بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Answer and question
The Hizb says in some of its answers and questions that the Hizb does not give Fatwaas and that the Shabaab are not Muftis (those who give out legal verdicts) and if he was to be asked for a Fatwaa then he should respond frankly by saying that we are not Muftis. And this opinion means that we turn the people away from asking us about the Ahkaam Ash-Shari'yah and this means withholding knowledge and both of these are not correct to come from us. This is because turning the people from the Hizb is not correct because one of our most important aims is to make the Ummah embrace the Hizb and to make the ideas of the Hizb dominant upon the people. And because withholding knowledge is not permissible due to the statement of the Messenger (saw): <
> so how do we reconcile between the opinion of the Hizb and what we
are aiming to achieve and that which has been made Waajib upon us by the
The following has been stated in the definition of the Hizb as published in the last page of the book 'Mafaaheem': [Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a political party who's Mabda is Islam] and it was also mentioned in Mafaaheem: [It is obligatory for the bloc that carries the Islamic Da'wah to be a political bloc and it is not permitted for it to be a spiritual bloc, moral bloc, scholarly or educational bloc or anything from this type or similar to it. Indeed it is necessary for the Kutlah (block) to be political and from this understanding came Hizb-ut-Tahrir. It is an Islamic party, a political party whose work is political and it works to culture the Ummah with the Islamic culture in which the political aspect stands out] and in the following was mentioned in the book 'At-Takattul: [And when the Mabda (ideology) becomes embodied in the people it is not possible to keep it restrained but rather it drives them towards carrying the Da’wah so the actions become shaped by it and proceed according to its method and restricted by its limits. Their existence becomes solely for the sake of the ideology and for carrying the Da’wah to it, fulfilling its legal responsibilities. And this Da’wah aims at making the people embrace this ideology alone to the exclusion of anything else and towards bringing into existence ‘Al-Wa’ee Al-Aamm’ (general awareness)] and then it says: [The general awareness about the ideology will lead to the unifications of the thoughts, opinions and beliefs within the majority if not the whole of the Ummah and through this the goal of the Ummah is unified as well as its Aqeedah and viewpoint in life].
And it is also mentioned in the book ‘At-Takkatul’: [It is necessary to place a thick barrier between the mind and the academic aspect so that the Hizb culture does not take the direction of the academic school culture]. It then states: [It is necessary to place a thick barrier between those who have become part of the Hizb and the academic aspect in the Hizb’s culture and to pay attention that the purpose of the Hizb culture is to change the concepts and to work in the battlefield of life and to carry the intellectual leadership to the Ummah and it is not permissible for this person to hasten towards the academic aspect]. It then states: [And it is dangerous to push forward with the culture towards the academic aspect because it will take away from the essence of the work]. These thoughts, indeed these concepts are image of the Hizb and they represent the image of every Hizbi in the Hizb. This is because the Hizb represents a complete intellectual sensation and as such every Hizbi is the Hizb and the image of the Hizb is the image of every Hizbi. And as long as this is the image of the Hizb and the image of every Hizbi then it is impossible for him to be a Mufti and it is not correct for him to be one. As for him, he is a Da’wah carrier that proceeds on the political path and this is political and nothing else.
The image which is imprinted in the minds of the people in regards to any personality from amongst the personalities whether this personality is a Shakhsiyah Haqeeqiyah (real) like a leader’s personality or the personality of the ruler, or this personality can be a Shakhsiyah Ma’nawiyah (in perception) like the personality of a political party or a charitable association. And it is this which determines how the people behave towards this personality and defines their behaviour towards it. And the image of Hizb-ut-Tahrir which it is attempting to imprint in the minds of the people is the image of the aware leader (Qaa’id), the innovative/creative politician, the image of the judicious thinker and the image of the just ruler. This is because he aims at leading the Ummah in the struggle against peoples and nations, and he desires to revive her with the correct revival with the enlightened thought, and he strives to take her authority and take care of her affairs and take charge her issue. Therefore if the image that she (the Ummah) has of this personality does not manifest the characteristics of true leadership then how will she hand over her leadership to it and rush forward towards martyrdom in the way of achieving its goal?
Indeed the enemies of Islaam have given the Muslims a distorted image of the Messenger of Allah, an image that is stripped from the thoughts of Islaam and they were able through this to make the leadership of the Muslims with Islaam seem like a matter of wishful thinking and that taking the Messenger of Allah (saw) as the example in politics and leadership would lead to failure within authority and politics. And as long as this image does not return to the minds of the Muslims then they will never be led by Islaam and as long as the image of Abu-l-Qaasim (the Nabi (saw)) remains as a vague imagination in the Ummah then she will never be able to gain the strength to struggle against Kufr and the Kuffaar. Therefore providing the Ummah with the correct image of its Islaamic leadership is alone what will make the leadership of the Ummah firm and what will make her capable of entering the struggle with nations.
And giving the Muslims an image of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a Mufti would make her pray behind it but it would not make her led by it and it would make them go to it for knowledge but not for protection and the caring of her affairs. As such then we if we want to take leadership of the Ummah then it is necessary that the Ummah takes from us the image of a leader, a political image, an image of a thinker and strong ruler and there is no way to achieving this except by providing her with the image of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. As such it was from the most important of obligations to be committed to, that the image of every Hizbi is the image of the Hizb in the eyes of the Ummah. And in addition that the personality of every Hizbi be a personality of political struggle in the eyes of the people which is attempting to take the leadership of the people so as to contest the throes of struggle. That the behaviour of every Hizbi be a behaviour of someone who engages in struggle built upon awareness for the sake of focusing on the flag and achieving the objective and this means nothing other than raising the word of Allah, breaking the material obstacles so as to open the way to the Islamic Da'wah. This is the personality of the Hizb in its true reality and this is its image and true essence. Therefore it is obligatory for every Hizbi to provide the people with the image of Hizb-ut-Tahrir just as it is and not the image of a Mufti or Muftis.
The Mufti is the one is open to give Fatwaas and the people go to him asking him about the Hukm Shar'i in relation to specific acts which they or others have come across and the 'Aalim is the one whose work is to explore knowledge in the books but does not address the people with Fatwaas although if asked about a specific issue then he will provide an answer to it as an issue and not as a specific Hukm for a specific occurrence. The Waa'izh (preacher) is the person who reminds the people about the punishment of Allah, with Jannah and the Day of account whereas the teacher is the one who teaches the individuals naked knowledge without any regard to its applicability to reality, circumstances or to acting upon it. And each of these four types manifests an image which differs from the other so the image of the Mufti is different from the image of the 'Aalim, and the image of the Waa'izh (preacher) is different from the Mu'allim (teacher) and even if the Waa'izh was in fact a teacher, and an image of the possessor of each characteristic from these characteristics is what is represented and none other and this is even if he possessed all four of these attributes/characteristics. As for Hizb-ut-Tahrir it does not possess the characteristic of a Mufti because he does not put himself forward to giving Fatwaa and he does not look into the acts of individuals in their description as individuals to provide them with Shar'iah rules but rather he is only a politician who cares for the affairs of the people with the Shar'iah rules. The Hizb also does not possess the characteristic of the 'Aalim because its work is not to sift through knowledge in the books and even if it revises the books seeking to obtain knowledge because sifting through knowledge is not its work or purpose but is rather a means employed within its work which political. It is also not a Waa'izh reminding the people of the Aakhirah and he does not turn the people away from the Dunyaa but rather he takes care of their affairs and he gives them awareness about the Dunyaa so that it takes mastery over it and it makes the purpose of the Dunyaa the happiness of the hereafter and obtaining the pleasure of Allah. And it is also not a teacher even if it cultures the people with the thoughts and rules so teaching knowledge alone is not its work and it does not concern itself with it and it only aims at acting in accordance to the thoughts and rules so it provides the knowledge linked to its reality and circumstances politically and not as knowledge and so as to take care of its affairs and not as education.
As such it is from the acts of Zhulm (injustice) to say that the Hizbi is a Mufti and it is a deviation if the Hizbi becomes a Mufti. It is true that there is nothing to prevent answering the questioner in regards to the Hukm Shar’i in a specific act but rather he cultures him with the Hukm that he has been asked about and he pulls him towards knowledge and enlightenment. So he takes a question that is suitable for culturing and provides the answer as culture and not as a Fatwaa. So he does not turn people away the question regarding the thoughts and the Ahkaam but does the opposite so he answers so as to attract them to him and to enlighten the minds with the thoughts of the Hizb and its opinions. However he does not put himself forward to provide Fatwaas but rather turns the questioner away from seeking a Fatwaa and enters with him into a discussion in which there is culturing for the questioner with a Hukm Shar’i so that he acts according to his knowledge which he has given him and not with what he has taken from the Fatwaa. So there is an underlying danger in addressing people with the Fatwa and to give the Hukm Shar’i as a Fatwaa from amongst the Fataawaa. If this happened it would transform the Shabaab of the Hizb into something that they are not and following from this it would distort away the image of the Hizb. He also does not conceal knowledge but rather he does not provide it as mere knowledge and rather must provide the knowledge as effective culture, as an enlightened thought and as a concept from amongst the concepts which affect the behaviour. From this the atrocity of turning the Hizb into a Mufti becomes apparent and for the Shabaab of the Hizb to become Muftis. That would lead to the real destruction not just for the Shabaab alone and not just for the Hizb but rather for the Ummah which needs to be led by the Hizb and the Mabada (ideology) which it carries when it transforms it from being a viewpoint for life to being a treatment of the individual alone.
This Hizb has been tested with three attempts to shift it from its true nature, attempts to pull it away from politics towards the Deen and Fiqh. So when the Naa’ib (elected representative) began to give purely political speeches in the Jordanian representative assembly, this caused a stir amongst some of the Shabaab who are no longer present amongst others who questioned: Where is the Islaam in these speeches? And where are the Aqaa’id and Ahkaam in the discussions of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in parliament? Then it occurred again when the Hizb began to make its weekly comments (statements) and political comments which led to many of the Shabaab of the Hizb amongst others say: The Hizb has deviated from its path and it can no longer be counted as an Islamic Hizb and it has become a political party just like the other political parties. And they began to attempt to direct the Hizb away from politics and from the political publications so as to return to publications of the ruling of Islaam and discussion around the Ahkaam As-Shar’i. Then when the Hizb began to attack the persons in ruling and restricted its publications to opposing their actions and restricted itself to the action of striking at the relationships between the authority and the Ummah then many of the Shabaab amongst others made a big issue about this that the Hizb attacked the personalities (i.e. rulers themselves) and chose to expose certain acts of certain rulers, and they said: The Hizb is resorting to insults and the Hizb is swapped its concern for thoughts to focusing on people and from Islaam to the rulers and they attempted to return the Hizb to Islamic publications and to distance it from opposing the ruling people. These are the three trials that the Hizb overcame and it did this, not by standing against it to rebuke it and not by accepting discussion about it but rather it overcame them by continuing with the political statements and political actions and it continued to strike at the hands of those who held on to the authority with strong consecutive strikes to bring down its sides, remove its place of dignity and the ambitions of the people within it. And it preserved its true Hizb nature in that it is a political party and it has no action apart from politics and this false thinking (even if it came from those who are sincere) could not budge the Hizb even a hair away from its identity or effect it in the smallest way from the true reality of its personality.
Indeed it is Hizb-ut-Tahrir and it is an Islamic Hizb from the angle of its ideology (Mabda) but it is not an Islamic party like the other Islamic structures....Rather it is only a political party whose ideology is Islaam. So Islaam is its Mabda (ideology) but it is not its work and Islaam is its foundation but not its description. So it will take hold of the authority when it becomes available to it to take over so as to take charge (care) of the affairs of the people in actuality and it will account the authority at all times whether it is in the ruling or outside of it. Therefore all of its work is restricted to politics, either practically by running affairs or by view through accounting the rulers upon the basis of Islaam.
And the Hizb and it is a collective of Shabaab and administrations however if the people say that the Hizb has said such and such or done such and such then they are referring solely to the Shabaab of the Hizb and its publications and this is because the Hizb is a sensory intellectual whole so every Hizbi is the Hizb. Therefore if the image of some of the Hizbiyeen or just a single individual becomes the image of a Mufti then the Hizb would have become distorted and become a Mufti. This is in addition to causing a deviation from the actions of the Hizb and a deviation from its identity because in time it will distort the image of the Hizb and transform the Shabaab of the Hizb from being politicians to turn them into Muftis. Due to this it is a danger for the Shabaab to start addressing Fatwaas and provide people with them because they will become Fuqahaa in the eyes of people and not leaders, seekers of knowledge and not Da’wah carriers, and the Hizb will become an educational association and not a political block. And in all of this there is a clear and wide-ranging harm upon the Shabaab themselves and the Hizb.
And this is regardless of the providing of Fatwaas being the lowest form of Fiqh and regardless of it merely being the word of a Mufti which represents decline in the society, and regardless of it encouraging the people to seek Fataawaa which exposes the Ahkaam Shari’ah for ignorant people to issue verdicts from it, and regardless of the giving of quick answers or giving answers from the memory being prone to error in the majority of cases. Indeed advising the Shabaab not to expose themselves to giving Fatwaa and making them understand the danger of being Muftis is not for the reason of treating the issue of Fatwaas in the society and it is not to stand up against the peoples understanding of the Ahkaam Shari’ah but rather it is for the sake of preserving the image of the Hizb in the eyes of the people as it should be seen as a political party and no other type of party. And it is also to protect the Shabaab from going outside of the frame of the Hizb and becoming something else like Muftis or ‘Ulamaa or preachers or teachers.
So in conclusion it is not correct for the Shabaab to put themselves forward for giving Fatwaas so that the people go them for Fatwaas. However if he is asked about the form of the Du’aa of Qunoot then he grabs hold of the opportunity to explain the (full) meaning of the Du’aa, and if he is asked about a movement in the Salaah then he grabs hold of the opportunity to explain the meaning of Taqleed, and if he is asked about estate agents he moves the discussion to the obligation to abide by the Hukm Shar’i. So he does not conceal what he knows and he does not attempt to learn so as to give Fatwaa but rather he is at this time and at all times upon this condition of being a Da’wah carrier on a political methodology i.e. he is a politician who’s ideology (mabda) is Islaam.
22 Rabee’ul Awwal 1390