Sunday, December 15, 2013

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 1


Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 

This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. 


Part One:

When the calamities descend upon the Ummah that are followed up by occurrences in which Zhulm (oppression) dominates and the affairs of the people are handed to those who are not qualified to undertaken them, the people begin to grumble and complain. This discontent transfers to becoming a general sensation and feeling of being oppressed. This sensation becomes embodied within some of the people which then drives them into activity and to move to repel the oppression, get rid of Fasaad (corruption), raise the status of their society and Ummah and to revive with her to reach the level that they wish for her to attain. It is only natural that these people will then resort to structuring (forming a group) so as to establish the capable strength required to bring change according to their estimation and for them to join upon a goal or an idea that they would gather round comprising of their goals and the path that they will proceed in accordance to.

Due to what our Islamic world suffers from in terms of decline and backwardness and what it endures in terms of oppression and abuse we see that many movements have come one after another that aim at stopping its decline, elevating its status and to revive with it to the highest elevation that befits it. However all of these movements for more than 100 years have failed to achieve what they strove for and the evidence for their failure is the reality of the Islamic world today. It has continued in its decline until it has reached the very bottom or near to that and we have not gained anything from these movements except for this unbridled and ardent desire to work for change. So we are able to say that the good that these movements left for us is the general feeling of the desire to make change and even if they have taken the Ummah to the brink of despair. However the one who examines the Ummah finds that it still has within it the noble qualities that allow it to accept a way out from what it suffers from, as long as it senses that there does exist a way to free themselves or that there is a reliable trustworthy leadership that it can follow or be led by.

The one who examines these Harakaat (movements) and has followed these attempts will find that they were not individualistic actions but were rather structures (Takattulat) or organisations that were structured upon a specific thought for the purpose of achieving a specific goal or objective. Despite this they failed.

The reasons for the failure of the movements and the previous attempts:

To become aware of the reasons or causes for failure it is necessary to study these movements from two angles:

1) The first angle is that of the Fikrah (thought) and objective that for its sake the gathering took place. Was this Fikrah (thought/idea) correct or incorrect?
2) As for the second angle then it is the angle of structuring. We do not mean here by the structural angle that which occurs inside the structure in terms of structuring (administration) but rather we mean the bases that any structure is established upon regardless of the thought that it has adopted or the path that is proceeds in accordance to.

So the structure any structure is established upon four bases which are:

1) The idea that comprises the aim and which the people are gathered upon.
2) The method that this structure proceeds along in the way to achieving its aim.
3) The people who are responsible for this structure in terms of the extent of their Imaan in its Fikrah (thought/idea) and Tareeqah (method).
4) How the affiliation of the people into the Takattul (structure) is completed.

Any flaw in any basis from amongst these bases will inevitably to the failure in arriving to the achievement of the aim which the Takattul (structure) is working to achieve. And by scrutinising all of these movements that have arisen within the last century we find that all of them have failed from the structural perspective due negligence in regards to these bases.

This where:
• They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).
• They did not know a Tareeqah (method) to implement their idea (Fikrah) rather their idea proceeded by improvised and twisted means. This is in addition to it being surrounded by obscurity and ambiguity.
• They relied upon people in whom the correct awareness had not been completed and the correct will was not focused within them. They were rather people possessing desire and zeal alone.
• Those people who undertook the burdens of the movements did not possess the correct bond between them. It was no more than a structure that was represented in forms of actions and a number of titles.

We will now examine in the following section each of these bases in some detail:

1) They were established upon a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) that was not defined. Indeed it was Ghaamidah (obscure/vague) or Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-obscure) in addition they were lacking in Tabalwur (crystallization), An-Naqaa’ (purity) and As-Safaa’ (clarity).

Yes it is necessary that every Takattul be based upon a Fikrah (idea/thought) and it can either be a Fikrah ‘Aammah (general idea) or a Fikrah Kulliyah (comprehensive idea/thought). The general idea is the type that can be used as a basis for thought in many matters that come together in a single basis. As for the comprehensive idea, it can be used as a basis for everything. This is in relation to distinguishing between the general and comprehensive thoughts. Therefore the thoughts of nationalism, regionalism and patriotism are only general thoughts that do not encompass all aspects or areas of life. However the Fikrah Mabda’iyah (ideological thought) is a comprehensive idea that covers all aspects of life.

I will add to this by stating that it is not defined. So the structures that were formed include those that have been established upon the basis of Islaam (The glory of the Muslims), some have been established on the basis of nationalism (Might of the Arabs and Arab dignity) and some on a patriotic regional basis (Syrian etc...) amongst other ideas. These are all general ideas but they are undefined.

Therefore ‘The glory of the Muslims’, ‘Islamic might’, ‘Return to Allah’, ‘Islamic education’, Islamic brotherhood’, ‘Islamic revival’, ‘Arab revival’, ‘Independence’, ‘Arab unity’ and ‘The eternal message’ amongst other ideas and slogans, do not have a defined (or specified) meaning.

So in relation to the following statements for example:

‘Returning the glory of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘The honour/might (‘Izzah) of the Muslims’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Returning to Allah’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Tarbiyah (education/raising)’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic brotherhood’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah, Ghaamidah.
‘Islamic revival’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab revival’ = Ghaamidah (vague). 
‘Independence’ = Ghaamidah (vague).
‘Arab Unity’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).
‘Islamic Unity’ = Shibhu Ghaamidah (semi-vague).

Therefore Ghumood (vagueness/obscurity) is not having knowledge of the aim/objective or the way to attain it. As for Shibhu Ghaamid (semi-vague) then its meaning is well-known but its features have not been made clear like the statements ‘Returning to Allah’ and ‘Islamic Tarbiyyah’.

As for the loss of the Tabalwur (crystallization) then the meaning of crystallization is transforming from a liquid state to a solid one like the crystallizing of salt from water. What is intended here in regards to lack of crystallization is an expression of the feelings and emotions of those affected by this and that the ideas were not embodied in them and indeed they were incapable of identifying and specifying its features if they had desired to explain the idea to the people. Therefore they relied upon slogans and stirring the emotions alone and this can be seen to be the reality of most of the movements that are currently present.

As for the loss of the Naqaa’ (purity), then in regards to the Islamic movements, they did not comprehend or perceive clearly what had been entered into Islaam in terms of western ideas. An example of this are the principles that were brought in related to the formation of the Shar’iah rulings that were taken from the Roman and French jurisprudence (Fiqh). There are a great number of western principles that are studied upon the basis that they are Islamic principles and bases. This is like the principle: ‘The custom rules (i.e. dominates)’ or ‘The origin in contracts are the intentions and meanings’ and ‘That which does not contradict Islaam is from Islam’ amongst others.
So An-Naqaa’ (purity) means distancing the foreign bodies from the fundamental thought so that it remains sound in its origins and branches. As for non-Islamic movements like nationalistic and patriotic movements, they have not truly comprehended the danger and seriousness of what they have carried of western thoughts. Indeed they have believed in (some of) these thoughts and have dedicated themselves to them like the ideas of Democracy and Freedom amongst others for example. This is in addition to attempting to explain and interpret Islaam in accordance to what suits and fits with these thoughts and then they claim that they are Islamic.

As for the Safaa’ (clarity) then this means the clarity of vision. And what is intended here in terms of clarity of vision means comprehending the linkage between the thought and the origin that it has emanated from or built upon. So in respect to Muslims and the carriers of the Da’wah the Safaa’ (clarity) of the thought means that every Hukm Shar’iy (ruling) that they call for is tied to the evidence that it has emanated from and that every thought that is called for is built upon the fundamental thought which is the Aqeedah (belief) of the Ummah. This was not fulfilled within these movements and they were unable to distinguish between Shuraa and democracy as a result. Indeed they were unable to differentiate between Shuraa being a Hukm Shar’iy that the human resorts to in order to arrive at a correct view irrespective of this human being a ruler or not a ruler. This is because Shuraa is a Mandoob (recommended) Hukm Shar’iy and it is a style to arrive at what is most probable to be correct whether this is a matter of ruling or other than a matter of ruling. Despite this it is still possible to hear those who are callers to Islaam stating that the system of ruling in Islaam is the system of Shuraa and following from this it is true democracy.

As for non-Muslims from amongst those whom do not have a defined idea then the work with them is greater and harder because they have taken the western ideas just as they are without regard for whether these ideas are suitable for their nation and society or not suitable and they remain upon this state whether it relates to their fundamental thoughts or their styles.

To access part 2 click here

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Alhamdulillah. Waiting for remaining parts...WS

Anonymous said...

Assalamualaykum wa rehmatullahi wa barkatahu brother, please address the following from part I of explanation: 1. If groups were formed during khilafa state, what was the reason to form such groups? was the sultan oppressive, what did they mean by revival then?
2. What is the meaning of crystallization of an idea? Does refers to feeling and emotion, how do we say that HT have crystallization?
3. What is meant by “formation of the shariah rulings that were taken from the roman and French fiqh?
4. In the last paragraph, why is there mention of non-Muslim. Were some of the groups formed by non-Muslims, if so how does that matter in group formation for Islamic revival?

Anonymous said...

Assalamu Alaikum dear brother,
I would like to attempt to answer your questions as follows:

1) The formation of groups in Islaam is in response to the Noble Aayah in Soorah Aali ‘Imraan: ‘And there should be from amongst you an Ummah (group) that calls to the Khair (Al-Islaam), and commands the Ma’rouf, and forbids the Munkar. And they are those who are the successful ones (TMQ 104). This is the basis of the establishment of the group whether the Islamic Khilafah State is present or not. The role of the Islamic group(s) in the Khilafah State will still be to revive the Ummah and to maintain her at the highest level of thought. The strength of the State depends on the strength of the Ummah and it is the role of the group to make sure that the Islamic thoughts, concepts and sentiments dominate the society and reach the highest level. This is included within the command of Allah for this group to call for the Khair which is the whole of Islaam including its belief, thoughts and Ahkaam. The other main role of the group under the Khilafah State will be to account the rulers and this is the greatest action of ordering the Ma’rouf and forbidding the Munkar. The group has to account the rulers and take them to task in regards to the implementation of the Shar’iah rulings, their caretaking of the people’s affairs and their foreign policy and political decisions. Therefore the role of the group is to act as a guardian over the Ummah’s thoughts and sentiments whilst at the same time accounting and advising the rulers both of which are required to keep the State strong, revived and Islamic.

Anonymous said...

2) Those who did not have crystallisation in their thought were led by their emotions and sentiments and this is what led them to be easily manipulated, led by others, diverted from the correct path, pragmatism and to fall into repeated traps time and time again. Crystallisation is the opposite of being led by emotions and feelings as it means that the thought has become so clear and evident to its carrier that it has become crystallised i.e. solidified and embodied. The book later discusses this process in the following manner:

‘The clashing that takes place with other thoughts, discussing them and making clear their corruption inevitably leads to the embodiment of this thought and its crystallization. This means its movement from a fluid state to a state where it is solidified and embodied i.e. from empty thoughts of imagination to a vision of the reality and its application upon it. This is because when the individual is cultured with this culture which is written upon paper it is hard for him to get a true feeling of its reality and to attempt to embody it. However after it has clashed with other thoughts he would then perceive the correctness of his thoughts and that these are thoughts that apply upon the reality. So for instance when he reads about the other ideologies and the corruption of their Aqeedahs and the falsehood of their thoughts he has not yet envisioned that his thoughts are capable of defeating these thoughts. However when he delves into and engages in these discussions he discovers that these thoughts are weaker and more illusionary than a spiders web whilst he affirms and proves that his thought is the truth’.

As for Hizb ut Tahrir then when it engaged in the intellectual struggle with the thoughts and rulings of Kufr within the non-Islamic societies and clashed with all of these thoughts and when it engaged in the political struggle with the regimes and their foreign masters, the thought and thoughts that it carried became crystallised amongst its Da’wah carriers in a natural way. This is because through their arguments, discussions and struggle they were able to apply their thought to a multiple of realities and they were able to apply the Kufr thoughts to multiple realities. This allowed them to clearly see the truthfulness and correctness of their thought whilst at the same time they were able to see the falsity and corruption of the Kufr and weak thoughts which led to crystallisation in regards to their thought and the thoughts that emanate from it.

Anonymous said...

3) It means that jurisprudence rulings and Usool which had French or Roman origins were mixed with Islamic understandings so that people believed that they were Islamic in origin and they could not distinguish that which came directly from the Islamic Aqueedah and that which had infiltrated it. This all relates to the purity of the idea and Muslims including ‘Ulamaa not understanding the thoughts purely from their correct origins after the west had infiltrated and affected its thought. So for instance some Muslims believe that we should have an Islamic System of ruling but at the same time they have said that Shuraa and Western democracy are representative of the same thing. This is an example where the foreign thought has affected the purity of the Islamic thinking and where a thought of Islaam (Shuraa) has become polluted by a western thought.

4) The last paragraph is talking about the non-Muslims living within the societies in the Muslim world. The paragraphs before that mention how the Muslims as a whole had lost the purity and clarity in regards to their thought and their method. This has meant that the Muslims have been affected by a large number of non-Islamic thoughts and emotions and as such the work to revive the Ummah is a great challenge. However the non-Muslims who do not even hold the Islamic Aqeedah have accepted these Kufr thoughts in a stronger manner after having lived for centuries under Islaam and after having been affected by the Islamic thoughts and emotions for that period of time. Therefore the work to affect the thoughts of the non-Muslims in the lands of Islaam like those in Lebanon, Egypt and Indonesia for example is greater and more difficult than the work to affect the Muslims. It has to be understood that the work to resume the Islamic way of life and establish the Khilafah means that the whole society must be addressed and as such the non-Muslims who are part of these societies will naturally also be addressed. In light of this it is worth mentioning that there have been a number of non-Muslims where the Hizb works who have become supporters of the work for the return of the Khilafah because they have realised that they will have a much more dignified life under the rule of Islaam than under the capitalist colonialist system that is currently applied upon them.

Anonymous said...

Assalamu aleikum,
I have some questions:
I don't really understand the meaning of an idea beeing undefined,vague and semi-vague.

1. So if the "Fikrah Mabda’iyah (ideological thought) is a comprehensive idea that covers all aspects of life" why do you say in the following
sentence that "the structures that were formed include those that have been established upon the basis of Islaam (The glory of the Muslims),
some have been established on the basis of nationalism (Might of the Arabs and Arab dignity) and some on a patriotic regional basis (Syrian etc...)
amongst other ideas. These are all general ideas but they are undefined."
My question is, how can a structure, that has been established upon the basis of Islam be a general Idea. Why is it not a comprehensive Idea?
Isn't Islam considered as a Fikrah Mabda'iyah?

2.If we say that an Idea is vague or semi-vague, do we adress just the slogan? I can understand the slogan of "Returning the glory of the muslims"
to be considered as beeing vague, because of the undefined meaning of the word "glory". So for an outsider the Idea of this Structure is not defined.
But if we just look at the slogans of the different Movements to say whether their idea is vague or semi-vague wouldn't the slogan of HT be considered as vague too?