Post by aaq on Sept 12, 2008 22:34:19 GMT
From Sunna-Principles... ? by sh. GF Haddad ?
As a modern Islamic party championing the caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is a paradox. Like any other power group, HT is centered on politics and proclaims on its official website that it is "a political group and not a priestly (sic) one. Nor is it an academic, educational, or a charity group." Try for a moment to put such a self-definition in the mouth of the scholarly, humanitarian and devout Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab and you will see why HT hardly evokes the mentality and behaviour of the Islamic caliphate.
HT members are modernist Islamists or, metaphorically speaking, tie-clad purists. They're very much anti-monarchy and they believe that kingdom and caliphate are mutually exclusive. They would consider the Caliph Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan unqualified for caliphate, as he was the first king in Islam, even if the _Ummah_ became immeasurably stronger under him.
HT makes a great deal of "restoring the caliphate"; but which caliphate exactly? The Ottomans were deposed in 1924 but the North African Idrisi caliphate not only was never deposed, it survives to this very day! Should HT object that the Idrisis are kings, well, so were the Ottomans. Indeed, the Idrisis were a strong power as well and they never recognised the Ottoman caliphate's primacy, as shown by Khalid Blankinship in his book, _The History of the Caliphate_.
Out of respect for the Prophet's hadith that "The Caliphs are from Quraysh," the Ottomans never called themselves caliphs but only sultans. King Muhammad VI of Morocco and King Abdullah of Jordan descend from Quraysh. True supporters of caliphate should begin by proposing someone like one of them to lead the _Ummah_. It is agreed, incidentally, that a caliph doesn't have to possess the most knowledge or the greatest character to be caliph.
HT speakers called upon the polices and armed forces of Muslim countries to "implement the Shariah" – a call redolent of sedition and a thorough flouting of the true Islamic requirement of such implementation which is topdown and horizontal, not from the ground up. No wonder: HT's supposed commitment to peace has been called wholly tactical. And HT Indonesia spokesman Ismail Yusanto's words to _The Brunei Times_ (Friday 10 August, 2007 issue) could not have sounded more hollow: "Islamic kingdoms such as Brunei Darussalam will fare the same way the other Islamic kingdoms used to fare under the caliphate." Hello? _The Caliphate itself_ was an Islamic kingdom for 1,262 of its 1,292 years!
Of paramount importance for a Muslim's _aqidah_ and politics, the Noble Prophet (Salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa Sallam), upon him blessings and peace, categorically prohibited the overthrow of rulers as long as they do not prevent people from worshipping. The pious early Muslims always emphasized that the dua and support for the sultan is dua and support for all the Muslims under him. "The sultan is the shadow of Allah on earth," said Kaab al-Ahbar. They did not look at politics as a pure power play in materialistic terms the way Islamists do today. Rather, they considered the regime a direct reflection of the population's own goodness or evil. Sadly or happily, we deserve one another.
If the political order is unislamic, the whole practice of Islam is undermined and made insignificant as it becomes confined to mosques and religious schools without enlivening other important institutions or the crucial aspects of an individual's daily life. But a just, pious ruler who makes a constant effort to remind people to obey Allah and the Prophet in every detail of their lives such as the Five Pillars, transactions, and character, is a Khalifah right there in front of our eyes. It would not be he who is "not right islamically"; it would be we who are failing to follow islamically.
A BBC correspondent cited a correct assessment questioning whether HT was a global force. "The evidence suggests it is a fringe group with a utopian agenda and a skillful command of public relations," it said. What is more important for Sunni Muslims to know, HT was founded by a man whose beliefs were outside the pale as well. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani wrote in his books _al-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah_ (The Muslim's Personality) and _Nizam al-Islam_ (The Islamic Order) that "human acts are not part of _qada'_ but are a matter of free will" and "guidance and misguidance are from the acts of creatures and not from Allah". Anyone who studied basic aqidah or has read the very first hadith in Sahih Muslim knows that this is textbook qadarism, the equivalent of ultra-libertarianism which is considered a rank heresy in Sunni Islam.
By protesting, out of the blue, that they're "a political group and not a priestly one", HT may be saying they want power but they're not Ayatollahs - an admission of sorts that they aim at a Sunni version of the Iranian revolution. Therein, perhaps, lies the secret of their PR success in parts of the Muslim world. Many modern Muslims are fond of the idea of radical change and will respond positively to a panislamic call - as almost every Muslim would want to - even if its promoters' model offers nothing to write home about.
As a modern Islamic party championing the caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is a paradox. Like any other power group, HT is centered on politics and proclaims on its official website that it is "a political group and not a priestly (sic) one. Nor is it an academic, educational, or a charity group." Try for a moment to put such a self-definition in the mouth of the scholarly, humanitarian and devout Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab and you will see why HT hardly evokes the mentality and behaviour of the Islamic caliphate.
HT members are modernist Islamists or, metaphorically speaking, tie-clad purists. They're very much anti-monarchy and they believe that kingdom and caliphate are mutually exclusive. They would consider the Caliph Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan unqualified for caliphate, as he was the first king in Islam, even if the _Ummah_ became immeasurably stronger under him.
HT makes a great deal of "restoring the caliphate"; but which caliphate exactly? The Ottomans were deposed in 1924 but the North African Idrisi caliphate not only was never deposed, it survives to this very day! Should HT object that the Idrisis are kings, well, so were the Ottomans. Indeed, the Idrisis were a strong power as well and they never recognised the Ottoman caliphate's primacy, as shown by Khalid Blankinship in his book, _The History of the Caliphate_.
Out of respect for the Prophet's hadith that "The Caliphs are from Quraysh," the Ottomans never called themselves caliphs but only sultans. King Muhammad VI of Morocco and King Abdullah of Jordan descend from Quraysh. True supporters of caliphate should begin by proposing someone like one of them to lead the _Ummah_. It is agreed, incidentally, that a caliph doesn't have to possess the most knowledge or the greatest character to be caliph.
HT speakers called upon the polices and armed forces of Muslim countries to "implement the Shariah" – a call redolent of sedition and a thorough flouting of the true Islamic requirement of such implementation which is topdown and horizontal, not from the ground up. No wonder: HT's supposed commitment to peace has been called wholly tactical. And HT Indonesia spokesman Ismail Yusanto's words to _The Brunei Times_ (Friday 10 August, 2007 issue) could not have sounded more hollow: "Islamic kingdoms such as Brunei Darussalam will fare the same way the other Islamic kingdoms used to fare under the caliphate." Hello? _The Caliphate itself_ was an Islamic kingdom for 1,262 of its 1,292 years!
Of paramount importance for a Muslim's _aqidah_ and politics, the Noble Prophet (Salla Allahu ta'ala 'alayhi wa Sallam), upon him blessings and peace, categorically prohibited the overthrow of rulers as long as they do not prevent people from worshipping. The pious early Muslims always emphasized that the dua and support for the sultan is dua and support for all the Muslims under him. "The sultan is the shadow of Allah on earth," said Kaab al-Ahbar. They did not look at politics as a pure power play in materialistic terms the way Islamists do today. Rather, they considered the regime a direct reflection of the population's own goodness or evil. Sadly or happily, we deserve one another.
If the political order is unislamic, the whole practice of Islam is undermined and made insignificant as it becomes confined to mosques and religious schools without enlivening other important institutions or the crucial aspects of an individual's daily life. But a just, pious ruler who makes a constant effort to remind people to obey Allah and the Prophet in every detail of their lives such as the Five Pillars, transactions, and character, is a Khalifah right there in front of our eyes. It would not be he who is "not right islamically"; it would be we who are failing to follow islamically.
A BBC correspondent cited a correct assessment questioning whether HT was a global force. "The evidence suggests it is a fringe group with a utopian agenda and a skillful command of public relations," it said. What is more important for Sunni Muslims to know, HT was founded by a man whose beliefs were outside the pale as well. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani wrote in his books _al-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah_ (The Muslim's Personality) and _Nizam al-Islam_ (The Islamic Order) that "human acts are not part of _qada'_ but are a matter of free will" and "guidance and misguidance are from the acts of creatures and not from Allah". Anyone who studied basic aqidah or has read the very first hadith in Sahih Muslim knows that this is textbook qadarism, the equivalent of ultra-libertarianism which is considered a rank heresy in Sunni Islam.
By protesting, out of the blue, that they're "a political group and not a priestly one", HT may be saying they want power but they're not Ayatollahs - an admission of sorts that they aim at a Sunni version of the Iranian revolution. Therein, perhaps, lies the secret of their PR success in parts of the Muslim world. Many modern Muslims are fond of the idea of radical change and will respond positively to a panislamic call - as almost every Muslim would want to - even if its promoters' model offers nothing to write home about.
