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.
60 Comments
Excellent piece and solid references!
Come on guys how dare you slander the sincere brothers who are working to an exclusively political method. Don’t you know they are working to ban sex education in schools and getting halal meals into hospitals. Ahhh aren’t they so nice, I wish I could give them a hug………..NOT!
Was this the same Grand Mufti who recruited Albanian Muslims into the SS who then went on to massacre 60,000 Jews and Gypsies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpqemuwsV24&feature=related
Hi Abu Wanabee – hadn’t seen you around for a while – thought we’d lost you,
Al-Masri
I can’t wait to see the Hizbis come and explain this lot away…
:-0
Top piece.
Doctrinal and political emphases may vary between group to group but extreme jew-hatred is the common thread that runs through Islamist ideologies like the letters “BRIGHTON ROCK” runs through Brighton rock.
Raziq,
“Being a former Ba’athist, Nabhani incorporated the organizational principles of Marxism-Leninism into the structure of his new party” -> Please provide evidence that Nabhani was a Ba’athist. He had Ba’athist colleagues, but there is no evidence in any of his writings, even prior to the establishment of HT that he embraced any form of socialism.
The structure of the HT is very simple and in conformance to Islamic Principles. Haven’t you read Takatul? Obviously not.
Your selective quoting from the fundamental quest is a sham. You failed to quote from page 160-161, when the Jordanians tried to accuse the hizb of justifying violence by using ahadith which talk about opposing a ruler using the sword, to which the hizb replied:
“This situation does not arise today because all rulers fail to govern according to Islam, and in fact came to power in states that already applied unbelief. It is therefore not permitted to oppose rulers in Muslim countries at present by the sword in the party’s opinion.”
The hizb then reiterated its absolute repudiation of violence.
Raziq says,
“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).”
You say that you are contextualising your statements, when clearly you have taken this out of context. Clearly he does not say “all Jews “ as he makes a clear distinction between those Jewish people who legitimately lived in Palestine under the shade of the Ottoman Caliphate and those who by force took Palestinian land and forced the Palestinian people into the ghetto:
“None of the Jews in Palestine who arrived after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire” implying this injunction is clearly not against those Jewish people who lived there during the Ottoman Caliphate.
As proven in countless other posts to this site, Islamic sources and humanitarianism morals justify violence against those who force you off your land and property. The Zionist Jews, who settled in Israel with the help of the British, forced the Palestinians off their land into a ghetto. Palestinians have the Islamic and humanitarian right to fight and take back their property until they have achieved that.
So there is nothing shocking about that statement. On the contrary, it is shocking to read the shallow understanding you and your colleagues have of this reality.
Raziq misquotes,
“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.”
There is a clear context here:
“If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims”
Clearly, this leaflet is not referring to civilian planes. Rather it is referring to military planes of countries which are at war with Muslims. If a plane full of Jewish settlers is on its way to Palestine, where those settlers will steal and occupy Palestinian land and force Palestinians into the ghetto, it no longer remains a civilian plane. Rather it is a plane full of individuals who proclaim war on the Palestinians and come to willingly occupy and kill them. The distinction is clear, but blinded by the need to impress your new found friends you fail to see this distinction.
Raziq states,
“Again, it doesn’t make a distinction between Zionists and Jews because HT believes in killing ‘all’ Jews of fighting age within Israel.”
You answer your own point in your own statement without realising it. Clearly Muslims are at war with Israel, as evidently it oppresses Muslims on many fronts. As mentioned before, Palestinians have a right to kill those who come to kill and subjugate them.
Raziq states,
“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).”
You obviously have very little understanding of the Islamic concept of physical Jihad, so again give an incorrect interpretation to make your friends happy.
One of the aims of physical Jihad is to remove oppression, tyranny and injustice which permeate across the world. Unlike your ideological masters who subjugate countries and suck all their resources, the Islamic Caliphate will offer a model of justice to the world. The Islamic state will use all means at its disposal to remove oppression and tyranny in the world and unlike your ideological masters, will sincerely respond to calls for justice and an end to oppression.
I have already rebutted the incorrect interpretation made of AQZ’s article. Read it.
Raziq states,
“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.”
Again your selective quoting from the fundamental quest exposes your amateurish capability to properly research. On Page 1 she states:
“He..submitted an appeal to the Supreme Muslim Council, requesting it to acknowledge his competence in the legal sciences, and to appoint him as a judge. It is possible that this correspondence with the Council introduced him to Hajj Amin al Husseini who headed the organisation”
So his relationship with Hajj Amin was clearly professional and does not in any way imply what you are falsely implying.
Clearly, HT is a non violent political party. It states clearly that it uses non violent means to bring about much needed change in the Muslim world. HT clearly defines policies towards Israel, which are in line with Islamic injunctions and clearly not in contradiction with humanitarian principles.
Violence is clearly sanctioned in the Quran to defend and remove oppression. Some scholars contextualise these verses, others say they are general:
“And fight in the Way of Allâh[] those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors.
“And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
“But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (all and every kind of) worship is for Allâh. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zâlimûn (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (Al Baqarah: 190-193)
“And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allâh, and for those weak, ill¬treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help.” (An Nisa – 75)
“Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity.
“It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allâh forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the Zâlimûn (wrong-doers those who disobey Allâh).” (Al Mumtahinah: 8-9)
“Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikûn wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (At Taubah: 5)
“But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight the leaders of disbelief for surely their oaths are nothing to them, so that they may stop” (At Taubah: 11)
“Those who believe in Allâh and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from fighting with their properties and their lives, and Allâh is the All-Knower of Al-Muttaqûn” (At Taubah: 44)
And there are countless ahadith also justifying the use of violence in many contexts.
HT has clearly stated that its basis of existence and work is in accordance to Islamic sources. The Islamic sources do not justify violence as a means to bring about radical change in the Islamic land today. But clearly, the Islamic sources allow the use of violence against those who oppress and kill your people. Israel and its allies clearly undertake these actions against the Palestinians and many other nations around the world.
For sure all this will be hard to grasp for a one dimensional junior researcher and his shallow friends.
Superb article Raziq – it’s funny to see A.R squirming above and trying to justify the conclusive proofs you have provided. It’s the usual predictable A.R nonsense…out of context….blah blah blah…you don’t understand HT properly blah blah blah….the guys nuts!
On the issue of hijacking aircraft, clearly HT is talking about ‘all jews’ if they were not then they should have said ‘only Military aircraft’, they didn’t!
Also the khalifat state’s foriegn policy will be jihad on those muslim countries that don’t join it. This is truy shocking! very non-violent!
A.R doesn’t try to justify Ata Abu Rishta’s views because he can’t. Ata Abu Risha stated:
“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.”
Now this jerk is the global leader of HT! and they still say they are non-violent, pull the other one A.R. Your tactics may work with a few college drop outs and some on the left but not with us!
This piece is the final nail in HT’s coffin!
Great work
Poor Abdul Rahman, tries to defend his group but he can’t…tut tut
HT has now been exposed big time!!!
Was that even a defence, gosh standard must be slipping in HT. Again he is just talking to himself.
Didn’t realize I was so missed thanks Misri.
A.R you complete prat how is invading Muslim countries and killing millions a means to get rid of tyranny. You are the ones who will be creating tyranny because the ummah will resist you evil people with everything they have.
You khwarij traitors will be hunted down and taken out by the true brave mujahideen. Shame on you for bringing fitna to the ummah. Your group is one of the signs of kiyamah.
Oh I forgot you are fighting sex education, that makes you ok. Bloody amateur, give me a seasoned hizbi to debate.
It is brilliant to read comments, as per above, from individuals who love congratulating themselves on evidently shallow grounds, for it exposes their true nature.
It also clearly establishes the amateurish nature of people on this site who are eager to embrace views, however miscontextualised, as long as those views conform to their own.
Do you really think you rebutted the AQZ quote, did you he’ll. You just went off on one of your pathetically predictable pond winded rants that evade the central point. The only thing that you have rebutted is the assumption that you may have a brain. Let me guess your a science or technology student aren’t you because they are so shit at understanding politics, history or theology. I think you also suffer from split personality unless you hizbis are taking it in turns at being A.R.
You have successfully confirmed all of our worst views about the khwarij racist cult known as HT. BTW if your South Asian you have no chance of being amir, prepare to serve your Arab masters you sycophant. Learn to respect yourself.
Since you love the word so much – you amateur.
HT is build on misquotes and out of context passages, you prats should be used to it. The Daily Star is more factual then your website which is petrified of critical comments. The birds are better too.
Abu Wanabe,
You are just that, a “Wanabe” in all respects. Clearly you had a very bad education, probably failing exams and retakes. You probably went to a poly but failed to gain a degree. You tried to make friends in Islamic circles, but probably failed. You probably tried to give Dawah, but did not have the stomach for it. You probably attempted writing academic lit, but failed when analysed by junior grads. So you joined this looney crew, who cowardly sit behind a PC and attack sincere Islamic groups using pseudonyms.
Befriending Israel, neo cons and the Shayateen will lead you to hell fire, where you will join your mutazillite cousins.
A.R if this site is so bad and full of amatuers as you say then why the hell do you keep coming back here and posting your rubbish?
If you don’t like this site then get lost!
Do electronic hijra : )
Zaloom,
Clearly, this site is a munkar which, like all other munkars, should be addressed.
A.R. That seems like an accurate description of most HT members. Oh and I forgot to say – you amateur.
You really need to find another word, try a thesaurus. Looks like your masters at TI are running out of ammunition to give you. Can’t you just admit that you are part of a Arab cult that just doesn’t understand politics? You just remind me of the BNP.
Since you are obsessed with my identity, I’m so flattered, let’s make a deal. You ask your Arab masters to allow critical comments on the Hizb website and I will reveal my identity.
You can even have a photo if it turns you on.
Isn’t it great exercising free speech whilst denying it to other you bloody hypocrites. Oh I forgot to add – you amateur.
Get me a proper Hizbi to debate.
Abu “Wanabe”,
Clearly, you only like to have meaningful discussions with those who agree with your views. Along with hiding your identity out of pure intellectual fear, only discussing with those who agree with you is clear cowardice.
A sincere word of advice. If you keep patting your self and your mates on the back, and only talk objectively to those who agree with your view, then you will continue down the road of dellusion not recognising truth from falsehood and carry on looking like a failed “wanabe”.
But like Allah (SWT), Lord of the Alamin, mentions in the Quran, some people are deaf, dumb and blind, so they will never learn objectivity.
I take it you don’t want to accept my generous offer then you hypocrite. You have exposed for the deceitful liar you are once again. Don’t dare ask me about my identity again, especially when you hide your own.
Objectivity is a wonderful thing and so lacking in HT. You guys are like brainwashed cult members. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence you will desperately cling to you bizarre belief system. You really don’t know how to evaluate evidences and are convinced by your own propaganda. Such a deep pit of self delusion and self righteousness you dwell in. Many of you are beyond reproach and will always resort to emotions when taken apart in an article.
But if you are interested in a serious one to one discussion let me know and we cab exchange email adresses and start.
A copy of the Hizb ut-Tahrir statement on hijacking aeroplanes was once uploaded to the Internet.
i suppose we should be on our guard for hizbis with clipboards at check-in:
“is this flight full of settlers on their way to oppress the palestinians?”
honestly, the more one pokes around inside hizbi ideology the more like a big mac it feels: too much of it in your diet and you’ll go into toxic shock and, on the whole, best not to ask too many questions about the ingredients and the longer you leave it around the house, the worse it’ll smell.
b’shalom
bananabrain
What happened to A.R?
Another disappearing act when he’s exposed : )
Unlike you guys, who sit around slandering and mocking people cowaring behind pseudonyms, some of us have real jobs and responsibilities.
As a member of HT you should know that the party comes first : ) before your work, family and friends. Didn’t anyone tell you that? what kind of member are you???? you don’t even know the culture properly. I can give you a few halaqas if your mushrif T.I is no good. Let me know.
Oh and talking about pseudonyms, why don’t you ask your mushrif T.I to reveal his true identity? why does he and his chums hide behind pseudonyms? why the hypocrisy bro? Allah (swt) hates the hypocrites.
We all have ‘real jobs’ but we also need to address the munkar of HT and the MCB : )
Sorry but its our Islamic obligation bro!
Abdul Rehman;
you call sitting on the Muslim Safety Forum a real job?
Bollocks.
x
Aisha
LOL Aisha!
Jesus! Times have really moved on since the HT 90′s golden age!
Right, that’s it, im joining the Occult. I’m sick of you Muslims!
AR
You’re wasting your time discussing with these people. From what I have seen and read there is no serious scholarship amongst any of them.
They insult, abuse and harrass people into accepting their version of events (which is little more than twisting and decontextualising texts and works of classical scholars) and belittle you if you have any difference, fail to accept when they are wrong, never recognise any valid point you may make, and at the same time talk about the aim of this site is “to genuinely make things better”. For example, the author of this article, Raziq, in a different post claimed the majority of scholars did not recognise the Ottoman Caliphs – when challenged they all became abusive, emotional and demanding of proofs (which were provided) but have never provided proofs for such absurd comments nor do they recognise that they may be wrong.
In my humble opinion they are little more than Westernised secularists, obsessed with the fashionable yet intellectually flawed ideas of secularism democracy and freedom, unable to seriously critique western philosophical political constructs and resort to attempting to fuse them with Islam – activities of those who have historically had no intellectual backbone, followers rather than leaders… Their breed (and associated secular parties) is on the decline and in their death throes across the Muslim world and I have found their counterparts behave in much the same way as them…
This site is only good for chit chat amongst themselves – I’ve seen few people other than them visit it or post anything let alone benefit from any discussions on this site – I unfortunately have not benefitted whatsoever having come with a genuinely open mind (and no, I am not with HT).
That’s my twopence worth … ws
Javed,
Before we can assess who accepted the Ottomans and who didn’t, we need to see what they themseves claimed. That’s why I asked you ‘when did the Ottomans become Caliphs’ , but you ignored my question.
Regarding Scholars who didn’t accept the Ottomans: Imam al-Ghazali and al-Mawardi had expressed the view that only a descendent of the Quraysh could be Caliph. Almost all Arabs followed this opinion, including scholars such as:
Imam Ahmad Raza Khan
Abdul Wahab Najdi
Imam Pir Mehr Ali Shah
Muhammad Abduh
Rashid Rida
Another reason why most scholars rejected the Ottomans was because the Ottomans were loyal allies of the B ritish.
The idea that the Ottoman Sultan was Cailph over all Muslims was a relatively recent development. The Mughals & the Safavids never submitted to the overlordship of the Ottoman Sultan. It was actually during colonial rule in India that, with full British encouragement and support, the idea of accepting the Ottoman Sultan as the Universal Caliph was propagated amongst Indian Muslims. The British realised the value of having the Ottoman Sultan proclaimed the Caliph of all Muslims, this could be used to control Indian Muslims. The British welcomed and encouraged propaganda on behalf of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. In return the Ottomans would serve the British interests in India well.
One example is in 1798 the Ottoman Caliph sent a letter to Tipu Sultan, telling him that the British were his friends and asking him to refrain from hostile action against them. The letter was sent to Tipu not directly but through Lord Wellesly who was leading the British forces against Tipu Sultan! Another example is when the Ottoman Caliph came out in support of the British during ‘The Indian Mutiny’. The Ottoman Sultan Abdul Majid condemned the ‘mutineers’ and called upon Indian Muslims to remain loyal to the British. The British, he said, were ‘Defenders of Islam’.
The Ottomans eventually sided with the Germans during WW1, the Britsh then turned to the Arabs, who had always been hostile to Ottoman rule, and got them to fight against them. Important point here is that most Arabs (including scholars) were against Ottoman rule, as soon as they got the chance they liberated themselves.
Look at the whole picture.
I’ve noticed the same Jav…
I’ve also noticed the same!
Raziq
Jav seems to have a point – you keep repeating most scholars do not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs, yet have to provide proof. Listing 6 “modernist/extreme/controversial” scholars does not make majority – between the 16th century and 20th century there were tens of thousands of scholars…
Ghazali and Mawardi appeared before the Ottomans so they did not express a view about the Ottomans. Their views on what they considered as conditions for Caliph cannot be considered especially as there are scholars who differed with them (Juwayni and Ibn Khaldun amongst others as well as Nebhani from the top of my head). What are the actual references for the other scholars you have selected? You mentioned earlier that Iqbal did not accept the Ottomans as Caliphs however he supported the Caliphate movement of India which would suggest you may have misunderstood him too.
Imam Ali did not use the term Caliph for himself and Umar used the term Amir al-Moumineen – in your opinion does that mean there was no Khilafah during their terms? In “The politicization of Islam: reconstructing identity, state, faith…” by Kemal H. Karpat he (amongst other writers) document the title of Caliph used by the Ottoman ruler Abdul Hamid (and the fact Abdul Hamid met many religious scholars, knowledgeable people etc and none disputed his title with him p.238) so you seem to even be incorrect in your claim that the Ottomans did not use this title for themselves…
Raziq
The scholar Jalaludin Dawwani (1502) during Caliph Suleman’s rule addressed the management and rule of the Hijaz was more important than the issue of Qurayshite descent and validated the legitimacy of the Ottomans as Caliphs.
The Ottoman historian Lufti Pasha in 1562 discussed the permissibility of the Ottomans using the Caliphate title along with the Sultan title and addressed the issues relating to the Quraysh descendance.
The Treaty of Kucuk signed in 1774 with Russia cited conditions that Muslims under Russian rule would cite the Caliph in Friday hutbe.
The enemies of the Ottomans even recognised their claim to the title. Ali Abdul Razzaq argued the Ottomans used the Caliphate institution to defend their throne against attacks by rebels and the Young Turks publication in 1896 “Imamet ve Hilafet Risalesi” where they argue the Ottomans rulers were in breach of some of their Caliphate responsibilities. Even they understood the Ottomans were claiming the Caliphate title!
So your (and those who wrote the same as you) argument “even the Ottomans” did not call themselves Caliphs is incorrect…
Finally, you raise more issues of the Ottomans allying with the British etc, but again you don’t reference which scholars used that as justification against the Ottomans and their entitlement to Caliphate (as if allying temporarily with British is haram!?!) and in any case that happened at the end of Ottoman rule – the history of the Ottomans is several centuries…
I await the list of majority of scholars…
A.R,
Assalamu-Alaikum
You have only mentioned one scholar yourself! and was Nabhani not a controversial scholar? The problem with naming scholars is that you will just turn around and say they are controversial. So instead of just naming scholars (which you will find some way of rejecting) wouldn’t it be better to look at what the Ottomans themselves claimed?
If you believe they were Caliphs, can you tell me:
1) When did they become Caliphs and where did this event take place.
2) How did the Ottomans take Bayah from the Ummah?
3) What do you think of the Mughals claim to the Caliphate?
The first offical document in which the Ottoman Sultan was referred to as Caliph was in 1774 (when they were well in decline) but they only started using this title seriously in the 1860′s (with British encouragement). Before this the title was only used in a honorific sense, just like the Mughals who also called themselves Caliphs. Why was this title not used before 1774?
Regarding Iqbal, if you read his book ‘Reconstruction of Religous Thought’ he actually supports the idea of not having a Caliph. He also supports the Turks dissolving the caliphate and says this is Islamically justified.
According to Hasan al-Banna, the Ottomans never even understood Islam properly.
I look forward to your reply.
Raziq
Please reread my post – the earliest quote for the usage and justification of the title of Caliph is Suleman’s time not the 18th Century. Either way, you had said the Ottomans did not claim to be Caliphs and now are saying they claimed it in the 18th century – you have been proven wrong my brother and should just accept you had made a mistake.
By referring to Nebhani you missed the point which was being made namely the issue of Qurayshite descent is disputed amongst the classical scholars (and Nabhani for those who choose to follow him in the current century).
Stating the majority of scholars disputed the Ottomans as Caliphs surely should have some scholars out of the tens of thousands who are not disputed.
Again you have not provided a reference where Iqbal does not recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs – wanting change is one thing, not recognising them is another – please state where in his book he does not recognise them. And please, read what you have written earlier as you continuously move the goalposts and address different points not the one under discussion.
You had argued that “even” the Ottomans did not use the title in order to prove to br Javed that the majority of scholars did not recognise them. For the final time, please provide the list of scholars or proof for this or acknowledge your mistake – I think Br Javed has a valid point in his recent point – the Islamists I have spoken to have never made things up about the scholars… Not wanting to criticise you as I will await your answer, I have noticed secularists seem to have no qualms in misquoting or even making things up (see the Quilliam Foundation Director Majid Nawaz’s article about Dar al-Islam and see how he sadly misquotes and twists what the classical scholars say to justify his beliefs).
A.R
As well as avoiding the questions which I ask you, I think you also haven’t understood my previous posts brother. I said: the Ottomans never claimed to be ‘Caliphs’, if they were addressed as such (by others) then it was only in a honorific sense (like in Sulemans time). The Mughals were also addressed as ‘Caliphs’ in this way.
So my point is that the title ‘Caliph’ was only used by the Ottomans in a honorfic sense. It was only in the 1860′s (with british encouragement) that the Ottomans started using the title of ‘Caliph’ to imply head of all Muslims. (Reread earlier post on the British-Ottoman relationship)
It seems to me that you are deliberately not answering my questions and then claiming that i’m moving goalposts. The goalposts are the same as they were in my first post brother. I already told you the problem with listing scholars but again it seems you only chose to read what you want to read and ignore the rest of my post. Just in case you missed the questions I asked you, here they are again:
If you believe they(the Ottomans) were Caliphs, can you tell me:
1) When did they become Caliphs and where did this event take place.
2) How did the Ottomans take Bayah from the Ummah?
3) What do you think of the Mughals claim to the Caliphate?
I hope you will answer the questions this time and not keep claiming you are defending Br Javed. I’m sure he can defend himself.
Masalaama
Raziq
You alleged that the Ottomans never called themselves Caliphs and most scholars did not recognise them as being Caliphs.
Br Jav brought you to task by asking you to prove your assertion.
I brought you referenced examples of Ottoman rulers who called themselves Caliphs (whatever the ins and outs of that was is a separate issue) along with others who wrote in support of them – you keep adding more questions on ancillary points which I am not going to enter as it is a well known tactic used by those who cannot answer a question (it no way implies I cannot address the question – I can but choose not to in favour of resolving an open question).
I see it is pointless asking you to prove most scholars did not regard the Ottomans as Caliphs as you clearly cannot nor can you bring their names as such a thing has never happened.
JZK for your time in responding to me but unfortunately you have simply re-inforced my perception that secular Muslims make historical allegations they cannot substantiate and introduce ideas and doctrines alien to Islam. I think HT generally speaking are in accordance with classical scholarship and for someone who used to be with them you may have erred in the path you have taken – however to each his own.
I personally shall not continue with this discussion any further as I see it is not progressing and my time is valuable as is no doubt yours. I would recommend you consider what you write in future my brother in Islam.
ws
AR
Assalamu-Alaikum
I answered the question, only you chose to ignore the answer. I will try to make it simple for you.
Scholars:
Imam Ahmad Raza Khan – Founder of the Brewi movement
Ashraf Ali Thanvi- Founder of the Deobandi movement
Abdul Wahab Najdi – Founder of the Wahabi movement
Imam Pir Mehr Ali Shah- Sufi Scholar
Muhammad Abduh – al-Azhar Scholar
Rashid Rida – A Syrian Scholar
I only need to quote these scholars because they represent the majority.
The Brelvis, Wahabis and Deobandis, together, make up the majority of Muslims and they, as well as their scholars, all reject Ottoman claims to the Caliphate. I do not need to list each and every scholar in these movements to prove the point. I hope this is not too difficult for you to understand brother.
The Ottomans never claimed ‘Caliphate’ themselves until the 1860′s and with British backing. (Reread my previous posts)
I know HT believe the Ottomans were Caliphs but you need to look at the facts brother. Don’t just blindly follow fringe groups who don’t represent anyone. HT books aren’t even referenced, so how can you take them seriously?
Regarding Muhammad Iqbal, let’s see what he has to say on the Caliphate:
“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)
Iqbal also comments on Ibn khaldun’s view of Universal Caliphate;
“Ibn Khaldun, in his famous ‘Prolegomenia’, mentions three distinct views of the Idea of Universal Caliphate in Islam;
1) That Universal Imamate is a divine Institution and is consequently indispensable.
2) That it is merely a matter of expediency.
3) That there is no need for such an institution.
The last view was taken by the Khwarij. It seems modern Turkey has shifted from the first view to the second view i.e to the view of the Mu’tazilah who regarded Universal Imamate as a matter of expediency only. The Turks argue that in our political thinking we must be guided by our past experience which points unmistakenably to the fact that the idea of Universal ‘Imamate has failed in practise’.” (The Reconstruction Of Religous Thought in Islam by Allama Muhammad Iqbal, Pg 125)
I recommend you study history independently and don’t just take it from HT books and leaflets. Selectively reading posts and not accepting overwhelming evidence is actually a common tactic of the Islamists.
It’s a shame you don’t want to discuss anymore. You never even answered the questions I asked you. Nevermind, I hope your Ramadhan goes well.
Masalaama
What a load of rubbish.
Rashid Rida for example did accept the Ottomans are a caliphate, simply thought they were not very good. And loads of scholars did.
Imam Kawthari and Sheikh Mustafa Sabri, two sufi sheikhs, just as an example
Practically all of the azhar scholars of the time as well.
In fact most sufis today dream of the return of the ottoman caliphate
you either know very little or are simply a liar.
Excellent posts Raziq,
Great to see AR and his ilk squirming and trying to condemn you when they can no longer debate the points : )
I have to admit you decked Javed & AR (who now don’t want to debate anymore)
These Islamist liars and fabricators will never succeed.
May Allah (swt) bless you brother.
Keep up the good work!
AR has avoided all questions put to him. What a joker!
No need to debate these prats anymore Raziq – they don’t no how to discuss. Let them carry on targeting schools kids and university dropouts, that’s all they are good for. AR was just looking for a get out clause. After failing to find ‘red herrings’ he ran off, typical HT tactic!
Seriously, debating these jokers is a pure waste of time. You can give them all the evidence in the world and all they will do is ignore it and carry on repeating the same drivel. That’s what HT does to you.
AR got hammered and exposed big time!
He won’t be coming back anytime soon : – )
AA
Rashid Rida didn’t believe in having a Caliph as head of state. He believed there could be a role for a Caliph, but it had to be a purely spiritual one. Hence he supported the idea of having a spiritual Caliph with no political power. This is different to HT’s idea of a Caliph.
Please do not try and twist his ideas.
AR – give us T.I, he’s more of a challenge than you!
raziq – he believed that the caliphate was political and complained when the turks split the caliphate from the position of authority in 1922
Also – you lied/ are mistaken about the deobandis too
Ever heard of the khilafat movement????
AA
Most Indian Muslims believed that the Caliphate could only be held by someone who descended from the Quraysh clan. The Ottomans were not of Quraysh descent. They did not, therefore, satisfy an indispensable condition for Caliphate. This was also the opinion of Imam Ghazali amd Imam Mawardi. However:
“Maulana Abdul Bari of Firangi Mahal issued a fatwa in February 1919 laying down inter alia that Quraysh descent was not a necessary condition for Caliphate. Lined up against Bari were such major figures in Islamic learning as Imam al-Ghazali and al-Mawardi. His ex cathedra judgement was rejected not only by the Barelvis but also by influential groups of ‘Deobandi’ Ulama. Minault records the fact that several senior Ulama refused to sign the fatwa. Amongst those who signed, says Minault, the Ulama of Deoband, Punjab and Bengal were conspicuous by their absence.” (Sanyal Usha 1995 Devotional Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and his Movement, 1870-1920′, New Delhi)
The Deobandis also believed in the concept of ‘composite nationalism’, ever heard of it?
You shouldn’t lie/accuse in Ramadhan brother without knowing the facts.
Masalaama
Raziq
again i say you are either a liar or ignorant
I suggest you return and read Minaults book first hand. Then you might realise exactly how much widespread support there was for the khilafat movement, including the majority of the deobandi ulama, even if “several” refused to sign a fatwa (which doesn’t mean they didn’t recognise the caliphate since there is the concept of the one who takes the caliphate by force and therefore though he may not fulfil all the conditions he is accepted)
youalso have no response to the position of Rida which you misrepresented – or the other ulama who i mentioned who all supported the ottomans.
wihch undermines the whole stupid statement of yours that the majority of muslims rejected the ottomans as being a caliphate.
anyhow if you are a liar – its no use to discuss cause you will keep misquoting and misleading
and if you are an ignorant its no use to discuss since stupidity cannot be debated.
AA
Fear Allah (swt) brother and refrain from slander, especially in this holy month of Ramadhan.
I’ve answered your questions in my previous posts. Read them again and stop repeating yourself.
Masalaama.
Raziq
I hope you are sincere in your efforts unlike much of the rabble here – I will have one final attempt at moving the discussion forward.
Please address the point that is at question – there are no doubt numerous interesting and important issues we can discuss, but they detract and are not as simple as you make them to be (for instance, academic research I have read argues the Brtish were trying to install an Arab Caliph instead of the Ottoman Caliph – the Sharif of Mecca being a candidate – as opposed to the Ottoman Caliphate being used as a British tool – this requires a separate discussion thread). My question of “proving majority of scholars did not accept the Ottomans as Caliphs” came first and I would appreciate if we finalise it one way or the other and maybe discuss the others subsequently.
You may believe your questions are linked, I don’t and thus do not want to enter them as they will become long discussions in themselves – for instance the notion of the Caliphate transfer in 1519 maybe fiction or fact, however, it does not assist your argument as the Ottomans did use the title Caliph from the 15th century onwards, a fact not lost on academic researchers (some of which I have already cited).
You stated the majority of scholars did not accept the Ottomans as Caliphs in an unqualified way and have still have not provided the list of majority of scholars that was asked of you from the 15th to 20th century. You appear to be changing your argument to modernist and rebellious scholars of the eighteenth/nineteenth century which was not you original argument, which is above for all to see.
You listed six unreferenced and and somewhat questionable characters that by any stretch of the imagination don’t count as majority. Your logic is that many other scholars agreed with these 6 (could you please list these many scholars and their references so they along with these 6 can be verified!) most are post nineteenth century and cannot comprise the majority of scholars from the 15th to the 20th century. I have yet to have seen any academic work where someone has researched what majority of scholars have said – you may be the first to do it (alhumdulillah).
Can you also provide specific references for the 6 scholars as you have already misquoted Iqbal and I have noticed the following discrepencies against some of the scholars you have cited leading me to doubt your referencing:
The researcher Oliver Scharbrodt in his comparative study comments “(Abduh, Afghani and Rashid Rida) plea for Muslim unity under the “firmest bond” of the Ottoman Caliph…” and “In 1884 Abduh left Beirut and joined his mentor in Paris where they founded the secret society Al-Urwa al-Wuthqa(The firmest Bond). Abduh and Afghani used the Quranic term to name their society and applied it to the Ottoman Caliphate held by Sultan Abdul Hamid II”.
Micheal Laffan comments on Ridda’s views saying “(his view was) from the Ummayad dynasties onwards the claim for Caliphate was spurious… however the Ottoman claim should be accepted in the interests of Muslim unity”.
Ayesha Jalal in Self and sovereignty: individual and community in South Asian Islam since 1850, states that there was an apparent CONSENSUS for the Ottoman Caliphate
Ahmed Raza Khan believed the Caliphate did not exist after the first four Caliphs – his view is thus irrelevant to the discussion. Interestingly in his Tahzib Al-Akhlaq he praises the reforms in the Ottoman lands!
The Iqbal reference does not state that he doesn’t recognise the Ottomans as Caliphs – your own reference states, “Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly nessescary to argue this point…” – contradicting you.
Arguing the Ottomans called themselves Caliphs only from the 18th century onwards is incorrect as per provided references dating back to the 15th century which highight this term was in use and scholars were debating the legitimacy thereof. Likewise stating they used the term spiritually, or not in accordance with HT or from a given point of time onwards is irrelevant – br Jav did not qualify the usage of the term nor did you at the start – you simply stated the Ottomans did not even call themselves Caliphs and now you admit they did so you have failed in your argument on that point.
Finally, Br Raziq, if you cannot provide this list of scholars, as I am fully aware you cannot, please simply say so. Maybe the hecklers may be helpful enough to assist you but I personally doubt it as they seem to specialise in heckling on all posts rather than contribute any substance.
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
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.”
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
Where do we do that?
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
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.