This discussion was about the method to re-establish the Khilafah, including an explanation of the proposed methods of (almost) all groups, and what is right or wrong with each method from a Shar'iee point of view.
Follow Mazin Abdul Adhim on Facebook
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
20th July 2014: As attacks on Gaza continue, Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain organised a demonstration at the Egyptian embassy attended by thousands from across the UK.
- Muslim armies in the region must move to defend people in Palestine.
- Muslim rulers silence gives green light to 'Israelis' to attack Gaza.
- Re-establishment of the Khilafah (Caliphate) is the way to liberate Palestine once and for all.
Islam: the Caliphate debate - Interview with Reza Pankhurst
Mahan Abedin - Religioscope
29 Jul 2014
Following its lightening offensive in northern Iraq in early June, resulting in the capture of Iraq's second city Mosul, the group styling itself as the “Islamic State” declared the establishment of a Caliphate in areas it controls in Iraq and Syria. Despite the unpopularity of the group, and the near-universal dismissal of their declaration as empty and bogus, the nominal re-establishment of the Caliphate after a century-long hiatus has touched off a flurry of intense media interest on the subject.
To gain an in-depth understanding on the circumstances surrounding the “Islamic State's” declaration of a Caliphate and the extent to which the declaration can be considered as valid and legitimate, Religioscope talks to Dr Reza Pankhurst, a leading scholar on the Caliphate and a well-known Islamic ideologue.
Reza Pankhurst is an academic and author. His latest book, The Inevitable Caliphate? (2013), is published by Hurst and Oxford University Press. He is a member of the political party Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Mahan Abedin - The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham - now known simply as the Islamic State (IS) - has declared a Khilafa (Caliphate) on captured territory in Syria and Iraq. What is the main motivation behind this declaration?
Reza Pankhurst - A reading of the declaration would suggest that the main motivations are two-fold, namely regional and international. Regionally, the statement can be read in relation to intra-group rivalry between IS and other armed groups present on the ground in Iraq and Syria, in particular groups who may broadly be identified as “salafi-jihadi” such as Jabhat al-Nusra, who were once part of the same grouping under al-Qaeda. In The Inevitable Caliphate? I discuss how al-Qaeda's use of the caliphate in their discourse shows that it was not considered a unique, practical and detailed political structure and programme but was instead used as a unifying symbol. Though IS differed with the al-Qaeda leadership on the priority of establishing a formal state, I believe that the same consideration can be applied to them.
The statement is claiming leadership and legitimacy for IS, witnessed by the call within the statement for other leaderships to disband and unite under the newly established caliphate. In doing so the group is also providing itself with further religious justification to attack other factions under the claim that they are now the “Islamic state” and therefore any other faction refusing its authority could be considered “rebels”.
Internationally, it is clear that this challenges the legitimacy of the central al-Qaeda leadership, and in effect is trying to usurp ideological leadership through showing gains on the ground and practical results via their purported state-building project.
At the same time, when analysing the actions of IS in the region, their declaration has to be read within the geopolitical context irrespective of individual intentions. There has been a long-standing plan to try to divide Iraq into separate regions (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia) which would allow for easier manipulation and control by international powers; the actions of IS have played into this agenda and we can see it progressing as we speak. With respect to Syria - despite words of support for the anti-Assad rebels, along with non-lethal aid - influential American voices are on record as stating that the best outcome for American interests in the conflict is stalemate (for example - Daniel Pipes two essays “Support Assad” and “Support the Syrian Rebels”). Again, the rising profile of IS and its engagement in Syria which has mainly been against other rebels is one of the factors that stalled the uprisings. Therefore, any analysis of the IS declaration has to take sufficient stock of the political context and the role that IS is playing in the region at this time, irrespective of the individual intentions of its members.
Mahan Abedin - From a purely political standpoint, to what extent is this declaration credible and viable?
Reza Pankhurst - Despite IS's gains, it has a tenuous hold on a large swathe of land stretching from Eastern Syria through to Iraq. It took Mosul with a small force as a result of the withdrawal of the Iraqi army. Though it has recently been involved in a few battles against Syrian forces, most of the land it controls in Syria was originally taken off other militant groups who had previously ejected the regime from the area.
Therefore, from a security perspective, it is not a credible declaration given their forces number no more than 20,000 according to highest estimates. This force numbers less than the combined size of the Kuwaiti and Qatari militaries, without vital capability required for the defence of a modern state such as conventional air defence and force - and yet it is claimed that the group has established a state it is capable of defending which has a land mass greater than France.
This is particularly the case when their declaration makes it clear that it was an act carried out independently and without reference or recourse to anyone external to IS, meaning that even other groupings in Iraq who were leading the protests against the Maliki government have not been involved and yet control land and other elements of this proclaimed state. While there is support for the removal of Maliki's authority in these areas after years of tension with the Sunni population there, the lack of a reaction against IS is connected to the lack of any final resolution in the conflict against the Maliki leadership rather than contentment or acceptance of IS leadership in its place.
Many of the influential tribal leaders, such as Hatem al-Suleiman and Fayez al-Shwoush (head of the Tribal Military Council, as well as other influential groupings such as the Association of Muslim Scholars and the Islamic Army of Iraq (headed by Ahmad Dabbash) renounce IS's claims and believe that their current gains have been made on the back of a popular uprising in which they played a marginal role if any.
Additionally, to announce the establishment of a state, obviously necessitates control of that state. As an example, reports from Mosul indicate that the Iraqi government has cut power, water and other vital utilities to the city. In other words, these areas remain war-zones, where authority can change on a regular basis as has been witnessed in Syria over the last few years.
Mahan Abedin - To what extent can IS hope to convince like-minded groups in Syria and Iraq to fall behind this declaration?
Reza Pankhurst - The week following the statement proved that any such hope would have been forlorn - all of the major figures in the region that could be connected to the declaration - whether other militant organisations, Islamic scholars or parties concerned with the re-establishment of the caliphate rejected the declaration as void for numerous reasons.
I very much doubt that IS believed they would win over other leaderships through this declaration, and indeed their statement alludes to this fact. They recognised that this challenge would cause the rift between them and the other elements in Syria to be further widened. It is more likely that this was a calculated decision to strengthen internally, win over some like-minded individual elements from other groups and project legitimacy and leadership over and above other militant groupings.
It is worth mentioning some related news - there was previously an organisation called Jama'at al-Muslimin (Society of Muslims) which emerged after the conflict in Afghanistan against the Russians who believed that it was obligatory to appoint a Khalifa even if he was not a leader of a state. In other words to appoint a Khalifa even if in reality there was no Khilafa. This is not the only group to believe in such ideas, another famous example being Hilafet Devlati and the so-called “caliph of Cologne”.
The person who was appointed the leader of this group - one Abu Easa Muhammad Ali al-Rifai al-Husaini - was a resident in the UK. One of the main religious authority of the group - Abu Umar al-Kuwaiti - moved to Syria during the uprisings where he formed a militia which was initially called “Jund al-Khilafa” (Army of Caliphate) before being re-entitled “Jama'at al-Muslimin” (in line with the group name). It was reported that Abu Umar travelled to Iraq to meet with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi last year, delivering a message from Abu Easa (referred to as Amir al-Muminin - the leader of the believers, addressing al-Baghdadi as Amir of the Islamic state of Iraq and Sham) to discuss their ideas and to unite their groups.
Abu Easa - the Khalifa according to Jama'at al-Muslimin - passed away earlier this year in the UK, though in any case there were apparently schisms within the movement in the last year or two. After IS declared the establishment of their “caliphate,” Abu Umar al-Kuwaiti pledged his allegiance to the IS caliph.
Mahan Abedin - How do you assess/estimate the global appeal of IS's declaration?
Reza Pankhurst - Today there is a popular appeal for the idea of caliphate - the concept of a united Muslim leadership which would lead by Islam - and you can find supporters of this across the Muslim world and beyond. This is highlighted by polls such as the world public opinion poll undertaken by University of Maryland in 2007 which found that majorities across four major Muslim-majority countries supported both the strict application of Sharia law as well as uniting Muslim nations into a single state, or caliphate. Observing the statements of influential Islamic leaders and thinkers after the uprisings in 2011, several in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and elsewhere talked about the desire to establish a caliphate. These were not restricted to any particular group, with even some of the leaders of the most liberal leaning groups such as an-Nahda in Tunisia making these statements.
The idea is attractive from both the Islamic perspective, and holds additional attraction as an alternative to the current leaderships and manufactured states that the region has witnessed for the past century. As a result there is a ready audience for such a declaration.
This is why that while there is no doubt that a few sincere individuals will be swayed by the announcement, particularly with their proclaimed victories on the ground and efforts to organise basic services in some of the areas they exercise nominal control. These people may remain convinced until IS suffers military set-backs which expose its claim to being a viable state-building project, as at the moment any credibility and support it has is largely based around the image it portrays as a viable military force. Alternatively, if it continues to progress militarily, winning further battles against Syrian regime forces as has been the case recently, its support will continue to grow and a more likely end to it would be if internal divisions flare up at some point. In view of the group's history, methodology and outlook, this scenario cannot be ruled out. Another scenario could be some form of reconciliation between IS and other groups operating against Assad, but this would require fundamental changes in IS's views and approach.
Despite their gains on the ground however, the vast majority of people have not taken the declaration seriously, for two main reasons.
One is that IS has a poor reputation - known for their especially virulent stances against other Muslims extending from the Shia to fellow salafi-jihadi groupings such as Jabhat al-Nusra. Additionally, it is recognised that the majority of IS gains in Syria have previously been the result of infighting against other rebel groups rather than against the regime, and so they are also blamed for undermining the Syrian uprising and dividing Muslims while energy ought to be focused on removing the Bashar al-Assad regime.
The second reason is that even if this militia force's partial control over land in which it administers a semi-autonomous proto-state is accepted as a reality on the ground, nevertheless this is not comparable to the establishment of a state in the conventional meaning of the word.
It is also very difficult to take a claim to a universal leadership over Muslims seriously when those making the declaration appear to declare anyone who is outside of their group or differs with them as either sinful, deviants or disbelievers. Such an approach is counterproductive to the concept of the caliphate, which is known as the general leadership to run the affairs of the Muslims collectively.
Establishing a caliphate is a serious political undertaking, one which requires the uniting of the Muslims rather than the current divisiveness promoted and glorified by this group.
Mahan Abedin - According to Islamic political theory and traditions, what conditions have to be fulfilled before the declaration of a state (Khilafa) can be considered both legitimate and viable?
Reza Pankhurst - We can separate two issues, namely the conditions of the leader of the state (caliph / khalifa) and the conditions for establishing the state itself.
With respect to the Islamic state, or Caliphate, or Imamate, or Sultanate - all of which are terms which can be used to refer to the same entity - the conditions for the establishment of an Islamic state are deduced from the actions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Specifically these are understood from when he approached various tribes in the Arabian Peninsula to lend him support to establish the first Islamic state which would have the Prophet as its leader. Viability would be assessed by applying those conditions to the extant geopolitical context, while the content of the state in terms of constitution, institutions and laws are analysed to assess its legitimacy.
Viability is linked to the ability of the state to maintain its own internal and external security. This was understood by the statement of the Prophet, namely “the Deen (religion of God) is not established by those who cannot encompass it from all sides”, which was a rejection of the offer of the tribe of Bani Shaiban to establish Islam and support him with the condition that they were unable to confront the Persian Empire at the time.
The legitimacy of an Islamic state is connected to its foundations - that it applies Islam comprehensively as a system of ruling, as detailed in the various books of Islamic political theory. This goes beyond the application of a few punishments that attract intense media attention, and actually guides how the state is structured and operated, at the economic, social and foreign policy levels. As of yet, despite the provision of a few basic services and their attempts to project statehood, there is not enough evidence that IS is capable of doing this, or indeed has any clear project for its “state” other than the current series of land-grabs.
Mahan Abedin - To what extent (if any) has IS deviated from these customs and traditions?
Reza Pankhurst - As mentioned previously, as a militia group they are not a viable state.
There are differing reports regarding the application of law in areas under their nominal control, with many fabricated stories appearing intent on discrediting the group. At the same time when considering their confirmed actions, it is an affront to claim that their application of a few punishments as they interpret them (including their preference for executing and putting on public display the bodies of “apostates”, often a euphemism for members of other groups) is Islamic. This type of erratic behaviour, with reports ranging from arbitrary executions to excessive punishments for minor infractions (such as a claim they are threatening Mosul residents with 50 lashes if they fail to attend prayer in congregation), is counterproductive and potentially harmful to the image of Islamic law in the minds of the general public. Admittedly, this is not something that concerns IS alone.
Mahan Abedin - What are the criteria for selecting a Khalifa (Caliph) and to what extent (if any) has IS deviated from this standard?
Reza Pankhurst - Obviously absent the conditions for the establishment of a state, the appropriateness of the leader and manner of selection becomes irrelevant, but it is important these issues are detailed for the sake of engendering a better understanding among Muslims about their political roles and rights.
In the Islamic political system the leadership derives its legitimacy through a contract which is conducted between the leader and those they would lead - which is known as the bay'a or pledge of allegiance. This contract has three elements - the leader, those who will give the pledge (the people - or those who represent the people, often termed as ahlul halli wal aqd - in the literature the people who bind and tie matters, meaning people of influence and power in a particular society - who collectively represent the will of that society and whose decisions are meaningful and widely accepted as authority) and the pledge between the two sides (the ruler should be obeyed so long as he rules by Islam).
There are numerous qualifications for the leader in the literature, including being male, adult, just and so on. Conditions such as the candidate's lineage being traced back to the Quraishi tribe are subject to dispute, with some scholars not considering it essential. The other side of the contract is the Umma (Muslim nation), or their representatives. Their conditions are fewer than that of the ruler; for example the Prophet took bay'a from women, so being male is not a condition.
The final element that is important is consent, in that the normative element of legitimacy is that the appointment of the leader is confirmed by the consent of the people. This is something that is sometimes unrecognised due to issues such as historical practise where the title of caliph was often passed down in a hereditary manner despite a show being made of the pledge of allegiance, and also differing elements of Twelver Shi'ism as a result of its theological position that the Imamate is determined by revelation rather than choice. However, the mainstream normative position as understood from several evidences is that the opinion of the people should be sought. This could be through numerous means, including elections, soliciting the views of tribal leaders and so on - the point is that those giving the pledge should be representative of their people.
This is exemplified by the example of the Prophet, in that when he sought support to establish a state, one of the tribes (Bani Amr bin Sa'sa'a) asked him whether they would inherit the ruling in the event they supported him and Islam, and as a result were victorious over others. The Prophet replied negatively stating “the issue belongs to Allah, He places it where He wills” meaning that there was no fixed succession. As a result they refused to support the Prophet.
As for the claim that succession was practised even among the first generation of Muslims - for example that Abu Bakr appointed Umar Ibn Khattab as caliph - this appointment was made after consultation and recognition that he was the most preferred choice among the people. Umar himself is narrated to have stated that “there is no Khilafa without consultation” and that “whoever pledged allegiance to a man without due consultation (shura) is not to be followed, and both of them are subject to be killed.”
In view of these conditions and qualifications, there are vital absent elements (namely consultation and consent) which render the IS declaration null and void. The secretive and anonymous “shura council” that pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi cannot be considered representative of the Muslims in that area. Rather, in the context of the Iraqi tribal society, any pledge would encompass the agreement of the head of the influential tribes such as those in Anbar and Ramadi and so on. Not only was this absent, but a number of these tribal heads have distanced themselves from IS entirely.
Finally, some have made the claim that Islamic jurisprudence recognises that a leader who comes to power through force and implements Islam should be considered as legitimate. This is an inaccurate claim; the actual viewpoint is that if after an aspiring ruler takes power by force and is subsequently accepted by the people, at the point of being accepted and taking a pledge of allegiance from the people he can be considered the legitimate ruler, despite his actions in coming to power remaining sinful. In other words, his legitimacy is not a result of power projection, but rather is derived from the resulting consent of the people. As pointed out earlier, IS neither fully control the land nor do they enjoy consent.
Mahan Abedin - On what (if any) theological and/or jurisprudential grounds can you declare a declaration of caliphate illegitimate?
Reza Pankhurst - Foremost, if the entity is not established upon an Islamic basis even if it proves to be a viable state. For example, if the leader of one of the larger Muslim countries declared himself caliph while retaining a constitution that declared it a nation state.
Secondly, if the people did not display their consent to the appointment, then like any other Islamic contract which requires mutual agreement, it would be considered illegitimate. It should also be noted that if the contract was carried out by a small group of people who were not representative of the “people of influence”, then the declaration would be void as it would not fulfil the necessary conditions of one of the contracting parties.
Finally, even if the previous elements mentioned were all in place - a viable state, and the people were content with a certain candidate to be the caliph - if that candidate did not fulfil the agreed upon conditions of the Imam then the declaration would also be void as one of the contracting parties (in this case the ruler) was invalid.
Mahan Abedin - IS presents a radically sectarianized jihad and resulting Islamic state. Besides the obvious problems this creates, to what extent (if any) is this methodology an aberration from the Islamic standard?
Reza Pankhurst - The Islamic state is a non-sectarian state. Its basis is Islam, and its citizens are treated on the basis of Islamic law. This means that non-Muslims are welcome and have a role to play within that state, as was the case at the time of the Prophet who established a state in Medina and surrounding area where the majority of inhabitants at the time were not Muslim.
It also means that the state should not be sectarian. Originally the sectarian division of Muslims as Sunni, Shia and other groupings emerged largely as a result of political differences, later developing into opposing theological positions. Historically the more sectarian the leadership of the various Islamic states became, the more internal schisms and problems occurred.
However, it should be noted that IS is one of the symptoms and not a cause for sectarianism in the region. The roots of sectarianism and its current manifestation in the Middle East are largely as a result of the establishment of a system of government in Iran that claims to be Islamic but is founded upon a nationalistic and sectarian basis, and its competition for influence with the monarchy of Saudi Arabia which historically derived its legitimacy from a sectarian Sunni basis.
We see this being played out in Syria and Iraq, and also recently in Bahrain and internally in both Saudi and Iran, with both sides stoking up sectarian tensions to conceal a geo-political struggle based upon national interests. In Bahrain, anti-regime protests were labelled as a Shia sectarian uprising in order to legitimise the ruling family and justify Saudi intervention. In Syria, the anti-regime protests were labelled as anti-Shia from the beginning in order to legitimise the Assad regime and its brutal response, while allowing Iran to justify direct intervention on the side of a bloody dictatorship upon a sectarian basis. This is despite the fact that Twelver-Shia historically considered the Alawi sect that Assad belongs to as being outside of Islam, and that the Syrian government was secular and Ba'athist in any case. In all these cases, there is a cynical exploitation of sectarian differences to legitimise giving support to regimes lacking in legitimacy and popular support, which inflame tensions and potentially result in becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
In addition, the role of international actors in encouraging sectarian differences cannot be ignored, with local divisions historically being encouraged to allow for greater external influence and interference. American intervention in Iraq and the creation of an effectively confessional constitution being the most obvious recent example.
Mahan Abedin - IS prioritises the agency of violence in its approach to politics and state building. How does this conform and/or conflict with Islamic customs and norms?
Reza Pankhurst - Jihad is part of the foreign policy of the Islamic state and it has classically been considered a matter of liberation from oppression. The use of force internally can also be justified as a last resort against rebellion, in the same manner that it is necessary for any state to maintain its unity and security.
These points are different from the matter of IS, or for that matter any other militant group in the region. The resort to arms in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is not the result of theological understandings and considerations. The same can be applied to al-Qaeda internationally. The resort to arms has come as a reaction against the continued imposition of regimes lacking legitimacy which brutalise their own populations through the use of intrusive internal state security. Therefore, in Syria the resort to arms cannot be divorced from the fact that a sizeable segment of the population found no other option other than recourse to armed struggle, particularly given the brutality with which the Syrian regime dealt with peaceful protests back in 2011. In Iraq there were widespread protests against the Maliki regime in several areas as a result of perceived exclusionary policies. It is a result of these circumstances that have allowed a group like IS the opportunity to institutionalise to the current point.
With respect to the question of IS specifically, much of their violence has been aimed at other armed factions in Syria. The apparent consensus among several intermediaries who attempted to reconcile between these various factions is that IS was not interested in reconciliation and preferred to remain belligerent. Therefore, there are serious questions on the role of the group in undermining the revolution there, and specifically whose interests they serve; it is worth noting that the Syrian regime has previously largely avoided conflict with IS while it was involved in infighting with other groups, recognising that such internal schisms in the opposition was in their interests.
IS's actions indicate that they have no real aim of state-building as evidenced by the absence of efforts to reconcile with those who would be considered putative allies. While some may point to precedence in Islamic history where local rulers would use military force to impose themselves in order to unite disparate factions - such as the case of Salahadin among others - these events took place in the context of the leadership within existing state entities. This is a separate question from armed militias with no firm authority over a state seeking to impose themselves upon others.
At this point it is worth linking back to the first question - by claiming to be a state - IS is trying to claim that legitimacy and justification to fight other factions and bring them under their “rule”.
Mahan Abedin - In view of prevailing global political and strategic realities and norms, is it possible to adopt the “correct” methodology in pursuit of caliphate?
Reza Pankhurst - A major problem - and this extends beyond IS and covers the armed groups generally - is one of lack of distinction between the role of armed struggle and politics.
While a group may be successful on the battlefield, this does not necessarily translate to being capable from a political perspective.
What is required is that political groups with clear political programs have to take the lead politically, something that is a perpetual problem in a situation of an ongoing internal conflict that we are witnessing in Syria and Iraq.
Mahan Abedin - Beyond knee-jerk reactions, what should be the considered response of prominent Islamic groups and establishments to the IS declaration?
Reza Pankhurst - In the wake of this specious declaration that, in my opinion, only serves to diminish the position and idea of the caliphate as a serious, viable and necessary political structure, there are three responses:
The first is to reject any invalid declaration. This has occurred almost universally.
The second is to detail the reasons why the declaration is invalid. Numerous individuals and groups, across a spectrum of Islamic thought, have made statements which clarify these points.
But it is the third response which is the most important, and can be viewed as an opportunity by those individuals and movements who adopt the call to the caliphate as a serious political project. This response is to provide a detailed vision of the caliphate, its structures, institutions, and the role it would play in taking care of the affairs of its citizens and how it would interact to promote Islam in the international arena.
In doing so, this exposes the hollow declarations whether by IS, or various individuals and groups who have claimed to be the caliph over the past few decades (and there are more than one). If the vision becomes well known, and clearer in the minds of the masses, any other programme which tries to take advantage of the growing popularity of the idea of a single unified Islamic state will also be judged according to this standard. I would personally not be surprised if after the IS “state” falters and dissipates as a footnote in history, that other claims may be made - such a coalition of the various monarchies in the region who elect a “caliph” and claim the “caliphate” to bolster their own flagging legitimacy in the face of intensifying demand for better governance in the region.
It is very important that groups and individuals who believe in the caliphate have this detailed programme, such as the literature of Hizb ut-Tahrir which includes the detailed constitution for a coming caliphate, in order to prevent or deter the call for a caliphate remaining as a vague aspiration that can be manipulated by others.
It is also required to make it clear that the caliphate is not some kind of unattainable or idealised utopian dream, but rather is the realistic and required political programme of Islamic government.
Without achieving this clarity, the path to its re-establishment will surely be more difficult to traverse.
Mahan Abedin is an academic and journalist specialising in Islamic affairs.
Jumuah khutbah by Taji Mustafa (Hizb ut-Tahrir) as 800 are killed so far in the Israeli entity's latest attack on Gaza, Palestine. What is the permanent Islamic solution to this occupation? 25 July 2014.
Follow him on Twitter & Facebook
Watch and Share
Follow him on Twitter & Facebook
Watch and Share
The carnage that we are witnessing in Gaza continues. The blood of the martyrs that is spilled on the blessed land by the enemy of Allah keeps flowing without defence and the deafening silence of the Muslim leaders on this issue makes our blood boil with anger. Where are our armies? Why are Muslim armies sitting in their barracks when they should be protecting our brothers and sisters in Gaza? This unacceptable state of affairs has pushed Hizb Ut Tahrir / Malaysia to organize several demonstrations in front of the Egyptian Embassy, the Turkish embassy and the office of the Malaysian Armed Forces on Friday 18 July 2014. These memoranda were aimed to serve as a reminder of their responsibilities to protect the Muslims in Gaza as well as to free the blessed land of Palestine from the Jewish occupation and barbarism.
Despite the fact that Egypt borders Gaza and Turkey has been very vocal against the Jewish entity of Israel, there has been no real effort exerted from neither the Egyptian nor the Turkish government to mobilize their armies and come to the rescue of our Palestinian brothers and sisters. What we have been hearing are only the rhetoric of the Muslim leaders. This is despite the fact that Allah سبحانه وتعالى has made it clear that whenever Muslims cry for help, whenever their lives and their Deen are in jeopardy, then all Muslims, especially those who are in power, should come to their rescue.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَإِنِ اسْتَنصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ
"and if they seek aid from you in the matter of religion, then it is your responsibility to help them"
Muslim leaders in general and that of Egypt and Turkey in particular hold the responsibility of waging Jihad against the Jewish entity. The silence of our rulers or armies simply means that they have directly allowed the massacre to occur and have also directly supported the Jewish regime to carry out the barbaric acts towards our Muslim brothers and sisters. The same responsibility is also on the neck of the leaders and army of Malaysia. Even though Malaysia is thousands of miles away from Gaza, the responsibility of waging Jihad is never relieved from the necks of its leaders and army.
It should be clear in the minds of Muslims, especially the leaders of the Muslim world, that the problem of Palestine is not an Arab problem. It is a problem for all Muslims. The Muslim Ummah is like one body, "When one of its parts is sick, the whole body will feel the pain and fever" [Narrated by Muslim from Nukman bin Bashir]. It is sad that the disease of nationalism and patriotism have consumed the body of the Muslim Ummah. We acknowledge that Muslims all over the world are our brothers and sisters and that we say the same Shahadah and share the same spirituality when carrying out certain acts of Ibadah. However, when it comes to the real issue of saving our brothers and sisters in need where artificial, colonial borders have to be crossed, we grudge and keep silent. We end up resorting to repeated acts of giving financial aid and offering du'a as 'the only way to help our brothers and sisters in need'...
O armies of the Muslim Ummah! This is what you are trained for. To die for Allah سبحانه وتعالى or to live to see victory for Allah سبحانه وتعالى! If the leaders are silent, then you should move yourselves to help our brothers and sisters in need. We pray that Allah سبحانه وتعالى opens the hearts of the Muslim armies across the world to fight in Gaza immediately and save our brothers and sisters who are massacred there and in turn freeing the blessed land of Palestine.
It is also important for the Ummah to be reminded that it should be patient for it is not long before the second rightly guided Khilafah will come, ending all the miseries faced by this noble Ummah and freeing all of our lands from the Kuffar occupation and domination.
وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ
"and on that day, the believers will rejoice"
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb Ut Tahrir by
Dr. Muhammad - Malaysia
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمA message from a female slave of Allah (swt) in Gaza to the glorious Ummah
I begin by praising my Lord in a manner that befits the Majesty and Greatness of His power, My Lord (swt), I am a slave woman who is in need of you, I supplicate with the words of your Prophet, the best of creation.
There is no Nasser (Helper) except You and I am not needy of anyone but You.
"O Allah! Unto You do I complain of my weakness, of my helplessness and of my lowliness before men. O most Merciful of the merciful. O Lord of the weak and my Lord too. Into whose hands have you entrusted me? Unto some far off stranger who receives me with hostility? Or unto a foe whom you have empowered against me? I care not, so long as You are not angry with me. But Your favouring help, that were for me the broader way and the wider scope. I take refuge in the light of Your Countenance whereby all darkness is illuminated and all things of this world and the next are rightly ordered, lest You make descend Your anger upon me or lest Your wrath beset me. Yet it is Yours to reproach until You are well pleased. There is no power and no might except through Thee."
O Ummah of glory,
I will not address you today while crying in agony about our situation in Gaza, nor will I talk about our reality for what you see on your television sets is far more descriptive than my words. The groans and wails of the bereaved and the mothers and children that you hear is enough to rip your heart out due to the pain and anguish that reflects their state, the state of the people of Gaza. Nor shall I be talking here to plead for your compassion that brings tears to your eyes. I would rather address you as a dignified noble Ummah who raises its head to the sky, one that is not harmed by those who let it down; By Allah if mankind and the jinn were to gather to harm us they will not harm us except if it is destined by Allah and if they were to gather to benefit us they will only benefit us if it is destined by Allah and we are certain that victory is in the hand of Allah alone.
Nevertheless, I write this letter to you today to ponder (question) about the state of the Ummah, an Ummah of glory, dignity and honour.
An Ummah that had for centuries dominated the world and was the best of nations.
A nation that placed fear into the hearts of its enemies with its words, what about its deeds!
O Ummah of glory, O best nation brought to mankind
Woe to the Ummah whose Prophet and leader is Mohammed (saw) who commands them to support their brother whether he is a transgressor or oppressed so that they respond to his (saw)'s command but instead of supporting in all situations they exceed the limits in transgressing.
Pitiful is the state of an Ummah that descends from Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Khalid, Ali, Alqa'qa' and Al-Mutasim, By Allah have you no shame!
Woe to an Ummah whose deen has been completed, and favours fulfilled and Islam was accepted as its Deen, I see it today rejecting what has been accepted for it (Islam) by the Almighty Allah.
By Allah, how will you reply to the martyred children, women and elderly of Gaza when you are asked while standing on the Path (Al Sirat)?
Where were you while we were being slaughtered?
Where were you when we were being killed, with no security, protection, shield or Shepherd?
And you, O Muslim scholars, O servants of the Deen...
Your utter silence and unjust position towards us is stronger and tougher on our hearts and more humiliating than the shelling and rockets and witnessing our children's bodies torn apart.
By Allah you shall be questioned on all that you do and what you say and even what you remain silent on.
Your duas are not sufficient for us nor is the money that you collect for us.
I swear by Allah that your money will not bring back our children or mothers or fathers or brothers, or bring satisfaction to our hearts.
By Allah we will not forgive you as long as we live and God will not forget your abandonment and oppression.
Therefore, O Ummah of glory...
Think not that your money, food aid and medical supplies will relieve you from having greatly disappointed us, it is worth nothing in front of a moment of fear in the eyes of our children who await murder and the bombing roar, hearing the sound of airplanes in the sky or artillery poised to strike at any moment and in any place.
By Allah, it's lesser for us to die of starvation or disease than to hand us over to the Jews as gift on a platter of betrayal and blood.
For your knowledge we no longer accept nonsense and are not fooled by those tricks or the tears in your eyes.
We know very well that you can support us with more than what you are doing now but you are not willing
Do you know how?? Allow me to inform you of what you know well:
You have armies that can break the Jewish army but why are you shackling them with an iron fist policy??
You have planes that can demolish the Jewish aircrafts, why are you locking them up in Airports and not releasing them to demolish their great fortresses??
And you have the rockets and tanks and bombs that could shake the Jewish entity, why then do not release them from the storage before it's eaten up by rust?
Therefore, my Ummah of glory ...
You have all the means for victory, which enables you to put an end to the tyrannical Zionist entity but you are his brothers and our enemies. You support him through your silence and your idle position towards us, you support him through subjugating yourself to the trivial leaders which are a heavy burden on your and our hearts, you support the enemy through your fear of the jails of tyrants and detentions of puppet governments. Oh you women with Imama and beards!
Have you now seen with your own eyes how the resistance from the mujahideen in Gaza has shaken the security of Jews with equipment, which is not even worth comparing to the enemy?!
Did it not motivate you by revealing to you that the Jewish entity is flimsier than a spider's web?!
Did it not awaken in you the power as a believer who is sure that Allah is the supporter even after a while.
((فَلَمْ تَقْتُلُوهُمْ وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّـهَ قَتَلَهُمْ ۚ وَمَا رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ وَلَـٰكِنَّ اللَّـهَ رَمَىٰ ۚ وَلِيُبْلِيَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْهُ بَلَاءً حَسَنًا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ))"And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing." [TMQ 8:17]
By Allah the One and only! Every Muslim East or West shall be accounted for every pure drop of blood from an innocent child or a bereaved woman or an oppressed elderly man.
Know that Allah is predominant over His affairs and the day shall come when the Kafir and its people are humiliated and Islam and its people are honoured and this is not a heavy task for Allah.
((وَسَيَعْلَمُ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا أَيَّ مُنقَلَبٍ يَنقَلِبُونَ))"And those who have wronged are going to know to what [kind of] return they will be returned" [TMQ 26:227]
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
A female servant of Gaza who is need of her Lord (swt)
27 Ramadan 1435
Since Friday 18th July 2014, the world was awakened by strong condemnation from top Turkey's leadership of indiscriminate violence perpetrated by the illegal Zionist entity against the people of Gaza. Military offensive into Gaza by the Zionist defence forces comprising of aerial bombardments as well as ground operations have caused countless civilian death including defenceless women and children. This yet another series war crime by the Zionist has sparked numerous protests around the world and Turkey's response shows it do not want to be outperform in this yet another game of condemnation.
Daily Sabah reported on Friday, Turkish President Abdullah Gül has warned Israel of "consequences" if it does not stop its attacks on Gaza's civilian population. In similar tone, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan lashed out at Israel labelling it as terrorizing and carrying out genocide in Gaza. He also has not spared United Nation out when accusing the later of "serving a secret cause" and lambasted the Muslim world for not working to stop the killings in Gaza (Today's Zaman).
It is true that no Muslim with sane mind will keep quite in the face of what has happened to our brothers and sisters in Gaza for the past 2 weeks. In fact, no Muslim with correct mind set will feel content with the situation befallen the Palestinian for the past decades. This is not a new tragedy. This is not a new massacre by the illegal Zionist occupier. People in the blessed land of Palestine has been living in terror and oppressed days in and days out for tens of years since the conflict begins.
Yet we keep hearing the same rhetoric coming out of Muslim's leaders all over the world every time Palestinian being prosecuted mercilessly. We keep numbed by the same condemnation statement made every time the Zionist broke every human rights of the Palestinian. However, these words coming out of those so called defender of Islam have the same characteristic; void of any substance. It is loud yet of no significant impact to the situation. It became a race of who can made the strongest voice and who can issue the most daring condemnation. When time passes, Gaza will be left razed to the ground, innocent lives perished and Muslims blood spilt, but not a single Muslim army will move their feet even an inch towards Palestine to defend their honour.
Dear Muslim Leaders of the World, why have you keep requesting the sterile United Nation to defend our brothers in Palestine while you keep your precious armaments in their depot accumulating dust and rusts? Why has you complained that the World has not taken up actions to protect the Palestinian while you yourself keep millions of your young fighters in their barracks gazing blankly at imaginary border drawn by the old colonials? Indeed Mr Erdogan, you are right when you say, "Muslim world, where are you? Is your heart not aching over what is happening? We keep asking why the West is silent. Leave the West aside! Will others be concerned if your own family [of Muslim nations] does not care?" But will you self-reflect those words into the mirror? Were you not have the power to make the required actions?
Why have we only hear empty threats over and over again even though your own people have been killed on the Freedom Flotilla three years ago? How much blood of the Muslims need to be split more before real action will be taken in place of empty remarks of condemnation? How many Palestinian children need to be mutilated before your army can start marching south? How many of our sisters need to be raped before you realize it is your own honour is being stripped naked? Verily remember the words of our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم:
حدثنا عبد الله بن عمر قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يطوف بالكعبة ويقول «ما أطيبك وأطيب ريحك ما أعظمك وأعظم حرمتك والذي نفس محمد بيده لحرمة المؤمن أعظم عند الله حرمة منك»
Abdulla bin Umar said - I saw the Prophet doing tawwaf around the Ka'aba saying "How sweet/ good are you and how sweet is your scent. How great are you and how great is your sanctity. By the One who the soul of Mohammad is in His Hand the sanctity of a believer is greater with Allah than your sanctity." (Ibn Maja)
Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
News pours in daily about the fall of numerous defenseless civilians, especially women and children in Gaza as a result of the fierce 'Israeli' attack on Gaza continuing for more than two weeks, which they named Operation Protective Edge. The number of victims of the aggression as of dawn, Wednesday, 24/07/2014 reached 640 martyrs and 4030 wounded, which included hundreds of women and children, and the number is expected to increase, yet no one has moved a muscle... The inaction of the Muslim and Arab world rulers reached its peak; those hideous massacres and scenes of killing, destruction, burning and deformation did not stir an atom in their feelings or hearts. And their ears did not hear the screams, moans and cries from the mouths of children and women.
The targeting of women and children in this war on Gaza is obvious. They kill them everywhere; in their homes, streets, schools, hospitals, and even on the beach. They are killed as they eat, as they sleep and as they play. Every child and every woman who is capable of having children is a target for them... Missiles that do not discriminate between stones, trees and human beings; they kill and crush all, so blood and body parts are mixed with dirt and rocks in glaring and painful scenes, that the media could not ignore or overlook for their barbarity and abundance... Tender soft body parts of children are scattered into carnages... Entire families exterminated under the rubble... Tens of thousands are displaced from their homes, seeking the lost safety in all parts of Gaza... from one refuge to another, fleeing from death to death and from destruction to destruction!
All this occurs and the whole world is merely watching, except for marches and demonstrations condemning the aggression and demanding its halt... All this occurs under an international and Arabian conspiracy. And this occurs while the Rafah crossing is closed in the face of the people of Gaza, their wounded, their tragedies and even the entry of medication to them! All this occurs and Turkey's oil is what fuels the Israeli planes which bombs, at the time that Erdogan sheds tears for the victims of Gaza! This occurs while the Authority of Shame, stands watching, rather it supports the aggression, through its remarks and coordination, and its standing against those who object to this aggression under the pretext of maintaining the checkpoints and borders! And as usual in all aggressions, some Gulf States prepared to send material and medical aid, as if they were paying the blood money for these victims instead of having the criminal who committed those crimes against them...
So O Ummah of Islam:
This is not what the steadfast women and children of Gaza need. They do not need money, aid and the reconstruction of what was destroyed by the war, but they want one who will save them and free them and also free the rest of Palestine and Jerusalem. They want one who takes revenge for them from these criminals, murderers, and brings to trial and punishes, with an iron hand, those who stand by their side, helped them and contributed to this dirty war against their fellow Muslims in order to preserve their thrones and chairs! So, for how long will the pure blood be spilled on the land of Gaza and on other occupied lands! For how long will the humiliation and indignity continue, or has the humiliation become nobility and the indignity become accustomed to!!
Until when is the silence and submission! For how long is the dependency on the enemy and his aides! Has not the blood, the pain and the cries of children and women driven your hearts and minds to know where you should direct your weapons at and how to direct them; united and concerted against a common enemy! If individual gunmen armed with belief were able to fight the enemy and inflicted it, even though they will not reach the liberation of the land and the people, so how about if all the armies gather under the command of one Imam calling for jihad!
Your position is to defend your Islamic Ummah, your role is to lend a helping hand to anyone who wants the arbitration of Allah's Law on earth and the return of the Khilafah state to avenge the blood and the honors, and liberate and protect the country and the people... The Almighty says:
وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ مِن قَبْلُ وَفِي هَذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ
"Do jihad for Allah with the jihad due to Him. He has selected you and not placed any constraint upon you in the deen – the religion of your forefather Ibrahim. He named you Muslims before and also in this, so that the Messenger could be witness against you and you could be witnesses against all mankind. So establish salat and pay zakat and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protector – the Best Protector, the Best Helper."
The Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir
Thursday, 26th Ramadan 1435 AH
Issue No: 1435 AH /052
There are some comments on some websites that state: "That Hizb ut Tahrir has defined the method of seeking the Nussrah (material support) to establish the Khilafah, while it abides to, and does not acknowledge any other Legislative (Shari') method... although there is another method, which is "the method of the dominant Sultan", i.e. the one who establishes the state by force and fighting... they also said that Hizb ut Tahrir objected Baghdadi's declaration out of Hizbi prejudice, as the Hizb does not acknowledge the Khilafah as a legitimate one except if it established it..." Can you please provide a conclusive and sufficient answer for these statements? May Allah reward you.
1. Hizb ut Tahrir did not outline the Sharí method of establishing the Khilafah, but it is the Shariah itself that outlined it, and the Seerah of Rasoolullah صلى الله عليه وسلم speaks of this since the beginning of the Da'wah to Islam, and until the establishment of the State... and prior to establishing the State was the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم seeking of material support (Nussrah) from the people of power and protection who form the components of the State according to the reality of the region around them. For this reason, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم went to the strong tribes calling them to Islam and seeking Nusrah from them as he صلى الله عليه وسلم did when he sought Nusrah from Thaqeef, Bani Amer, Bani Shayban, and the Ansar in Madinah, as for the small tribes, he used to merely call them to Islam... He continued doing this despite the difficulties and hardships he suffered, and the continuance of a matter in which there is hardship is the Shari' indication that it is Fardh (an obligation) as in Usool...
Thus, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم continued in seeking the Nusrah from the people of power and protection, as one tribe caused his feet to bleed, and another rejected him, while another tribe put forth conditions, however, and despite all that, he صلى الله عليه وسلم continued his work, steadfast upon what Allah سبحانه وتعالى revealed to him without changing this method to another method such as ordering the Sahabah to fight the people of Makkah, or fight some tribes to establish the State among them, and his Sahabah were heroes who feared none but Allah, but he صلى الله عليه وسلم did not order them to do so, but continued to seek Nusrah from the people of power and protection until Allah سبحانه وتعالى facilitated for him صلى الله عليه وسلم the Ansar. Thus they gave him the second pledge of Al-Áqabah, after Musáb (raa) succeeded in the mission assigned to him by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم in Madinah, so in addition to Allah's facilitation to him of men of the people of power to give him victory, he (raa) had made Islam, by the will of Allah, enter the homes of Madinah, and created in it a public opinion for Islam, thus, this public opinion embraced the pledge of the Ansar, allowing the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم to establish the State in Madinah through a pure and clear pledge of allegiance, and a warm welcome from the people of Madinah for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.
This is the Shari' method of establishing the State, and it should be followed by origin (asl), because the basis of actions is adhering to the Hukm Shari' (Islamic rulings), so if a Muslim wanted to know how to pray, he studies the evidences relating to Prayer, and if he wanted to perform Jihad, he studies relating to Jihad, and if he wanted to establish the State, then he should study the evidences of establishing it through the actions of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and no other method of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم for the establishment of the State was mentioned except the one outlined in his Seerah صلى الله عليه وسلم. And it includes the Da'wah to the people of power and protection who constitute the components of a State as per the region surrounding them, calling them to Islam, seeking Nusrah from them, and their pledge of allegiance through consent and choice, after he had established amongst them and in their region a public opinion derived from public awareness...
Thus, the legitimate method of establishment of the Khilafah is specified in Islam clearly and evidently, and it is clear that the people of this announcement did not follow this method.
2. As for the matter of the dominant Sultan (السلطان المتغلب) which was mentioned in some jurisprudence books, its meaning needs to be understood, not just repeat the terms "dominant Sultan", without understanding when and how it is to be Islamically erected and when and how it is not Islamically erected; otherwise it will have dire consequences on its people!
The dominant Sultan would be sinful for Muslim bloodshed and dominating them through subjugation, force and coercion, and a legitimate Khilafah would not rise through him for violating the Islamic legislative method... However, some scholars see that this dominant Sultan's ruling becomes Islamically valid if he fulfilled conditions, most notably:
a) He becomes dominant in a land that has the components of a State as per the region surrounding it, so he has a stable authority in it and has control over the internal and external security of the land towards the region surrounding him.
b) Implements Islam with justice and benevolence in that land, and sets a good repute for himself between the people, thus liking them and them liking him and being satisfied with him.
c) The people of that land give him the Bayah of contract with satisfaction and choice, not with coercion and force, and fulfilling the conditions of the legitimate Bayah including that the Bayah in origin should be from the people of that land, and not from the group of the dominant Sultan, because the legitimate Bayah is like that following the example of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was keen to take the initial Bayah from the Ansar of the Madinah with satisfaction and choice, not take it from his Sahabah the Muhajirun, and the second pledge of allegiance proves this.
Thus, the dominant Sultan continues to be in sin, and no legitimate base is erected except after he fulfills the above three conditions, then the ruling of the dominant Sultan becomes legitimate from the moment of that Bayah with satisfaction and choice. This is the reality of the dominant Sultan, hoping that attentive ears may retain it... and it becomes clear from it that these conditions were not fulfilled for the owners of that announcement, they however imposed themselves and their announcement was done unjustly.
As shown above, they did not follow the correct legitimate method, not even the method of the dominant Sultan... however, they declared the Khilafah in a distorted image, and before its conditions were met, so their announcement did not hold any Shari' or valuable meaning, it was a mere rhetoric as if it is non-existent, their reality did not change, and they continued as they were - a militant organization.
3. As for the point that the Hizb does not consider the Khilafah legitimate except if it establishes it, then it is a saying that's weaker than a spider web! This is what the Shaytaan implies to some of those who have a short span and vision, and lacking in insight and vision... what the Hizb wants is for the Khilafah to be established in a clear, pure and undistorted manner, we are the "child's mother" whose mission is that the boy is neither killed nor distorted... but for the boy to achieve strength, health, good care with high quality, and the issue is not about who takes care of him... we want the Khilafah to be established with its full rights, thus it becomes a great cause, strong in power, implementing Islam internally and carrying it externally through Da'wah and Jihad. It will then be an actual righteous Khilafah on the method of the Prophethood that was promised by Allah سبحانه وتعالى and given the glad tidings of it by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم... after the oppressive ruling phase and whoever then establishes it rightfully, whether it were us or others, then he will be heard and obeyed, and by the will of Allah, the earth will then bring out its treasures and the sky will pour down its riches, Islam and its people will be glorified, and Kufr and its people will be humiliated, and Allah is Mighty and Wise...
This is how we want the Khilafah to return, pure and blessed, as the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم established it, and how his righteous Khulafaa' (radhiya Allahu anhum) followed after him... A Khilafah loved by Allah سبحانه وتعالى and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the believers, a Khilafah that will bring happiness into the hearts of the Muslims, and glory into their homes... Not the announcement of a distorted Khilafah that is drenched with the blood of the Muslims unlawfully..
It pained us that the Khilafah which shakes the world and frightens the colonialist Kuffar, it pained us that it became ridiculed, underestimating its significance, and rather, something insignificant, in which the United States announces a comment on that declaration that it is "nothing", rather than crying tears of blood upon the declaration of Khilafah... It also pained us that the people who considered the Khilafah to be a great notion yearning to it, some of them saw it after this declaration as a non-significant event...
The Hizb is a faithful guardian for Islam, and does not fear in Allah the blame of the blamers, it says excellent to the good-doer, and rebukes the wrong-doer, it does not seek from this any party interest nor any worldly benefits, it rather sees the whole world as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned in the Hadith extracted by Tirmidhi from Abdullah bin Masoud
«مَا لِي وَلِلدُّنْيَا، مَا أَنَا فِي الدُّنْيَا إِلَّا كَرَاكِبٍ اسْتَظَلَّ تَحْتَ شَجَرَةٍ ثُمَّ رَاحَ وَتَرَكَهَا»
"What is there between myself and the world? This world and I are just like a rider who stops to rest beneath the shade of a tree then goes and leaves it."
Since the Dunya in the eyes of the Hizb is like that space of time during which it rests under the shade of that tree, so it is keen to spend it in sincere, diligent and righteous work to implement the Shariah rulings through the establishment of the Khilafah rightfully by the will of Allah - The Strong, The Almighty.
4. In conclusion, Hizb ut Tahrir which spent more than sixty years working for the establishment of the Khilafah on the method carried out by the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, spending in this cause many years in the prisons of the oppressors and being pursued and persecuted, as well as tortured by the Tawagheet, resulting in the martyrdom of members of the Hizb and others being harmed... while it remains steadfast upon the Truth in its path despite the increased hardships... So a Hizb whose case is as such, do you see it attacking any party implementing the Khilafah rightfully, whether its implementer is the Hizb or someone else...? It would not attack but would prostrate to Allah in gratitude.. While at the same time stand on the lookout for anyone who gives the name of Khilafah wrongfully, distorting it and attenuating it, the Hizb will remain by the will of Allah سبحانه وتعالى a solid rock in the face of every plot and deceit that distorts the Khilafah or attenuates it, and the Khilafah will be established by the will of Allah سبحانه وتعالى at the hands of men whom neither merchandise nor sale divert them away from the remembrance of Allah, men who will be more rightful to it and are its people, then the dawn of Khilafah will rise once again
وَيَوْمَئِذٍ يَفْرَحُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِنَصْرِ اللَّهِ يَنْصُرُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ
"On that Day shall the Believers rejoice-, In Allah's help to victory. He helps to victory whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Merciful."
14th Ramadan 1435 AH