Letter from Abu Khaled Al Hejazi to the Ameer of Hizb Ut Tahrir, the Lajna al Qiyadah and the Office of the Ameer

This address is to the Ameer of Hizb ut Tahrir, his Lajna Al Qiyadah (Leadership Committee) and his Maktab (Office).

Assalamu’alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu, I pray this finds you in the best health

I write to you an appeal, an appeal to rethink, to introspect. Please do not see this coming from a shab who has lost hope or has lost energy, has lost trust, has been wronged, has become arrogant, did not have the knowledge or the one who did not have exposure.

I wish you see this ‘appeal’ coming from a man who loved the dawah and still loves it and who loves you O Abu Yaseen for the sake of Allah and has not been wronged by you or by anyone in your office. I wish you see this appeal from a man who served in various positions of masuliya including being a Mutamad for the past 10 years for 3 countries including for a country with over 250 Million Muslims. This is an ‘appeal’ and not a letter of ‘accounting’.

I would not have addressed you with this appeal had the issue been just a simple mistake, a violation or a shortcoming of one individual or more of the shebab or those in charge of the Party’s affairs.

I would like to clarify and insist that I only address the Party out of the respect, love and care I have for this Dawah and its shebab and its leaders.

I address you because what is going on now is a catalogue of mistakes and violations which is the reason why we have ended up achieving the displeasure of Allah (swt). Mistakes and violation that are not mere transgressions which took place once or twice rather major glaring mistakes which has today led the party to become a ‘failed vehicle’. Mistakes which no doubt will lead the shebab of the party to not be ‘Mubri’ ul Lizzima’ (fulfilling the responsibility), if they were to die today then they would not be absolved of the obligation to work for the reestablishment of the Khilafah.

Despite the clear failure of the party in achieving the victory, a matter that should make us reevaluate our work from the foundations, the official leaflets from the party continue to claim that we are on the brink of victory.

He Ta’Aalaa said:

وَعَدَ اللَّـهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَىٰ لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا ۚ يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا

“Allah has promised those who have believed among you and done righteous deeds that He will surely grant them succession [to authority] upon the earth just as He granted it to those before them and that He will surely establish for them [therein] their religion which He has preferred for them and that He will surely substitute for them, after their fear, security, [for] they worship Me, not associating anything with Me [TMQ An-Noor: 55]

Therefore, Allah Ta’Aalaa has made it obligatory upon the Jamaa’ah to have Imaan and undertake the best action or perfect the action (Ihsaan ul-‘Amal) and made that a certain Sabab (cause) in respect to it being granted succession (Istikhlaaf). Even though the Aayah was revealed upon the Muslims after the Hijrah at a time when they were in a state of severe fear from the disbelievers, where they did not go to sleep or awake except with their weapons in their hands, the ‘Ibrah (significance or purport) is not in the specificity of the Sabab (cause). The Aayah in its generality is valid to be applied upon the Jamaa’ah, the state and the Ummah, whilst there is nothing to specify it to any of them.

As soon as the party met the Shar’iyah description of being a Jamaa’ah, the promise of Allah in relation to the provision of An-Nasr applied upon it. Then, if the members through whom its Shar’i description was fulfilled in respect to it being a Jamaa’ah die out without being provided the victory, that means the existence of flaws within the Hizb, which must be examined, investigated and revised. That is because the promise is not open until the Day of Judgement.

Making the promise not be restricted to an endpoint means that the promise has no value or worth because every generation in the Jamaa’ah will believe, in such a case, in the possibility of accomplishing the victory or its non-accomplishment (i.e. it could happen and could not happen), which makes the promise hold no value for every generation, in addition to that making the concept of victory and its role or purpose redundant. From the angle of motivation or incentive, it has no value, in the case where the individual of the group believes that the victory could be accomplished just as it may not be. And also from the angle of what it reveals, because it does not encourage the Jamaa’ah to revise its flaws, in the case where the promise is deemed to remain open until the Day of Judgement.

The party clearly has not achieved the victory and its founding members have passed away whilst the promise remains unfulfilled. Therefore, it must introspect and investigate the flaws in its thought and method which preclude it from achieving the victory. As the flaws in the branches do not prevent the reaching of the objective, but rather that it is only the flaws in the fundamentals which prevent the reaching of the objective.

The founding Ameer, Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani said in ‘At-Tafkeer’:

The practical idea can be given to the nation and attached to her within one generation, regardless of what there was of resistance, on condition that there is seriousness in thinking and seriousness in action. So the nation does not need generations nor hundreds of years; rather every idea and every action needs, in order to bring fruits in the nation, not less than one decade. For within one decade the nation can be changed. If she was subject to her enemy, she needs more than one decade, but she does not need for more than three decades under resistance. Therefore, the movement, or the action or the idea must give fruit in the nation at the hands of the people who strive to realise this idea or this action, and not on the hands of the generations who come after them. Thus the objective should be of the type that is realised at the hands of those who strive for it. This is the condition of the thinking in the objective. It would not be an objective if those who strive for it do not realise it themselves.”

It has been more than six decades since the formation of the party without the desired change of the resumption of the Islamic way of life through the re-establishment of the Khilafah being achieved.

As you know much better than me, it is a well-known subject among the usulieen: For any amal (action) to be considered as fulfilled or to be considered having been undertaken in the right way, i.e. it is wajib to undertake the action in the manner as addressed and expected by the legislator. This is because any contravention from the shari manner of undertaking the amal will lead to the displeasure of Allah (swt).

This has been discussed by Scholars of Usul under the Chapter of Suqoot At’taa’bud (being absolved of an Ibadah). Among the Usulioon, Imam Razi And Imam Zarkashi both have discussed in it in their books of Usul, Al Mahsool and Al Bahr Al Muheet respectively.

So if someone undertakes an amal where he does not fulfill the actions Shurut (conditions) and Arkaan (pillars), then he will be rewarded for his effort and sincerity but he is not considered Mubri’ ul lizzima, i.e he is  not absolved off the legal obligation on his neck.

This ‘appeal’ is written to raise multiple aspects of the party’s arkaan (pillars) and shurut which it has failed in therefore is not ‘Mubri’ ul lizzima’ for its shebab. In this current situation, it is apparent that our continuing work with the party will not lead to us being absolved off the sin from our necks.

I will not raise issues which may have been deviations committed once or twice or certain issues which may be considered acceptable when seen from a certain viewpoint. So my ‘appeal’ is not linked to the subject of the claim made by some shebab about the deviation from the method in Syria, for I view it as an issue which even if we made a mistake in would continue to keep the party as Mubri’ ul lizzima. It is like the mistake a man commits when praying salah and then does ‘sajda suhoo’, it does not make his salah invalidated.

Rather what I raise are issues to do with the arkan and shurut of the work, much similar to the arkan and shurut of an Ibadah like Salah wherein if a mistake is committed would invalidate the salah.

I ‘appeal’ to the party leadership to review these matters which by the least amount of doubt today are leading the party and its followers not be absolved of the sin of not having the baya’ upon their necks.

The three foundations that build an entity and are required for its success are:

  1. The comprehensive idea, thoughts & concepts [Culture] to develop and culture the shebab of the party with.
  2. A detailed Methodology derived from the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah.
  3. A competent and effective leadership that guides the party towards the goal.

It is with respect to these core areas of the party that I raise various subjects in this document that are clear in nature and which I appeal to you to review and take seriously:

  1. The first issue is on the subject of the methodology: the lack of clarity and apparent contradiction on the subject of methodology in the literature of the Party and in its actions.

 The party’s methodology even though not written comprehensively in one particular adopted book is clear for any meticulous researcher. It is discussed in depth in the book ‘Tareef – Introduction’ and the book  ‘Takattul’ , the Progress Leaflets (Nasharaat us Siyar) and others. Apart from this the multitude of Answers by the party leadership add to the clarity for the meticulous researcher.

The book At-Takatul Al-Hizbi” (Structuring of a Party) says: “… an ideological Hizb which would progress naturally in two tracks: First, through multiplication it will generate other cells which embrace the ideology with complete awareness and comprehension; and second, through creating and building general awareness about the ideology throughout the Ummah. The general awareness about the ideology will lead to the unification of the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs within the majority if not the whole of the Ummah. Hence the objective of the Ummah, as well as her convictions (qana’aat) and her outlook on life, will be unified. Therefore, the Hizb will serve as a melting pot, which would melt the Ummah and purify her from the impure and the corrupt ideas that led to the decline of the Ummah, or developed during the era of decline. The Hizb should undertake this melting process within the Ummah, thus leading to the revival of the Ummah. This is a tedious process that can only be undertaken by a Hizb that lives its idea, devotes its entire life to the idea, and is aware of its every single step.”

This issue has been repeated in various publications from the hizb. For example in the publication “Al-Khitaab” (The address) issued on 15/12/1961 the Hizb said:

“The purpose or aim from all of the undertakings of live contacts is to bring about a Qaa’idah Kubraa (Greater base) from the majority of the Ummah and the masses of the people for the Hizb within the society and this is what has been named amongst some people “Al-Qaa’idah Ash-Sha’biyah” (the popular base). That is because the Ummah represents the natural prop or support for the authority and it is the effect means to remove the unnatural support or prop which supports the authority, just as it is the influential or effective tool which weakens the means which assist the propping of the authority. For that reason, the practical path for the authority to be handed over or assumed is only the generation of a Qaa’idah Kubraa (Greater base) from the majority of the people and the masses of the people, which represents the direct tool for the assumption of the authority and also represents the fortified fortress which safeguards and elevates its standing”.

Also within the same publication:

“The State will be established via this Qaa’idah (i.e. popular base), it will confront the war of interference (or intervention) via this Qaa’idah and it will carry the Da’wah internationally to the world and struggle against the states within the international situation and the international community with or via this Qaa’idah (base). For that reason, it is necessary for the whole Ummah or within its collective state representative of the Qaa’idah (base) and for the public opinion amongst her to be emanating from a general or widespread awareness focused completely upon a rational Imaan (belief) and definite Tasdeeq (belief) based on a Daleel (evidence), and for the support of the masses to reach the level of readiness for martyrdom through contentment, tranquillity and longing for the gardens of bliss and the pleasure of Allah”.

In the leaflet, “Our issue is not the assumption of the rule but rather our issue is only the building of a state”, issued on 8/03/1968 it says:

“The political awareness in respect to the Islamic Ummah is a matter of life or death, because bringing Islaam into the realm of life without the Khilafah state is imagination and establishing the Khilafah State without the Islamic Ummah is delusion and making the Ummah accomplish the Khilafah State without political awareness represents even greater imagination and worse delusion. Therefore, if the carriers of the Islamic Da’wah were able to change the thoughts of the people and replace them with the Islamic thoughts and were able to generate the public opinion for this Islamic thought in addition to what emanates from it, and the necessity of establishing it within the realm of life via the bringing about of the Khilafah state … And they were able to make this thought emerge in the realm of life via bringing into existence the Khilafah state and they were able to make the people willing to give their blood and property in the way of the Islamic thought which they carried alongside them, and they were able also to open the eyes of the people upon the path of Islaam, make it clear to them and propel them together to proceed in it and even if there was hardship and suffering in that, and were able to make the Ummah proceed in the hardest and most difficult path, giving their lifeblood and souls generously, their lives and properties, for the sake of Islaam and raising high its banner … Or stated in other words … In the case where the state is an executive entity for a host of concepts, criteria and convictions i.e. the state is an entity established upon a thought, then in such a case, it is necessary to build this entity and make sure about the soundness of its construction upon solid foundations. This building is from the work of the carriers of the Islamic Da’wah, undertaken night and day, in a continuous manner, all of which is done in a forthright and daring manner which doesn’t know laziness or becoming tiresome, and it is to bring about (or accomplish) three matters: 1 – The public opinion within the society for the Islamic thought which Hizb ut Tahrir carries and adopts. 2 – The people embracing this Islamic thought and its carriers. 3 – Make available the capability within the Hizb and it departments which will enable it to discharge the affairs of the ruling without trouble or (great) effort … And after these three matters are brought into existence, the assumption of the rule comes in a natural manner, by Allah’s permission, by the announcement of the Islamic Khilafah, and so our work would be the building of the state and the assumption of a rule”.

  What however needs to be brought to the attention is the fact that the party in real terms has not been able to build a popular base in its Majal yet continues to focus on asking the people of power to hand over authority to it and continues to say to the shabab and the Ummah that we are on the brink of victory. This is something very apparent from the activities of the party. The Penultimate Call from Hizb ut Tahrir to the Muslim Ummah in general and its People of Power issued in June 2015 clearly demonstrates this. The party in most wilayat where it seeks Nusrah i.e the wilayaat where it undertakes the work of Kifaah Fikri (Intellectual struggle) and Kifaah Siyasi (Political struggle) so as to take authority, does not enjoy a popular base. The examples of two important countries in this subject will suffice, the first is Egypt and the second being Pakistan.

During Mubarak’s reign the party was unable to carry any significant activities and remained mostly underground as a result of the ban and due to this it was not in a position to register its presence in the country during this period let alone build ‘public opinion’ or a ‘popular base’.

In 2011, the official spokesman for the Hizb in Egypt, Mahmood Tarshooby in an interview with Islam Online said in response to the question, ‘Are you not in a state of isolation from the Egyptian street in contrast with the other Islamic movements?’:

“In relation to the Hizb not infiltrating the Egyptian street like the other Islamic groups then this is because the internal security forces have imprisoned, tortured and sentenced the Da’wah carriers preventing their entry into the street whereas the other Islamic movements or some of them have been given permission by the internal security under guidelines and instructions from the higher state apparatus to work within limits which are permitted for them whilst the Hizb has not been permitted to undertake any activity.”

Even the Ameer of the party admitted that public opinion based on general awareness had not been achieved in Egypt, in a Question and Answer dated 11th March 2011 he said:

“To any sincere and aware person, it was clear that these events stemmed from people’s emotions and that such situations are easily controlled and crushed by international powers. This is why the sincere persons focused on keeping in contact with protestors in order to keep them aware of the happenings and to urge them not to let their spilled blood be humiliated and wasted and more importantly that their demands are in accordance with their deen which they profess…

Despite such sincere, true and intense attempts with the protestors, other forces utilized their proxies and harnessed their resources to the extent that the protestors at the Tahrir Square in Egypt who offered prayers in thousands, cried the greatness of Allah and were overwhelmed by their Islamic sentiments, but yet they neither demanded the rule of Islam nor mentioned Jihad against the Jewish state which has usurped Palestine, and moreover did not even call for rescinding the Camp David accord!

This underscores the truth of the statement that two aspects are required in order to achieve the correct change:

* Public Opinion which stems out of their awareness and not merely public opinion as such.

* Support of the people of power, and not merely any support.”

 Yet, after the resignation of Mubarak the party sent a delegation to the Egyptian army in order to ask them to hand over authority to it. On the 15/02/2011, the party sent a letter through a delegation to the army in Egypt in which the party sought Talab An Nussrah from the Armed forces in Egypt. It stated:

  فإن حزب التحرير في هذا اليوم الأغر، ذكرى مولد رسول الله، الثاني عشر من ربيع الأول 1432هـ ،يرسل إليك هذه الرسالة طالبا  نُصرتَك لإقامة حكم الله في مصر الكنانة، بإعلان قيام الخلافة الراشدة وفق كتاب الله وسنة رسوله

Hizb ut Tahrir on this day, the anniversary of the Birth of the Prophet (saw), the 12th of Rabi Al Awwal 1432, sends you this letter seeking your Nusrah to establish the Hukm of Allah in Misr Al Kinana (Egypt), by announcing the establishment of the Khilafah Rashida according to the Book of Allah and Sunnah of his messenger.

Herein lies the contradiction between the adopted literature of the party and its actions.

In fact although the party in recent years continues to repeat that we are on the brink of victory, previously in various leaflets and Q&A the party admitted its failure. For example in undated Q&A included in the Dausiya Takatuliyya entitled ‘Question and Answer about the lack of appearance of any affect of the Hizb amongst the people in its Majaal (area of work) in terms of the main Islamic thoughts’ it says:

And it is known that the Ummah carrying the message that the Hizb carries is a fundamental condition for it to fulfil its mission and that the presence of the general awareness from which a public opinion emanates is an essential matter so that it is permissible for the Hizb to take the ruling in one part of its Majaal. For this reason it is of the most important matters to busy the mind of every individual in the Hizb to establish the fundamental thoughts of Islam amongst the people according to what the Hizb has adopted and in particular the thoughts that are considered to be from the criteria and affect the viewpoint in life.

 It is evident by measuring the thoughts of the people and their sentiments (Mashaa’ir) in all of the Majaal that there is no presence of the fundamental Islamic thoughts amongst the people with the exception of the inherited thoughts according to the reality in which they live, and that no fundamental thought from Islam stands out in their conversations and discussions. Even the Aqeedah which is the basis of every thought and Hukm has no presence in their thoughts in their conversations and discussions and it naturally follows that the appearance of any affect of the Islamic thoughts in their relationships is not a matter that is anticipated. Accordingly it appears that no influence or effect of the Hizb has appeared in its Majaal.”

Despite the fact that by our own acknowledgement previously that we were unable to achieve a real impact upon the Ummah and the fact that today a large part of the Ummah remains unaware of the party, we continue to say that we are on the brink of victory. It is indeed important to motivate the shebab and the followers of the party that the victory is from Allah (swt) but this is different to building false hopes and pretending as if we are on the verge of victory when the reality is far away from that.

Upon enquiry as to reason for attempting to take power when the party has little or no presence in a country, some of the official replies that were received from the Mandoobeen of the party was that the party undertook the attempt to take power in Egypt due to the evidence found in what the Prophet (saw) did in Ta’if where he accessed the leaders of Ta’if and sought power from them. Another reply was that the party was seeking power in Egypt based on the evidence found from Musab bin Umair’s actions in Madina. It was explained that the Prophet (saw) had achieved Nusrah that before he sent Musab ibn Umair to Madina and what Musab undertook was the preparations of the ground for the arrival of the prophet (saw) and nothing more. He did not undertake the actions which were undertaken in Makkah and therefore the work in Madina was not a work of Dawah from the basis rather it was an expansion of the work in Makkah. And since the prophet had achieved public opinion in Makkah therefore there was no need to rebuild the public opinion in the other places again i.e in Ta’if or in Madina and this is the reason why the Prophet was seeking power in these places apart from the other tribes that he had approached.

After interacting with senior Shabab from Jordan, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Indonesia and other countries over the last decade including members of the Ameer’s Office it is apparent that there is no unified view regarding the methodology to re-establish the Khilafah within the Shabab. There are clearly two main camps and then some in between. One camp espouses the methodology discussed in At-Takkatul Hizbi about gaining authority through the masses and the other considers focusing on seeking the Nussrah as the priority even if the popular base of the party is weak in the majal countries. Unfortunately, the Hizb has become like the other failed movements that At-Takkatul Hizbi discusses where there is vagueness in its thought and method resulting in the lack of unified views among its leaders and members.

Perhaps what has allowed the multiple views on the method exist within the party is that the party has not written the methodology to establish the Khilafah in a proper comprehensive fiqhi manner as the fuqaha write in the other areas of fiqh such as Salah, Zakah or Jihad. Rather the methodology is presented in a general way quoting some shar’i evidences in the adopted books ‘At Ta’reef’, Mefaheem Hizb ut-Tahrir (Concepts) and ‘Manhaj Hizb ut-Tahrir fit tagheer’ (The methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for change). However, it is also discussed at length without presenting any shar’i evidences for its conclusions in the book At-Takkatul Hizbi. There are also a multitude of questions and answers on the topic, some of which that quote the shar’i evidences and others that discuss the matter rationally without any shar’i evidence.

Another reason may be that when the Hizb changed its methodology in 1961 by adding Talab an Nussrah (seeking the support) as part of the method and not just a permissible style as it used to consider it prior. After this, the book At-Takkatul Hizbi was not radically changed even though it was written according to initial view of generating a popular base and popular uprising. The ‘Caesarean Section’ leaflet published by the party on 27th January 1972 states:

“When the party entered the interaction stage in 1960 and when it faced the rigidity in the ummah and the increased brutal persecution, it returned to the Seerah an nabawiyah to adopt a method which describes a practical and realistic way to actually establish the state.

After studying, thinking and research it arrived to the fact that taking power was from the styles (usloob), as for the establishment of the state is the method (tareeqah) and not a style (usloob), and it also arrived to the practical realistic method to reach to the establishment of the state actually is through seeking power (talab an nusrah), the prophet (saw) after the Meccan society showed rigidity in front of him in Makkah, and after the brutal persecution against him and his companions increased, he took to attaching to his call the seeking of power (talab an nusrah), so he started seeking power from the people of power and authority. That is why the hizb has no choice in the way to establish the state rather it is forced to take a defined method. And it is bound by this method because this is the Shari Rule, and it is a method and not a style (usloob), that is why it decided to follow the method of seeking the power (talab an nusrah) and it issued a bulletin (nashra) in the beginning of 1961 and distributed it among the masul’s (responsible) and commanded them to work on it and it started attempting to seek power (talab an nusrah).”

An example of multiplicity of views on the method within the senior ranks of the party is the contradiction of the view of our Mandoob, while the party in its official leaflet ‘The style for winning over the Ummah and taking her leadership’ issued on 14/12/1980 stated:

‘That he (saw) when he sent Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair (ra) to Al-Madinah after some of its people had embraced Islam, he sent him with the aim of establishing a strong base that would believe in Islam, in the Messenger of Islam and be ready to die in the way of protecting Islam and its Da’wah. It was this reason that he sent him and ordered him to teach them the Qur’an and Islam, and to build their knowledge in the Deen. In other words he was sent to engage in a process of melting them for them to be melted in the crucible of Islaam. And indeed this is what happened so after he was able to win over their leaders including Sa’d Ibn Mu’aadh, Usaid Ibn Hudair and Sa’d Ibn ‘Ubaadah he was able to win their collective over to Islam. He was able to melt them completely with the thoughts of Islam until Islam became the determiner of their relationships and it dominated all of their conversations and gatherings. They embraced it completely and they had been prepared to die in its way’

This is also echoed by the Scholars in the party such as Shekh Hussein Abdullah who writes in his book, The Shariah methodology to establish the Khilafah. He states,

After the Nuqtat-ul-Intilaaq (Launching point) and the entering of the society, the interaction of the society with the thoughts of the Da’wah would begin as a result of the political actions undertaken by the Hizb like the adoption of the Ummah’s interests and exposing the plans. And like the collective public culturing alongside the concentrated culturing of the individuals of the Hizb, this is all done to generate a political and intellectual awareness within the Ummah and within individuals. This leads to interaction between the erroneous thoughts present in the society and the thoughts of Islaam that the Hizb has called to. This is in order to melt the Ummah in the melting pot of Islam, to unify their thoughts, opinions and beliefs upon that which the Hizb has adopted, to generate a popular base for the Hizb and a public opinion emanating from a general awareness upon the thoughts of the Hizb. This is in preparation for taking the authority and receiving the rule, or said differently, so that the Ummah provides the Hizb with leadership to rule her with Islaam after the return of her confidence in Islaam and after embracing the Hizb.

This is what Mus’ab Ibn ‘Umair (ra) did when he was sent by the Messenger of Allah (saw) to Al-Madinah. So after generating a popular base upon the basis of Islaam and after generating a public opinion emanating from a general awareness upon Islaam, the Muslims began to anticipate and look forward to the coming of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to rule and govern them by Islaam. This preparation was done to the extent that no one from amongst those who opposed Islaam from the Jews and polytheists dared to speak out openly about their opposition or hostility fearing the public opinion that had been generated (in the society).

The second area of contradiction between the party literature and our actions is the attempts to take power in areas where we do not have public opinion by giving the reference that the party had addressed the Ummah that we have achieved public opinion in Jordan in the early 1960s. This is incorrect because the public opinion built in Jordan is not applicable to Pakistan or to Egypt or any other country. And it is also clear as discussed above that the Prophet (saw) did not have separate methods for Makkah, Madina and the other Arab tribes, rather he had a common method for all of the areas, and he applied the same method in both the places i.e Makkah and Madinah.

The party leadership has not removed this contradiction between the actions of the party and its adopted literature. If the party leadership believes that it has changed its methodology and considers that the building of popular base is not part of the method and that the work in Madina was not an independent work from Makkah, then it is the party’s duty to have clarified this to the shebab over the decades. It would have been necessary to review and update the party literature including books like At-Takattul and other adopted literature so that the shebab would only study, learn and propagate what the party actually works on. And if the party believes there has been a mistake in the application of what has been written in the literature then it should hasten to correct its mistake which has continued not for years but decades. Not doing so would mean that the party and its shebab say something and do something else, which we have been severely warned against by Allah (swt). He (swt) said

 يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ -كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ أَن تَقُولُوا مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ –

O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” [TMQ 61:2-2]

  2. The second issue is the misapplication of the term ‘Majal’ on areas that do not fulfill the requirements of Majal.

 When I mean Majal here, it refers to those lands that the party actively seeks to seeks authority in. Even though this is a private matter that is decided by the Ameer, the activities of the party when assessed can indicate if a country is majal or not. For example Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Bangladesh are some of the Majal countries.

The following are the Shariah conditions for an Islamic Khilafah state explained in the book ‘Introduction to the Constitution’ as well as in ‘The Islamic Personality, Volume 2’:

  1. It is stipulated that the authority of the region or the country that gives the Khalifah a contracting pledge is autonomous dependent upon the Muslims alone, and not upon any disbelieving state. [Article 29]
  2. Besides the security of the Muslims in that country, both internally and externally, is by the security of Islam not the security of the disbelief. With respect to the pledge of obedience taken from other countries, there are not such conditions. [Article 29]
  3. The country must commence immediate implementation of Islam comprehensively and radically and also engage in delivering the Islamic call. [Article 2]
  4. No one can be Khalifah unless the Muslims appoint him, and no one possesses the mandatory powers of the leadership of the State unless the contract with him has been concluded according to the Shari’ah, like any contract in Islam. [Article 28] The only conditions for the one who is given the pledge to be the leader of the State is that he fulfils the contracting conditions of the contract, even if he does not fulfil the preferential conditions, since what matters are the contracting conditions of the contract. [Article 30]

 Therefore, a land to be considered as a potential support point to re-establish the Khilafah in, it needs to meet the fundamental conditions including self sufficiency, internal security and ability to defend itself from foreign aggression.

 Despite this, one of the main areas that the Party has actively sought power is Syria where it has in the past 6 decades made multiple attempts to attain power. Syria is country with a population of 22 Million and an army with a size of 154,000 (Stats from before the Arab Uprising). Prior to the Arab Uprising the Syrian Air force possessed 461 fixed wing combat aircraft and 76 training aircraft in 2011. However during the past 7 years most of the aircraft have been rendered nonoperational because of the lack of maintenance, unavailability of spare parts and a significant number have been damaged during the armed conflict.

The country for the past 4 decades has continued to remain under the leadership of minority disbelieving Alawi’s and the army is formed of Sunnis and Alawis with the Alawis holding the top posts.

The reality of ‘Alawization’ of Syrian Institutions and its Armed forces is a well known matter. Starting from the time when Hafez Al Assad was the Minister of defense till today this trend continues. So in between 1970 and 1997 Alawis comprised 61.3% of the military officers appointments by Hafez Al Assad. After 1980’s Alawis have made up 80-85% of every new cohort graduating from the military academy. 90% of the cadets that join elite military schools are Alawis. The sunnis have effectively been relegated to undertake those jobs that no one likes to take and are mostly assigned to defense bases on borders far away from the cities.

Furthermore, the military equipment owned by the Syrians is very low in quality and often face problems. Russian Mig 21 and 23 Jets which the Syrians own, lack proper maintenance and spare parts which renders them useless for long periods of time. Army officers also describe their old T55 and T62 Russian tanks ‘as piles of junk’. Similarly, Air defence officials say that their equipment is greatly inferior to that of the Israelis, who have no trouble jamming Syrian radars, and the whole air defence system, each time Israeli jets fly over Syria. As is known in Military science that Combat preparedness is good when 80% of a company’s heavy weaponry which includes tanks, artillery and military transport is operational. However, in Syria’s case is that less than 40% of the heavy weaponry is operational at any point of time.

Military officers in Syria like Major Mahmoud Abboud and other officers have often stated their feat that if there was a war with Israel, soldiers on the front would run away, rather than actually fight. Because soldiers known that their tanks can barely move and their armament is inadequate and that the generals steal sums allocated for food. Research also proves that if Israel was to enter into a war with Syria it could reach reach Homs within 2 hours.

Furthermore, units of the army that have a larger Sunni population always remained inadequately equipped compared to Alawi only units. All major purchases by the military are used by the elite units, The republican guard and the 4rth Armored guard both of which are majorly Alawi dominated. Many officers have alluded that the regime works to weaken the armed forces so as reduce their ability to trigger coups, this way the government keeps the intra military correlation of force tilted in favour of the All-Alawi special units.

It is apparent that the Sunni’s have a limited role in the military and very few Sunnis who are known to be loyal to Assad are known to rise in ranks within the Syrian military. Knowing the Alawis are not Muslims and from the biggest enemies of Islam, is it acceptable to consider Syria a Majal?

Upon enquiry with the Mandoob as to the evidence why Syria fits the criteria for a majaal, I was informed that it alone does not fit the criteria of what constitutes a Majal however we are working in Syria because Sheikh Taqiuddin decided so. However, I feel this is a very weak criteria and the reality during Sheikh Taqi’s time and today’s time has changed drastically yet we continue to work in Syria and consistently seek Nusrah from the armed forces and the militants.

So, from reality and from the party’s perspective Syria is not fit to be the Nuqtat Al Irtikaaz (Support Point) for the Khilafah, even if it was to be combined with Jordan as some shebab have indicated, however still the party insists on seeking Nusrah in these countries.

Therefore, it is invalid for the party to continue to call for the establishment of the Khilafah in Syria when it does not fulfill the Shari’ criteria to constitute a Nuqtat Al Irtikaaz.

  3.  The third issue is the failure in effective building of Islamic personalities.

 The Prophet (saw) was able to build holistic Islamic personalities among the sahaba and he was able to do so in a short time. His culture revolved around the Quran and the Sunnah.

This culture produced Khulafaa, statesmen, Mujtahidin, thinkers, commanders, governors and judges. And they were not few but many. Even though the dawah in Makkah had to face constant difficulties due to the Quraysh, the Prophet (saw) cultured the Sahaba (ra) and the culture produced Sahaba likes of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Saad ibn Waqqas, Abdullah ibn Masud, Bilal ibn Rabbah and others. Each of them was a holistic personality who went onto become leaders of the Ummah.

With a global party of tens of thousands of members we have very few Mujtahideen, Fuqaha and notable thinkers. Yet we continue to stick to the same culturing process rather than comprehensively reevaluating it. From experience of interacting with many members from across the world including those in positions of responsibility and leadership it is apparent that many have limited study and understanding of the ahkam shariah related to fard ayn matters such as ahkam al buyu (rules of trade) and ijara (hiring) and are far from a strong understanding of the Shari Uloom (sciences). This includes members who have been in the Hizb for more than twenty years. This weakness and failure is known by the Qiyada of the Hizb yet the party continues upon the same mode of culturing without any serious attempt to change this.

If we lack in basic understanding of Uloom let alone be an holistic Islamic personality, how can we be expected to lead the Ummah?

  4. The fourth issue is regarding the subject of wide adoption and the incorrect evidences used for the principle of adoption.

 I will first write what is discussed regarding the subject of adoption in the adopted literature of the party, and then I will raise the various issues with regards to it.

The party stated in the leaflet issued on the date 14/7/1998 regarding the subject of adoption: “One of the first characteristics of Hizb ut-Tahrir as an ideological party is adoption. This concept of adoption is what made it a Hizb, because the Hizb cannot be a Hizb until it has a unified opinion in every thought, opinion, or hukm shari’ it requires. If it lacks the unity of thought, it will lose its solid structural entity. And the difference in thoughts, opinions and ahkam and their dispersal inside the Hizb would lead to the disunion of the hearts, and the break up of the Hizb, its fragmentation and division into parties and entities. And it will not then be able to carry out what it was established for. Therefore, we said that the Hizb is an intellectual and emotional whole, and this intellectual and emotional whole cannot be realised without unifying the adoption. And its unification can’t be achieved except by delegating the right of adoption and taking decisions to only one man in order to avoid difference in opinions, and disagreement  in decisions, and as a result of that to avoid fragmentation and division.

The subject of adoption is the cornerstone of the party and the one who does not adopt the views of the party is treated and if he continues to stick to his view , he is then removed completely.

Adoption requires a shab and a member of the party to forego his view and adopt the view of the party. Conviction in the view is not the criteria in this subject. Even if the shab was not convinced he is expected to adopt the view of the Hizb.

It is mentioned in the same leaflet:

It came in an answer to a question dated 17/8/1967 “The adoption of the Hizb is an adoption to every one of its members, it is not a decision from the Hizb asking the shabab to execute it even if it disagrees with their opinion, rather it is an adoption for the Hizb, it is an adoption for every shab of its shabab”

  “Even the issue of agreeing or disagreeing does not arise at all. Because the opinion which was adopted for the structure, is an opinion for every individual inside the structure, and that is why when it is adopted, it is explained and published as an opinion for the whole structure, i.e. as an opinion for every person inside the structure. Every person, who is part of the structure, has the right to discuss this opinion, its validity, the strength of its evidence and its agreement with reality, and to continue the discussion, while considering the opinion as his own opinion, because the opinion of the Hizb, is  his own opinion.

 If the person understands the viewpoint of the adoption, and the strength of its evidence, then that opinion becomes his opinion; also if he does not understand the viewpoint of adoption, and the strength of its evidence, it is still his opinion, and it is incumbent upon him to leave his opinion, and to take this opinion as his.”

 Similarly, in the same leaflet it is mentioned,

 So every thought adopted by the Hizb becomes adopted by each of its members. That is why it is extremely  wrong, rather it is ignorance for a member to say :” What I say is the Hizb’s opinion, but my opinion is different than that”

 So the shab is expected to adopt whether he is convinced or not. He is expected to be convinced and the party makes all attempts to convince him but if he is not convinced, he is still expected to adopt the party’s adopted opinions and forego his own.

The  leaflet also says:

So the issue is not to have conviction in every opinion, nor to be convinced with specific opinions, rather it is to have conviction in the whole with all its details. So it is incorrect to discuss the matter at the level of the individual conviction with the opinion, as is the case of an individual who wants to adopt one specific opinion, rather the discussion should be at the level of  a structure that adopts opinions. So the shab joins the structure as a whole, accepting and abiding by all previous and future details. So the issue is not a case of taqleed, and it is not a case of ittibaa (following), and it is not a case of ijtihad, so that an opinion is discussed and adopted based on conviction or lack of conviction based on the strength or weakness of the evidence. Rather, it is the issue of  joining a structure on the condition  that he adopts everything it  adopts. If the person accepts the condition, then he abides by it, and if he rejects the condition then he does not join the Hizb.”

It  also says:  “The divine reasons for changing an adopted opinion are: The weakness of the daleel, and here he must change the adoption and act according to the new adoption. The confidence in the knowledge  and competence of another person, and here he is allowed to change the adopted opinion and act according to the new one. If it is needed to unite the Muslims over an issue for a maslaha, here he is allowed to change the adopted opinion and act according to the new one. If the structure, which is the valid one in his view, stipulated that he should leave his opinion and adopt what the structure adopted, as for example, when Hizb ut-Tahrir puts a condition that the one who wants to join it should leave his adoption and adopts what the Hizb adopts. Hence, he will be between two fards: the fard  to continue adopting his previous opinion, and the fard of joining a Hizb  by which he removes the sin of his neck. The fard of joining the Hizb comes before the fard of continuing at his previous adoption, because the fard of joining the Hizb is more certain, for this Hizb is working to establish the Khilafah to resume the Islamic way of life and to carry the Da’wa . This is a fard that comes before the fard of continuing at the previous adoption. So, he should here change the adopted opinion and act according to the new one.”

So there are 4 reasons that have been discussed upon which a person changes his opinion

  1. Strength of the Daleel
  2. Confidence in the knowledge and competence of another person
  3. The need to unite the Muslims over an issue for a maslaha
  4. If the structure stipulates that he should leave his opinion and adopt what the structure has adopted.

However, the party explicitly mentions, that adoption is not linked to conviction or the strength of the evidence. Rather it is linked to ensuring a unified opinion within the Hizb.

The party quotes about Uthman leaving his opinion for Abu Bakr and Umar as one of the evidences for the subject of adoption. 

It is mentioned in the leaflet issued on 14/07/1998

For the Mujtahid to leave his opinion and to take someone elses opinion, is an obvious matter for the Muslims, indeed for the most prominent companions. Omar left his opinion for Ali’s, and Abu Bakr left his opinion for Ali’s, and Uthman left his opinion for Abu Bakr and Omar’s opinion. .. and similarly there are many examples. So the person should leave his opinion, and make the Hizb’s opinion his own, because after the adoption of the opinion, it becomes the  Hizb’s opinion, so naturally and obviously it becomes his opinion, with nothing further to say”

Furthermore, the party in the subject of Adoption considers everyone, the Aammi and the Mujtahid as one. Both of them have to leave their view and adopt the view of the party. The Mujtahid is not permitted to continue with his opinion even if it was his ijtihad on the subject. It is mentioned in the same leaflet on adoption from 1998:

Even if the member was a Mujtahid Mutlaq, and the Hizb adopted an opinion contrary to the Mujtahid Mutlaq’s opinion, then that Mujtahid Mutlaq must leave his opinion immediately, because once the Hizb adopted an opinion, then that opinion becomes his opinion, not the opinion that he deduced. If the Mujtahid Mutlaq does not leave his opinion, then he has to leave the Hizb immediately, because he stopped to be a part of the Hizb even in one concept. For he abandoned the concept of adoption as such.”

So the Mujtahid is expected to leave what is Rajih (preponderant) and accept the Marjooh even if he is not convinced with the view of the Hizb on the subject i.e he is expected to leave the opinion he arrived at via ijtihad and adopt a view that he sees as incorrect and not the hukm of Allah.

The party also mentions that in the extreme circumstance when a person was not convinced with the view of the party then he is permitted to keep his opinion in the heart but he is not allowed to promote it or act according to it. It is mentioned in the same leaflet:

There is no doubt that, within the shebab, there will be some people who are not convinced with some of what the Hizb has adopted, even after the occurrence of a discussion. But there is no harm in that as long as such a shab does not speak, discuss, call to and act upon except those opinions which the Hizb has adopted.”

After having presented the views of the party on adoption, I want to highlight the following:

a. The two principles based on which the party expects the shabab to abandon their views and follow the adoptions of the party have not been discussed by the Fuqaha in the way the party has applied.

It is true that Wahda (unity) is an important concept and as long as Maslaha is achieved through it then people should abandon their view for it. However, the Wahda (unity) should be qualified (mutahaqqaq). It is discussed by the scholars using various terminologies including ‘jamaKalimat al Muslimeen’ ‘Uniting the word of the Muslims’. The usulieen did discuss this concept under the chapter of ‘conditions of adopting the weaker view during necessity’  and none of them presented this view that the principle of ‘adopting the Marjooh view for unifying the opinion’ is applicable on a group of Muslims or a party.

For example, Al Haskafi says in Durr Al Mukhtar, the Qaadhi is allowed to work according to the Ghayr Al Mashhoor (unpopular) view from his mazhab if the Khalifah has adopted that.

As for the Mujtahid, the only conditions when he is allowed to leave his view and adopt another view is:

  • When the Khalifah adopts a view contrary to his view
  • When his leaving the view would unite the Ummah as happened in the case of Uthman (ra)
  • When he finds another Mujtahid who has a greater level of knowledge than himself whose opinions convince him
  • When he finds that his ijtihad has an error and it becomes obvious and clear to him

What is important that for both the Mujtahid and the Muqallid, abandoning his view to adopt another view was based on conditions, and indeed one of the conditions is Unity or Jama’a Kalimat al Muslimeen however this is not applicable on a group, rather it is applicable on the Ummah. And the example of Uthman (ra) is an example applicable on the reality of the Ummah and not a group. There is no classical scholar who has held the view that is presented by the party on this subject.

b. The evidence about Uthman (ra) abandoning his view is not applicable in this reality.

   i. To say that Uthman (ra) did this for the sake of the Ummah’s unity is incorrect because this would mean that Uthman (ra) wished for the unity of the Ummah while Ali (ra) did not.

When Abdul Rahman bin Awf (ra) asked Ali (ra) if he agreed to the Baya’ on condition that that he would rule by the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of his Messenger (saw) and the opinions held after him (saw) by Abu Bakr and Umar. Ali (ra) replied that I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his messenger (saw) but I will exercise my own Ijtihad so Abdul Rahman ibn Awf let go his hand and then asked Uthman the same question and  Uthman (ra) agreed and then he was given the Baya’a.

The principle of Jama’a Kalimat al Muslimeen (Uniting the word of the Muslims) is a well known principle among the Usulieen and the Fuqaha. It is applicable to the Mujtahid and the Muqallid. And it is not a matter of preference, rather it is a matter that is he is expected to undertake. So he is not allowed to make a choice in the issue, rather if his abandoning a view unites the Ummah then he should do so and adopt the view that the Ummah adopts.

Allah (swt) says in the Quran:

وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا

And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided. [TMQ 3:103]

There are many other ahadith that discuss about the subject of uniting the Muslim Ummah. How could it be that Ali (ra) while he knew these ayaat and ahadith and he did not agree to uniting the Ummah, rather he insisted that he wished to do his own Ijtihad.

Does it mean that Ali (ra) did not want to unite the Ummah? Or that it is our misunderstanding that what Uthman (ra) did by leaving his Haqq to review the Ijtihaadat of Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) and stick to them was unrelated to the subject of Unity of the Ummah?

ii. Uthman’s (ra) giving up on his right to review the opinions of Abu Bakr and Umar (ra) is not applicable in an opposite manner

The Baya’ of Uthman was on condition that he forgoes a Haqq (right) that the Shara’ gave him. It was a Haqq which was in principle Mubah for him to undertake and that was to review the Ijtihadaat or Abu Bakr and Umar. It is a haqq of the Khalifah to review the Ijtihadaat of his predecessors. Just like Umar (ra) did with some of the views of Abu Bakr (ra) after he became the Khalifah.

However, the Ummah requested Uthman (ra) to forego his right. She can make such a condition upon the the Baya to a khalifah that he gives up from what is with in the rights he has which are Mubah. And Uthman (ra) agreed to it.

There is a clear cut contradiction here, in Uthman’s (ra) case it was one man leaving his view for the sake of the Ummah, while the party asks the Shebab to leave their opinion for the sake of one man.

Furthermore, in Uthman’s (ra) case, the Ummah excercised a Haqq (right) that she had, i.e to ask Uthman (ra) to forego his right for being given the Baya’. However a Jama’ah (group) does not have the same Haqq from Shara’ to ask its followers to abandon their views for the sake of the Jama’ah (group).

c. The view that even the Mujtahid will have to abandon his view and adopt the view of the party contradicts with what the scholars of Usul Al Fiqh have written on the subject.

The Usuli scholars have all agreed that the Mujtahid cannot abandon the Rajih (preponderent) view and adopt what is Marjooh. There is no ikhtilaf in this. The only condition when it is allowed to do this is when the Khalifah adopts an opinion contrary to the Mujtahids opinion. Even in that situation the Mujtahid can carry his opinion, propagate it and even act on it privately as long as it does not contradict with the Khalifah’s rule.

So how can it be that the party which is not the ruler over the Ummah ask the Mujtahid to abandon his views and stick to the view of the party. This for a mujtahid is leaving the Rajih and following the Marjooh and when people ask him his view on the subject the party is asking him to hide what he believes is the hukm of Allah on the matter and to instead give them the view of the party which he believes to be incorrect.

d. The party’s wide adoption makes the majority of its shabab sinners.

The party adopts unnecessarily widely even on ahkam relating to some Ibadat such as the view that Zakah is not obliged on ornamental gold jewelry and in matters that affect day to day life such as the ahkam of trade, hiring, the awrah, the description of the Jilbab and mixing between men and women.

To cite one example of this, even though it is a matter of legitimate ikhtilaf where there are valid opinions of Mujtahideen that ikhtilat (mixing) between men and women is permissible for a Haajah such as education. The party adopts that this is haram yet it does not enforce this adoption which itself is a contradiction. Nevertheless according to the adoption of the party, the Shabab who engage in this are sinners even if they followed a legitimate ijtihad in this matter.

It is mentioned in an Answer to a Question issued by the party on 08/08/2003:

Mixed studies in Universities where the women’s rows are not separate from the men’s row are Haraam. However, if a shab studies in a mixed university but does not walk with female students, does not deliberately sit with them, he is only interested in his studies and his relationship with others is restricted to the minimum due to being a student in a mixed university. Then the Hizb does not see this as crossing the line which will effect his carrying of the Da’wah or people accepting his Da’wah, rather when his fellow students see his disciplined behaviour in the university which does not draw their attention to the fact that he studies in a mixed university and that it is not allowed, rather they praise his disciplined behaviour despite the study being mixed and there are women around him. Therefore, the hizb will not punish this shab administratively for this violation of studying in a mixed university because after study it found that, if as above, his action does not effect his carrying of the Da’wah or people listening to it and they do not view that he has committed a violation which dissuade them from listening to him, rather they praise his disciplined behaviour while among women.”

And in the same Q&A: “The punishments of the hizb are administrative only and they do not expiate for the sin in the Akhirah such as the punishment of the state in Islam. It is there only to protect the purity and discipline of the Kutlah and to insure that it proceeds administratively in a sound manner. Not punishing administratively a violation which the hizb views as a lapse in conduct and does not effect the Da’wah does not mean this violation becomes halal. No, it remains a Sharee’ah violation. In origin the shab should do the halal and keep away from the haram due to his Taqwah and not because of an administrative punishment. But in all cases the shabab must understand in their minds that the hizb will not accept among its ranks those who will do haram and effect the carrying of the Da’wah or people’s acceptance of his Da’wah. The fact that it is overlooked does not change that fact that it is a violation. Also the administrative punishment does not expiate for the violation in the Akhirah and it is not the punishment of the Islamic state which removes the sin on the Day of Judgement. This is because the hadith reported regarding the  removal of the punishment has been mentioned in respect to the punishment of the Islamic state. So the Messenger (saw) says in the hadith reported by al-Bukhari on the authority of ‘Ubadah b. Samit: ‘…..the one who commits a violation and is punished for him then it is a expiation (kaffaarah) for him…’”

Studying in a mixed University or college for a number of years is not a lapse in behaviour where someone makes a mistake and then regrets it after and makes Tawba for it such as the examples cited in the section of Lapses in Behaviour in the book Shaksiya Islamiyyah Volume 1. Rather it is a continuous action that both the party and the shab consider as haram due to the principle of adoption.

Even if the party does not punish the shebab by saying that these are administrative punishments and therefore the party can decide whether it wants to punish the shab or not, the fact that the shebab are committing haram in the view of the party cannot be discounted. In fact when it comes to the subject of attending classes where the men and women are mixed, this is a norm. Almost 80% of the shebab have attended mixed classes in universities. And this is while they adopted the view that it is haram to do so. And they did not do this once or twice, but for years together. How could we after committing Haram in this manner hope to be deserving the mercy, pleasure of Allah (swt) and be deserving of receiving victory from Him (swt)?

This contradicts what was mentioned in the adopted Nafsiyyah book:

“We should not miss the opportunity of reminding the Da’wah carriers, especially those who are working to resume the Islamic way of life by establishing the Righteous Khilāfah state, of the reality in which they work. They are surrounded by the clashing waves of the enemies of Allah. If they are not with Allah by day and by night, how then can they drive their way in the different walks of life? How can they reach their desired aim? How can they elevate higher and higher? How? How?”

Yet many of the shabab including those in positions of responsibility such as Masuls and even Mutamads due to the flawed policy of wide adoption are not even people of Taqwa, as they are open sinners according to the party.

e. The stance taken by the party with the shebab who are unable to convince themselves with the party’s views leads them to propagate what they do not believe in.

It is stated in the leaflet on the subject of adoption issued on 14/07/1998:

There is no doubt that, within the shebab, there will be some people who are not convinced with some of what the Hizb has adopted, even after the occurrence of a discussion. But there is no harm in that as long as such a shab does not speak, discuss, call to and act upon except those opinions which the Hizb has adopted.”

Which effectively means that a shab could be believing something but propagating something else. Is this not what Allah (swt) warned us against when he said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ – كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ أَن تَقُولُوا مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ –

“O you who have believed, why do you say what you do not do? Great is hatred in the sight of Allah that you say what you do not do.” [TMQ 61:2]

f. The principle of ‘whatever a wajib cannot be fulfilled without is Wajib’ cannot be used in a unrestricted manner.

This principle is linked to achieving the Fard which is the establishment of the Khilafah. This Qaida (principle) in Usul is restricted, the principle does not say ‘whatever may lead to a wajib is wajib’ or ‘whatever is most likely to lead to a wajib is wajib’. Rather the Qaida which is based on multiple evidences states ‘whatever a wajib cannot be fulfilled without is wajib.’

So a group cannot establish the Khilafah without having matters directly connected to its establishment such as a clear definition on Dar al Islam, the conditions for a Khilafah and the methodology to re-establish it. However, if members of the group are not convinced with these matters they should not be forced to leave their own opinion rather in this case they would simply leave the group, work with another that they are convinced of or if they were capable form their own.

In relations to other detailed ahkam needed for the functioning of an Islamic Khilafah such as the ahkam of the social, ruling and economic systems these should be made available ready for a Khalifah to adopt upon the formation of the state if he so choses. These subjects should be issued by any party working to restablish the Khilafah but not as adopted views that its shebab must follow and convey even if they are not convinced of them. In fact the Hizb already has a number of books such as ‘The Punishment System in Islam’ that it issued but is not adopted.

Of course the members of a group should follow and convey only legitimate Islamic opinions that they are convinced. The only way a party can expect its followers to follow the views it adopts is through conviction in the evidences.

g. Wide adoption stifles independent thinking and creativity.

Wide adoption and the prohibition of attempting to convince others of your Ijtihad in adopted matters stifles the atmosphere of discussion, debate, creativity and independent thinking. The Sahaba would openly differ with each other in their views, they used to intensely debate even with the Khalifah of the time. So Bilal ibn Rabah (ra) disagreed and debated with the Khalifah, Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) on his view of the Kharaj. The Sahabah debated and differed with Abu Bakr on the matter of ‘Kalalah’ in inheritence and there are many other matters. In the case of the Khalifah, they implemented whatever he adopted in accordance with the Shar’i principle ‘The order of the Imam solves the difference’. However, this implementation of the Khalifah’s opinion did not prohibit them from conveying their own opinion when they were asked nor did it stop them from teaching their Ijtahadat.

The same continued in the era of the Tabi’een and the generation after including in the time of the founding Imams of the Madhabs. If they had been forced to adopt what the Khalifah had adopted and were not permitted to teach their own fiqh as the Hizb stipulates then the schools of thought such as the Hanafi, Shaf’i, Hanbali or Maliki would not even have developed.

Ironically the Hizb says in the book Mefaheem that the normal state of the Ummah should be that they become Mujtahid Mas’ala yet at the same time prohibits its own Shabab from even conveying their own Ijtihadat when it conflicts with the hundreds of adoptions of the Hizb.

        5.  The fifth issue is regarding the Leadership of the party and various aspects of weakness and inefficiencies within it

For the effective progress of the party and its ability to achieve the pleasure of Allah (swt) and be successful in its project, it has to be lead by an able leadership. A leadership that encompasses all types of shebab that it has and that it is able to lead according to the vision that the party had set out.

The type of leadership envisaged for the success of the party and as discussed in the party literature is seriously lacking. There are several aspects with regards to this subject but I will focus on a key area and that is directly linked to the success of the work: Appointing & Utilising inefficient and incompetent leaders.

A major problem in the party is the appointment and removal of key figures and delegates on the basis of loyalty to the Ameer, rather than on their experience and strong command over the Party Literature and Islamic Culture for the position.

Some Mandoobs are exclusively appointed because they carry a passport which eases travel for them. They may not have an understanding of the culture of the party or an ability to study and sense different societies and people, but they are still appointed over countries where there is stable Dawah and these Mandoobs when they visit such countries have known to have immensely damage the work in countries where they have been appointed. There are multiple examples for this.

Furthermore, there is an apparent Ikhtilaf among the Mandoobs upon the issue of the party’s methodology. They are divided into camps as I discussed above, so some of them believe we should build Public opinion and a strong Popular base before we attempt to Seek Nussrah however there are some who do not hold this view and believe that this is not needed.

So as a result, in some important Majal countries, these Mandoobs have advised the Shebab to prematurely enter the society and then further enter into Kifaah Siyasi (Political struggle) which led to a complete crackdown on the party. There have been instances where upon a Mandoobs advised the Shebab entered into public Kifaah Siyasi with only 50 shebab (Members + Dariseen) in the capital of a country with a population of over 100 Million people. As a result there was a massive clampdown following a ban on the party which resulted in a continuous cycle of arrests of the shebab and the work in this country today is represented by nothing more than leaflets issued on the internet in the name of the Media office.

The work of the Dawah in many countries has been severely affected due to the visits of incompetent Mandoobs who do not appreciate the reality of the shebab and the situation in the Wilayat and do not carry a deep understanding of the party culture. Their decisions have led to friction among the shebab, fragmentation in the body and in some places a severe weakening of the dawah. Some Mandoobs visit with a preconcieved notion about the work in a Wilayah and its shebab based on external inputs thereby resulting in disastrous decisions.

The weakness in the leadership is very visible in the work undertaken by the Central Media Office. The digital assets run by the CMO are managed in a very shoddy way with the quality of the content and the quantity of traffic falling by the day. You are aware that I have raised this with you previously on various occasions. Instead of attempting to run our digital assets in a principled manner under the guidance of experts which there is no shortage of in the party, we have chosen to cut corners even if it means that it will affect the reputation of the  da’wah.

An example would be The Ameers page which was opened in 2013 and was presented to the shebab as a sign of great interest from the Ummah in the Ameers personality. In a matter of a few months the page had garnered over 120,000 likes. And  in addition every day 1000’s of people were liking the page. And then suddenly the page was closed down by Facebook upon which the CMO issued a Press Release lamenting what took place and exposing the double standards played by Facebook.

However, what is shocking is the fact that most of these likes on the facebook page were generated using a website/software called addit which allows people who like to receive likes on their pages to add their profiles to the software and then their profiles would automatically like pages by other similar users and vice versa i.e. they were fake likes. And I had advised the CMO and the Facebook page manager at the CMO at that stage that he should not use this tactic as it is deceptive, that this is not how we should work and that it will very likely be detected by Facebook and we will loose all the fake and the genuine likes. And this is what happened, the page was eventually detected by facebook and then closed and despite our knowledge of the software we had used due to which we were penalized, we still went ahead and issued a Press Release lamenting and claiming that it was somehow a campaign against the party by Facebook.

Another issue is linked to the subject of the lack of transparency, accountability and removal of injustices. The party instead of ensuring that it becomes the harbinger of truth and justice itself has become a non-transparent organization and berates most of the shebab who attempt to raise their voices regarding issues within the party. This has led to many shebab avoid raising any concerns in the party due to the fear of being punished and ostracised by the party

Furthermore, In contravention of the Sunnah of our beloved Messenger (saw) the party states in the Milaful Idari (Administrative file) in the section entitled ‘Measures taken before and after the Uqoobat’:

“4 – The reason/cause of the Uqoobah (punishment) is not explained.  However, it is known that the Shab who undertakes an action that destroys the Hizb or endeavours to destroy the Hizb is dismissed; otherwise the one who commits other actions is disregarded, completely or temporarily, or warned or cautioned according to the action and his situation.  No Shab has the right to ask about the cause of the Uqoobah, neither the one who is punished nor the others.  For the Uqoobah is inflicted on the Shab without explaining the reasons.  The Hizb does not inflict an Uqoobah on any Shab unless an action occurred from him on which he deserves an Uqoobah.”

How could we, the flag bearers of the idea of delivering the Ummah from the injustices and tyranny of the dictators ourselves commit the same mistakes?

True leadership is when problems can be preempted and addressed and when they actually take place they are handled with hikma and farsightedness.

It is these problems within the foundational cores of the party, to do with the Methodology, the Culture and the Leadership that have led me to a decisive conclusion that the party is no more Mubri ul lizzima and for me to continue working with it will not absolve me of the sin that lies on my neck. Rather, at this stage to continue with the party with all these major mistakes continuing may lead to the displeasure of Allah (swt).

 Bi’iznillah, I will continue in the work to re-establish the great obligation of the Khilafah and am in the process of studying the proposals put forward by sincere Mujtahidin on the path ahead.

May Allah (swt) forgive me for all of my shortcomings and mistakes, may He grant us all Tawfeeq and allow us to be united under the Khilafah Rashidah.

Your brother,

Abu Khaled Al Hejazi
29th Night of Ramadhan
Telegram:- @inshai


One thought on “Letter from Abu Khaled Al Hejazi to the Ameer of Hizb Ut Tahrir, the Lajna al Qiyadah and the Office of the Ameer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s