Hizb ut-Tahrir: “what is required is actual war” (Updated)

This is a guest post by Raziq, a former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir

****

Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to be a non-violent political party. Its members publically state this, however critics are not convinced. In this article I will be looking at some of its literature and its stance on the use of violence.  All quotes appear in their correct contexts and all references used in this article can be supplied upon request.

Background

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is a political party established by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani in 1952. Being a former Ba’athist, Nabhani incorporated the organizational principles of Marxism-Leninism into the structure of his new party. The central aim of HT is to unite all Muslim-majority countries into a super-expansionist Islamist state. This is to be done by seizing power in a Muslim-majority country through infiltration of the army and then initiating a military coup, a war by proxy. Once the state is established it will invite other Muslim-majority countries to join, but if they refuse then a war (jihad) will be declared against them and they will be taken over by force. Failed coup attempts by HT in the 1960s led to the loss of much support and membership and today it is banned or viewed with suspicion in all Muslim-majority countries.

So what exactly are its views on the use of violence and is HT dangerous?

Violence and Anti-Semitism

I will begin with a statement issued by Ata Abu Rishta as the official spokesperson of HT (and now its global leader) in Jordan in May 1994, a few weeks before the Cairo Agreement;

There can be no peaceful relations with the Jews: this is prohibited by Islamic Law. It is also prohibited to settle for only part of Palestine. There can be neither negotiations, co-existence nor normalization of relations with the Jews in Palestine. None of the Jews in Palestine who arrived after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire have the right to remain there. The Islamic legal rule requires that those of whom are capable of fighting be killed until none survive. Any others should be forced to leave. Individual Jews who lived in Palestine (as part of a dhimma community) before the end of the (Ottoman) empire and are not guilty of any violent act against the Muslims can be allowed to stay… however, it is anticipated that none belong in this category. It is impossible to solve the problem of Palestine by peaceful means: what is required is actual war, in the form of Jihad.

(A Fundamental Quest: Hizb al-Tahrir and the search for the Islamic Caliphate, page 162, Suha Taji-Farouki Grey Seal London)

This is a pretty shocking statement from a supposedly non-violent party.  It isn’t just calling for the killing of Zionists- but all Jews in Israel who moved there after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. HT believes that the Israel/Palestine conflict will never be resolved using peaceful means; the only solution is an aggressive war (jihad). According to HT it is also an obligation for Muslims to fight and abolish the state of Israel:

Fighting and exterminating Israel is an obligation even if the Muslims fighting are Arab armies loyal to regimes of unbelief, like the Egyptian soldiers when they fought Israel during the Sinai war

(Khilafah Mag U.S edition, Volume 2, Issue 4 – August 1991)

Another interesting dimension in HT’s violent jihad is that it believes terrorist tactics may be employed against countries it is at war with.  Their official ruling on the permissibility of hijacking planes states:

If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel or for the Jews in it.

(‘The Islamic rule on hijacking aeroplanes’ – 8th April 1988)

It’s important to note here that it’s not just Zionists who have “no sanctity” but all Jews (who happen to be on the aircraft). HT has often been accused of being anti-Semitic, and it’s not difficult to see why. Another official HT leaflet entitled The Only place between the Muslims and the Jews is the battlefield, also calls for a violent jihad against all Jews in Israel:

Clearly, the scandalous and treacherous negotiations must end, the door that leads to the treacherous peace with the Jews must be slammed shut, we must rid ourselves from their bragging, arrogance and contempt of Muslims, and destroy their existence by the lawful Jihad until they are wiped out, and their survivors are left senseless, scattered and despised the world over.

(Leaflet issued on 25 December 1992)

Again, it doesn’t make a distinction between Zionists and Jews because HT believes in killing ‘all’ Jews of fighting age within Israel. I remember asking a senior HT member whether the above leaflet was referring to Zionists or all Jews. He told me: “In the Qur’an Allah doesn’t call Jews Zionists but just Jews, so when we say Jews we mean Jews”.

What type of State?

The Islamist state that HT seeks to create will be a violent expansionist state and jihad, defined by HT as a religiously justified war, will be used to achieve the aims of its foreign policy (i.e. expanding its borders). This is outlined in party literature:

Islam has defined the material action. This action will remove all physical obstacles to the attainment of the noble foreign policy objectives of the Khilafah State. This is Jihad.

(Jihad- Foreign Policy of the Khilafah State,  Zahid-Ivan Salaam, Pg 51, Khilafah Publications, London, 2001)

And it’s not just Jews whom HT would like to kill; even fellow Muslims who reject their form of Islamist governance are believed to deserve death.  This point was elaborated upon by the second global leader of HT, Abdul Qadeem Zallum, who stated:

..thus, he who does not rule by Islam and rules by a Kufr system should either retract or be killed. Thus, the rule by a Kufr system would be prevented even if this led to several years of fighting and even if it led to the killing of millions of Muslims and to the martyrdom of millions of believers.

(How the Khilafah Was Destroyed, Pg 199, Al-Khilafah Publications: London, 2000)

Killing millions of people will be a natural occurrence in HT’s proposed Khilafah state because it will be in a state of permanent war (jihad):

The foreign policy of the Khilafah state is determined by the call to Islam.  As the call (dawa) is conveyed by Jihad, the Khilafah state is in the situation of permanent Jihad.

(AL-FAJR, Issue 14, March 1989 –Pg 13)

Affiliations

Another point which often gets overlooked is that prior to the establishment of HT as a party, its founder Taqiuddin al-Nabhani was an associate of the Grand Mufti of Palestine, Sheikh Muhammad Hajj Al-Amin Hosseini.  Hosseini was a Nazi war collaborator who visited Nazi Germany and Hitler during WW2. This fact has been highlighted by various researchers:

While one cannot ascertain exactly how they met, it is evident that a relationship of sorts developed between the two men: according to well placed sources in Amman al-Nabhani was considered to belong to Hajj Amin’s camp during the period from 1945 to 1948.

(A Fundamental Quest and the search for the Islamic Caliphate, Suha Taji Farouqi, Pg 2, Grey Seal 1st Edition)

Yet in the party’s early days, al-Nabhani was influenced by Shiekh Muhammad Hajj Al-Amin Husseni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Nazi war collaborator. Party Members have often denied the holocaust, calling it a “tool used by Jews to justify their own hegemony over Muslims in Palestine. (Hizb ut-Tahrir, Islam’s Political Insurgency, Zayno Baran, Pg 28, The Nixon Center)

This may explain why there is so much hatred for Jews in HT publications.

Conclusion

HT is not a terrorist organisation and it does not plan terrorist operations. However, as we have seen, its method of taking power is through military coups – an inherently violent method and after the establishment of the Khilafah, it would be happy to use force and even terrorism against its enemies.

If you read Hizb ut-Tahrir books, you will have the impression that it is a political party that works to assume power, and not an association that confronts the battlefield of life with the goal of actualizing God’s vice regency on earth….This has lost it considerable weight in the struggle.

(Ghazi al Tawba, al Fikr Islami al Muassir: Dirasah wa Taqwim Beirut: n.p 1969, 311)

HT is an anti-Semitic extremist Islamist party that believes political violence is justified. It seeks to create a super-expansionist State (khilafah). They will then seek to take over the world, firstly by inviting countries to join them, but if they resist, they will be taken over by force. In their own words:

The aim of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to resume the Islamic way of life and to carry the Islamic Da’wah, i.e. to achieve the objective of solving the vital issue concerning the Muslims……This would be under the shadow of an Islamic State which is the Khilafah, where Muslims would appoint a Khalifah and pledge to listen to and obey him on the condition that he governs them with the Book of Allah and the  Sunnah of His Messenger, and on condition that he carries Islam as a message to the world by invitation and Jihad.

(The Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for change, Al-Khilafah Publications, Pg 24, 1999)

Despite its claims to the contrary, HT’s message is one of violence, not peace.

UPDATE:

If anybody had any doubt as to the accuracy of Raziq’s summary of HT’s violent and Antisemitic ideology, here is proof. Somebody decided to upload this article to the forum on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s official website. This is the very first response it received.

htforum

This entry was posted in Islamism, Your View and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

60 Comments

  1. Raziq
    Posted September 2, 2009 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    AR

    Assalamu-Alaikum

    When Iqbal said he believed the Turkish view was perfectly sound, he was talking about the Turkish secularists view of deposing the Ottoman sultan, dismantling the Ottoman state and having a republican form of government in it’s place. Please read the quote again:

    ““The first question that arises in this connection is this – should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkeys ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons or an elected assembly. The religous doctors of Islam in India and Eygpt have not yet commented on this point. Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly nessescary to argue this point. The republican form of government in not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam.” (Reconstruction Of Islamic Thought In Islam by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, pg 124)

    This is the view that Iqbal says is perfectly sound: “The republican form of government is not only consistent with Islam but also a nessescity in view of the new forces that set free in the world of Islam”

    Meaning that Mustafa kemal and Turkish secularists were perfectly justified in dismantling the Ottoman state and creating the Turkish republic.

    I have not misquoted brother, it’s you who has misread/misintepreted Iqbal’s quote. Can you acknowledge this point first before we discuss further?
    This seems to be the main problem, you are not reading the references in the correct context and this is why our discussion is not moving forward.

    Also, the one reference you cited from Suleman’s time, still does not prove they called themselves ‘Caliph’.

    Can you ackowledge your misreading of Iqbal first brother? if not then it’s no point discussing further.

    Jaza-kallah

  2. AR
    Posted September 2, 2009 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

    Raziq

    I did indeed misread the point. My question remains unsanswered so please respond in kind: provide the proof that the majority of scholars did not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs.

    Regarding Iqbal my question also remains unanswered – where does he state he does not recognise the Ottoman Caliphs – even with the correct reading of your quote, it is about republicanism, not the fact he does not recognise the Ottoman Caliph. Please provide a reference.

    And finally please address my questions that indicated you were misquoting some of the other scholars in my last post.

    JZK.

  3. Posted September 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    provide the proof that the majority of scholars did not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs.

    Fraid it doesn’t work like that matey. It’s not up to Raziq to prove a negative, it’s up to you to prove the positive – that the majority of scholars recognised the Ottomans as Caliphs.

  4. Ali
    Posted September 2, 2009 at 8:28 PM | Permalink

    Your wrong Yossarin – AR has made no assertion either way on this point so has nothing to prove – he is questioning Raziq on what he said. Raziq made an assertion, it is upto him to prove his assertion by simply quoting the list of scholars who stated they did not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs or point to the academic research undertaken by someone who has concluded what he is stating. He has already tried unsucessfully to respond above and failed as he is misquoting the scholars as AR has shown above. None of Raziq’s friends can help him it appears – maybe you should all just attack AR’s personality and he may go away “defeated”…

    By the way Raziq, whilst your at it, can you also provide the source to say Nabhani was a former baathist – or did you make that up too? I hope you will reply – unlike your history of evading questions :-)

  5. AR
    Posted September 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

    Not proving a negative is a myth – it is possible to prove a negative. EG This room does not have more than 2 objects in it can be proven by counting the objects in the room and showing the number of objects is less or equal to two. Have a look at this simple discussion that explains further http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

    Raziq in fact made a positive assertion, namely, most scholars held an opinion about the Ottoman Caliphs (ie they disputed their title) – that can be proven by providing a list of all scholars who held an opinion in the Ottomans and showing the majority opinions disputed their title.

    Raziq cannot do it as it probably did not happen – either way, I held no fixed opinion on this point until he raised the issue and it appears from the brief research I did regarding his limited six scholars which he hasn’t still provided any references for that he is misquoting some (or maybe all) of them and cannot provide a majority – I have cited references that seem to go against what he has said. (BTW The quote from Suleman’s time cited a scholar who was defending Ottoman use of the title which Raziq appears not to have read the source text in full if at all. Either way the onus is on you to prove majority – I make no assertions either way until I investigate the matter and am simply questioning your assertions.)

  6. shafa
    Posted September 4, 2009 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    Raziq ia one confused bunny- on here he argues the Ottomans were not a legitamate Islamic authority while on the Hasan al Banna thread he criticises him for saying exactly the same thing

    “According to Banna, the Ottomans and every other non-Arab Muslim power had not properly understood Islam. Banna lists this as one of the reasons why these Muslim empires failed in the past:

    The transfer of authority to non-Arabs: Persians at one time, at another, the Mamluks, Turks and others who had never had the genuine taste of Islam, and whose hearts had never been illuminated with the light of the Qur’an because of the difficulty they encountered in trying to grasp its concepts, even though they read the words of Allah (swt)…

    (Between Yesterday and Today by Hasan al-Banna, Pg 5, Prelude Ltd, 1997)

    This is a strange statement considering that the Ottoman Muftis had been giving fatwas to Muslims around the world for over 500 years. It was also under the Ottoman Turks that Muslim power reached its zenith. But none of this mattered to Banna, as far as he was concerned only his party had the correct political model.”

  7. shafa
    Posted September 4, 2009 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    Since you zionists/neo-cons at Spitton support Israel, the US, India etc invading Muslim lands am not quite sure why you dont support
    1) Muslims fighting back against invaders
    2) Muslims doing the same

  8. Posted September 4, 2009 at 1:34 PM | Permalink

    Since you zionists/neo-cons at Spitton support Israel, the US, India etc invading Muslim lands am not quite sure why you dont support

    Where do we do that?

  9. bananabrain
    Posted September 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    yossarian – i refer you to my comment here:

    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2388/comment-page-1#comment-11539

    what a one-trick pony.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  10. Raziq
    Posted September 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    Shafa,

    If you Read my post correctly I was highlighting Hasan al-Banna’s racist views against non-Arabs and not endorsing the Ottoman political system.

    Please read before commenting.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting