Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Taqiuddin al-Nabhani was an independent thinker and a revivalist. Formerly a Ba’athist (a nationalist Arab Socialist Party), he maintained his Arab centric socialist agenda but presented it in Islamic language by enveloping his Arab super-nation state concept for a super “Islamic” State which must concentrate on the Arab speaking Muslims. He challenged the status quo. He attacked mainstream Islamic beliefs, such as the spiritual dimension of life, as being nothing but a mystic concept influenced by Byzantine beliefs and nothing to do with authentic Islamic teaching, which maintained that man was purely material in his view.
Some have commented on him being Mutazilite in this regard. The ramification being not recognizing, but rather criticizing the orthodox and Sufi teachings of his heritage such as the famous Sheikh Yusuf al-Nabhani the orthodox Shafi’I and Sufi.
Nabhani was critical of the ‘irrational’ dogma of Sheikh Yusuf and considered along with orthodox Islam’s other beliefs in God ability to intervene in natural laws for the sake of righteous (karamat), and Sufism as a whole – all of which was influenced the Persian and Hellenic culture. He was not afraid to challenge orthodox doctrine, such as the faith in Islamic eschatological beliefs such as purgatory in the grave (Azab ul-Qabr) as being contradictory to Quranic teaching; therefore the masses of literature pertaining to the subject should be rejected as ‘isolated’ reports (khabar ahad).
Nabhani was not afraid to criticize all of the scholarly class, he was famous for damning them all as having abandoned God’s judgment and denied orthodox Sunni belief in infallibility of the Muslim nation and the collective weight as scholars (known as the doctrine of Ijma – or scholarly consensus). He considered this superfluous and all of the scholars of his age not only declined, but sinners who had abandoned the apparently obvious obligation to establish an expansionist Caliphate as they had all rejected this ‘religious duty’ and therefore there was no value to the scholarly class (Ulema). He was not afraid in this regard to issue bold Fatawa (legal edicts), whether it was regarding the Islamic validity of suicide bombing, hijacking Israeli planes, using military force to prevent the independence of countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh.
As a Palestinian, a revolutionary ideologue of former Communist mindset, an Arabist and graduate from al-Azhar university – it is easier to understand the influences which made up his originally Arab centric, anti-Israeli, Islamo-communist conception of an Islamist Super-state. His modernist tendencies and criticism of traditional Islamic teaching, and extremist rhetoric and ideology have given rise to many militant extremism movements, not only Palestinian Jihad (Asad Tamimi former leadership member of Hizb ut-Tahrir), Saleh Sirryah of Egyptian Jihad, the assassins of Anwar Sadat the Egyptian president and others.
According to Michel Aflaq (founder of Ba’athism) the best way to unite the Arabs was through their religion and the the best way to take power (nusrah) was through military coups. Nabhani basically mixed these Ba’athist ideas with his interpretation of Islam and created Hizb ut-Tahrir. A movement which wants to come to power through a military coup and impose its version of Islam on everyone. Then it wants to fight a violent Jihad until it has conquered the world, even if millions of Muslims have to die.
So Hizb ut-Tahrir is nothing more than a mixture of Arab Socialism and a medieval interpretation of Islam.
Taken fron: http://www.spittoon.org/archives/513/comment-page-1#comment-222
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Could an Islamic state actually work?
Some would argue that the Taliban are fighting to overthrow the Pakistani government in order to establish a medieval barbarian theocracy. Others would pit them as noble freedom fighters that are resisting foreign invaders and seeking to bring justice to the neglected people of this region. In the meantime we have unpopular and counter-productive drone attacks and endless conspiracy theories about who is arming and funding who.
But somewhere in the midst of this mess is the quest for an ‘Islamic state’ and the introduction of Shariah law. These are often presented as clear and concrete objectives which some insist on resisting at all costs whilst others are told they are duty bound to embrace as Muslims. Such discussions are, however, far too simplistic and gloss over the confusions and differences that exist in this area.
Muslims do not and have never agreed upon one version of ‘Sharia’ law, they also do not have a commonly accepted definition of an ‘Islamic State’. The current Pakistani constitution states that no legislation may contradict the Quran or Sunnah (Primary sources of Islam) and therefore, according to some, it is an Islamic state.
The Taliban would argue that the existing political apparatus in Pakistan does not match that of 7th century Arabia and that it does not implement their interpretation of Shariah, which is informed by the Pashtun tribal code. Saudi Arabia claims to implement Shariah law yet luckily their version of it does differ from that of the Taliban’s and again is informed by Bedouin Arab customs. Many Arab Islamists groups, being influenced by Arab nationalism, insist on the future leader of an Islamic state being Arab or even belonging to a particular tribe. Iran also claims to be an ‘Islamic state’ yet their interpretation of that term differs yet again due to their Shia heritage.
So where does all this confusion lead us? The answer is nowhere. Problems arise because puritanical and literalist interpretations of Islam refuse to accept scriptural diversity and appreciate difference of opinion. They also fail to take into account the fact that certain rulings were specific to one time period and one culture, i.e. they are not normative.
Take Music for instance, within mainstream Islamic schools of thought one will find a whole range of positions on Music. Some would seek to forbid it outright, others would allow certain forms of Music and forbid others, some argue that the content of the lyrics holds the key whilst others would take a relaxed position to most if not all forms of music. So which is the true Islamic position? They all are and it is up to the individual to decide which view he/she decides to follow. Moderate Muslims would accept this diversity of views on music and other issues but puritans and those under their influence would champion one view and attack all the others.
Similarly puritans would argue that a state which only implements one particular interpretation of shariah is a true Islamic state, the true interpretation often being decided by the ethnicity and personal ambitions of the ones making the judgement. More hardcore factions would insist that only an expansionist state which adopts an interpretation of shariah that they approve, seeks to unite the entire Muslim world under one ruler can be called an Islamic state. These differences explain why extremist groups often turn on each other when they get the opportunity and end up never achieving their utopia.
Moderates would argue that a state which refers to shariah principles when drafting legislation is an Islamic state. Such a state, they would argue, can still be democratic, inclusive and content within its own borders. They also insist that expansionist empires were simply political constructs of the past and not an intrinsic part of Islamic doctrine. Much more interestingly another set of moderates insist that actually there is no such thing as an ‘Islamic state’ at all, the very concept is a post-colonial reactionary concoction that owes more to communism and fascism then Islam.
Such Muslims would argue that Islam did not pre-define a political structure and Shariah was never meant to be adopted wholesale as state law. Rather Islam is a complete way of life that seeks to guide our conduct in some spheres and dictate it in others, i.e. Shariah would dictate how a Muslim prays but guide how a Muslim runs a surgery for example. Similarly, Islam could guide our political conduct without dictating it. They would insist that this has always been the relationship between the Islam and political authorities. Concepts such as ‘Islamic states’ ruling by shariah are modern constructs which certain reformists proposed as a response to European imperialism.
Again it would be difficult to argue that one view is more Islamic than any other and there is yet a clear consensus to emerge. Recent election results in places like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan do suggest that we are slowly moving into a post-Islamism world where Muslims are beginning to reject Islamist parties in favour of more inclusive ones. The lack of any central authorities in Islam and the poor state of Muslim scholarship will ensure that the confusion will continue.
It’s important that individuals are exposed to the plethora of views on this topic by reading books such as ‘The Great Theft’ by Khaled M Abou El Fadl and ‘Islam and the secular state’ by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im. But in the absence of open-mindedness, geo-political power struggles, short sighted governments and personal greed will continue to push power-mad fanatics to favour the more bigoted understandings that are more in tune with their personal desires.
Taken from: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4512
But somewhere in the midst of this mess is the quest for an ‘Islamic state’ and the introduction of Shariah law. These are often presented as clear and concrete objectives which some insist on resisting at all costs whilst others are told they are duty bound to embrace as Muslims. Such discussions are, however, far too simplistic and gloss over the confusions and differences that exist in this area.
Muslims do not and have never agreed upon one version of ‘Sharia’ law, they also do not have a commonly accepted definition of an ‘Islamic State’. The current Pakistani constitution states that no legislation may contradict the Quran or Sunnah (Primary sources of Islam) and therefore, according to some, it is an Islamic state.
The Taliban would argue that the existing political apparatus in Pakistan does not match that of 7th century Arabia and that it does not implement their interpretation of Shariah, which is informed by the Pashtun tribal code. Saudi Arabia claims to implement Shariah law yet luckily their version of it does differ from that of the Taliban’s and again is informed by Bedouin Arab customs. Many Arab Islamists groups, being influenced by Arab nationalism, insist on the future leader of an Islamic state being Arab or even belonging to a particular tribe. Iran also claims to be an ‘Islamic state’ yet their interpretation of that term differs yet again due to their Shia heritage.
So where does all this confusion lead us? The answer is nowhere. Problems arise because puritanical and literalist interpretations of Islam refuse to accept scriptural diversity and appreciate difference of opinion. They also fail to take into account the fact that certain rulings were specific to one time period and one culture, i.e. they are not normative.
Take Music for instance, within mainstream Islamic schools of thought one will find a whole range of positions on Music. Some would seek to forbid it outright, others would allow certain forms of Music and forbid others, some argue that the content of the lyrics holds the key whilst others would take a relaxed position to most if not all forms of music. So which is the true Islamic position? They all are and it is up to the individual to decide which view he/she decides to follow. Moderate Muslims would accept this diversity of views on music and other issues but puritans and those under their influence would champion one view and attack all the others.
Similarly puritans would argue that a state which only implements one particular interpretation of shariah is a true Islamic state, the true interpretation often being decided by the ethnicity and personal ambitions of the ones making the judgement. More hardcore factions would insist that only an expansionist state which adopts an interpretation of shariah that they approve, seeks to unite the entire Muslim world under one ruler can be called an Islamic state. These differences explain why extremist groups often turn on each other when they get the opportunity and end up never achieving their utopia.
Moderates would argue that a state which refers to shariah principles when drafting legislation is an Islamic state. Such a state, they would argue, can still be democratic, inclusive and content within its own borders. They also insist that expansionist empires were simply political constructs of the past and not an intrinsic part of Islamic doctrine. Much more interestingly another set of moderates insist that actually there is no such thing as an ‘Islamic state’ at all, the very concept is a post-colonial reactionary concoction that owes more to communism and fascism then Islam.
Such Muslims would argue that Islam did not pre-define a political structure and Shariah was never meant to be adopted wholesale as state law. Rather Islam is a complete way of life that seeks to guide our conduct in some spheres and dictate it in others, i.e. Shariah would dictate how a Muslim prays but guide how a Muslim runs a surgery for example. Similarly, Islam could guide our political conduct without dictating it. They would insist that this has always been the relationship between the Islam and political authorities. Concepts such as ‘Islamic states’ ruling by shariah are modern constructs which certain reformists proposed as a response to European imperialism.
Again it would be difficult to argue that one view is more Islamic than any other and there is yet a clear consensus to emerge. Recent election results in places like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan do suggest that we are slowly moving into a post-Islamism world where Muslims are beginning to reject Islamist parties in favour of more inclusive ones. The lack of any central authorities in Islam and the poor state of Muslim scholarship will ensure that the confusion will continue.
It’s important that individuals are exposed to the plethora of views on this topic by reading books such as ‘The Great Theft’ by Khaled M Abou El Fadl and ‘Islam and the secular state’ by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na`im. But in the absence of open-mindedness, geo-political power struggles, short sighted governments and personal greed will continue to push power-mad fanatics to favour the more bigoted understandings that are more in tune with their personal desires.
Taken from: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4512
Islam, Shari’ah Courts, Islamization and the Far-Right
The rise of an anti-Islamic right across Europe, and recent debates surrounding the incorporation of Shari'ah and Shari'ah "courts" [6] into European legal systems, are not unrelated phenomena. Indeed an odd symbiosis has been established. Islamist and extremist ideological movements push, fantastically, what they would describe as an 'Islamization' agenda, seeking to Islamize Europe. Some on the far-right, equally fantastically, argue this has already taken place, or is about to take place.
At the heart of the fear whipped up by the far-right is the Islamists demand for a separate and parallel legal system based upon "Shari'ah" or, rather, a number of specific interpretations of the Shari'ah – for there are different 'schools' [8] which have existed for over a millennium, each interpreting the religious code of the Muslims, traditionally called Fiqh [7], i.e. human interpretations and understandings of the Shari'ah. As this raises the question of who should decide which Fiqh Muslims should follow, or indeed which is acceptable for them to follow, it would plainly be absurd for the British government to seek to define the religious interpretation which should be adopted by a Shari'ah court.
Arbitration by Shari'ah: The basic argument
Arbitration by Shari'ah is necessary for matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and conflict resolution, or so it is argued by proponents of Shari'ah courts. These courts, or more accurately "tribunals", they say, must have a Muslim scholar of Shari'ah and a legal expert (which even moderate conservatives have insisted should be a Muslim), in order to ensure that the resolution is both legally and "Shari'ah" compliant. They would issue binding settlements – as the parties have in principle agreed to the binding nature of the decision. Protagonists of Shari'ah courts have argued that these settlements are legally binding according to the Arbitration Act 1996 [10], and thus enforceable. Others have stated that this should be recognized as a parallel and alternative legal system. [11] These arguments are based on a series of flawed assumptions.
Four Flawed assumptions
1. 'Shari'ah courts can operate under the Arbitration Act'
This is the first fundamentally flawed assumption made by the proponents of Shari'ah courts. Firstly, it is not the remit of the Arbitration Act to deal with statutory issues which are already laid out within family law, or criminal law but within civil law areas. [12] Secondly, the scope of the act does not cover issues which are raised in this regard, which are mainly to do with statutory legislation which cannot be contravened. Any agreement reached through this mediation process (note, not 'arbitration' as it would still be subject to a UK court) which is not a just resolution in the view of a UK court would be immediately overturned and not be considered binding.
2. 'Muslims need Shari'ah Arbitration'
The idea that arbitration is somehow a Shari'ah matter is another error. Since medieval times Muslim scholars have recognised that resolving disputes does not require a Shari'ah expert, or even anyone familiar with the dictates of the Shari'ah. Rather, they cite incidents from the prophetic era that demonstrate that it was acknowledged that wise people who had influence in their respective communities would be able to resolve disputes. [13] In fact, pre-modern Muslims scholars went further in stating explicitly that arbitration did not require a Muslim, but rather someone of sound intellect – whether he [14] or she was a Muslim was not relevant. [15] Arbitration is not about enforcing a ruling from the Shari'ah, so there is no requirement for a either a Muslim Shari'ah expert to apply a judgement, or a Shari'ah court. What is needed is the skilful resolution of disputes by trained mediators.
3. 'Without Shari'ah, Muslims can't get an Islamic divorce'
This is a particularly problematic aspect. Muslim women are informed that they cannot get a divorce, and so remain religiously tied to their husbands, until they have either received a divorce from their husbands or from a Shari'ah court. This has left women at the mercy of courts that are not authorized through any legal recognition [16], do not operate according to any explicit standards, and are unregulated. These courts are dominated by the opinions of a man who may refuse to grant a divorce to a woman even after the woman is divorced according to UK law. This has led to many women being trapped in horrible circumstances, their religious sentiments abused for many years before the self-appointed religious authorities sanction a divorce.
And yet the truth is that Muslim scholars have traditionally advised Muslims to seek divorces from courts within the legal system that they live in, and that these would be legitimate divorces both on religious grounds and according to the law of the land. Pre-modern scholars have long advocated this for Muslims living in areas which have a majority non-Muslim population or even in fact where non-Muslims were judges in Muslim-majority countries. [17]
4. 'British Law is not binding on Muslims according to mainstream religious edicts, so we Muslims need a parallel legal system'
In fact, the opposite is true. Most Muslim scholars explicitly cite religious edicts making it binding upon Muslims, from a religious as well as a moral and legal perspective, that they should adopt the prevailing legal norms and standards within their own contractual undertakings. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mahfudh Bin Bayyah, a leading contemporary authority on Shari'ah, explained this from a Shari'ah maxim which states 'a well known custom is considered similar to a stipulated condition.' In other words, Muslims in all of their undertakings come within the framework of British law, or the law of whichever country they happen to reside in, and therefore the laws of that country are the rules they should abide by. He explicitly states that you are married and divorced according to the laws of those countries. [18] He also cites the concept of Maslaha or public benefit, and that this also necessitates Muslims adopting the laws of the country they reside in.
In our case it would mean that UK law and courts would be binding from a Shari'ah perspective. This should remove the call for a parallel legal system and quash the hysterical idea that 'Muslims' are seeking to Islamize the UK. Seeking to Islamize the law is not an inherent aspect of the Islamic faith to do so. [19] As I have shown, quite the opposite is the case.
Final thought
We face an odd situation in which a series of misleading notions – misleading in the eyes of the mainstream Muslim tradition and for most Muslims – are in danger of becoming accepted, pushed by a symbiotic alliance of Islamists and Wilders-types: the notions that Muslims need, and must seek, Shari'ah courts and a parallel legal system, that Islam must seek to establish its own legal and political order, and that Muslims, therefore, are the bearers of a deep-seated desire to achieve their own political hegemony over non-Muslims. [20] The opposite, I have shown, is true. For Muslims, the UK is their homeland where they can practice their faith and live by Islamic principles.
Rashad Ali was a lecturer at King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Taybah University in Medina. He was a senior leadership figure in Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and was in their Wilayah committee, before breaking from that organisation and helping to found the Quilliam Foundation. He currently resides in the UK and now works as in independent consultant, researcher and writer.
Abridged Article. For full article including references see: http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=237
At the heart of the fear whipped up by the far-right is the Islamists demand for a separate and parallel legal system based upon "Shari'ah" or, rather, a number of specific interpretations of the Shari'ah – for there are different 'schools' [8] which have existed for over a millennium, each interpreting the religious code of the Muslims, traditionally called Fiqh [7], i.e. human interpretations and understandings of the Shari'ah. As this raises the question of who should decide which Fiqh Muslims should follow, or indeed which is acceptable for them to follow, it would plainly be absurd for the British government to seek to define the religious interpretation which should be adopted by a Shari'ah court.
Arbitration by Shari'ah: The basic argument
Arbitration by Shari'ah is necessary for matters pertaining to marriage, divorce and conflict resolution, or so it is argued by proponents of Shari'ah courts. These courts, or more accurately "tribunals", they say, must have a Muslim scholar of Shari'ah and a legal expert (which even moderate conservatives have insisted should be a Muslim), in order to ensure that the resolution is both legally and "Shari'ah" compliant. They would issue binding settlements – as the parties have in principle agreed to the binding nature of the decision. Protagonists of Shari'ah courts have argued that these settlements are legally binding according to the Arbitration Act 1996 [10], and thus enforceable. Others have stated that this should be recognized as a parallel and alternative legal system. [11] These arguments are based on a series of flawed assumptions.
Four Flawed assumptions
1. 'Shari'ah courts can operate under the Arbitration Act'
This is the first fundamentally flawed assumption made by the proponents of Shari'ah courts. Firstly, it is not the remit of the Arbitration Act to deal with statutory issues which are already laid out within family law, or criminal law but within civil law areas. [12] Secondly, the scope of the act does not cover issues which are raised in this regard, which are mainly to do with statutory legislation which cannot be contravened. Any agreement reached through this mediation process (note, not 'arbitration' as it would still be subject to a UK court) which is not a just resolution in the view of a UK court would be immediately overturned and not be considered binding.
2. 'Muslims need Shari'ah Arbitration'
The idea that arbitration is somehow a Shari'ah matter is another error. Since medieval times Muslim scholars have recognised that resolving disputes does not require a Shari'ah expert, or even anyone familiar with the dictates of the Shari'ah. Rather, they cite incidents from the prophetic era that demonstrate that it was acknowledged that wise people who had influence in their respective communities would be able to resolve disputes. [13] In fact, pre-modern Muslims scholars went further in stating explicitly that arbitration did not require a Muslim, but rather someone of sound intellect – whether he [14] or she was a Muslim was not relevant. [15] Arbitration is not about enforcing a ruling from the Shari'ah, so there is no requirement for a either a Muslim Shari'ah expert to apply a judgement, or a Shari'ah court. What is needed is the skilful resolution of disputes by trained mediators.
3. 'Without Shari'ah, Muslims can't get an Islamic divorce'
This is a particularly problematic aspect. Muslim women are informed that they cannot get a divorce, and so remain religiously tied to their husbands, until they have either received a divorce from their husbands or from a Shari'ah court. This has left women at the mercy of courts that are not authorized through any legal recognition [16], do not operate according to any explicit standards, and are unregulated. These courts are dominated by the opinions of a man who may refuse to grant a divorce to a woman even after the woman is divorced according to UK law. This has led to many women being trapped in horrible circumstances, their religious sentiments abused for many years before the self-appointed religious authorities sanction a divorce.
And yet the truth is that Muslim scholars have traditionally advised Muslims to seek divorces from courts within the legal system that they live in, and that these would be legitimate divorces both on religious grounds and according to the law of the land. Pre-modern scholars have long advocated this for Muslims living in areas which have a majority non-Muslim population or even in fact where non-Muslims were judges in Muslim-majority countries. [17]
4. 'British Law is not binding on Muslims according to mainstream religious edicts, so we Muslims need a parallel legal system'
In fact, the opposite is true. Most Muslim scholars explicitly cite religious edicts making it binding upon Muslims, from a religious as well as a moral and legal perspective, that they should adopt the prevailing legal norms and standards within their own contractual undertakings. Sheikh Abdullah Bin Mahfudh Bin Bayyah, a leading contemporary authority on Shari'ah, explained this from a Shari'ah maxim which states 'a well known custom is considered similar to a stipulated condition.' In other words, Muslims in all of their undertakings come within the framework of British law, or the law of whichever country they happen to reside in, and therefore the laws of that country are the rules they should abide by. He explicitly states that you are married and divorced according to the laws of those countries. [18] He also cites the concept of Maslaha or public benefit, and that this also necessitates Muslims adopting the laws of the country they reside in.
In our case it would mean that UK law and courts would be binding from a Shari'ah perspective. This should remove the call for a parallel legal system and quash the hysterical idea that 'Muslims' are seeking to Islamize the UK. Seeking to Islamize the law is not an inherent aspect of the Islamic faith to do so. [19] As I have shown, quite the opposite is the case.
Final thought
We face an odd situation in which a series of misleading notions – misleading in the eyes of the mainstream Muslim tradition and for most Muslims – are in danger of becoming accepted, pushed by a symbiotic alliance of Islamists and Wilders-types: the notions that Muslims need, and must seek, Shari'ah courts and a parallel legal system, that Islam must seek to establish its own legal and political order, and that Muslims, therefore, are the bearers of a deep-seated desire to achieve their own political hegemony over non-Muslims. [20] The opposite, I have shown, is true. For Muslims, the UK is their homeland where they can practice their faith and live by Islamic principles.
Rashad Ali was a lecturer at King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Taybah University in Medina. He was a senior leadership figure in Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain and was in their Wilayah committee, before breaking from that organisation and helping to found the Quilliam Foundation. He currently resides in the UK and now works as in independent consultant, researcher and writer.
Abridged Article. For full article including references see: http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=237
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)