Our aim is to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate in the Muslim world

Posted in Broader Middle East | 08-Sep-05 | Author: Manuela Paraipan

Dr Imran Waheed, a UK based doctor and Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain.
Interview with Imran Waheed, Hizb ut-Tahrir, conducted by Manuela Paraipan, "WSN Correspondent Broader Middle East"

World Security Network: Knowing that you are a supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, I would like to know why you chose this particular party?

Imran Waheed: I am a media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain. I chose Hizb ut-Tahrir because it had undertaken a detailed and enlightened study of the decline of the Muslim world in the 20th Century and had identified the absence of Islam in state and society as the fundamental reason for this. The party works to bring about an intellectual advancement of the Muslim world by engaging in intellectual and political work. It has a clear and consistent non-violent methodology from which it has not strayed in the slightest in over 50 years of work.

WSN: What kind of Islamic ideology does Hizb ut-Tahrir promote?

IW: We view Islam as a comprehensive system of life that addresses both individual and societal problems. In Islam we have a judicial system, a social system, an economic system, an educational policy, a foreign policy, a punishment system and a ruling system. Therefore, unlike the Western model of secular liberalism - where religion and state are separated - Islam accepts no such dichotomy. We are an Islamic political party and not a sect or a school of thought.

WSN: Its aim is to establish the Islamic Caliphate. Briefly explain what a caliphate is and if it should be a source of concern for the West?

IW: Our aim is to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate in the Muslim world. Our vision of the Islamic Caliphate is one of an independent state with an elected and accountable ruler, an independent judiciary, political parties, the rule of law and equal rights for minority groups. Citizens of a caliphate have every right to be involved in politics and hold the ruler accountable for his actions. The role of the ruler (caliph) is to be a servant to the masses who governs them with justice.

The caliphate will play a pivotal role in projecting a positive image of Islam to the West.

WSN: What would life be like in the Islamic paradise that Hizb ut-Tahrir promotes for those who are not Muslims and are called "second class citizens?"

IW: Firstly, we do not say that the caliphate would be an "Islamic paradise" or a utopia. Secondly, we have never viewed non-Muslims as "second class citizens" and the caliphate will not view them as such. In fact the caliphate will deal with all citizens in the same manner, irrespective of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. A non-Muslim citizen of the caliphate will have more rights than a Muslim who is not a citizen of the caliphate. Non-Muslims would not be viewed as ethnic minorities and left to live in ghettos. The caliphate would have an obligation to protect its non-Muslim citizens. Many non-Muslims lived with Muslims under the banner of Islam for almost 13 centuries. Throughout those periods, non-Muslims had the same high standard of living as Muslims. They enjoyed equal rights, prosperity, happiness, tranquility and security. The Jews and Christians used to be called Ahl al-Dhimma, or "People of the Covenant." The Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] said: "He who abuses a dhimmi [non-Muslim citizen] will be my rival and I will dispute him on the Day of Judgment."

An Islamic classical scholar, Imam Qarafi, states: "It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the people of the Dhimma [non-Muslim citizens] to take care of those who are weak, to fulfill the needs of the Dhimma who are poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely and tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbor, even though the Muslim may have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth or violate their rights."

WSN: Having read a few of Hizb ut-Tahrir's political statements, I was intrigued by its intention of waging war against all Arab regimes that Hizb ut-Tahrir believes are not Islamic and are against the kuffar. What is meant by war? Is the Saudi or the Iranian regime Islamic enough? And who are the kuffar?

IW: Hizb ut-Tahrir is engaged in a political struggle, not a war, against the rulers of the Muslim world who are a band of dictators and tyrants. Hizb ut-Tahrir is at the forefront of political activism in the Muslim world. The party has challenged and called to account the tyrannical rulers of the Muslim world such as Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Karimov and General Musharraf. The response of these regimes to our work has been to imprison, torture and murder our members. Whilst our challenge to these regimes has been at an intellectual and political level through encouraging debate and discussion, these regimes have resorted to banning and silencing the party; they have no intellectual thought of their own. As these regimes tolerate no opposition whatsoever, other opposition parties are also banned. Despite the banning of the party and the intimidation of its members, the thoughts of the party have nevertheless successfully permeated throughout society.

As for Iran or Saudi Arabia, for a country to be considered a caliphate, every single article of the country's constitution and every rule and law must emanate from the Islamic Sharia. In the case of Iran and Saudi Arabia, these criteria are far from being met. In these places, only lip service is paid to Islamic law by claiming that it is the source of legislation. In reality, the constitutions of these countries give much more weight to socialism, republicanism, hereditary ruler and capitalism than to Islam. Thus, it can in no way be claimed that any of the current Muslim countries are representative of Islam and the Islamic System of government, which is the Islamic Caliphate.

WSN: What tactics does Hizb ut-Tahrir use or is it likely to use to engineer the collapse of the regimes it does not agree with?

IW: We have clearly set out our methodology for reestablishing the Islamic Caliphate from our inception in 1953. The methodology is derived from the Islamic texts and is not a matter of expediency or pragmatism. Despite the intense oppression of our members, the rules have not changed.

The party adheres to the Islamic Sharia in all aspects of its work, and takes its methodology from that which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) used to establish the first Islamic state in Madinah. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) limited his struggle for the establishment of the Islamic state to the intellectual and political domains. Hence the party considers violence or armed struggle against the regime a violation of the Islamic Sharia.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) worked to mobilize public opinion in favor of Islam and endeavored to sway the political and intellectual elites of the time. Despite the persecution and boycott of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the early Muslims, they never resorted to violence.

Therefore, the party proactively disseminates Islamic intellectual and political thoughts widely in Muslim societies so as to challenge the status quo. The party presents Islam as a comprehensive way of life that is capable of managing the affairs of state and society. The party also expresses its views on political events and analyzes them from an Islamic perspective.

In addition, the party works with the people of influence within societies to convince them of the need for intellectual and political change.

The party disseminates its thoughts through discussion with the masses, study circles, lectures, seminars, leaflet distribution, publishing books and magazines and via the Internet. We encourage people to attend our demonstrations, marches and vigils.

WSN: What do you make of the United States' "war on terrorism?" Would you say that it is a war against Islam?

IW: The war on terrorism remains the central tenet of current US foreign policy but, fundamentally, war on terrorism is a misnomer; at best a half-truth. There is certainly a "war," but it is neither solely aimed at eliminating terrorists and ending terror nor is it exclusively aimed at Muslims who engage in violence to achieve their political goals. The war on terrorism (though not in a military sense) is also aimed at another larger category of Muslims who don't support the use of violence to create political change. The objective with this group of Muslims is to win the battle for hearts and minds - a battle that is currently being lost, largely as a result of the harsh manner in which American and British policies have been carried out. Although there have been some specific political gains and military victories, these have been more than offset by large strategic and political losses. The American plans for reform in the Muslim world - an integral component to winning its war on terrorism - will only be partly successful, as the US itself currently lacks credibility, a key precursor to gaining change in the Islamic world.

The war on terrorism has not achieved its goal of making the world a safer place. 75% of Americans think the world is now a more dangerous place than a decade ago. Yet despite this, there remains a fundamental myopia at the heart of the American and British governments' strategy. They have not only failed to name this war correctly, but in terms of execution they are seriously ill equipped to win the battle of ideas. Finally, they have also seriously underestimated the effect of Islamic political ideas on millions of Muslims. Winning the battle of ideas requires sincere leadership, honesty, strong principles and the ability to convince your opponent through the power of thought, not the barrel of a gun.

WSN: We often hear and read in the mass media about two kinds of Islam: The radical and moderate branch. Do you agree with this view? If you do, please state why, and if you do not, please explain why not.

IW: We do not accept the division of Muslims into moderates and extremists - these are extremely subjective terms with no clear definitions or legal meanings. Western governments use these terms for the political objective of dividing Muslims into "moderates" and "extremists." It is not for Western governments to define what a Muslim is or what parts of Islam are acceptable to them. Some have suggested that believing that Islam is the true path for salvation, wanting an end to Western occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, feeling for the Muslims of Palestine and advocating Islamic governance in the Muslim world is "extremism." However, the overwhelming majority of Muslims would subscribe to these ideas. The use of these terms is intended to demonize legitimate Islamic values and beliefs, curtail legitimate political expression and challenge the influence of Islam on politics.

WSN: Within Islam, Jihad is an important element of the faith. Would you say that what al-Qaeda and its branches are doing is Jihad?

IW: We are not in any position to comment on al-Qaeda or its activities. We have made our position on violence and terrorism clear and have adopted a clear methodology that is solely based upon intellectual and political work.

WSN: What is your view on suicide bombers? Is such a behavior encouraged and accepted in Islam?

IW: There is a fundamental question you have to answer first: Do people who have suffered the occupation of their land, expulsion and the loss of self-determination have the right to resist? If it is accepted that an occupied people have a right to choose when to fight and when to make peace, only then can we discuss the means they use. Certainly, the means any people use will be dependent upon their resources. So people with tanks, planes and guns would use these and people without these would use whatever means they have at their disposal. To deny this principle would be to say to the weak that it is illegitimate to defend yourself.

However, under no circumstances does Islam allow the killing of innocent civilians, and this is why we have issued a clear denunciation of the attacks of 9/11 and more recently the London bombings of July 7th.

WSN: Do you know of any fatwas issued against suicide bombers and other terrorists by Hizb ut-Tahrir's clerics or by any other Muslim clerics? In case you do not, can you explain why the Muslim leaders or the Muslims who live in Western societies do not strongly and publicly condemn these actions and accordingly change their weekly sermons within the mosques?

IW: The entire Muslim community has made its position on the London bombings clear: These actions have no justification as far as Islam is concerned. Such actions have been clearly denounced by Muslim leaders and the Muslim community. In fact, the reality in the Muslim world today - from Tashkent to Tripoli - is that the vast majority of work against Western imperialism comes through non-violent political struggle.

WSN: However, if these strong statements of condemnation do not exist, is the West right to say that moderate Islam is only wishful thinking?

IW: "Moderate" Islam is a creation of Western governments and is not a phenomenon known in Islamic thinking or jurisprudence. Western governments are in no position to define what a Muslim is or what parts of Islam are acceptable to them.

WSN: Often the Muslims from the United States and Europe condemn the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as being criminals. What about the Muslims who kill other Muslims in the name of Allah? The same Allah whose teachings are supposed to be peaceful. How do you comment on this?

IW: It is not only Muslims who condemn the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; there are many non-Muslims who also condemn the occupation and call for an end to foreign interference in the Muslim world.

We do not accept the killing of innocent civilians, whether at the hands of Muslims or the armies of Western governments. The tears of the widows of Iraq are no different to the tears of widows in London. Western governments do not have a monopoly on anger, rage and suffering.

WSN: What is it that some Muslims rebel against both in the West and abroad? Is it the West's values, freedom, human rights, women's empowerment or its very existence?

IW: This has nothing to do with rebellion. We believe the Muslim world should have the right to determine its political destiny free from external interference. We believe that the nation states in the Muslim world are artificial creations of Western powers to divide Muslims and exploit resources; we seek justice through the formation of a single Islamic state that serves the people rather than corrupt clients of foreign powers.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims deplore Western foreign policy towards the Muslim world and express this through non-violent political work.

WSN: What should the West change in its behavior and what should the Muslim world change?

IW: Western governments must end their politics of denial. The Muslim community has clearly expressed its condemnation of violence against innocent civilians wherever that may be. However, we ask: When will Western governments come clean to the Muslim community to condemn the killing and terror they have unleashed in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will they explain to the public why they describe some of the world's most brutal dictators, who torture and murder their political opponents - such as Karimov, Musharraf and Mubarak - as their allies in the war on terrorism?

Muslims for their part need to continue speaking out against Western foreign policy in the Muslim world and continue to call for the return of the caliphate to replace the corrupt dictators.

WSN: Dr. Imran Waheed, thank you.

Share

Comments