves the right to retract from a thought that he had adopted for the structure as long as he has a vague evidence, or the right to “freeze” a thought that he had adopted, just for the sake of gathering the Shabab around an opinion which is in the interest of the Muslims. Such a notion does not and must not occur in Hizb-ut-Tahrir for two reasons:
1- If the thought is necessary for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to proceed as a Political party, it must therefore adopted according to the strength of the evidence, and if on the other hand it is abandoned, it must be abandoned according to the strength of the new evidence. This will be on the basis of our adopted principle that stipulates that the Party proceeds towards perfection.
2- It is the Mujtahid or the Muqallid in the Party who should abandon his opinion and adopt all that which the Party has adopted. The evidence pertaining to the fact that the Party is allowed to impose upon every individual to abandon his own opinion and to adopt all that which is issued by the Party is derived from the Ijma'a of the Sahaba, which stipulates that the Mujtahid can abandon his opinion if it meant rallying the Muslims around one single opinion. Hence, it is the person affiliated to the Party who abandons his opinion to that of the Party, because this will rally the Muslims around the opinion of a structure whose establishment is necessary in order to restore the rule by what Allah has revealed, and it is not the person with the competence to adopt who should retract from a thought that he had adopted under the pretext of uniting the Muslims around one single opinion. Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the competent person in Hizb-ut-Tahrir do not adopt for the sake of rallying the Muslims around one opinion, but exclusively on the basis of the strength of the evidence and nothing else.
c: Party adoption and Party decision:
In the Party Qassam (oath), a new member would promise by Allah (swt) to: “adopt the opinions and constitution of this Hizb-ut-Tahrir; executing its decision even if they contradicted my own opinion…” This means that there is a difference between adopting the thought and executing the decision. In order to perceive this difference, it is imperative to perceive what is the Party. The Party is a structure based upon an ideology whose members believed in, with the determination and resoluteness to establish it in society. The structure is the gathering of a group of people around an idea. Hence, what the structure adopts is in fact an adoption for each individual in it. The adoption is not a decision or an order that requires execution and to which the statement of “Even if it differed from my own opinion.” applies. Therefore, the issue of obedience to the competent person as long as he has a vague evidence is rejected, for it has no reality in this context. This is so because the issue of adoption is either to agree with the adopted thought and accept the requirement of membership and affiliation to the Party, or disagree and consequently quit the Party; thus, it would be wrong for any member in the Party to reject any thought adopted by the Party, even one single thought, because he would in this case reject the concept of adoption as a whole which means rejecting the fact that the structure is based upon the idea.
When the Party adopts a thought, it adopts it and diffuses it in its quality as an opinion for the whole structure, and every individual in the Party reserves the right to discuss the adopted thought with regard to its soundness, the strength of its evidence and its conformity with reality. He continues to discuss it as his own opinion and if he perceives the aspect of adoption and the strength of the evidence, it becomes his opinion and if he did not perceive this, it becomes his opinion as well. If he rejects the opinion of the structure when he does not perceive the aspect of adoption and if he maintains his own opinion, he should immediately leave the structure because he will have forsaken his Party membership, because the thoughts which the Party adopts are thoughts for every member of it. As for the decisions, these are orders to be executed even if they contradicted one’s opinion, and the aspect of soundness in these orders is not subject to questioning, for it would be sufficient to know that they are within the boundaries of Islam. Hence, the Amir and any competent person must be obeyed with regard to orders as long as he has a vague evidence that it is from Islam.
Having differentiated between Party adoption and Party decision, it becomes clear when the issue of obedience within the boundaries of Islam occurs, as long as the competent person has a vague evidence. Therefore, every Shab in Hizb-ut-Tahrir, including the Amir, must adopt what the Party adopts, because this matter is imposed by the requirement of affiliation and membership in the Party. Although the Amir reserves the competence to adopt, according to the Party’s method of adoption, the Amir himself and the ordinary Shab are equal with regard to being obliged to submit to the conditions and principles of adoption. If either of them were to violate these principles and persisted on doing so, he would take himself out of the Party even if he remained administratively affiliated to it. As for the issue of instructions and executing decisions issued by the competent person, the Shab must obey the competent person as long as he has a vague evidence from Islam, even if the order or the decision contradicted the Shab’s opinion.
In order to confirm this meaning and this Party perception with regard to obeying the competent person, it is worth shedding light over the difference between the adoption of the Khalifah and the adoption of the Party.
The adoption of the Khalifah is an order or a decision issued by the Imam and all the Muslims must execute what the Khalifah adopts, regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with their opinion. Hence, the Khalifah’s adoption of an opinion is not an adoption for the Muslims like the Amir of the Party’s adoption, which is an adoption for every member in it. This is because while every Shab would be requested to adopt what the Party adopts, otherwise he will leave the Party, the Muslims would not be requested to adopt what the Khalifah adopts, but rather to act upon what he adopts because it is an executive matter to the Muslims and a decision which they must obey, even if it did contradict their opinion. However, they would not be obliged to adopt it; they would rather adopt, propagate and teach another opinion. As for the adoption of the Party, it is not like the adoption of the Khalifah, i.e. a decision that must be executed and an order for the competent person that must be obeyed. The adoption of the Khalifah is like the Party order or decision in which the competent person must be obeyed as long as he has a vague evidence from Islam, and this is not subject to the approval or disapproval of the ordered. As for the issue of Party adoption, it is perceived like we just elaborated and as stipulated in an Answer to Question published by Hizb-ut-Tahrir on 14th August 1967. To quote from the leaflet: “…Therefore, the issue is not an issue of Taqleed, or following, or Ijtihad, so as to explore whether the opinion is taken by way of conviction or non conviction, or by way of the strength or weakness of the evidence; the point at issue is that of a structure to whom one becomes affiliated on condition that he adopts what the structure adopts. If he accepts the condition, he will be part of the structure and if he does not he will not enter the Party.”
4-The reality of the Party:
We come now to the final point in this topic, which the author of the essay touched upon in his introduction. He wrote: “The quotes related to the progress of the Party, its leadership and its administration are personal opinions that lack evidence and that are exaggerated; in addition to the fact that the practical reality of the Party and its progress refute and nullify such opinions.” As for the quotes related to the political opinions issued by the Party in the past, he mentioned that: “These are also personal opinions that lack any evidence to reinforce them; in addition to the fact that the political opinion is in essence doubtful and no one can decisively establish its soundness.”
Before we begin the refutation of such statements, let us make the following remark:
1- The author of the essay mentioned in his introduction that he would be confining his effort to discussing the opinions of the New Leadership pertaining to the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah -Duties and Attributes”. He said: “One can discuss their viewpoint elaborately because it is a sheer intellectual matter.”
Despite the fact that he failed to elaborate in the discussion, but rather confined his answer to some issues which we had earlier outlined their inconsistency and contradiction, and despite the fact that it is false to say that each one has his own viewpoint in these purely intellectual matters, because the issue is one of principles and Usul which Hizb-ut-Tahrir has adopted and upon whose basis these matters are perceived, intellectually acquired and politically carried; despite all this, we remind the author of the essay of some thoughts mentioned in the Book. Those thoughts that have brought back to the idea of Islam the ambiguity and the vagueness which Hizb-ut-Tahrir had worked towards removing the dust from them in order to restore their clarity and purity after all that the idea had suffered due to the decline and the distortion perpetrated by the Kuffar.
The author of the essay confined his effort to the first leaflet published by the New Leadership and to some points raised in it which were related to the Book. He did not bother to review all that was mentioned in the Book so as to make sure that this Book, -which has been frozen since February 1998-: “Does not contain any erroneous concept, nor any concept that contradicts the Shari'ah rules or what the Party has adopted” according to what the removed Amir confirmed with his own writing and signature. Since the author of the essay deemed it possible for one to discuss what was mentioned in the Book with some elaboration, because it was a “sheer intellectual matter that does not rely on hearsay and does not require any authentication”, why did he not discuss all that was mentioned in the Book? Why did he not discuss issues other than that of Uzayr, the "Triumphant Faction", the Shari'ah of our ancestors and the issue of taking the Hikma from reason (Aql)? He should have also tackled the other issues mentioned in the Book and he should have compared them with the adopted thoughts of the Party. We will be addressing some of these issues without attempting to refute them because their contradiction of the Party’s adoption is so clear and every Shab will be able to perceive it. For instance, here follows some of these issues mentioned in the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah -Duties & Attributes”:
One- The reality of reason, thought and perception to the Jinn, to the Muslim and to the Kafir under the universal procession, and how reason is a result of contemplation and a fruit of it. This is mentioned on pages 8, 9, 23 and 24.
Two- The definition of Iman as being the decisive assent that agrees with reality and based on evidence, or as being the belief by heart, or as an action and a saying, or as being an action. This is mentioned on page 69.
Three- Defining the Da'awah in a vague manner that does not conclude how to achieve the objective, nor does it explain the method. This is mentioned on page 107 and it is contradictory to what Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopted in The System of Islam -How to carry the Islamic Da'awah- on page 54.
Four- Defining Islam as being the group of thoughts and Shari'ah rules on page 107, in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs. This definition is contradictory to that of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which is also mentioned in the System of Islam on page 64. Also, the author of the book does not differentiate between the Iman in Islam and understanding its rules, as mentioned by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the Book of Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, page 60.
Five- Claiming that there are many models in the method of carrying the Islamic Da'awah which can be obtained from the stories of past prophets and messengers. This is mentioned on pages 29 & 30.
This is just a tip of the iceberg. Not only do the thoughts mentioned in the Book of “Carrying the Da'awah -Duties & Attributes” obscure the idea, but they do obliterate it and bury it under the sands which the Party has been working ever since it came into being towards removing, so that the ideology remains clear and pure in its idea and its method.
2- Let us now discuss what the author of the essay deemed it part of the personal opinions that lack evidence, i.e. his reference to the progress, leadership and administration of the Party and to the political opinion.
With regard to the progress of the Party, the Shabab are questioning the leaflets which dealt with this issue and which are related to the Party’s plan of action.
By reviewing the leaflets which have touched on this aspect, we noted that these have come in the shape of recommendations rather than thoughts that lead to tangible actions. These leaflets are in general styles which the Shabab are invited to adopt, without any pursuance and monitoring from the Party apparatuses; hence, they remained mere ink on paper. As a result, the Party became idle and unable to advance towards achieving its objective.
We invite the Shabab to review the leaflets related to this issue, lest our statement is also deemed to be part of personal opinions as the author of the essay claims. For instance, the leaflets of “The Practical style to develop the supporters” and the leaflet of “Review” or “Reappraisal” dated 1985.
These leaflets lacked any plan of action, thus making the Party unable to undertake the actions that lead to achieving the objective; consequently, our presence in the Party under such a state of affairs is no longer rewarding and cannot relieve the sin from our necks., because the removal of the sin occurs when all the Shabab and all the apparatuses of the Party undertake the necessary actions, even if they did not achieve the objective due to the obstacles that prevent them momentarily from achieving this. However, the truth of the matter is that the Party was not working towards achieving its objective due to the absence of a plan of action according to which it should have proceeded. This is why the Party regressed. The question is: What was really the cause of regress?
By reviewing the culture of Hizb-ut-Tahrir related to the progress of the Structure, we find that regress occurs when the Party aspires to take people’s leadership without undertaking the actions that achieve this. It is as if someone is trying to reach home by simply standing at the station. Hence, the regress in the Party does not occur because people become idle, nor because society becomes idle, nor because the Shabab as a whole become idle; The Party rather stagnates and regresses when its leadership fails to draft a plan that contains fresh actions in which the aware purpose is manifested, which enables the Party to move to the next stage or to a new phase of the same stage.
We have been hearing for many years that the Party is on the brink of seizing power and yet we could not see any tangible and effective presence of the Party within the Ummah, despite the fact that she has been on the boil due to the major events that shook and ravaged her and due to the taming of all the movements including the Islamic ones.
The intellectual and political scene is void of any thought that could lead people apart from the ideology of Islam and from any party worthy of leading the Ummah apart from Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Hence, would it be conceivable for the leadership of the Party to retreat from drafting a plan of action that would lead to achieving the objective of the Party, which is to seize power through the Ummah and then establish the Khilafah and carry the Da'awah by way of Jihad to the world.
As for the administration of the Party, we can mention for instance of the person who was given a senior responsible position while he was yet to become a member, as happened in Britain; we can also mention the one who organised the Khilafah Conference in London without the permission of the leadership, knowing that Khilafah cannot be established through conferences. We can also mention the one who gives the Halaqa using a blackboard or the Masool who sets off on a European tour to teach the Shabab the rules of Tajweed, or the other Masool who relates the stories of Jinn. This is what we have witnessed with our own eyes in Europe about the administration of the Party. These are not doubtful news so that they can be rejected, they are rather events which we have endured, sensed and complained about but to no avail.
Would it be fitting to claim after all this that the talk about the reality of the leadership, the progress and the administration is part of doubtful news and personal opinions as author of the essay wants us to believe? Or is it a judgement of a reality sensed by every Shab who is intellectually and emotionally yearning for the Party? Is this matter a secret that the Shabab do not know of or an enigma whose solving is impossible? Or is it a reality that has become evident even to the Dariseen and the supporters?
Let us now discuss the last point related to the reality of the Party, which is the political opinion. the author of the essay said that what the New Leadership raised is merely personal opinions that are devoid of any evidence,, in addition to the fact that the political opinion is in essence doubtful and no one can establish conclusively its soundness. In order to find out how sound is this claim, which has come in the shape of a justification for the errors of the removed leadership with regard to the political opinion, we will address this issue by differentiating between three types of political
opinions as the Party has outlined especially in the Book of Al-Tafkeer (Thinking).
1- The political opinion as a political analysis: This is obviously a doubtful opinion that relies on gathering information, the soundness of this information and on the pursuance of the news related to the event or the person that one wishes to give an opinion on, such as for instance saying that such and such ruler is an American or a British agent, or that the visit of an official to a certain country is for such and such purpose. This type of political opinions includes also the political predictions, such as for instance saying that this or that ruler is going to win the elections.
Such a political opinion is usually related to the knowledge of the essence and the truth of the news or the person or the event or the situation. Therefore, the aware politician who works towards leading his Ummah should pursue with depth and innovation the events and the personalities who make the events and the influential powers in the world, so that he could expose the schemes and plans and draw the counter plans. He should be in the first instance drawing the plans that make the event and confuse the enemy, because this is his daily bread that distinguishes him from other people. The true politician is not a journalist who reports news, nor is he a political analyst who comments on events, he is rather a statesman who looks after the affairs of his Ummah, whether he is in government or outside it.
It is mentioned in the Book of Al-Tafkeer on page 154, that: “Political thinking is the hardest type of thinking if it is related to news, events and to the linking of events. This is so because the lack of a basis upon which one can build and measure, would throw the thinker into a dilemma and would make him at first prone to many errors and a prey to illusions and mistakes. If he does not live the political experience and does not constantly pursue and pay attention to all the daily events, it will be difficult for him to grasp the political thinking.”
If we were to apply this first type of political opinion, which is a political thinking related to news and events, to what the former leadership issued, we find that this leadership has ruled out the military option in the second Gulf War, and that it has also ruled out Europe’s backing of America in this war. It has also predicted that Bush would defeat Clinton in the presidential elections. These errors are possible and they could happen, though it should not have come from the leadership of the Party, especially that it has acquired this long political experience, and this awareness about events and especially that it has gathered a large amount of information, ample to make it perceive the reality of events and news. If these errors were repeatedly perpetrated by the Party, the confidence of the Shabab in the leadership would be shaken and the standing and presence of the Party in the Ummah would be lost.
2- The political opinion as a study of a reality in order to recognise its essence:
This is an opinion aimed at giving a judgement about a political term or an intellectual concept related to managing people’s affairs. This type of political opinion is like the former, i.e. it is part of political thinking, but differs from it. If the former is a thinking about news and events, the latter is a thinking about texts and studies; in other words it is a study of reality which one aims at giving a thought that conforms with them. Examples of this are numerous, such as the definition of the state, the meaning of the authority or the determination of the international situation and its reality, or outlining the reality of the independent state, and the state that proceeds within the sphere of another state, and the subordinate state. Therefore, if the error could occur in the political opinion if the first type, if the matter were for instance related to knowing whether such ruler is an American or a British agent, it should not occur in the second type of political opinion, if the matter is related to the study of the reality of the ruler in person, whether he is an agent or independent.
This type of political analysis is very similar to the intellectual thinking, though it occurs in the political events and studies. Hence, it differs from the first type of political opinion in terms of error and soundness. It is mentioned in the Book of Al-Tafkeer, on page 152 and 153: “Political thinking and intellectual thinking are almost one single type. They are equal and similar to a great extent. However, in the intellectual thinking, the previous information must be at the level of the thought being studied even if they were not of its type but merely related to it. As for the political thinking, although it requires previous information at the level of the thought, it also requires previous information in the same topic, and it would not be enough if it were only related to it or similar to it, or part of what is useful to explain the thinking. Hence, thinking about the political texts is one type of thinking about the intellectual texts.”
By applying these meanings mentioned with regard to the political opinion of the second type, we find that the former leadership failed to adhere to what Hizb-ut-Tahrir had adopted in this type of political thought. In the leaflet of Palestine published on 7th June 1993, it said that the State comes into being by the presence of a land, a people and a political leadership . This clearly contradicts what Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopts with regard to the definition of the State. Hizb-ut-Tahrir adopts that “the State is an executive entity implementing the host of concepts, criteria and convictions which the Ummah or the stronger faction within her has embraced. This means that the State comes into being through the generation of a host of thoughts about life which emanate from either a comprehensive idea or a general idea. Hence, if we wish to seize power, i.e. the authority, i.e. to assume looking after people’s affairs, we only have to change their viewpoint towards the interests by changing their viewpoint about life. In other words, by generating a host of concepts, criteria and convictions which the State will assume their execution.”
What a difference between this understanding and this definition of the State, and the definition of the State brought by the removed leadership; a definition taken without any political thinking of the type known as political science. Such a definition of the birth of a State corroborates the concept of the homeland with its geographical borders that are internationally recognised. It also consolidates the meaning of patriotism as a bond between people. As for the term “People” it is not intended to refer to a linguistic stretch between a group of people, it is rather a political term that refers to a group of people living over a piece of land that acts as the bond between them, i.e. patriotism is the bond of the people. This is what the same leaflet mentioned when it used the term of the “Palestinian People” or the term of the “Algerian People” as mentioned in another leaflet about Algeria. As for the political leadership, it is a leadership for the brethren of the land, i.e. the people that are united by the trials and hopes, not by the concepts, criteria and convictions.
This is just one example, and there are many more like this, outlining the deviation of the removed leadership from what is adopted by the Party and its use of the Western political thoughts without any prior political thinking.
3- The third type of political opinion is the one related to the Shari'ah rule or related to legislation. Many of the political studies are based upon the Aqeedah of separating the Deen from life and of separating the Deen from the state; thus they include a host of thoughts and rules related to the solving of problems and not to management of affairs, i.e. they are part of the legislative thinking and not part of the political thinking. This is where the danger of these thoughts and rules lies, because they are proposed on the basis that they are plain general humanistic thoughts and that they have no relation with any viewpoint about life. For instance, the term “Democracy” cannot be used to refer to the meaning of Shura or electing the Khalifah; because the expression and the meaning of democracy indicate that sovereignty and legislation, just like the authority, are to the people. This contradicts what we have in Islam in that sovereignty belongs to Shari'ah and the authority belongs to the Ummah.
It is mentioned in the Book of Al-Tafkeer, on page 156: “Although we prefer to treat the texts of political studies that are related to legislation in the same way that we treat Western legislation, thus they do not get studied nor taught, because they contain what is related to legislation as oppose to politics, such as the ruling systems, however, due to the fact that they are of the intellectual studies type and that they contain some political studies, there is no harm from this aspect to read and study them, but with awareness and caution.”
Let us now see whether the removed leadership has treated some of the Western political texts and terms, that are related to legislation with awareness and caution, and whether it perceived that it is forbidden for us to adopt most of the Western terms and meanings, because Islam has not brought them and because Islam has forbidden us from taking them.
For instance, In the Book of the Islamic Ruling System 3rd Edition, it is mentioned on page 15 that “he Islamic State is a political and humanistic, not a divine and spiritual state.” As for the fact that the Islamic State is a humanistic and not a divine state, this is a true statement and it agrees with its reality, because the Khalifah does not rule under the theory of the divine right, but rather according to Shari'ah. Hence, he does not enjoy any papal sanctity nor any infallibility in execution. As for the fact that the Islamic State is a political state and not a spiritual one, this is false because it makes the Islamic State like the capitalist state, i.e. not built upon a spiritual basis and it separates the political authority from the spiritual authority. If we were to judge this thought by the Islamic Aqeedah , we would find that it rejects it and forbids its taking, because Islam is not a Deen and a State, it is rather a Deen and the state is part of it, just like Salat is part of it.
As for the second example, this is mentioned in two leaflets published by the former leadership. The first is dated 26th January 1991and the second dated 7th June 1993, in which the former leadership used the term of “Occupied Territories”. This term is a political reference to the lands that were occupied after 1967. As for the lands occupied in 1948, these are recognised by the whole world, including the states established in the Islamic world, be it openly or secretly, that they legitimately form part of the Jewish state. Hence, the use of such a term by the Party means that the Party has become like the rest of the world, i.e. that it recognises the state of Israel and that it works towards liberating the lands that have been occupied after 1967 in order to establish the Palestinian State over them, next to the state of Israel, just like what America wants. Even the word Palestine, it no longer means geographically and politically the whole of Palestine, but merely the lands occupied after 1967, as endorsed by the Palestine National Council last year.
The use of the term “Occupied territories”, or the use of the word Palestine to refer to the lands of 1967 would lead us to Haram without any shade of a doubt, and it would make us accept the Jewish usurping of our lands, especially if these lands have been blessed by Allah (swt) and they contain the first Qibla and the third holiest mosque.
Finally, having highlighted the difference in the political opinion, would it be correct for the author of the essay to claim that the political opinion is in essence doubtful and that no one can establish its decisiveness, just like that, and without any elaboration?
Would it be also conceivable to consider what the New Leadership has outlined in terms of errors and violations as mere exaggerated personal opinions that lack evidence? We do not know whether what the author of the essay mentioned is based on an understanding of the Party culture or a defence and justification of the errors and violations perpetrated by the removed leadership.
May Allah make us of those who listen to the speech and follow the best of it. Ameen.
Assalamu Alaykum
Abu Ahmed 28th May 1998.
Member of Hizb ut-Tahrir
Belgium