Friday 31 August 2007

Evaluating Hizbut-Tahrir's Theo-political Stance (Updated 01/10/2007)

Bismillah al-Rahmān al-Rahim wa al-hamdu lillāhi Rabb al-Ālamin
Towards Political Engagement
Evaluating Hizbut-Tahrir's Theo-political Stance
- Part 1-
Maajid Nawaz
The first in a series of articles reviewing Islamist political theory


As followers of Hizbut-Tahrir (The Liberation Party) are by now aware, after affiliation to the Party since I was 16, I took the painful yet vital step of resigning from its UK leadership committee and leaving the Party. Members of the Party are rightfully owed an explanation. Acting on the advice of my friends in the UK Party leadership I delayed issuing this explanation from fear that my words would be misconstrued by others. Thus, with Allāh as my witness, I have taken the decision to finally issue this article after much delay and thought in order to clarify my stance and attempt to open up a new chapter in the mindset of politically active Muslims. In the current climate, I can only emphasise that I do not wish my critical voice to be exploited to support the call for proscribing Hizbut-Tahrir. Rather, those that are well versed in both Party ideology and traditional Islamic sciences are sufficiently equipped and duty-bound to redress the phenomenon of politically inspired theological interpretations. I would also state that my political stance against the tragic invasion of Iraq remains unchanged. Furthermore, these words should not be taken to mean that I support the brutal policies of the Muslim world’s dictators, rather political engagement is the civic duty of all who are able. Finally, I impress upon all people that Islām today is not in need of a politically inspired modernist reformation, which is actually the cause of our current crisis, rather a counter-reformation and a return to its true essence by Muslims insisting that their religion is not used merely to serve narrow political agendas.

I spent much of my time as a political prisoner in Egypt (2002-2006) evaluating and studying traditional Islamic sciences. With the passing of time it became ever clearer to me that rather than being the sole vanguard that represents an Islām that even Muslim jurists have misunderstood, Hizbut-Tahrir is inspired by a political ideology super-imposed upon an Islamic legal analysis. In other words, today's world in the eyes of Hizbut-Tahrir is analysed through a prism of political Ijtihād (theological legal reasoning). Their political Ijtihād (pl. Ijtihādāt) is the basis for a revolutionary call to transform Muslim countries from what is deemed Dār al-Kufr (contra-Islamic land) to Dār al-Islām (Islamic lands) and from what are considered Kufr (contra-Islamic) states to a unitary 'Islamic state'. This task entails the forceful overthrow of all regimes in the Muslim world as they are judged to be ruling by Kufr laws thus they lack Shari'ah legitimacy, the final arbiter in legal disputes. Authority for this political stance is gained from citing religious scripture interpreted via the Party's principles of Islamic jurisprudence. As my understanding of Islām grew, however, I realised that the very scripture and principles used by the Party to make its analysis do not actually support its call. Rather, and quite distressingly for me at first, the Party's own principles result in the exact opposite conclusion. It is with this introduction that I embark upon demonstrating how the Party's own theological, intellectual and legal principles, when applied to their political conclusions, result only in the invalidity of Hizbut-Tahrir's political stance.

Hizbut-Tahrir on Dār al-Islām1

The Islamic and Contra-Islamic Lands:

Party members are obliged to believe that the whole world today is Dār al-Kufr (contra-Islamic land), synonymous in its literature to Dār al-harb (land of war)2.

“These lands in which Muslims currently live throughout the world, their reality is that they are all Dār al-Kufr and not Dār al-Islām.”3

The Party leadership then stipulated two conditions for Dār al-Islām:

a) The land must be “governed by the laws of Islām.”4

b) “Security (Amān 5) is maintained by the security of Islām ie: by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims”.6

Dār al-Kufr is conversely defined as the land

“…governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Amān) of Islām ie: by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.”7

Proof for these two conditions is asserted rationally and with various Koranic verses and hadith narrations brought forward to support each condition. After listing evidence to demonstrate that the appearance of Kufr laws is sufficient to negate the first condition of Dār al-Islām, it is stated,

“So these texts indicate that to rule with anything other than the laws of Allāh is a matter which makes it obligatory upon Muslims to declare war against the ruler, and it is an evidence which indicates that implementing Islām is a condition for having Dār al-Islām, otherwise the ruler must be fought against.”8

Therefore, Party theory holds that there can be no 'Islamic State' without firstly the land being Dār al-Islām by these two conditions. The Party accepts, however, that security of Muslim lands is in the hands of Muslims. It is only by the absence of the first condition of ruling by Islām, therefore, that the lands are deemed Dār al-Kufr,

“ is evident that all the current Muslim lands do not fulfil the condition of the laws of Islām. Though the security (Amān) of most of them is maintained by the security and authority of Muslims.”9

The land being Dār al-Islām, however, is not synonymous in Party literature to the regimes being Islamic. This is because a scenario is envisaged where a land may be Dār al-Islām, but then the ruler begins initiating what are considered Kufr laws. The Party believes that only in such circumstances are the people obliged to fight the ruler,

“The aim in the current situation is not to change a ruler who rules by Kufr in Dār al-Islām; the aim is rather to change the whole of Dār al-Kufr, including its thoughts and systems...If in Dār al-Islām, which is ruled according to the revelation of Allāh (swt), its ruler ruled with clear Kufr then the Muslims must forbid it, so that he reverts back to ruling according to Islām. In case he doesn't repent, it becomes imperative upon the Muslims to take up arms against him to force him to revert to ruling with the revelation of Allāh (swt).”10

Today, the world is believed by the Party to be Dār al-Kufr in origin due to the unprecedented move by Mustafa Kemal in dismantling the Ottoman Caliphate after the First World War, and colonialist occupation of other Muslim lands, eventually giving rise to client regimes. Therefore, fighting to remove today's rulers “who rule by Kufr” is deemed by the Party as being based on a misunderstanding of the reality and its Shari'ah rule, as such action only applies to rulers who initiate Kufr laws within an existent Dār al-Islām, whereas today the Muslims lands are already Dār al-Kufr.

Rather, the Party draws an analogy to the Prophet's (peace be upon him) own life in Dār al-Kufr, Mecca, up until he gained authority in Yathrib (later named Madinah) making it Dār al-Islām. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is perceived by the Party to have engaged in a purely political and intellectual mission to remove the Kufr system in place, until he (peace be upon him) amassed enough support from the military tribes of Yathrib that he “orchestrated a coup d'etat”11 removing the powerless king-to-be in Yathrib, 'Ubay ibn Sulūl. This interpretation is then used by the Party to call the military or other forces of power in Muslim countries (named in Party terminology the Nuşrah12, or material support) to remove illegitimate regimes by force in a coup d'etat.

“(This would) normally be done by the Party seeking to access the military in order to take the authority...After this the military would be capable of establishing the authority of Islām. Hence a coup d'etat would be the manifestation of a political change...”13

Therefore, the Muslim world being Dār al-Kufr is axiomatic to the Party's analysis. The aim being one of changing Dār al-Kufr to Dār al-Islām. It serves as their adopted legal premise to take from the early life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) the Party's method of intellectual and political struggle culminating in seeking a military coup. On the other hand, if the Muslim world was Dār al-Islām then, according to the Party's stance, the appearance of Kufr would simply oblige armed insurrection directly against the rulers.

“Announcing war against him (the ruler) if clear disbelief (Kufr Buwah) is seen from him after he was ruling by Islām is obligatory and it is religiously forbidden (harām) to refrain from performing it.”14

“But the duty to raise arms against the ruler and to fight against him if he showed clear Kufr, this applies only if the land (Dār) is Dār al-Islām, and the rules of Islām were implemented and the ruler subsequently showed open Kufr.”15

Consequently, it is crucial for the Party to insist that Muslim lands are Dār al-Kufr. If they hypothetically accepted that Muslim lands are Dār al-Islām yet still coupled this with their insistence that the states are ruling by Kufr they would only give credence (by their own principles) to the Jihadist16 methodology of armed insurrection and assassinating the ruler.

Hizbut-Tahrir's inconsistency in enacting its Ijtihād that all Muslim lands are Dār al-Kufr

Hizbut-Tahrir use the theory I have outlined above to advocate the theological illegitimacy of contemporary Muslim regimes, and therefore the religious obligation on each and every Muslim to overthrow them17 in a pre-defined strategic order18. The flaw here, however, is astoundingly obvious for any trained practitioner of Shari'ah law yet amazingly, and despite being the view of today's Islamic jurists, has not yet been popularised. Perhaps that is due to no one fully understanding what it is that Hizbut-Tahrir actually believe.

If it can be demonstrated that the Party’s theory is nothing but a legal opinion (Ijtihād), then the argument that opposing views are based on Kufr becomes unsustainable. According to the principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Usūl al-Fiqh), and even according to the Party's own ideas, any legal opinion (Ijtihād) is by definition inconclusive (Zanni) and thus non-binding on those who follow opposing legal opinions (Ijtihādāt). Consequently, using an opinion (Ijtihād) to enforce a conclusion of Kufr upon others by force is a contradiction in terms within Islamic jurisprudence, not to mention Party ideology. At best it is Wahhabite, and at worst it is the cynical use of Islām to justify what is essentially a political ideology.

Principles elucidated within the Party's own culturing process via their adopted books hold that legal opinions (Ijtihādāt) are insufficient for producing judgements of religious deviancy (Bid'ah) against opposing legal opinions (Ijtihādāt), not to mention Kufr.

“...the strength of the evidence is only according to the one who educed (Mustadill) it. Even if the manner which he educed it was his own and the definition was his own, as long as he relied on the semblance of an evidence (Shubha al-Dalil). This is because how the strength of the evidence is perceived differs from people to people due to their disparate perceptions of the Shari'ah evidence itself and due to the manner which they understand the Arabic language and the Shari'ah.”19

This is, in fact, one of the main arguments Party followers advance against their Wahhabite agitators when defending themselves against the latter's accusations of religious unorthodoxy. The Party holds that its followers are obliged to condemn misconduct (Munkar), as defined by their interpretation, whether it be Bid’ah or Kufr. However, a misconduct (Munkar) can only occur if the perpetrator is not following an opposing jurist’s Ijtihād. If, however, they are following a jurist on a legal opinion (Ijtihād) then they are absolved of sin and no misconduct (Munkar) has occurred even if their action is contrary to the Party’s own view. Rather, the mistake of the jurist in his legal judgement still gains divine favour. The only time a view is not recognised is if it runs contrary to conclusive (Qati’i) injunctions, as is mentioned in Party books,

“The jurist (Mujtahid) exerts his utmost effort to derive the rule. If he is correct in his exertion (Ijtihād) then he has two rewards and if he makes a mistake he will have one....The Companions of the Prophet upon whom be peace (Sahābah) have formed a legally binding consensus (Ijmā') that the jurist (Mujtahid) is not accountable in the Shari'ah rules regarding speculative jurisprudence (Fiqhi) issues...That is why the Companions (Sahābah) disagreed on speculative issues but never on the definite (Qati'i) issues. Concerning speculative issues the jurist (Mujtahid) is correct in what he has arrived at by his legal exertion (Ijtihād) even if he is liable to make a mistake in his opinion. However, being correct does not mean that he has hit the target because this does not agree with the reality of a speculative rule since the Messenger (saw) considered him mistaken (Mukhti'). What is meant by saying that the jurist (Mujtahid) is right is in terms that do not rule out the possibility of making mistakes and not in terms of hitting the true target (Isāba) which is contrary to mistake. Describing someone who makes a mistake in legal exertion (Ijtihād) as right (Musib) is in the meaning that the text rewards [sic] the jurist (Mujtahid) even when he makes a mistake and not in the sense that he did not make a mistake. Therefore, every jurist (Mujtahid) is right according to what he thinks is right but this does not rule out the chance that a mistake could have been made.“20

Therefore, if it can be illustrated that a) the classifications of Dār al-Islām and Dār al-Kufr are not conclusive (Qati’i), and b) that classical jurists held opposing yet valid criteria for the definition of Dār al-Islām; then those criteria would suffice in forcing the Party to accept that Muslim lands are not conclusively Dār al-Kufr, but are only so in their subjective legal opinion (Ijtihād). Any subjective legal judgement would then be bound to recognise the validity of, though not agree with, the opposing view. As such, no Kufr would exist and no misconduct (Munkar) would have occurred to remove. Instead, a wrong, but valid and divinely praised legal opinion (Ijtihād) would exist in its place. Those who fully appreciate both Party and Islamic jurisprudential thinking will grasp the importance of the point here. If there is no misconduct (Munkar), but only a wrong yet legally valid opinion (Ijtihād), then according to Party ideology and Islamic jurisprudence, this Ijtihād is an Islamic opinion, and not Kufr. Thus, it is an Islamic opinion that Muslim lands are Dār al-Islām. It is also an Islamic opinion therefore, that Muslim lands hold theological legitimacy. Moreover, if the Party insists on not recognising opposing legal opinions (Ijtihādāt) on this matter then theirs is the theologically illegitimate stance. When two opposing Islamic opinions clash, both are bound to recognise, though not agree with, the validity of the other. Consequently, once the existence of an alternative view is substantiated, the Party is theologically bound to recognise the validity of Muslim lands being Dār al-Islām,

“This is because difference of opinion in deduction between the scholars does not make the rule legitimate before a Mujtahid and illegitimate before another. Rather it is a Shari’ah rule before all Muslims as long as there is (even) an obscure evidence (Shubha al-Dalil) from the Shar’iah evidences before the deducer of the rule, and it is possible according to the linguistic and Shari'ah knowledge (Ma’ārif) that one can deduce this type of deduction.”21

All that remains, therefore, is to demonstrate how Hizbut-Tahrir's judgement on Muslim lands being Dār al-Kufr is not Qati'i, but rather is an inconclusive legal reasoning (Ijtihād Zanni). Upon comprehending the significance of this point one can understand why the Party's second global leader, the late Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom22 insisted that this matter was closed to debate and absolutely decisive,

“The reality of Muslims today is sensed by every Muslim; it does not require any explanation nor does it necessitate any elaboration. Their lands are ruled by Kufr systems, thus they are conclusively (Qat'an) Dār al-Kufr [with no debate!].”23

Proving that Judgements on the Land (Dār) are at Best Inconclusive (Zanni)

The first and most obvious way of demonstrating the inconclusive nature of Hizbut-Tahrir's stance, and thus the theological illegitimacy of enforcing their view that others are on Kufr, is by identifying the source of the terms used. Definitions of Dār al-Kufr and Dār al-Islām are not to be found in any verse of the Qur'ān or any hadith (prophetic traditions). One or two prophetic traditions (Ahadith), argued by many to be of weak authenticity, refer to the term Dār al-harb and another refers to Dār al-Kufr, but all fail to offer any definition of these terms. It is primarily due to this reason that the definitions are vastly differed over by the Jurists (Mujtahidin) as each one simply extracted what seemed plausible to him from scripture (see below). Consequently, even the very need for a definition, not to mention the definition itself, is an opinion (Ijtihād).

A second way of proving that the Party's definitions are inconclusive (Zanni) is by considering the scriptural citations used to arrive at them.24 The two passages (Ayāt) from the Qur'ān that are referred to, though in themselves forming a theologically definitive source for proof (Qati'i al-Thubūt), their link to this particular subject matter as conditions (Shart) for the validity of a land (Dār) is inconclusive (Zanni). As for the prophetic traditions (Ahādith) used by the Party to define these terms they form an inconclusive source (Zanni al-Thubūt) for proof as they are singularly narrated traditions (Khabr Al-Āhād). Such traditions are inconclusive according to the Party's own view and no matter what rule (hukm) is derived from them it can only but be inconclusive (Zanni),

“If the speech of the Legislator is inconclusive as a source (Zanniy al-Thubūt), such as non-Mutawātir Ahādith25, then the rule (hukm) included will not be conclusive, regardless of whether the meaning is conclusive (Qat’iy al-Dalālah) or not.”26

Thirdly, and astonishingly, the Party explicitly accepts that these terms are subject to valid legal differences (Ikhtilāf Shari'i) in the very area that the Party was founded to redress, i.e.: concerning how Dār al-Islām becomes Dār al-Kufr,

“Similarly there is no disagreement that the land of Islām (Dār al-Islām) is the land that submits to the rule of Islām and is ruled by Muslims...however they differed as to what changes Dār al- Islām into Dār al-Kufr. Some jurists (Mujtahidin) said that Dār al-Islām does not become a Dār al-Kufr except by three conditions: firstly, the appearance of the rules of Kufr in it. Secondly, that it is bordering Dār al-Kufr. Thirdly, that there does not remain in it any Muslim or non- Muslim under a covenant (Zimmi) secured by the first security (Amān) which is the security of Muslims.”27

The implications of admitting a valid difference on this opinion in an adopted book of the Party are huge28. According to this valid Islamic opinion most of the lands today considered by the Party to have become Dār al-Kufr, are still Dār al-Islām, and those who judge Muslim lands today using this legitimate opinion are perfectly within their rights to insist that Muslim societies and their systems are not in lands of Kufr. Moreover, the Party is bound to recognise their opinion as Islamic not Kufr, though not agreeing with it. Thus, by enforcing its opinion upon society that the Muslim world is Dār al-Kufr the Party is condemning something that is not a 'misconduct' (Munkar).

The author in the above citation is quite hostile to such an opinion and asserts that it has no basis in evidence, despite the Party stating in volume one of the same book,

“...the strength of the evidence is only according to the one who educed it. Even if the manner which he educed it was his own and the definition was his own, as long as he relied on the semblance of an evidence (Shubha al-Dalil). This is because how the strength of the evidence is perceived differs from people to people due to their disparate perceptions of the Shari'ah evidence itself ...”29

In this case the opinion referred to happens to belong to the foremost jurist (Mujtahid) and lawyer (Faqih) of Sunni Muslims (Ahl al-Sunnah), none other than the founder of the first school of Sunni law, Imām Abū hanifah himself30.

The Party, by making its inconclusive (Zanni) judgement that the world is Dār al-Kufr a basis for the illegitimacy of Muslim lands, is inherently contradictory. On the one hand, the Party accepts any legal opinion (Ijtihād) based upon a semblance of an evidence (Shubha al-Dalil) as valid, yet on the other, it refuses to tolerate the Islamic opinion that Muslim lands today are Dār al-Islām.

Quotations of Early Muslim Jurists and Lawyers (Mujtahidin and Fuqahā)31:

A fourth way to demonstrate this point is simply by listing the various views of past jurists and lawyers (Mujtahidin and Fuqahā), so as to demonstrate the sheer breadth of disagreement on this point. The views are categorised by school of thought,

The Shāfi'i school:

al-Imām al-Rāfi'i, second to none but al-Imām al-Nawawi in the Shāfi'i hierarchy states,

“It is not conditional to Dār al-Islām that Muslims reside there, rather being in the hands of the Imām and his Islām is sufficient.”32

al-Imām al-Māwardi, author of the influential 'Rules of Governance' (Ahkām al-Sultāniyyah) sourced heavily by the Party, believed,

“If it becomes possible to manifest ones religion (Din) in any Kufr land, then that land becomes by such a virtue Dār al-Islām. Therefore, residence therein is better than leaving due to the hope that others will embrace Islām.”33

Al-Imām al-Bujayrimī, a reliable (Mu'tamad) source of Shāfi’ī jurisprudence (Fiqh) maintains that Dār al-Islām for the Shāfi’ī's can be a place where Muslims reside even if there are Ahl al-Zimma (non-Muslims of the covenant) present, and further, even if non-Muslims were granted the right by Muslims to govern over it.
"On Dār al-Islām: meaning, that Muslims reside there, even if there were ahl al-zimma (non Muslims of the covenant) present, or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non- Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarrūha bi Yad il-Kuffār), or they were living there and were expelled by the disbelievers from it."
"...And the Shāfi'ī's said: it (Dār al-Islām) is the entire land where Islamic rulings (Ahkām al- Islām) appear, and it is intended by the phrase 'appearance of the Islamic rulings', every one of its rulings; or Muslims live there even if there were Ahl al-Zimma (non-Muslims of the covenant) present with them; or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non-Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarrūha bi Yad il-Kuffār); or they were living there and were expelled by the disbelievers from it".34

al-Imām al-Ba'lawi considers that,

“Any place at which a resident Muslim is capable of defending himself against hostile forces for a period of time is Dār al-Islām, where his judgments can be applied at that time and those times following it.”35

The Hanafi school :

Shams al-A'immah al-Sarakhsi, the source for hanafi jurisprudence, defines it as

“A place which is under the authority or ownership of Muslims and the proof is that Muslims are secure therein.”36

Al-Kāsāni states,

“There is no difference between our companions (the hanafi's) that Dār al-Kufr becomes Dār al- Islām due to the appearance (Zuhūr) of the rulings (Ahkām) of Islām therein.”37

The Judge (al-Qādi) Abū Yūsuf believed,

“The land is considered Dār al-Islām by the appearance (Zuhūr) of the rulings (Ahkām) of Islām therein even if the majority of its people where disbelievers, and it is considered Dār al-Kufr for the appearance of the rulings (Ahkām) of Kufr therein even if the majority of its people were Muslims” 38

However, it is incorrect to assume that al-Kāsāni's and Abū Yūsuf's reference to the 'appearance of the rulings of Islām' implies an absolutist interpretation towards implementing the Shari'ah on a state level as law, rather than merely safety to manifest such rulings. This is because a further analysis reveals that the concern of hanafi jurists was actually the safety to individually manifest such rulings. Ibn ‘Ābidin, an expert hanafi jurist stated,

“Indeed, Dār al-harb becomes Dār al-Islām by establishing the rulings (Ahkām) of Islām such as the Friday prayer and the 'Eid prayer; even if the indigenous non-Muslims remain therein and that country is not adjoined to Dār al-Islām.”39

Moreover, al-Kāsāni' himself, citing the founder of their school Abū hanifah as a source, completes his above quotation with the words,

“Prefixing the word 'Islām' to a land, and likewise the word 'Kufr', isn't actually intending Islām itself nor Kufr itself, but rather it is a matter of security and fear. This means that if there is absolute safety for Muslims it is Dār al-Islām… and if there is absolute fear for Muslims and absolute safety for non-Muslims then it is Dār al-harb.”40

In fact, Abū hanifa maintains that countries that have treaties with Muslim lands automatically become Dār al-Islām due to the safety ensuing therefrom.41

Consequently, it is clear that what the hanafi's meant by “the appearance of the rulings of Islam” was exactly that, their “appearance” in the practice of individuals throughout society, with the general safety and security provided to practice Islamic rituals, and not state laws per se.

This clarification highlights two points: firstly, that the hanafi definition is the same as the two Shāfi'is', al-Imām al-Māwardi and al-Imām al-Bujayrimi', entailing the right to live as Muslims in the land. Thus, as al-Sheikh Muhammad al-hamid also believed, it is generally agreed amongst this group that Dār al-harb becomes Dār al-Islām once the practice of Shari'ah is permitted in day to day life.42 Secondly, that the Party definition of the land being “governed by the laws of Islam” is an innovation and, contrary to popular belief within the Party, is not the same as the hanafi definition.

The Maliki school:

The Maliki reference point in jurisprudential matters, al-Dusūqi, states,

“a land in which the insignia of Islām (Sha'ā'ir43) are present”44

The Hanbali school:

Ibn Muflih writes that Dār al-Islām is every place where the rulings of Muslims are predominant.45

Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah maintains that,

“Dār al-Islām is the land upon where Muslims descended and upon where the rulings of Islām were executed. Any land upon where the rulings of Islām were not executed was not Dār al- Islām.”46

Finally, Ibn Hazm the main source for Zāhiri jurisprudence states,

“Because the land (Dār) is associated to the person dominant over it, its ruler and its king.”47

Based upon the above, one can summarise the early jurists' views on Dār al-Islām into two broad areas,

i) Those who consider that ownership and security must be in the hands of a Muslim ruler;

ii) And those who consider residence and manifesting the insignia of Islam (Sha'ā'ir) as sufficient to classify a place as Dār al-Islām.

Early Jurists differing over how a land becomes Dār al-Kufr after having been Dār al-Islām

The issue differs however when considering the change of land from having once been Dār al-Islām to becoming Dār al-Kufr. Here, even those who stipulated the condition that the rulings of Islām had to have been present did not necessarily put this condition for when the land changes to Dār al-Kufr. This is the very area that Hizbut-Tahrir's second global leader, Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom48 claimed is so clear cut that no debate is needed. There are, however, roughly four views on this point,

1) Lands that have been deemed Dār al-Islām continue to remain so, and do not become after that Dār al-harb or Dār al-Kufr. This view has been ascribed to some of the Shāfi'i's and the apparent meaning from the words of the Imāmiyyah school.49

2) Dār al-Islām becomes Dār al-Kufr by the appearance of Kufr therein or by its occupation by disbelievers (Kuffār). This is the view of al-Qādi Abū Yūsuf and al-Imām Muhammad al-Shaybāni (Abū hanifah's two disciples), the Hanbali's and some of the Zaydi's and Mutazilites.50

3) Dār al-Islām does not become Dār al-Kufr merely by the appearance of Kufr as long as its inhabitants are Muslims who are able to survive therein, defend their religion (Din) and establish some of the insignias (Sha'ā'ir) of Islām such as the call to prayer (Azan), Friday prayers, congregational prayers and 'Eid. This is the view of the Malikis and some latter day jurists from the Shāfi'is and Ibadites.51

Here, and before moving to the next view, we make mention of the Fatwa52 of al-Imām al-Ramli, the Shāfi'i jurist, concerning the people of 'Aragon' in Andalusia who sent him a query after the fall of their town to the Franks. Al-Imām al-Ramli was asked concerning resident Muslims under the protection of a Christian Sultan who usurped power over them and taxed their land. He did not oppress them or abuse their money or persons. They had mosques in which to pray, they could manifest Islamic insignia (Sha'ā'ir) and they could establish the Shari'ah of God openly. Did they have to perform the emigration (Hijrah) or not? Al-Imām al-Ramli answered that the emigration (Hijrah) from their land was not obligatory due to their ability to manifest their religion (Din) there and because the Prophet (peace be upon him) sent 'Uthmān on the day of hudaybiya to Mecca because there he was able to manifest his religion (Din)...On the contrary, it is not permitted to emigrate because it is hoped by their stay that others will become Muslims. Also, because it is Dār al-Islām and if they left it the land would become Dār al-harb (synonymous to Dār al-Kufr).53

4) Finally, Dār al-Islām does not become Dār al-Kufr except by three conditions:

i) The appearance of the rulings of Kufr therein

ii) Whilst it is neighbouring Dār al-harb in such a way that there is no other Dār al-Islām between them.

iii) That no Muslim or non-Muslim under a covenant (Zimmi) remains safe with the first security that the guardians of Muslims established therein.

As has already been stated above, this view is explicitly recognised by the Party in its books and is the view of al-Imām abū hanifah54 and some of the Zaydis. Al-Imām abū Zahra also narrates this view from al-Imām abū hanifa and adds one more condition, namely that the army or authority no longer remains under the control of the Muslim ruler.55 Al-Imām ibn 'Abidin, a hanafi jurist, states that it is clear from this that if the rulings of Islām and the rulings of Kufr were implemented together the land does not become Dār al-harb.56 This view rather gives preference to the security and safety of citizens as is elaborated by al-Sheikh Muhammad al-Hamid,

“As for the Fatwa’s claim that India is Dār al-harb it is not in its generality true. Because areas where Muslims reside and there is a remnant of Islām’s rules - even if this is limited to marriages and what pertains to them, for example - are considered Dār al-Islām. Dār al-Islām does not become Dār al-harb except under three conditions, (a) that the security of Muslims through their leader no longer exists, and the security of non-Muslims has taken its place; (b) that they have been surrounded from all sides such that it is impossible for the aid of Muslims to reach them; (c) and then not a single one of Islām’s rule remains therein.”57

The Opinions of Some Contemporary Islamic Lawyers Regarding Dār al-Islām and Dār al-Kufr:

Sheikh Muhammad al-'Afifi quotes in his Fatwa, Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians regarding a Shafi’i definition of Dār al-Islām,

“…Muslim scholars have classified the territories in this world into: Dār al-Islām [its synonyms

Bilād al-Islām or Dawla Islāmiyya; a Muslim state or territory or land or country, etc.] and Dār al-Kufr [a non-Muslim state, territory, etc.] The definition of a Muslim state is: “Any place at which a resident Muslim is capable of defending himself against hostile forces for a period of time is a Muslim state, where his judgments can be applied at that time and those times following it.”58 59

Sheikh Muhammad al-'Afifi then comments,

“By definition, an area is a Muslim state as long as Muslims continue to live there and the political and executive authority is Muslim. (Think about this, for the Muslims lands are many, varied, wide and extensive; and how poor and of limited insight are those who have tried to limit the definition of what a Muslim state must be, and whether realising it or not thus try to shrink the Muslim world).”60

After discussing the issue of Dār al-Islām and Dār al-harb Sheikh Nūh Keller writes, quoting from his Sheikh, Nūh ‘Ali Salman, regarding Dār al-harb,

“…which effectively means that none of the lands that Islām has spread to and in which something of it remains can be considered an enemy land.”61

What has been quoted above, from early and contemporary scholars, is by no means exhaustive. Nevertheless it provides ample evidence to substantiate the claim that the definitions are widely differed over. Preference is not expressed here for one definition over another as that is not the subject of this article. Rather, the aim is to show that Hizbut-Tahrir is bound, by virtue of its own ideas, to recognise that the lands today are Dār al-Islām because those who believe that they are have abundant scholarly material to rely upon. The Party may not agree with their definition, in fact it may still believe that the lands are Dār al-Kufr but what it cannot do (by its own principles) is enforce its view upon Muslims by force and condemn the lands today as Dār al-Kufr when other and valid Islamic definitions consider it Dār al-Islām.

Is this not a semantic debate?
This debate is absolutely not one of semantics. In considering this matter one should reflect upon why jurists of the past entered this discussion. Jurists deemed it necessary to define Dār al-Islām for the purpose of settling whether emigration (Hijra) was obligatory from that land, i.e. whether Muslims could live there in peace and security as long as they could practice their religion in such lands, or whether the obstacles to the practice of the religion would need to be removed through fighting (Jihād) (for a discussion of this issue related to the Hijra see, Ibn Rushd Senior (d. 520/1122), Al-Muqaddimat, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, N.d.), 1:374 {on the margins of al-Mudawannah al-kubrā}).
If Hijra was considered necessary it meant that there were obstacles to the Islamic call (Da'wah) in such a land as it would not allow the practice of Islamic worship ('Ibadāt). Here, historically, the Muslims' state would begin Jihād to remove such obstacles to the practice of the religion, and once that was done the land was deemed Dār al-Islām.
In the absence of the need for Hijrah, (i.e. when the land is Dār al-Islām because Muslims were allowed to practice their religion in peace and security), Muslims were commanded not to invade because they would hear the call to prayer (Azān) i.e. the inhabitants of such a land were not to be fought because they allowed Muslims to manifest the insignia (Sha'ā'ir) of Islam. This is clearly demonstrated in Prophetic Hadīth literature. It was narrated by Anas (r.a.) that:
“Wherever the Prophet, upon him be peace, raided some people he would not raid except in the morning. If he heard the call to prayer (Azān) he would refrain [from raiding], if he did not he would invade after dawn.”
Moreover, al-Muzny reported that the Prophet, upon him be peace, said:
“If you have seen a mosque or heard a call to prayer, then don't kill anybody”.
If the order in one Hadīth was given to refrain from invading altogether, and in the other to refrain from killing anyone, then it would be fair to conclude that no violent war was mandated against a nation if the insignia (Sha'ā'ir) of Islam were allowed to be freely practised therein. Therefore, according to this view, Jihād and Hijrah would only apply where Muslims, or anyone, are being oppressed and brutalised for practising their religion. Hence this debate is far from being a debate over mere terms. It is in this light that al-Imām al-Bujayrimī's above quote should be viewed, for he clearly states that in the Shāfi’ī school a land can be considered Dār al-Islām even if it were handed over by Muslims to non-Muslims for them to rule over,
“...or it was conquered by Muslims who then agreed that non-Muslims would govern over it (Wa Aqarrūha bi Yad il-Kuffār)”.
This is how the matter of defining the terms arose, and thus the legal issue at dispute was: by allowing Muslims to practise their religion do the rulers of such lands where this occurs guarantee their rule? Or does it require more than that to guarantee the continuation of the existent ruler, such as him becoming a Muslim, or his "ruling by the Sharī'ah". Once he became a Muslim, there was another discussion about how to subsequently invalidate his rule, is it by him becoming a disbeliever or merely a transgressor.
Hence, though I have not stated my own preference, this issue is absolutely not one of semantics. The matter of Dār al-Islām used to affect (in the days of expanding Empires) the issue of whether the Muslim army would invade any given land or not i.e. what is the bare minimum expected for such a land to be left alone? Is it just that they allow Muslims to practise their religion? Or is more required, such as the ruler being a Muslim?
It is for this reason that the scholars ('Ulema) of India gave the Fatwa that India was Dār al-Islām under the British, because Muslims were still allowed to practise their religion. Based upon these religious rights the authors of this historic Fatwa accepted co-existence. I state this not to take away the right to resist occupation, rather to show that for some 'Ulema the decision to resist in such circumstances is a strategic and not religious matter.
Another Fatwa in Algeria (1841) ruled by the same thing: here the French general Bugeaud was being fought by a Wahhābite leader by the name of 'abd al-Qādir. 'Abd al-Qādir declared that Muslims must not submit to the rule of disbelievers, and obtained a Fatwa to this effect from Fez. The Sūfi order of Tijāniyyah (who rivalled the Wahhābite 'abd al-Qādir) also sought a Fatwa, which was requested from Qayrawān, the famous religious centre in Tunisia.
The Qayrawān Fatwa declared that, having fought but failed, it was acceptable for Algerians to cease fighting provided that the French promised to allow them to practise their religion and did not dishonour their women. Again, what this Fatwa demonstrates is when a shift occurs from the religious obligation of Jihād to making resistance a strategic decision. Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, three of the four Sunni schools of law (Mazāhib) had adopted this view.
(see "Muslims Under non-Muslim Rule by Yahya Michot, foreword by James Piscatori, page xiii.)
Readers may or may not agree with this view, but one thing that cannot be argued is that definition of Dār al-Islām is a semantic issue. Rather, the way in which it is defined affects the minimum threshold from which a jurist would guarantee security to the land's ruler in return for security to practice Islām.

This minimum threshold is the very matter disputed over in the various definitions. Moreover, HT define this issue of minimum threshold (ie: the issue of when the security of a ruler is secured in return for the security of Islam) in an unprecedented way. They insist that for the land to be Dār al-Islām, it must be “ruled by the Sharī'ah” on a state level. Thus, for HT, anything less than that renders the ruler as being removable. However, this is not the same minimum threshold adhered to by other jurists.

If Others are on Valid Legal Opinions (Ijtihādāt) Why Can Hizbut-Tahrir Not Follow its Own Legal Opinion (Ijtihād) Which is also an Islamic Opinion?

A question that is raised by Party activists after hearing the above argument is why, if their view is one amongst many, should they also not be left to practise their opinion. The one who asks this question, however, has failed to grasp the essential point. According to the Party's own thoughts, anyone is perfectly within their rights to hold an Islamic opinion but cannot condemn others who are also on Islamic opinions. The Party may believe what it wishes, but cannot enforce its opinion on others or label other opinions as illegitimate, where the opinion it is trying to remove is also an Islamic one. Party literature states,

“This is because difference of opinion in deduction between the scholars does not make the rule legitimate before a Mujtahid and illegitimate before another. Rather it is a Shari’ah rule before all Muslims as long as there is (even) an obscure evidence (Shubha al-Dalil) from the Shar’iah evidences before the deducer of the rule... ”62

Consequently, if the land is Islamic according to a valid opinion then no misconduct (Munkar) exists in the Muslim world that requires forceful removal. Party members are told by party books that they cannot behave as if other opinions are illegitimate simply because they disagree with them, rather they must recognise them. Therefore, party members must recognise that the lands being Islamic “is a Shari’ah rule before all Muslims”.

Also, in any matter of legal differences of opinion (Ikhtilāf Shari'i) the Party accepts the legal maxim 'the ruler of the land settles disputes' (Amr al-Imām Yarfa'u al-Khilāf). Consequently, once it is accepted that the definitions of Dār al-Islām are differed over, according to this principle the Party believes that all Muslims must abandon their own individual legal opinions (Ijtihādāt) and obey that of the rulers who adopts the one which he sees fit,

“If the Caliph (Khalifah) adopts a hukm which conflicts with the hukm arrived at through his (a scholar's) Ijtihād, then he (the scholar) is obliged to leave the conclusion of his Ijtihād and take the hukm which the Imām (leader) has adopted, because the Ijmā' of the Companions (al- Sahābah) has taken place on the fact that 'the order of the leader (Imām) settles disputes' and that his order is to be implemented on all Muslims.”63

It cannot be said here (though no doubt it will be) that rulers of today are not the true leaders because they rule in Dār al-Kufr and thus they have no authority to adopt on matters of legal difference (Ikhtilāf Shari'i). This cannot be said because it concerns the very topic of debate (Muhall al-Nizā') and is consequently a circular argument. If the very topic itself is subject to a valid dispute then it can only fall to the leader to adopt and thus agreement with the ruler is irrelevant as long as he adopts an Islamic opinion. Moreover, it cannot be asserted that this principle is specific to the Caliph because the maxim in Arabic actually uses the word leader (Imām) and furthermore, the Party considers that the name is interchangeable between Caliph (Khalifah), leader (Imām), President (Ra'is) Prince (Amir), Sultan or anything else that denotes such an authority.64 Consequently, the matter revolves around whether the existent rulers are the authority within Dār al-Islām, and that is the very subject matter that is differed over and is being adopted upon. Consequently, one can believe that the Party's opinion is the strongest Islamic legal opinion (hukm Shari'i), however since those in authority do not hold that opinion, but are on another Islamic opinion, all are bound to follow the leader's adoption. This is because 'the opinion of the leader (Imām) settles disputes' (according to the Party's own thoughts). In this way one can still believe the Party opinion to be the strongest legally, yet is bound not to act on it because the contrary opinion is adopted by the ruler.

In summary, the Party cannot pursue its own opinion because according to its own principles the ruler has the right to adopt from the various opinions, as long as he adopts an Islamic definition. For the Party to insist on following its own opinion and trying to remove a ruler who also adopts a valid definition of Dār al-Islām based on a valid legal reasoning (Ijtihād) is akin to what Ibn Abdul Wahhāb did in the Ottoman Caliphate. The Party criticised Ibn Abdul Wahhāb for pursuing his legal opinion (Ijtihād) that the Ottoman state was upon Kufr because, according to the Party, the Ottomans were also on valid Islamic opinions,

“Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhāb, whose school of thought (Mazhab) had been Hanbali, made Ijtihād (legal judgements) in a host of matters and deemed that the Muslims who followed other schools (Mazahib) differed with his opinion in such matters. Hence, he set about calling for his opinions, working towards implementing them and attacking the other Islamic opinions fiercely...(p.11) they brandished the sword to fight the Muslims and to force them to abandon what they carried in terms of opinions alien to the Wahhābi school (Mazhab), and to adopt the opinions of the Wahhābi school(Mazhab)...”65

One can therefore ask the same question, what was wrong with Ibn Abdul Wahhāb following his valid legal opinion (Ijtihād) to rebel against the Ottoman Caliphate?


To conclude, having shown that the lands are Dār al-Islām according to other criteria, the Party must accept that it cannot enforce its conclusion of Kufr upon valid Islamic opinions. Hizbut-Tahrir is thus faced with two choices: they must either,

i) Accept the lands are Dār al-Islām and go on to insist that there is manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) in the laws of these lands, in which case the Jihadist method is obligated upon them according to the Party's own ideas. The invalidity of this conclusion (again from the Party's own ideas) is the subject of my next article.

ii) Or accept that the lands are Dār al-Islām and that there is no manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) present therein, but rather and at best, a misapplication of the Shari'ah. Hence, political reform is needed by working with the regimes to encourage change, as it was during the last days of the Ottoman Caliphate. This stance accommodates reformists and opposition camps vis-a-vis dictatorships in the Muslim world, and places a civic duty upon all to work for political, intellectual and social reform, but essentially means that the states are not theologically illegitimate and so must not be removed by force.

For the Party to continue upon its path of insisting that even the more representative of Muslim regimes, such as Turkey or Iran, must be removed by force in a military coup de etat is not sustainable by their own theological tenets. There is however, one reason why Hizbut-Tahrir may continue despite its inconsistency with Islam; because Party members may believe in a political ideology irrespective of whether it is consistent with Islam or not, and that ideology is what has come to be known as Islamism. Little wonder then, that they must close the debate on the issue of Dār al-Islām and insist that the matter is self evident regardless of such a clear theological line to the contrary,

“The reality of Muslims today is sensed by every Muslim; it does not require any explanation nor does it necessitate any elaboration. Their lands are ruled by Kufr systems, thus they are conclusively (Qat'an) Dār al-Kufr [with no debate!]”66

Consequently, as some have correctly observed, the tension that exists within Party ranks between its ideology and its politics begins from the Party's very inception. It exists within its raison d'etre.

1 All effort has been made to reference page numbers of citations accurately. Where both the original Arabic and the translation were available, both sets of page numbers have been given. Some page numbers have been taken from electronic copies of the books and this has been clearly indicated. These may not correspond exactly with other electronic versions or hard copies.

2 'The Way For Revival', p..3 (now known as 'The Method of Hizbut-Tahrir for Change' by Hizbut-Tahrir [al-Khilāfah Publications]), corresponding to the Arabic 'Minhāj hizb-ut-Tahrir fi al-Taghyir', p. 6.

3 'The Way For Revival' op.cit., p.2, Arabic p.5.

4 'The Way for Revival', op.cit., p.3, Arabic p. 5.

5 Amān is correctly rendered into English as “safety” not “security”. “Security” is properly known as Aman (without an elongated last vowel ). This subtle translation difference has relevance when considering that the classical definitions of Dār al-Islām mostly hinge upon the issue of “safety” to practice ones religion (Din) and not on the issue of “security” being in the hands of a Muslim army. See note 32 onwards.

6 'The Way for Revival', Ibid.

7 'The Way for Revival' Ibid.

8 'The Way for Revival', p. 5, Arabic p. 7.

9 'The Way for Revival', p6, Arabic p, 8.

10 'Hizbut-Tahrir', by Hizbut-Tahrir (al-Khilāfah publications), p. 10., Arabic p. 5.

11 'The Method to Re-establish the Khilāfah and Resume the Islamic Way of Life', Members of Hizbut-Tahrir in Britain (al-Khilāfah Publications), p. 105.

12 'The Way for Revival', op.cit., p. 38-40, Arabic, p. 44-46

13 'The Method to Re-establish the Khilāfah and Resume the Islamic Way of Life', op.cit., pp. 105-6.

14 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality 'al-Shakhsiyyah al-Islāmiyyah', (al-Khilāfah Publications) as adopted and amended by Hizbut-Tahrir, vol. 2, (electronic) pp. 228, Arabic p. 261

15 'The Way for Revival', op.cit., p21, Arabic p 25.

16 It is important to note here that just as Islamism is not the same as Islam, Jihadism is not the same as Jihad.

17 'Hizbut-Tahrir', op.cit., p. 11, Arabic p. 6.

18 'Hizbut-Tahrir', op.cit., p. 17, Arabic p. 7.

19 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality, op.cit., vol..1 (electronic version) p. 362, Arabic p. 252.

20 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality op.cit., (electronic version) vol. 1 p. 298, Arabic p. 208

21 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality op.cit., vol. 2, (electronic version) p. 105-6, Arabic p. 117.

22 God rest his soul (Rahimahu Allāh)

23 Zalloom, Abdul-Qadeem, How the Khilāfah was Destroyed 'Kayfa Hudimat al-Khilāfah' (al-Khilāfah Publications), p.201. Words in the square brackets are from the Arabic original p. 202

24 See 'The Way for Revival', op.cit., p.4-5, Arabic p. 6-7.

25 A Mutawātir hadith in Party literature is a hadith that affords certain knowledge('Ilm) of its prophetic origins. For such a status to be reached it must have been narrated in each level (Tabaqah) of its narrative chain (Sanad) by a group of people in such a way that it makes it impossible for them to have colluded over its contents. See, al-Nabhāni, Taqi al-Din, The Islamic Personality ' op.cit., as amended and adopted by Hizbut-Tahrir (2005 Edition 6) vol. 3 (electronic) p. 82.

26 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The System of Islām, 'Nizām al-Islām' adopted by Hizbut-Tahrir (al-Khilāfah Publications), (electronic) p. 47, Arabic p. 75

27 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality ', op.cit., as adopted and amended by Hizbut-Tahrir, vol.2, (electronic) p. 218-19, Arabic p. 249. The author expresses disagreement with this opinion by stating, “This opinion is not based upon an evidence;rather it is merely a description of the reality of the land.” This does not mean that he fails to recognise its validity, but rather is expressing his view that he considers it as unsubstantiated by any evidence. He makes similar judgements upon other valid Islamic opinions too, such as his view on the legal principle of 'Juristic Preference' (Istihsān) of the hanafis, where he states that it is “not an Islamic evidence, rather it is ruling (hukm) by a whim, it is abandoning the divine ruling (hukm Shari'i)...but the ruling arrived at by it is considered a divine ruling (hukm Shari'i) because it has a semblance of an evidence (Shubha al-Dalil).” See: The Islamic Personality ', op.cit., vol. 3, (electronic) p. 426.

28 Adopted Party books are those books that are obligatory for a member to believe in and propagate. Members must not openly criticise adopted books even if they disagree with them. Unadopted books are written by Party members or leaders and are not inconsistent with Party adoption, however members are not obliged to believe in their contents.

29 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality ' op.cit., vol. 1, (electronic version) p. 363, Arabic p. 252.

30 See al-Kāsāni, Badā’i‘ al-Sanā'i, vol. 9, p.519, see also Ibn 'Ābidin, al-Hāshiyyah.

31 Special thanks is given to al-Sheikh Shahrul Hussain al-Azhari for his Phd research in this field, and to other friends for their invaluable contribution..

32 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, A River of Recollections 'Nahr al-zikrayāt' (Maktabah al-Turāth al-Islāmiyyah), p170-1, quoting al-Rāfi'i in Fat'h al-'Aziz

33 As per al-Imām al-Shawkāni in 'Nayl al-Awtār', (Dār al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah, Beirut), vol. 4, Section 8, page 29, where al-Shawkāni expresses his disagreement with this view.
See also: al-Imām al-Māwardi, al-Hāwi al-Kabīr 18 vols. ed. A. M. Mu’awwad and A. A. ‘Abd al-Mawjūd (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyah, 1414/1994), 14:104.

34 See for the first quote: al-Bujayrimi, Sulaymān, Sharh al-Bujayrimi ‘ala al-Khaţib, edited by Maktab al-Buhūth wa al-Dirasāt, Dār al-Fikr (1998), Beirut; vol. 4, pp. 331-332.
See for the second quote: Al-Bujayrimī, Sulaymān, Hāshiyat al- Bujayrimī, 220/4 and Nihāyat al-Muĥtāj, 81/8.

35 Ba’lawi, Abdur-Rahmān, Bughyat al-Mustarshidin fi Talkhis Fatawa ba’d al-Muta’akhkhirin. Bulāq, 1309 H, p. 254

36 al-Ţariqi, al-Isti‘āna, p.170

37 Al-Kāsāni, Badā’i‘, op.cit., vol. 9, p.519

38 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting Abū Yūsuf narrated in al-Mabsūt by al-Sarakhsi.

39 See al-Būţi, Muhammad Sa'id Ramađān, Qađāya Fiqhiyya Mu‘āşarah, (Maktabah al-Fārābi, Damascus 1994) p. 182.

40 Al-Kāsāni, Al-Badā'i’, op. cit. vol. 7, pp. 130-131. See also, Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting al-Kāsāni' narrating Abū hanifah's view in Badā’i‘ al-Sanā'i.

41 Al-Ţariqi, Al-Isti‘āna, op.cit., pp.176-178, Abū Zahra, al-‘Ilāqāt al-Dawliyyah, op.cit., pp. 58-60

42 al-hamid, al-Sheikh Muhammad, Rudūd ‘ala al-abāţil wa al-rasā’il (y44), 2.267-79), as translated by Sheikh Nūh Hā Mim Kellar, Reliance of the Traveller (Amāna Publications), Notes and Appendices p.946. See also al-Kāsāni, Badā’i‘, op.cit., vol. 9, p.519 , Zaidān, Ahkām al-Zimmiyyin, pp.18-19

43 The insignia of Islam are those aspects by which Islam's presence is recognised in any given place, such as the call to prayer or Mosques.

44 al-Dusūqi, Shams al-Din, Hāshiyah al-Dusūqi 'ala al-Sharh al-Kabir (Ihya al-Kutub al-'Arabiyya) vol. 2, p.188.

45 Ibn Muflih, Muhammad, al-Ādāb al-Shar‘iyyah (Mu'assasah al-Risālah) edited by Shu’aib al-Arnauţ and ‘Umr al-Qayyām, Beirut; vol. 1, pp.211-212, 1996

46 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah from 'Ahkām ahl al-Zimmah.'

47 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla.

48 God rest his soul (Rahimahu Allāh)

49 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting Tuhfah al-Muhtāj by Ibn hajr , Nihāyah al-Muhtaj by al-Ramli and Rawđah al-Ţalibin by al-Nawawi. See also al-Kāsāni, Badā’i‘, op.cit., vol. 9, p.519

50 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting Bada'i al-Sana'i', al-Mughni by Ibn Qadāma and al-Mabsūt by al-Sarakhsi

51 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1, quoting Hāshiyyah al-Dusūqi and al-Anwār li A'māl al-Abrār and Nihāyah al-Muhtaj

52 A Fatwa is a legal opinion binding only upon the questioner.

53 See the Fatwa of al-Imām al-Ramli in the notes of al-Fatawi al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah by Ibn hajr al-'Asqalāni

54 As related by al-Kāsāni, Badā’i‘, op.cit., vol. 9, p.519

55 Abū Zahra, al-‘Ilāqāt al-Dawliyyah, p. 57

56 Ibrāhim, Nājih., et al, op.cit., p170-1 quoting Ibn ‘Ābidin from Hāshiyyah Ibn ‘Ābidin

57 al-hamid, al-Sheikh Muhammad, Rudūd ‘ala al-Abāţil wa al-Rasā’il (y44), 2.267-79), as translated by Sheikh Nūh Hā Mim Kellar, Reliance of the Traveller (Amāna Publications), Notes and Appendices, p.946.

58 All brackets are present in original text

59 Ba’lawi, Abdur-Rahmān, Bughyah al-Mustarshidin fi Talkhis Fatawa ba’d al-Muta’akhkhirin. Bulāq, 1309 H, p. 254

60 Al-Akiti, Sheikh Muhammad Afifi, Mudāfi’ al-Mazlūm bi Radd al-Muhāmil ‘ala Qitāl man lā Yuqātil, Question 7. Brackets present in original text.

61 Keller, Nūh Hā Mim, Reliance of the Traveller, op.cit., p. 947.

62 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality 'op.cit., (electronic version) vol. 2, p. 105-6, Arabic p. 117.

63 al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din., The Islamic Personality ' op.cit., vol. 1, (electronic version) p. 323-4, Arabic p223-4, See also, The System of Islām, 'Nizām al-Islām' adopted by Hizbut-Tahrir (al-Khilāfah Publications), (electronic) p. 48, addition in square brackets from original Arabic (edition 6 [2006] electronic) p. 76

64 See al-Nabhāni, Taqi ud-Din, 'The Ruling System in Islam', 'Nizām al-hukm fi il-Islām' (al-Khilafāh Publications) as adopted and amended by Hizbut-Tahrir, (electronic) p. 22, Arabic pp. 49-50.

65 Zalloom, Abdul-Qadeem, ‘How the Khilāfah was Destroyed’ op.cit., pp. 6-11.

66 Zalloom, Abdul-Qadeem, ‘How the Khilāfah was Destroyed’, op.cit., p.201, words in square brackets from Arabic original p. 202


help! said...

JazakAllahkhair for sending me this article, i am not able to challenge anything written and therefore deem it, at present, to be correct. However i have spent alot of time in the muslim world in the middle east and i have seen the way the civilians are treated by the regiemes there. The muslims are desperate to overthrow and get rid of their corrupt rulers and can see no other way out of their oppresion other than to rebel by force, though they are defeated with regards to whether this is actually possible. Working within the regiemes for change has been proven to be impossible and will only result in imprisonment and torture etc. So though as i said i believe your opinion is correct i am finding it difficult to stomach. wa salam. please reply

Anonymous said...

Allah bless you Maajid! You have articulated the words of the Muslim masses, scholars, and thinkers in a most powerful way.

Your stregth comes from the fact that you were a Hizb insider and understand the manipulative (of text and current affairs) mindset of Islamist orgainisations.

My prayers are with you and keep up the splendid work.

The sooner the shabab of the Hizb realised that they have been deceived by their political leadership, and they have confused Islam with a political ideology, the better for all of us.

Again, keep up the splendid work.

Your sister,

Anonymous said...

Assalamu alaykum sidi Maajid,

I would first like to commend your approach in expressing your disagreement with, and criticism of, the hizb. Whilst others have gone down the path of using labels, half-cooked arguments, and distorted 'facts' (and all that through the mainstream media), you have at the very least adopted the approach of intellectual engagement. On this I commend you. One area though in which I thought you could have done better is in your (implicity) labelling the hizb and its ideology as 'Islamist' (which you then explicity distinguish from Islam, leaving anyone with a sane mind to do the simple addition). I think if the discussion remains on the level of the ideas, evidences and scholarly opinion, there is much more benefit for all invovled. Employing terms coined by the kuffar which have politically-charged (and ever-changing) meanings is of little benefit.

Notwithstanding the above, I must note that I find your analysis, with all due respect, to be quite weak, uncomprehensive, and selective. You employ a novel application of the rules of al-amru bi 'l-ma'roof wa 'l-nahi 'an al-munkar that if applied across the board lead to quite untenable conclusions. In this regard, I pose, if I may, the following questions, which if you can answer at your earliest convenience would be greatly appreciated.

1. On the question of the defintion of dar al-Islam you seem to favour the opinion that any land in which the Muslims are free and safe to practice Islam is dar al-Islam. Do you then consider the US and the UK to be dar al-Islam? Muslims are clearly free to practice thier individuals obligations in these lands.

2. Your essential argument seems to be that because the assessment of whether any land is dar al-Kufr is ijtihadi (and thus by definition dhanni), HT cannot act on their opinion (although they can consider is to be the correct opinion) because other scholars differ and so no munkar is established, leaving no munkar to be condemned or removed. But if HT cannot act on their opinion, why can any other scholar or muqallid act on theirs? The matter is surely ijtihadi for everyone, not for HT alone.

3. Your own assessment of the Muslim lands seems to be that they are dar al-Islam, in which the rulers have not displayed kufr buwah and so the matter is merely one of misapplying the Shari'ah which needs to be corrected through advice and engagement. Thus, in the case that a scholar, even only one, holds that in say country X, the ruler in fact applies Islam perfectly well (on his/her understanding of Islam and how it should be applied), then by your logic, you cannot act on your opinion of correctiing the misapplication. Do you agree with this conclusion? This type of logic would essentially leave us which a host of various opinion but no-one being able to act on thiers because thier is difference on what is an ijtihadi matter, so no munkar is established.

4. Why do you only look at the issue from the angle of removing a munkar. Yes, the scholars differ on the definitions of dar al-Islam and dar al-Kufr (and thus will naturally differ on thier assessment on whether a land is one or the other) but the scholars are in absolute consensus on the obligation of Khilafah. So who, from the Muslim rulers - who in your opinion rule by Islam - is the Khalifah? Have you given bay'ah to him? And where does this leave all the other 50-odd rulers who you say are also ruling by Islam but only misapplying it?


Your Brother,
Sydney, Australia

Anonymous said...


I seem to think the whole discussion of the term darul Islam is a slight red herring. The def of words doesnt cause the existence of a rule, but rather the sabab existent in the reality causes the existence of the rule.
Thus before we look to the definition of words we need to understand the current situation with regards to the rulers. I also find it alittle strange that you have only just realised that different scholars had different definitions of darul Islam. This was something I came across in my readings about 7 years ago.

BUt let me understand how you view these rulers and their governance for instance we have Colonal Ghaddafi who rejects the sunnah as a source of shariah. SO what does that make ghaddafi and his government? Are they a country that has adopted a specific usool legitamate according to the madhahib and thus implement the ahkam shariah?

Or we have Karimov, do we consider him a legitamate islamic ruler, even though he actively calls for the implementation of secularism and has stated this on several occasions ? Does this make Karimov a ruler who implements the laws of the Creator, Allah swt, just from his own usooli understanding?

Or what about the president of turkey Abdullah Gul who has pledged allegiance to secular constitution of Turkey and stated he still upholds the kemalist doctrine? Does that make turkey a legitamate islamic state implementing the laws of Allah swt?

In fact what about Mustapha Kemal Attaturk, even though he actively worked for the abolition of the khilafah, the separation of the deen from the state and the implementation of western style rules; was he in fact implementing his own ijtihad thus turkey was and has always been a state that implemented the quran and the sunnah?

What about Hosni Mubarrak who openly recognises the state of israel and its right to exist? Is this again within the bounds and remit of Islam to allow non muslims to rule over land originally under the authority of the shariah nad ruled by Muslims? Particularly a land which holds the sacred precincts of Masjid al Aqsa?


Anonymous said...

There is a difference between Dar ul-Islam and Khilafah. The Hizb in its book Nizam al-Islam distinguished between 1918 when Turkey became dar ul-kufr under British occupation and 1924 when the Khilafah was formally destroyed.

Also historically Andalus was dar ul-Islam although it was a rebellious province of the Abbasid Khilafah.

Do you still agree with HT's aim of establishing the Khilafah even though you disagree with their methodology?

Anonymous said...

I think youre going down a different route, pehaps associated with modernist schools of thought!


how sad!

Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear "help",

I agree with your analysis that Muslim civil society is currently so repressed that all hope seems lost. I would add that British and American foreign policy exacerbates the problem. Even elected representatives such as the Presidential runner-up are imprisoned in Egypt. I have personally experienced the repercussions of speaking against such tyrannical regimes.

However, I must emphasise that merely 'doing anything' to try and bring change will only lead to further mysery for all. Direct physical rebellion has been attempted in Algeria and Egypt to the great misfortune of all involved. The methodology of military coups to gain power distracts from the issue of what type society Muslims want, because it is plain to see that no consensus currently exists. An informed debate needs to occur about what type of society Muslims want first, and then the way in which to achieve that. After this, the long and hard enlightenment process towards that goal must continue. Change will take time, and will be a result of a revival in thoughts. My future articles will begin to address some of the ideas I believe necessary for Muslims to adopt so as to contribute towards such change. I think that working within the regimes will eventually be necessary, but initially the work will be one of garnering an intellectual consensus (which doesn't immediately require direct political participation) with a view to creating an intellectual platform upon which change can be carried.

I hope you look into my next articles to be released soon that will address many of the questions raised on this site.

Anonymous said...

no offence, but who is majid nawaz? hes just another layman, so why is everyone making a big deal about him leaving HT ?

Maajid Nawaz said...

An edited question so as to respect the privacy of a friend who mailed my personal account, with my answer below:

Assalamu Alaykum,

Last night I read the article written by Majid about his reasons for leaving the Hizb. Although I find it strange how common it is for people to make such exits when they leave the Hizb, always trying to damage the Hizb somehow, or "save" the brothers left behind, on their way out.

In any case, by Allah Majid, I am surprisingly disappointed. By Allah I have held you in such high esteem for so long, had such respect for your analysis of things, and your strong stance on the truth, and now look at what has happened to you.

And before you even consider that I am another Hizb loyalist just blindly shunning anyone who disagrees with "us", know for a fact that I was looking forward to what you had to say. I was almost excited about hearing your view, maybe showing me that I have missed something, that there is something even better out there. I am a person who loves change, so I have no problem changing everything around me, literally everything, for the sake of following the absolute truth.

But what did you send? An essay proving that there is such a thing as difference of opinion and that we should accept it? Or that we should accept the corrupt regimes that imprisoned and tortured you for four years as valid Islamic governments? Am I wrong in feeling that maybe you were affected by those years in prison?

I realize that there is a lot to discuss, and I will make no attempt to fully sum up my thoughts in this email, but maybe these few points will start the discussion inshaAllah:

You seem to be mixing between accusing a human of Kufr, and accusing a system of being a Kufr system. One cannot accuse a system of being a Kafir, since a system is not "accountable". We do not accuse anyone in the governments of the Muslim world of Kufr necessarily, not even the rulers themselves who implement Kufr. The Hizb has stated that if a ruler agrees that Islam is better, and Islam should be implemented and is valid, but still does not implement it, then he is a sinner (Fasiq), not a Kafir. Of course, if he says Islam is invalid and rejects it entirely, then no one disagrees that this is Kufr.

And I could not find a clear differentiation in your explanation between between the groups that claim that these governments are Dar Al-Islam, and the actual governments themselves claiming to be Dar Al-islam. We have always been very tolerant, if not the most tolerant, of other groups that hold other opinions. We discuss with them, of course, but that is a natural part of Islamic legislation. Imam Al-Shafi'i vehemently attacked some Hanafi opinions, because he believed they are wrong. That is how things work. But do you actually believe that the governments hold a "Shubhat Daleel" when they claim to meet the requirements of being Dar Al-Islam?

Furthermore, you added all sorts of short quotes from scholars, which was the second biggest disappointment in all of this. Majid, I expected you to at least recognize the fact that just because a scholar said something during his lifetime that agrees with what you are saying, this does not mean that what he didn't say (due to the fact that he lived during a time where they couldn't possibly imagine today happening like this) would not agree with our opinion.

For example, if a scholar says "Indeed, Dār al-harb becomes Dār al-Islām by establishing the rulings (Ahkām) of Islām such as the Friday prayer and the 'Eid prayer; even if the indigenous non-Muslims remain therein and that country is not adjoined to Dār al-Islām." or "Prefixing the word 'Islām' to a land, and likewise the word 'Kufr', isn't actually intending Islām itself nor Kufr itself, but rather it is a matter of security and fear. This means that if there is absolute safety for Muslims it is Dār al-Islām. and if there is absolute fear for Muslims and absolute safety for non-Muslims then it is Dār al-harb", can you not see that these statements could have easily been worded in the context of the existence of the actual Islamic State, and therefore were in the context of lands/patches of land near or around Dar Al-Islam? In other words, they were not speaking in the context of the whole presence or the entire absence of Dar Al-Islam. Do you not see the difference in how the question would be answered? In another example, if a scholar 1200 years ago was asked about the importance or application of the Ayah of "Let there come from amongst you a group...", he might not even see much more than a verse calling all Muslims to being good Muslims, or he may answer it in the context of the troubles of his time. This does not mean that he disagrees with a wholly different or more elaborate interpretation, but it just means that the context of today did not come up during his time.

In any case, the opinion of scholars is no evidence. It can be easily understood out of context and therefore misunderstood. Needless to say, the Qur'an and Sunnah are our final word.

As I said, Im trying hard to keep this brief and to limit the points mentioned. I will inshaAllah wait for your response before continuing, but I must say that the saddest part of the whole article is that you seemed to almost hint that the deceased Shaykh Abdul Qadeem was insincere and was trying to hide the "truth" by silencing all Shabab from discussing this subject, and you also hinted that the Shabab will inevitably be insincere and follow their "political" agenda irrespective of what Islam says, as if the only two options are for us to do what you personally believe now, or be insincere. What has happened to you Majid?

You almost seem to be enjoying this process of attempting to damage the Hizb. As if the Hizb has been doing something evil all these years, and not trying to unify the Muslim lands and implement the whole of Islam again. Even if what you say is exactly correct and true, this does not negate the fact that the rulers are corrupt, that they do not implement Islam, that they treat Believers as criminals, and treat the Kuffar as kings.

Anyways, this email is already twice as long as I had initially wanted it to be.

I look forward to your response.

assalamu alaykum.

Assalaamu alaykum my dear brother

I love you for the sake of Allah, and especially so since I met you before you joined the Hizb, and then we maintained our friendship after you joined.

May Allah (swt) keep this love between our hearts strong, for that reason I will not address some of your personal comments about me, though sad it makes me that you of all people should speak to me so. Rather, I will address your ideas only, for I trust in Allah that you have always known me as a capable brother who tries not to involve himself in personal disputes, but rather cares more for the strength of an argument...and I am wherever the truth takes me, and I am but a lowly servant of Allah (swt).

With respect, I think you have misunderstood my article my dear brother.

1) You mention that the Hizb differentiates between the system being on Kufr, the ruler being on Kufr, and the Dar being Dar al-Kufr. That is correct. The Hizb does make that distinction. It says that all three are indeed on Kufr. The Hizb states clearly in it's books that the rulers rule by Kufr, in systems of Kufr, and the Dar is a Kufr Dar.

I think you are mixing this discussion with the ruler actually being a Kafir (pl. kuffar). The Hizb doesn't necessarily declare the rulers as Kuffar because it considers it sufficient that they are "ruling with Kufr". My first article is merely about whether the Dar is Dar al-Kufr, and not about whether the system and rulers are Kufr systems and rules, that is my second article InshaAllah, and I will InshaAllah establish that they are not systems of Kufr Buwaha, though oppressive and tyrannical they may be, but that is not one and the same thing in the Hizb's own adoption, which you are bound to.

For the meanwhile, I think it may help to stick to the topic of the article, is the dar dar al-Kufr?

I hope I have mentioned enough quotes to make it abundantly clear that the definition is differed over both classically and with contemporary scholars, and so the Hizb must accept that the view that the Dar is Dar al-Islam is a valid, and therefore Islamic view.

In fact, I ask you to bring me a quote of one contemporary scholar outside the Hizb who says that the whole Muslim world is Dar al-Kufr?

Further, your point about quoting classical scholars in a different context is incorrect. The quotes I have given are about defining generically what Dar al-Islam actually is. There is nothing in the quotes at all to restrict them to one time or place. Even the wording of the quotes is clear, it is defining Dar al-Islam as a concept, not talking about whether the particular land that particular scholars is from is actually Dar al-Islam. I also had this article checked by a scholar, and sourced many of the quotes from another scholar (both Azhari's) and so see no reason why you think that the quotes (which are general) cannot be applied.

You cannot do Takhsis (specification of general wording) my dear brother, without an evidence indicating a specific intent.

Also, the issue is not whether you agree or disagree with the definitions given. The issue is whether they are Islamic definitions? And if they are, then you cannot forbid the "Munkar".

2) Your points about the governments not claiming that they are Dar al-Islam, this is wrong. They do claim this through their Mufti's who adopt such definitions as I have given. Moreover, because the origin is Islam, and Kufr must be proven, they don't have to claim anything, rather, you have to prove categorically that they are Dar al-Kufr, with no difference of opinion, otherwise you must accept the divergent views and refrain from calling them Dar al-Kufr.

3) Your point about the words of a scholar not being evidence is correct. But I never claimed it is evidence. I claimed that the opinions of classical scholars are legitimate opinions that must not be condemned, not that they are evidence. The evidence, as you have surely read, is the Thanni evidences used by the party. Thanni evidences are insufficient (even according to HT) in establishing Kufr. So both from the evidences and the quotes, we can establish that the issue is differed over.

Also, you mention that the issue is whether the whole presence or the whole absence of Dar al-Kufr is in the minds of scholars when they defined Dar al-Islam in that way. My dear brother, that is a circular argument. Surely that pre-supposes that the whole absence of Dar al-Islam is a fact? That is the very issue at dispute, and so you must first prove that the whole Muslim world is indeed Dar al-Kufr, before you make a point on that basis, as I do not conceded that it is, and the reason why I don't is due to the very quotes I have used to demonstrate that by the generic citeria used, the scholars would define the Muslim lands today as Dar al-Islam. In fact, even contemporary scholars doso. Which is why I asked you to bring me one scholar outside of HT who doesn't consider some part of the Muslim world as Dar al-Islam. And even if you did, that merely proves that the matter is disputed, as many many scholars consider the Muslim world as Dar al-Islam, some of whome I have mentioned in my very article. So again, if the thanni matter is disputed in the first place, where is the Munkar?

4) My dear brother, I do not enjoy this, and I don't know what makes you think that. No one enjoys speaking against a party that even some of his family members belong to, and his friends, or reversing the whole direction of his life for the last 12 years, no one enjoys admitting that they were so wrong over something that they thought was so certain, no one enjoys being abused by people who used to hold him in such high regard, and being called an agent, and all due to my own voluntary shift in ideas, that I had to do purely because I am accountable to my Lord alone. I ask Allah (swt) to remove any personal comments out of this discussion, and keep you focused on the ideas.

With Love

Anonymous said...

Asalaamualaikum warahmatullah
I congratulate you on your decision...may Allah raise your maqaam. Ameen. I left after 13 years and 5 years as a member so I know where you are coming from. I have not had the time to read your article as yet. Please leave some contact details. Wsalam

Maajid Nawaz said...


I read your article with a degree of trepidation since I know that you did not raise any of these issues whilst you were a member of the Hizb - that surprised me, as for what reason would you not raise these issues and suddenly decide, without discussion, to leave the group - I have no problem with you leaving, arriving at a different understanding, but was surprised by the route you took.

The logical conclusion of your initial argument is that even Makkah under the rule of Quraish was Dar al-Islam. Is this your understanding? In addition, other lands today such as Britain and America would also be considered to be Dar al-Islam - indeed it may be the case that you are close to those modernists who have concluded that the whole world is in fact Dar al-Islam or the division of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr is completely unnecessary in this day and age.

Also, why do you not just present your understanding of the reality of the Muslim world, the Islamic view towards it and the methodology of Da'wah that should be adopted by the Muslims, rather than writing reams about a debate which you say has existed for ages?

It seems like you have used many of the quotes from the classical scholars very selectively and this does not give the full picture.


Thank you for your critical comment.

1) If you are surprised about the route I took to leave the Party, please arrange to meet me, and I will be glad to discuss with you the details in order to clear your heart of any whisperings. In the meanwhile, I don't see that such a point has anything to do with the validity or invalidity of the argument raised.

2) As for your logical conclusion, aside from being factually incorrect, I'm afraid that your issue is not with me but rather with those traditional jurists who defined Dar al-Islam in a way that you don't like. Please consider whether your dislike for a particular definition is preventing you from considering it a valid Islamic opinion.

3) It's strange that you claim that my quotes are selective. Aside from you not demonstrating in any way what you mean by this, I would say that you should consider that I am yet to be made aware of a jurist, traditional or contemporary, who defines the Dar (land) in the way that HT do.

4) Is Britain Dar al-Islam? Some jurists claim it is, others don't. It depends upon which definition you take. I prefer the traditional Hanafi definition as adapted by Imam Abu Zahra who considers such Western lands as Dar al-'Ahd (Treaty lands), as too I believe, does the Amir of HT.

However, for the Western world it makes no difference because the matter is only relevant to a discussion on whether the regimes should be changed, and that is not a discussion for Britain, or the West, but the Muslim world.

In this regard, most sensible Muslims agree, including HT, that in Britain and other Western country's Muslims have a duty to behave as any other citizen must, and to fulfil the rights and obligations of all other citizens.

Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Kellar, quoted by official HT websites as an authority on the Khilafah, states in a discussion about such matters (note that I have already quoted the Shaykh's view that all Muslim lands today are Dar al-Islam in my article):

"in light of which, it is clear that there is virtually no country on the face of the earth where a Muslim has an excuse to behave differently than he would in an Islamic country, whether in his commercial or other dealings"
(Kellar, Nuh Ha Mim, Reliance of the Traveller, (Amana Publications), Notes and Appendices, p. 947.)

I hope that clarifies matters.

Maajid Nawaz said...

To anyone who wishes to ask about the current rulers, where the Kufr Buwaha is exactly, and whether any of them are on valid Ijtihads, I humbly request of you to wait for my second article as I will attempt to address the matter with the same detail that I have given to this first matter.

Thank you

Maajid Nawaz said...

I have had requests to contact people. If anyone wishes to contact me, please leave your email address as a comment, it will not be published. I will then endeavour to contact you as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I wrote earlier:

"You have presented a host of evidences to build up an argument, but sadly the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

The debate is over before its even begun!!!"

02 September 2007 03:34


The one thing i would like to add to this is that despite his views I still have absolute belief in Maajids sincerity and taqwa.

Anonymous said...

Dear Brother Maajid,

I have been following your case for a long time now - I observed your media coverage of time in prison and with joy I heard from people that recently you left HT.

I've read your article twice and take my hat off in admiration for your courage to research, think, and write so succintly about classical Islamic sources and the Islamist ideological perversion of it.

You've demolished the myth that Muslims lands are 'dar al-kufr' - now I look forward to you refuting the other myths activist groups advocate to destroy our noble religion.

My brother, God bless you. You are with the silent majority of Muslims who are bullied by the literalist extremists who fail to understand context - you speak for Muslim masses.

No doubt, the barakah of the Ulama, the Awliya and the Malaikah are with you.

Keep going...

This is the beginning of the end of extremism in the West inshallah.

Suggestion: Please translate your works into Arabic and other languages to expose the myths of HT in those lands.

Allah yubarik fikum,

Anonymous said...

I am glad that someone from inside Hizb ut-tahreer has finally realised what the ulema have been saying for years; namely that the Muslim lands can not be considered dar ul-Kufr as the Muslims can establish the salat and the shariah obligations; not withstanding many problems from an Islamic perspective vis-a-vis the tyrant rulers.

I was instructed this was the case by my teacher Umar sad ul-Din a shaykh from the Damascus university who graduated from al-Azhar.

He explained why though the rulers are upon sin and tyrants; violate the shariah in many of their decrees and that it would be best if we had a singular leader; the current leaaders aren't upon kufr rather they are muslims who need to be accounted advised and reformed.

I discussed this with many of my friends from HT who really didn't have a response and never got back to me. I wonder if they will now?

Jazakumullahu Khair


Anonymous said...

Mashallah Bro may Allah give you jaza. I believe this article will inshallah prove to be be a source of guidance for other members who view some of the scholars you've quoted in a negative light. In fact I've yet to meet a Hizbi who has something good to say about the many traditional scholars we are blessed with. If they actually took the time to hear their views I'm sure they too would be made to think whether the Hizb actually has a viable method in establishing the khilafah.


Anonymous said...

Assalamu alaykum Br. Maajid,

You say that you will deal with the questions on the kufr of the current rulers in the Muslim world in your next article. Insha'Allah we can discuss those points when you post that article. However the questions I asked (re-produced below) were not about that point but were specific to the crux of your argument in this first article of yours. If you can answer them that would be much appreciated.

2. Your essential argument seems to be that because the assessment of whether any land is dar al-Kufr is ijtihadi (and thus by definition dhanni), HT cannot act on their opinion (although they can consider is to be the correct opinion) because other scholars differ and so no munkar is established, leaving no munkar to be condemned or removed. But if HT cannot act on their opinion, why can any other scholar or muqallid act on theirs? The matter is surely ijtihadi for everyone, not for HT alone. Why can you supposedly act on your opinion that there is misapplication of Islam, but HT not on theirs that the regimes are kufr regimes presiding over dar al-kufr? Is the matter any less ijtihadi for you than for HT?

3. Your own assessment of the Muslim lands seems to be that they are dar al-Islam, in which the rulers have not displayed kufr buwah and so the matter is merely one of misapplying the Shari'ah which needs to be corrected through advice and engagement. Thus, in the case that a scholar, even only one, holds that in say Muslim country X, the ruler in fact applies Islam perfectly well (on his/her understanding of Islam and how it should be applied), then by your logic, you cannot act on your opinion of correcting the misapplication because no munkar is established. Do you agree with this conclusion? This type of logic would essentially leave us which a host of various opinion but no-one being able to act on theirs because there is difference on what is an ijtihadi matter, so no munkar is established.

4. Why do you only look at the issue from the angle of removing a munkar? Yes, the scholars differ on the definitions of dar al-Islam and dar al-Kufr (a point which the hizb has never denied btw) but the scholars are in absolute consensus on the obligation of Khilafah. So who, from the Muslim rulers - who in your opinion rule by Islam - is the Khalifah? And where does this leave all the other 50-odd rulers who you say are also ruling by Islam but only misapplying it?

Further, might I add that your interpretation of what Abu Yusuf and al-Kasani meant by 'dhuhur ahkam al-Islam' is off by a mile, a point I will illustrate in due course bi idhnillah (have left this for now because your argument does not rest on this).

Also, you ask for a scholar outside the hizb who holds that the entire Muslim world is dar al-kufr/harb. Not that this would prove anything, but since you ask, Sh. Imran Hosein is one such scholar. If you want a specific reference I'll provide it, though his opinion is well-known.

Your Brother,

iento said...


It is good to see that you have left in a way that is dignified and making an attempt to explain your positions. Insha'Allah your views will help convince more people of the flaws in the theo-politics of HT et al.

Anonymous said...


My Allah reward you for the courage to speak and share your thoughts despite I'm sure the abuse you must have recieved from HT.

It must be many times the abuse that normal Muslims get from HT for disagreeing with them.

I for one am tired of their self righteous holier than thou attitudes which is made infinitely worse by them thinking its not them but their idea which is holier then everything else.

I've been saying for some time now that what they are actually saying is every other scholar is a regime puppet or is making Islam into kufr. They may deny this (and some of them are ignorant of what they themselves are saying) but that is the plain truth of it.

Brother Talib, your noble sheikh by not agreeing that the rulers are upon kufr according to HT must be either an agent of Iblis OR his belief that the rulers are misguided but Islam is actually one of kufr.

Now at last their members are starting to see that this is the height of extremism too, alhumdulillah.

Anonymous said...


I find it strange you use the term islamism and then say that this is opposed to being islamic. When the whole discussion is under the context of proving there is ikhtelaf, thus all of it is islamic. Therefore, all of the opinions of the hizb are islamic, your only contention is that the hizb shouldnt act upon its islamic method and accept the tyrannical oppressive rulers who implement kufr (sorry thats another article) to adopt upon 'their ijtihad'.

But I still contend that your argument in your article is over semantics of words and this cannot be a proof for your justification of leaving. This is just my humble opinion but ultimately to use politically non shari'i terms such as islamism as a way to rubbish the other islamic opinion is silly.

SO what then if the debate over words is not a justification for ones argument? Then in my opinion we have to move away from semantics and rather look at the reality of the current rulers in the muslim land.

And finally we know classical schoalrs like Imam Juwainy, Imamal Haramayn, who said in his book al irshad under the chapter of enjoining good and forbidding evil, that there is permission to remove the sinful ruler who is persistent in sin and oppression even if this wasnt kufr buwah. And he states this is for the people of capability (ahlel nussrah)

Now I realise that this isnt the exact stance of the hizb and i dont speak for them. But my point is this to use the word 'islamism' ie to remove the current regimes and replace them with islam whcih would have some ijtihad matters being implemented as well, would have to be applied to great ulema like Imam Juwainy who permitted this as a way to remove the munkar.

So using these words works against you as it opposes the classical theological stance of some great ulema of the past.


Your Brother

Maajid Nawaz said...

My Reply:

Assalaamu alaykum dear Uthman,

First of all let me commend you for the manner in which you do not allow your disagreements to affect the way in which you address someone. It seems that many others (whose posts I have not published) cannot differentiate between Islam, and HT.

Secondly, I apologise for the delayed response, I have had many questions and am trying my best to answer as many as I can given other Da'wah commitments. Due to yours having come quite early I had accidentally overlooked it.

I will take this opportunity to first make some general points not aimed at you specifically, but for the wider readership, and to cover some other related questions I have received.

The first thing I would like to clarify is that I have not personally preferred one juristic opinion over another, what I have tried to show is that according to HT's own principles, they must accept as Hukm Shari'i all other Ijtihads. This is categoric within adopted Party books.

The aim of my article is to show that HT's legal and intellectual principles are inconsistent with its political stance. Any critical analysis of my article should therefore be an attempt at addressing this point ie: how can it be demonstrated from HT's own principles that they don't have to accept the lands as Dar al-Islam due to the legitimate differences on the substance of these definitions. Anything less is a failure to understand the point being made, and is therefore lower down in my prioritisation of answering.

Trying to highlight the "undesirable" implications of my argument as a way to demonstrate its error, contradicts HT's (and many others') philosophy towards the Hukm Shar'a. If I have demonstrated a point via a Shari'i methodology consistent to HT's, then according to HT the point stands regardless of what it implies. Shaykh al-Nabhani [rh] was famous for his outspoken opinions on certain matters, including his absolute permission of images, simply because of this philosophy. To do any thing less is, again according to HT, allowing ones dislike of a conclusion to affect ones reasoning. This is in fact how HT define pragmatism.

Also, it has been mistakenly raised by some that my article focuses on mere definitions, to the detriment of facts on the ground which prove that the Muslims world is Dar al-Kufr. Not only is this argument circular, and pre-supposes a criteria for judging the reality as Dar al-Kufr, and then uses that judgement to arrive at a definition of Dar al-Kufr, but it also assumes that the difference over the definitions is merely semantics.

This is wrong. The difference is clearly one of substance. Should a land be considered a land of Kufr if the state does not adopt on Hukm Shari'i matters, or only if Muslims cannot establish the Sha'a'ir (insignia) of Islam? In fact, upon a closer reading what becomes apparent is that the difference isn't over the term, all are using the same terms Dar al-Kufr and Dar al-Islam, but over what that means practically for Muslims on the ground.

Moreover, HT after defining Dar al-Islam and Kufr in this way, then proceed to build a whole legal analysis upon it, starting from an analogy to the only other time Dar al-Kufr is deemed to have existed in its entirety, in Mecca before the Emigration. Therefore, it is crucial to address this issue first because it serves as the basis of a legal analogy for HT.

I would also like to stress to those expressing dismay that I have not addressed the "Kufr" in the laws of Muslim regimes that I stated I will do that in my second article, InshaAllah.

Therefore, I repeat, the aim of all my articles will be to demonstrate that HT's own legal and intellectual principles do not support their political conclusions. Any responses should use HT's same legal and intellectual principles to show that I am incorrect. I will not at this stage engage with responses outside the realm of what I am attempting to show in my articles.

Now to your specific points:

1) Is the matter any less Ijtihadi for me than for HT?

No it's not. This is why I am not calling HT's opinion Kufr, or insisting that their opinion is a "Munkar". What I am saying is that HT, by its own principles as clearly quoted in my article with both Arabic and English references, must accept other opinions as "Islamic opinions for all Muslims".

Therefore, I humbly suggest that by HT's own principles the only thing you would be able to argue is that they must look for the lowest common ground and condemn anything less.

Moreover, the definition of revival for HT is an elevation in thoughts (not in Fiqh) and so it shouldn't matter who is on what legal opinion, rather the political thoughts of the nation should be elevated through discussion. Something that doesn't require the presence of a "Munkar" to occur.

Another point is that considering the definitions are differed over, the Imam (which according to HT's adoption simply means valid ruler) settles the disputes. This is a principle again adopted by HT. I conceded that this pre-supposes the validity of such an Imam(s), and that will be the topic of my second article, InshaAllah.

2) How can you correct even a misapplication of Shari'ah if the ruler adopts such a misapplication as a valid Ijtihad?

There is no problem with correcting, speaking about, engaging with, trying to change, advise on, opinions that you think are weak. That is the nature of debate, and debate is a must in order to determine stronger opinions against weaker ones. This process of engagement is not conditional upon a Munkar being present, as it can occur even over deciding what the best Mubah (permissible matter) is to adopt, this is why Shaykh al-Nabhani (rh) stressed that revival was as a result of thoughts and not Fiqh. What HT adopt, however, is that one cannot forcefully change a ruler or system simply because of misapplication and disagreement on what the stronger opinion is. Therefore, what I am saying is that by all means engage, but HT's own principles do not allow the forceful removal of regimes if they are deemed to be misapplying Shari'a or are on weak opinions. They only allow this for Kufr Buwah.

3) Who from the 50 or so rulers – who you would argue rule by a misapplication of Islam - is the Khalifah in your view?

My brother, this is an important question, and relates to one of the four pillars of the ruling system, that of having one Khalifah. I will go into this into some detail in my next article, but for the meanwhile it is suffice to say the following. From HT's own ideas:

a) The presence of the unifying Imam/Khalifah/Amir al-Mu'minin/Ra'ees/Sultan is Fard (all those terms for the leader are adopted as being acceptable to HT)

b) The Khalifah's absence in any land doesn't negate the presence of Dar al-Islam. This is shown be considering that the areas of control under Mu'awiyyah (ra) were still Dar al-Islam despite not being under the Khilafah of Imam Ali (ra).

Moreoever, al-Andalus was still Dar al-Islam despite not being under the Abbasid Khilafah.

c) The Khalifah's obligatory nature is established through Ahad Ahadith, albeit Sahih.

d) According to HT's adopted ideas, rejecting Ahad Hadith outright isn't Kufr, but is sinful. Therefore, the absence of one Khalifah whose obligation is proscribed via Ahad Ahadith is at most a sin, not Kufr.

e) Therefore the absence of a Khalifah, due to not being Kufr Buwaha established by Qati'i evidences, cannot be an issue to demonstrate the invalidity of the rulers.

d) Therefore, I do not give Bay'ah to an institution that is missing.

e) What to do in the meantime?
Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (teacher of Imam al-Ghazali) clearly addresses this matter (references will be detailed in my next article) and states that due to such needs as these (having no one Imam) each area should select its leader and until they can agree to union amongst them they should continue in such a way.
Fact: this opinion is not a Qati'i Kufr Buwah opinion. It is the opinion of one of the greatest Usuli minds of our heritage. The obligation of having one Khalifah is based on zanni evidences, and so its absence cannot be Kufr Buwah, but the matter of his absence is subject to an Ijtihad, which Imam al-Haramayn has already done, and so the party must recognise this opinion as an Islamic opinion, not Kufr or even sinful, but as Hukm Shari'i by its own criteria. This quote is not out of context or misunderstood, and my second article (for which I will again seek approval InshaAllah) will quote it in full with page numbers for Arabic readers to check.

f) Thank you for presenting your view that I have misunderstood al-Kasani and Qadi abu Yusuf, and for your frank recognition that this doesn't affect the argument. I would be interested to hear why you think so, though I do stress, however, that I would not have the time currently to engage in a discussion about this side point, my apologies. Please do let me know though, because I would welcome the correction. JazakAllahu khayr for also providing me with the name of Shaykh Imran Hosein.

I apologise in advance for not being able to keep up with all the various queries. I will try my best, please forgive me.


Anonymous said...

"ibn taymiyyah said in his baab al amr bil maruf wa nah anal munkar that there is no obligation to do amr (command) or nahi (forbidence) on the ikhtilafaat (areas of khilaaf - disagreement)"

Anonymous said...


Salam, following are my observations after reading Maajid's article:

1)Maajid is weak in his thinking and selectively uses quotes to justify his stance.

2)As an activist he failed to understand the Hizb, despite being encouraged to do so. Like Ed Husein (whose book he contributed to) he may just jump ship again.

3) He utilises an academic style merely to cover a biased article

4) His motives are questionable, and he seems to want to justify government stances.

5) All he does is elaborate the historic usage of the terms Dar al-Islam and Kufr, yet misses the point that HT builds there understanding on a decisive reality that is substantive and not relevant to the term used. That reality is that the Muslim worlds' societies, thoughts, emotions and systems are all Kufr. Shaykh Nabhani (rh) used the term Dar al-Islam to describe this reality, but he could have used any term. It is this reality that is so decisive that it requires no elaboration as per Adbul Qadeem Zalloom's quote.

6) It is categorically prohibited that non-Muslims have the right to rule over Muslims, and it is known that sovereignty is for the Shari'ah. Maajid has failed to address this issue.

7) Though the Jihadist methodology can be construed to agree with legal texts, Maajid fails to demonstrate any other methodology to oppose the methodology of HT. I would assume that he has decided to adopt the gradualist method of enforcing Kufr, whilst Islamising society.

8) Disagreement is irrelevant because even belief in God (acknowledged by Maajid as definite) is differed over. What matters is whether that disagreement stands up to the reality and textual scrutiny.

9) Maajid fails to reference how any Muslim country refers to Islam in order to make its law. Given the non-prescriptive nature of Islamic law any position can be justified, but the mere similarity with Islam doesn't make it Islamic, otherwise most of Europe would be ruling by Shari'ah.

10) Maajid appears to contradict himself by stating that the existing authorities must be obeyed, citing the principle that the “order of the Imam settles disputes”, yet this is something that is zanni in itself.

11) How would Maajid consider the status of regimes that were installed by occupiers?

Thank you



With respect;
I believe that its is you who have failed to understand the viewpoint that is presented in the party culture and the position of the majority of sunni scholarship past and present.
Without getting into polemics;
Before discussion; advice Fear Allah for your suspicion has taken you into grave ma'siyah and disobedience to Allah; Your statement regarding the motives is ghayb, suspicion at best and borders on self blindness at worst - to explain -Just because you FAIL (in my view) to understand argument does not give you the right to question someone motives based upon an assumption that that others are wrong. I ask Allah to forgive you and guide your understanding in this regard as I know you and know that you wouldn't do something deliberately that you thought was Haram! I trust that I haven't caused offence and ask your forgiveness if I have.
As an example I know that it was the leadership in Britain that asked him to discuss with Ed Hussain and Maajid successfully managed to contain him from calling for an outright ban in his book on HT in Britain.
I'm not going to bother addressing anything else as you have been told my perspective on that above:
Your points are interesting but that is because you have failed to understand very simply the core of the discussion and I would say you have failed to understand the Hizb, adopted perspective - something which I am very familiar with and have even been requested to clarify for the shabab; have written and checked with the leadership on several occasions on all of the issues that are covered herein, pertaining to the method; the aims and the objectives, shari definitions and so forth - my understanding of these matters has been verified with the Hizb leadership be it the last leadership of Abdul Qadeem Zaloom and also can quite easily substantiated by the party perspective from many sources.
1. Regarding the issue of Dar al-Islam according to the Hizb adopted literature this is a shari term; and they have given it a shari definition based upon certain evidences this is factually differed over, as inside the hizb culture it states that there is ikhtilaf shari (legal difference) over this but the other opinion is incorrect- as a fact the definitions are considered descriptions of the hukm and conditions of the shariah rule; hence those that differ with the Hizb in that respect differ on definition and on application as a shari matter. So the ulema whom he quoted have all differed on these matters and actually given different verdicts upon the lands accordingly; which is the point of view of many of the Ulema I have personally come into contact with e.g. Shaykh Said Ramadhan Buti; a leading faqih and Mufti; Nur ul-Din Itr a greart shafi'i living faqih and Muhaddith. Also the point of view of all the azhari ulema today (not just the government ones) including a close personal friend of mine -shaykh shahrul hussain. It is also the view of the deobandi school and stated by Taqi Uthmani as the shari conditions for the dar being dar ul-Islam is that the safety to practice the religion is present; according to those and many other ulema; it is even explicated in reliance of the Traveller. It is somewhat close to self delusional to claim that you have solely understood these mazahib poistions of the shafi'i Ulema themselves, such as Shaykh Nuh Ali Salman; a well respected faqih and a strong non-compromising figure as well as the other scholars with whom this matter has been clarified in their lectures and they have written about subject e.g. Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad of al-Azhar. This is also the position of Ikhwan ul-Muslimeen. It is not them who have misunderstood their fiqh which they adopt after studying it from the Imams of their mazahib; so I think that your assertion here is false. They do not see it as a red herring of fiqh terms, rather it is a hukm shari classification and definition so this perspective you are espousing is factually false - before engaging into the fiqh.
As to the statement that the opposing views are kufr by the Hizb; this is explicated in clear terms as it is considered qati by the hizb, and you incidently, and they state that the land would be one which is dar ul-kufr otherwise a part of the definition being that it is definitely implementing kufr and that the statement that it is qati are clear in this regard. Your lacking again an understanding of the Hizb culture as the Hizb does not accept the possibility of ikhtilaf on matters of qatiyaat (others may), rather as stated in the article if something has a shubhat-dalil then it has a shubhat dalil (some evidence which even if the Hizb state it is invalid batil e.g. istihsan, aql, maslaha (mentioned by HT in muqaddimat ul-dustur) it is valid and hukm shari but not embraced by the party).
Please read the above carefully, as their are certain very obvious things that you have missed yet you have responded in the like manner. For example you state that you are not pleased that he hasn't stated that the rulers are not on kufr and substantiated this – he wasn't trying to and stated that was the subject of the next article- hence my point of view that you haven't read it properly!
Again in your view, you have contradicted the adopted books of HT a) the history is not an aspect of the current situation though it aids understanding of how it came about so according to the Hizb the amaan (safety) is in the hands of the Muslims in the Muslim world it is the ruler ruling by kufr that is the problem; this is stated in the adopted book Methodology of Hizb ut-Tahrir for change.
Read it and check before contradicting it by making the statement that your political analysis that say's that they are knowing or unknowing agents renders the land dar ul-Kufr - something completely irrelevant to the point of view of HT - which is the subject of the article.
Focusing on the definition is according to HT the manner in which to understand and apply the hukm to the reality as the definition defines the Hukm - see the book Doosiyah which explains this - again it is you who are contradicting the party's stated methodology on your refutation not the author.
I remind you your other concerns will be addressed in a further article coming soon.
a) It is a fact the hIzb is bound to recognize its dar ul-Islam, as it recognizes that it is binding to accept hukm shari that contradicts your own ijtihad as hukm shari and this is even substantiated in this issue of dar ul-Islam in the adopted culture.
b) It is a fact the Hizb accepts that the method in dar ul-islam is fighting the rulers stated in doosiayah that this is an obligation defined by the shariah; hence the author is merely stating the view of the Hizb that they have two option according to their adoption not according to the hukm shari and the various views out there! This is because the context is the Hizb.
I hope this concretely clarifies or begins to clarify such issues. His view is supported by present day Ulema who have never been in prison. He unlike you and I lasted in prison without folding to the tyrants and he still speaks out against them he is expressing a conceptual perspective. A little like shaykh Taqi saying that there is no such thing as a court of appeals and the prohibition of working within the system after being in a political and judicial position namely a judge in a court of appeals. It is not that astounding to leave the Party or any other opinion especially if the majority in my subjective opinion, are on a different view.
As for not discussing that view and its details the following article will establish that inshallah and also we can discuss the basis of the differences according to the ulema and the evidences but that wasn't the subject of the debate.
A small comment; Shihab ul-Din Ramli has a whole fatwa discussing this as does Mawardi where they take the view implementing Hukm Shari'i has nothing to do with the definition of the land as dar ul-Islam;
Although this wasn’t the subject of the article: Ramli, Mawardi and others also state that where there is security there is dar ul-islam; where the ruler violates the shariah by ruling by other than it and contradicting it; one does not rebel but disobey the rules which apply upon you; as stated by HT in THE adopted book HT but only rebel for kufr - which the ulema like Mawardi, Shawkani, Ramli and Imam Nawawi (this is factual narrative for you as I have seen this myself) state that this is kufr buwah i.e. he is kafir. And you should enjoin maruf and forbid the munkar, account THE ruler, engage with him though he may be a tyrant (see shakhsiyah 1 regarding co-operating with a tyrrant ruler). this is their view and hence one can't according to that rebel against the ruler in dar ul-islam who is a Muslim with a view that as long as he doesn't make juhud and he doesn't force you out of Islam and stop you fulfilling your religious obligation, though he may abandon his and you can if possible account him. This last part is another discussion - the fact that the hizb fatwa and political call is different to its qawaid in a) accepting that there isn’t flagrant kufr as the issue is ikhtilafi and but disobedience and contradiction to the hukm shari that must be forbidden (as adopted by HT in ruling system an adopted book) then the hizb is bound to obey the rulers in the matters congruent to the shariah (Imam al-Izz ibn Abdul-Salam has a discussion explicitly about this in Qawaid ul-Kubra; and not rebel against them in their diyar but change them using political means and if that requires intellectual change in the society they should do so, and not give up if they fail (as they stated) but rather be introspective as to why), as they have instructed something on a matter i.e. non-removal of a ruler for violating the shariah) which is ikhtilafi and therefore the ikhtilaf is removed (AMR ul-Imam yarfa'ul khilaf and as the Hizb states in doosiyah this is amr not tabanni-instructive not intellectual).
This would be the same as not having a mazalim to remove the tyrant or fasiq; he stays in power as the system doesn't allow removing him without the mazalim and forbids military overthrowing the regime for fisq or zulm – see ruling system or HT.
Hence what is being said is not contrary to the adopted thoughts but rather the HIzb is upon a political fatwa that is contrary to the political fiqh i.e. ijtihad in a political issue.


Anonymous said...

Is Khilafah Qati (definite) or dhanni?

My understanding is that due to ijma as-sahab NOT adad hadith makes the Khilafah qati. Is this correct?

Anonymous said...

Assalamaleikum Wa Rahmatulah

I read the post, and don't really want to comment on your direction and article - it is interesting - I may or may not agree with it, but that is not relevant.

I wanted to say that I really sensed the intense difficulty writing this must have caused you. You are literally ripping out the core of your existence for the last 12 years - including 4 years in prison in Egypt.
To admit you were wrong and then to announce it is the most difficult thing, and show more character than your 4 years in Egypt, as that was enforced and this is because of your character.

And you are doing this because you feel that you were mistaken and now feel a duty to correct that and make hijra from that.

Wherever your journey takes you, may Allah support you and keep your sincerity intact - as by walking away from HT and your devastating critique - that is all that you are left with, as you have already seen the attacks.

Anonymous said...


i find it strange that many of my comments havent been placed on your site. If you dont fear thought and wish to encourage debate and discussion then why censure certain ppls views from your site. Certainly i didnt think anything i had said has been offensive I have tried to stick to the point at hand.

I also find selective criticism of some comments rather strange. For instance one of your contributing editors states, 'Before discussion; advice Fear Allah for your suspicion has taken you into grave ma'siyah and disobedience to Allah; Your statement regarding the motives is ghayb, suspicion at best and borders on self blindness at worst'

Yet the article states, 'There is however, one reason why Hizbut-Tahrir may continue despite its inconsistency with Islam; because Party members may believe in a political ideology irrespective of whether it is consistent with Islam or not,'

Here the same could possibly be aplpied to maajid as it could be to the comment it was originally applied for.

As for the term darul islam and its khilaaf over its definition. Does this mean there is no need to spread the authority of islam to the rest of the world as there exists some opinions stating that britain and the rest of the western world is darul islam.

Personally, I believe that a definition doesnt change the sabab.

This is how I understand it, the sabab is defined by the texts. For example the nisab of zakat has been defined by the texts, once this has been reached then the obligation of zakat comes into effect. We then have conditions that need to be met when implementing the hukm that now exists. Some of these conditions relate to its validity and other conditions may relate to its correctness. And i am sure you know the difference.

Now the study of the reality determines the existence of the sabab that is defined by the islamic texts. So in the case of zakat we study whether a person has reached the minimum amount upon which the zakat needs to be paid. If this has been reached then the hukm comes into existence.

So when i read your article on different definition of the term darul islam it didnt seem to identify what the sabab is. And why if the sabab has ikhtelaf why the hizb shouldnt act upon its method. For example if we say the sabab for working to establish the laws of ALLAH swt is, according to some, the lack of the ability to pray and fast, then if pray and fasting already exist then naturally we would say we no longer have to work for the laws of Allah swt.

But here the hizb states the sabab is the presence of non islamic laws and this causes, according to their opinion, the obligation of working for the laws of Allah swt. They further detail the reality and define society as a group of individuals bonded by common thoughts and emotions upon which a system is implemented. Thus they further went on to say that the common thoughts and emotions and the system are not aligned to islam. They say this situation is analogous to the prophet (saw) actions in mecca.

So even if the hizb adopted the definition of darul islam as being one where security is maintained by Muslims, I cannot see how this would change the sabab. Which they identify has been defined in the texts as the lack of the presence of islamic legislation in its totality.

Thus from what i understand, what you would have to do is show there is ikhetlaf over whether the laws of Allah swt should be implemented or not. If this ikhtelaf is present then perhaps I can agree with you that the hizb has just one opinion amonsgt other valid opinions. However for me accepting the implementation of the laws of Allah swt is a definitive matter accepted by ijma.

If the following points are addressed to my previous points then I do not understand what u mean. You said,

'Also, it has been mistakenly raised by some that my article focuses on mere definitions, to the detriment of facts on the ground which prove that the Muslims world is Dar al-Kufr. Not only is this argument circular, and pre-supposes a criteria for judging the reality as Dar al-Kufr, and then uses that judgement to arrive at a definition of Dar al-Kufr, but it also assumes that the difference over the definitions is merely semantics.

This is wrong. The difference is clearly one of substance. Should a land be considered a land of Kufr if the state does not adopt on Hukm Shari'i matters, or only if Muslims cannot establish the Sha'a'ir (insignia) of Islam? In fact, upon a closer reading what becomes apparent is that the difference isn't over the term, all are using the same terms Dar al-Kufr and Dar al-Islam, but over what that means practically for Muslims on the ground.'

I cannot see how what I have said is circular? I stated that the texts defines the sabab and then we assess from the reality whether the sabab is in existence. The terms here doesnt define the sabab and this is the crux of the matter. Unless you can show how the term does define the sabab

That is why i asked the question about britain whether some define it as darul islam or not, then this doesnt change the sabab of spreading the authority of islam.

Let me give you a further example, some defined jihad as only offensive and that defending against attack would therefore not be considered jihad. Does this negate the hukm of defending against oneself simply becus there is ikhtelaf over the definition of jihad? In fact simply becus there is differences over definition doesnt change the definitiveness over the hukm shari of defense nor in fact that of offensive fighting (with conditions present).

That is becus the existence of the sabab and its identification from the texts remains teh same, the only difference are the words used to categorise it.

I hope that clarifies my points on this and I hope to see it being presented on your blog, with my 5 other comments


Your Brother

Anonymous said...

Some clarifications :

1. Who is this contributing editor?

2. Are you arguing Dar-al Islam and Khilafah are synonymous?

3. Does the source of legislation in Dar-al-Islam have to be Koran and Sunnah

4. What does practising religion mean in practice according to the definitions of Dar-al Islam?

5.From what I understand of HT's position and related to your comment on Al Ghazali, there can be Dar-al_islam without Khalif but in exceptional circumstances but as long as the system and institutions remain intact which was the case in history. Andalus did not separate from Abassids and declare separate a separate akhilsfsh but became more decentralised and maintained the baya to baghdad

6. When you say HT's understanding of Imam is "valid" ruler, what do you mean by valid.

7. What is your own view as regards the existence of Khilafah?

Anonymous said...

Your arguments dont convince me. you seem confused. I wonder what your objective is here. do you not want khilafah?

help! said...

Salam, bro, pls cud u explain wat this means i understand the ist point c) but point d) was on its own - i know its connected to point c) but i'm not really sure wat u are is gettin at :

c) "Therefore the absence of a Khalifah, due to not being Kufr Buwaha established by Qati'i evidences, cannot be an issue to demonstrate the invalidity of the rulers".

d) "Therefore, I do not give Bay'ah to an institution that is missing".

this is a response that u made dated 03/Sept/ 2007 at 11.05. jzk

Anonymous said...

Your post-structural analysis of Islamic political ideology is antinomianism logic fitting for post-modernist discourse. However structuralist discoure provides a far more compelling analysis of linguistic usage of dar al-Islam and dar l-Kufr.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Clarification for the person who asked about how point d) was related to point c):

Someone asked me who I give my Bay'ah to as my KHalifah, and I asnwered that I can't give bay'ah to an institution that is missing. However, the fact that it is missing isn't Kufr Buwah, as demonstrated by the rest of my answer in that same post.


Maajid Nawaz said...

My dear brother "5 comments" who asked the question abot the sabab.

Here is your answer:

Due to the sheer volume of questions coming in, and the factual inability of one man to respond (who has daw'ah commitments to live up and other life issues to worry about- which I am sure you all understand), this answer is produced by the Editorial team, including Maajid Nawaz, who has the final editorial say over publishing any answer and contributes to all answers.

Dear brother,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you and in posting your comment. I'm afraid we are doing the best that we can in responding to questions and comments from various peoples publicly and privately, whilst managing the rest of our commitments, studies, family, work etc. Please be patient with us, we do this to the best of our practical abilities.
I am also sorry that you have posted a number of times without response apparently (I did try and respond to you in a general way, but cannot easily identofy who you are due to you posting anonymously, many questions are similar!)
Regarding your point, this is interesting but I think that you have misunderstood the point that was made by the article (as that was not the subject of the article) and indeed its relevance. Also the response to the other questioner. Please feel free to correct me.
To explain; the article is not suggesting we don't try and create political change, it has no bearing to the issue of spreading Islam to the rest of the world; that is not its subject. Neither is the subject whether or not there is kufr buwah with qati proof (clear unambiguous disbelief with definitive indisputable evidence).
Rather the article substantiates that there are different conditions laid down for what is considered dar ul-Islam by different scholars, and that the current lands according to Islamic tradition and jurisprudence past and present is Dar al-Islam; for some of the various criterion laid down; here is a quote someone recently sent me;
"(About Dar al-Islam) that Muslims live there and if with them there, there were ahl al-dhimma, or it was opened up by muslims, or it was given to govern by the hand of non-muslims or they were living there and were expelled by the kuffar from it."
ÔÑÍ ÇáÑæÖ. Þæáå: (Ýí ÏÇÑ ÇáÅÓáÇã) Ãí ÈÃä íÓßäåÇ ÇáãÓáãæä æÅä ßÇä ÝíåÇ Ãåá ÐãÉ Ãæ ÝÊÍåÇ ÇáãÓáãæä æÃÞÑæåÇ ÈíÏ ÇáßÝÇÑ Ãæ ßÇäæÇ íÓßäæäåÇ Ëã ÌáÇåã ÇáßÝÇÑ ÚäåÇ ÔÑÍ ÇáÑæÖ (that was the original Arabic!!)
And in his Nihaya al-Muhtaj he provides a fuller definition of Dar al-Islam : "Dar al-Islam is the entire land where the Islamic laws (ahkam al-Islam) appear and it is intended by the phrase "appearance of the Islamic rules, every rule from its rule, OR Muslims live there and if with them there, there were ahl al-dhimma, OR it was opened up by muslims, OR it was given to govern by the hand of non-muslims or they were living there and were expelled by the kuffar from it."
æÞÇá ÇáÔøÇÝÚíøÉ: åí ßáø ÃÑÖ ÊÙåÑ ÝíåÇ ÃÍßÇã ÇáÅÓáÇã - æíÑÇÏ ÈÙåæÑ ÃÍßÇã ÇáÅÓáÇã: ßáø Íßã ãä ÃÍßÇãå¡ Ãæ íÓßäåÇ ÇáãÓáãæä æÅä ßÇä ãÚåã ÝíåÇ Ãåá ÐãøÉ¡ Ãæ ÝÊÍåÇ ÇáãÓáãæä¡ æÃÞÑøæåÇ ÈíÏ ÇáßÝøÇÑ¡ Ãæ ßÇäæÇ íÓßäæäåÇ¡ Ëãø ÃÌáÇåã ÇáßÝøÇÑ ÚäåÇ.[ÍÇÔíÉ ÇáÈÌíÑãí 4/220 ¡ äåÇíÉ ÇáãÍÊÇÌ 8/81] (that was the original Arabic - sorry!!!)
Hence one would be forced to accept that the land is Dar ul-Islam; and proceed accordingly. Therefore we would be forced to accept that this definition or some of them fits the current lands of the Muslims. And this is the adopted view of the Ulema and Mufti's of these lands and therefore this would be te view taht is adopted and embraced by those societies.
The Hizb also recognizes these views as legitimate positions and adopts them as Islamic opinions emanating from great Mujtahidoon and state that this is a hukm shari for them as they state in shakhsiyah Islamiyah volume 2 (you can find teh exact reference in teh article which I would advise re-reading after this).
So your point regarding the sabab (shari cause for the existence of the rule around which the hukm (rule) revolves in existence and non-exixtence) is not the issue at hand in this article; rather the precise defintion of the situation as whether there is, as claimed by the Hizb, is that it is not kufr in dar ul-Islam but rather kufr in dar ul-kufr - which is being contested here. The Hizb according to its own principles is bound to recognize the extant ikhtilaf (legal differences) and therefore can not say that it is kufr in dar ul-Kufr but rather in dar ul-Islam. 
Why is this so important and relevant, if after all we haven't yet discussed the sabab? This is because habibi fillah, the issue is central to the work of HT as the method of changing dar ul-kufr is fundamentally different to that of dar ul-Islam; in dar ul-Islam it is a matter of changing the ruler by physically overthrowing him not the three stage method.
Hence it is vital and a fundamental to the method of the party and its foundations as a party. It is also important and vital to the very nature of how the party espouses its understanding of Islam, as it is in conflict to its own legal principles of recognizing other ijtihadaat as valid, rewarded and praiseworthy as opposed to describing them as kufr and devious, and munkar.
The next issue then naturally becomes, as you have said the issue of the sabab of Kufr Buwah and what does this mean acording to the Hizb criterion of definitve kufr as opposed to masiyah (disobedience: and ruling by disobedience). This wasn't the subject of this article but is rather the subject of the next article inshallah. In fact this was explicated at the end of the last article!
For this distinction you can read it and find it in the book Hizb ut-Tahrir or in Doosiyah where the issue of Hakim al-Zalim (tyrant ruler) is extensively discussed.
Your brothers

Maajid Nawaz said...

Regarding using the term "Islamism" and incorrect quotation of Imam al-Juwayni, the Imam of Haramayn (rh).

This answer is provided by the editorial team, supervised by Maajid who approves, contributes to and edits every answer.

Firstly before we begin; a reminder that the next article will be concerning the issue of ruling by Kufr; this article was merely to establish that the foundation of the work namely the removal of dar ul-Kufr and changing the land to dar ul-Islam is invalid, as;
a) the majority of the ulema do not consider the Muslim lands as dar ul-Kufr according to the positions of the classical jurists and their criterion and the present day Ulema. To quote from al-Kâsâni' himself, citing the founder of their school Imam ul-Azam Abû hanifah (ra) as a source,

“Prefixing the word 'Islâm' to a land, and likewise the word 'Kufr', isn't actually intending Islâm itself nor Kufr itself, but rather it is a matter of security and fear. This means that if there is absolute safety for Muslims it is Dâr al-Islâm… and if there is absolute fear for Muslims and absolute safety for non-Muslims then it is Dâr al-harb.” Badai al-Sana'I Imam al-Kasani vol. 7, pp. 130-131.
(b) Such a position is binding upon HT as in the words of al-Nabhani in the adopted book Shakhsiyah Islamiyah, this “is a Shari’ah rule before all Muslims”. Hence according to HT they must define the lands as Dar ul-Islam and operate accordingly. The next discussion though is there a presence of clear cut Kufr (disbelief), as that is the criterion mentioned by Hizbut-tahrir in the book "Hizb ut-tahrir". This is the subject of the next article inshallah.
To proceed:
Jazakumullah khairan fro your comment and advice; it s appreciated and may Allah reward you for your efforts.
Regarding the usage of a word and in this case the word Islamists; one must remember that words are used not because certain people use them or don't use them but rather what they mean and whether they are correct to describe that particular matter or phenomenon. E.g.   
Sovereignty according to sheikh Taqi ul-Din al-Nabhani is an alien political word form the West but merely describes a reality namely who has the right to obeyed and whose will is executed, hence is used by al-Nabhani extensively.
Similarly Islamism is variously defined but in general encompasses the meaning of imposing a religious interpretation on a political level, over the wider society in the name of Islam i.e. claiming it to be Islam and not an interpretation of Islam (like you have said).
So it is correct apply it in this context. More so as ironically the phrase or its Arabic equivalent is used as an antonym to communists by the leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir i.e. ilmaniyoon and islamiyoon (communists and islamists as opposed to Muslims) (see Ata Abu Rishta's website)
So I believe it is the best word to use, as it is commonly understood what is intended by such a term.
With regards what you have stated as the position of Imam al-Juwayni he very clearly explicates that this must not be done by the masses as they a) don't have the knowledge (b) the ability (c) there must be consensus upon removing him (they have to have agreed upon this - see the section on Imama). Hence in his view it is only for the ahlul halli-wal-aqd to unanimously agree to remove the ruler in that case, as they are the most influential faction not the masses. He also says that if it is not agreed upon you shouldn't remove the Imam. (Juwayni's book was translated by Paul E. Walker reviewed by Muhammad S. Eissa and publeshed by Garnet in case people wish to check...).

So this is not the Hizb view. More importantly this is considered by the HIzb to be an invalid perspective contradicting definitive mutawatir evidences a they quote from Shawkani in doosiyah that it is absolutely forbidden to forcefully remove the ruler for tyranny and that one should remain obedient to the tyrant ruler. In fact they go further and say that a ruler who violates the shariah in a definitive way and orders you to undertake a Haram action thereby ruling by other than the shariah, should be obeyed in those actions congruent with Islam and not in those matters in agreement with Islam.

Also, it is important to note that the issue of singularly removing the ruler due to him not meeting certain conditions (like becoming insane), is an entirely different topic to calling the system, society, lands and rules all Kufr, and then encouraging in public an overthrow of the system and considering it theologically illegitimate and that no good can come from it because it is not based on Islam, and that its treaties, policies and working within it is all prohibited because it is on is plain to see that these are entirely two different topics, and in fact, they are different topics even in HT literature (see Nizam al-Hukm [Ruling System] on when a ruler can be deposed for not meeting certain conditions, like sanity). HT consider that even within the Khilafah, despite the fact that it is still a Khilafah and thus its treaties policies and laws are still valid, the ruler may be deposed if he becomes, say, insane. However, according to HT this is an entirely different discussion to the current reality of considering the entire systems, laws and ruler illegitimate. This for HT means they need to prove Qati'i Kufr Buwah which is indisputable and nothing less, because such a scenario must be opposed by HT religiously at all costs, even if the ruler meets all the conditions as an individual.

So in this case what you are quoting is contradictory to the Hizb criterion and the position of the majority; hence the problem comes back to the contradiction of the adopted hukm shari position of the Hizb namely that there must be kufr buwah (manifest and clear disbelief) with qati proof (definitive evidence beyond interpretation or exception or conflict with other evidences according to other Mujtahidoon). This requires that there can not be an ijtihad that leads to the conclusion that there is kufr, as an ijtihad by definition is zanni, rather a qati kufr which is not subject to dispute.
I hope that this clarifies the issue.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Answer to the question is the Khilafah Qati or Thanni? My understanding is that due to Ijma as-Sahabah the khilafah is Qati. Is this correct?
Reply from Editorial team, supervised by Maajid Nawaz, who edits, contributes to and approves all comments (due to the sheer volume of comments this is the only way to get answers out);
Again whilst this is not the subject - and will be elaborated in the next few posts very soon - inshallah we will attempt to address some of teh issues taht you have raised.
The question itself isn't new and has been addressed in the past and will briefly relay some of teh views to you here;
A leading Imam of the shafiyyah in Aqeedah, Usul, and laid the foundation of the later day Shafi'I Fiqh, Imam al-Juwayni al-Haramayn (he was also the teacher of the hujjat ul-islam al-Ghazali) stated in his work al-Irshad ilaa qawait ul-adillah fi-Usul il-I'tiqad (A guide to conclusive proofs for teh Principles of Creed):
Section: The doctrine of Imamate states "this issue does not in itself concern a fundamental principle of belief." (i.e. it is not qati accordng to the noble Imam and expert on matters of Ahlus-Sunnah creed)
Imam Razi in his Mahsul addresses the above issue as well stating that the Ijma (consensus) of the sahabah on this issue is established by some of them engaging in the action and the others remaining silent and is therefore Ijma al-sukuti (tacit consensus i.e. by their silence they are indicating their approval and agreement with the action). This type of consensus is not Qati acccording to all the Usuliyeen; some like those from the Ahnaf and some of the Shafi'i scholars don't consider it.
Shawkani in his Sayl ul-Jarar posed the same set of questions; namely he says: Is Imama an obligation from the shariah text, or the text and the mind (in Nayl ul-Awtar he also mentions that it is stated by at least two usuli's, Jahiz al-Balkhee and the other was as-sam, that it could just be form the mind [a view which he regards as very weak in Sayl ul-Jarar]) Is it part of the Usul (foundations) or the Furoo' (branches as stated by Imam al-Juwayni al Haramayn - see above) he settles on it being substantiated by the text which indicate an obligation to have an Imam (a leader).

Imam Shawkani goes onto say in this work that the text indicates that we can have many A'immah (Imams) leaders (as this is the meaning of the hadith which he gives as evidence in Nayl ul-Awtar), If there are three of you in any part of the earth appoint one of you an Amir i.e. you should be lead by an Amir, and this may be parochial to you - supporting the position of Imam al-Juwayni al-Haramayn; Al-Sanani and others.
Imam al-Asnawi does however state that due to the ancillary evidences on top of Ijma (qara'in) the issue of having an Imam is definitive but not the method of appointing him: selection or hereditary, nor the issue of who (should it have been Abu Bakr or Ali (radiAllahuanhuma), conditions etc. Hence whilst having an Imam is an (Wajib) obligation the issues of the political system are all ijtihad and subject to difference.

So what could be considered as an agreed upon rule according to the majority as that we need to have rulers and be obedient to those rulers i.e. Islam prefers order to disorder and this is necessary for the functioning of the society.

This should not be confused with some detailed system being specified in the Shariah as some type of divine textual matter. This is why Imam al-Juwayni al-Haramayn goes on to warn the Ummah (amazingly); "Two tendencies, both forbidden, occur in regard to this subject according to those who specialize in Kalam (theology). One is an inclination on the part of the various groups to engage in partisanship and to transcend the limits of truth. The second consists of taking matters in which there are interpretations are possible but concerning which there is no way to achieve certainty" (i.e. as definitive matters).

Allah save us from this.

Your brothers

Maajid Nawaz said...

In answer to Umar's questions for clarification:

1) Who is this contributing editor?

There is a team of people who are senior ex-HT and have now left the Islamist ideology. They will become public when they so choose. I supervise the blog, edit and contribute to all comments. Where this has been utilised I have made clear. Where a comment goes up without it being ascribed to anyone else, then it is mine alone.

2) Are you arguing that Dar al-Islam and Khilafah are synonymous?

No. They are not synonymous for HT nor for me. Now that I have established that Muslim lands are Dar al-Islam by legitimate opinions because they (in substance) allow people to practice their religion, and that HT adopt that any legitimate opinion(such as this one)is "Hukm Shari'i for all Muslims", I will go on in my second article to prove that the regimes/systems/rulers/rules are not of Kufr, albeit the Khilafah (as understood by HT) is missing.

3) Does Dar al-Islam have to rule by the Qur'an and Sunnah

This is the topic of my second article.

I think you mean, does the ruler in Dar al-Islam have to rule by Qur'an and Sunnah?

In a nutshell, something being an obligation upon the ruler, is different to saying that its absence is Kufr. eg: replying salam is an obligation but its absence isn't Kufr.

The ruler in Dar al-Islam must not display Kufr Buwah that is categorically deemed so, according to HT and the Ahl Sunnah.

What exactly is this Kufr Buwah, and where is it, if it exists? I will elaborate in my next article with, I promise, as much, if not more detailed quotes than in my first article, InshaAllah.

4) The meaning of practicing religion is clear in the quotes mentioned in the article...they mention being allowed to practice the sha'a'ir (insignia) like to pray Jumah, fast you can do in any Muslim country (Dar al-Islam) and even in Britain and other non Muslim countries that are Dar al-Ahd. See for example the quote by Imams Ramli and Mawardi that I mention, they clearly mention the ability to practice the Din (religion) in non-Muslim societies, so they clearly cannot be referring to "Din" as an all encompassing ideology because they are talking in the context of it co-existing in non-Muslim societies, but rather they mean by Din, the ability to worship Allah by establishing the sha'a'ir (insignia) in such countries.

5) I quoted Imam al-Juwayni who was Imam al-Haramayn (al-Ghazali's teacher) not al-Ghazali.

Yes Dar al-Islam is different to the Khilafah as HT define it, but I am sorry to say that you are wrong to say that Imam al-Juwayni only allowed the existence of more than one ruler (in the absence of the Imam) in "exceptional circumstances". In fact, he uses the word "Haajjah", or "when there is a need", not "Daroorah" necessity, you have been factually misinformed my brother, he allowed this when there is a need, and I will publish the full quote in my next article with page numbers, InshaAllah. Besides, I would have thought that you'd agree that we are in pretty exceptional and unprecedented circumstances anyway!

Your point that this is only within the context of the "systems" still being in place, but as I will demonstrate in my next article, the "systems" are not Qati'i at all..

6) What do I mean by HT's definition of a "Valid" ruler?

According to HT, any ruler in Dar al-Islam who doesn't display Qati'i Kufr Buwah which is indisputable, be he a tyrant (Thalim) or a trangressor (fasiq), must be obeyed in all that is not Haram (sinful), and cannot be overthrown but is the leader that still commands allegiance (see the book called HT adopted by HT page 56-7). That is a valid ruler.

If he displays definitive Kufr Buwah not only does he become invalid (ie: must be forceably removed), but that also violates the first condition of their definition of Dar al-Islam.

7) My view on the Khilafah

I have already posted an answer to this above. I kindly request that you read that.


Anonymous said...

You are being used. Like you don’t Know:

Anonymous said...


I have a question. Am i understanding one of your views correctly? That when a land is classified as Dar al-Islam and the ruler is a Muslim, then he can not be removed?

Abu Taha

Anonymous said...

Salaams to all.

I find it strange that somebody who was on the UK leadership committee, and hence will be very much aware of all things HT, has not even mentioned anything to do with the redress that the party had in 1997. There remained those loyal to Abdul Qadeem Zaloom (commonly known now as HTB), and those that refused to remain loyal to any individual but instead remain loyal to the idea. One of the reasons cited by those who refused to stay under the leadership of Abdul Qadeem Zaloom was the fact that the party was starting to follow corrupt concepts and was straying from it's founding principles. Many of followers of HT (not followers of HTB) state possible infiltration of the party as one reason for it's decline pre-redress. I find it very strange that Majid has not even touched on this issue or commented on the subsequent split and clear difference in the two groups.

Anonymous said...

salamualaiakum majiid

you have been broken by the egybtian goverment? ýou left becouse you nafsiya dident stand the stand i give you a nasiha as a brother read the quran and the hadith about yawum kiyamah and cahannam and cannah.

your nafsiyah needs to be repairede

Unknown said...

Salam Majid Nawaz, why do you associate yourself with Ed Hussain, who irresponsibly got brothers arested in a muslim country, knowing that the regime is well known for torturing people. Acts of torture is forbidden in islam and here you are associating yourself with this person. I think this will cause some discredit to your work and beg questions about your real motivation.

Anonymous said...


I have read your article and read the comments written by those for and against your article.

It seems to me that your argument is built upon a number of premises.

Firstly that the hizb is axiomatically built around the notion that the muslim world is darul kufr and thus the hizb needs to work to establish darul islam

Secondly, that other ulema have defined darul islam differently to the hizb

Thirdly the hizb accepts this legal difference of opinion of the definition

Fourthly that the ruler has the ability to settle the disputes and adopt the opinion which becomes binding upon other ppl

Fifthly, If the ruler adopts a valid, yet weak opinion, that His country is darul islam thus the hizb are forbidden, according to its own principles, from working to remove the ruler.

This is how I have understood your article and from it i see a number of weaknesses and assumptions.

Firstly (and has been previously mentioned) the hizb enacts its method due to the implementation of non islamic rules by the rulers. Hence whether the hizb adopts one definition or another definition this does not change the reality of implementing non islamic laws in a particular society. The islamic texts obliges the removal of a ruler who implements non islam and the replacement with islamic laws. The next discussion is method but this is another point entirely and shouldnt be mixed up with the discussion of the removal of the rulers of the muslim lands who implement kufr. And i know you do not wish to discuss this in this thread, but this point is crucial due to the fact that if the rulers implement kufr then how one defines darul islam becomes irrelevant as the hukm of the implementation of the laws of Allah swt become obliged.

Secondly, if the rulers implement kufr then they become illegitamate, thus they have no right to adopt upon matters of ikhtelaf. In fact your argument falls into a circular argument it pressuposes the rulers are legitimate and thus have the right of adoption. Now the counter argument to this is that we would have to accept that a ruler has the ability to become a ruler through force and secondly we should accept in origin a person who is muslim as a muslim unless we see open kufr.

The point here is that it has been expressed that the rulers have committed kufr buwah. Hence if a person/group believes that kufr buwah has already been committed by the rulers then they are seen as usurpers and illegitimate rulers who must be removed. Therefore it becomes irrelevant whether one argues upon their ability to adopt or not. Rather one must seek to study the current legislation and actions of the rulers and whether this constitutes kufr buwah.

So the fourth and fifth point upon which your argument is based are assumptions and havent been proven. That is why i am unsure as to what the benefit is in discussing the ikhtelaf of the definition of darul islam without proving the premises/axioms upon which your argument is built.


Therefore from your five premises that express your argument there are two reasons why it inadequately provides reasons for your departure and the incorrectness of the hizbs stance. I hope that you are able and willing to put this up on your web blog



Anonymous said...

Asalaamualaykum brother,i am a young muslim women who has heard you speak at an event and i find your article quite disturbing after hearing you speak. The state of the ummah is such that there is no unity amongst brothers and sisters around the world and the only solution to this is the caliphate, allegiance to ALLAH SWT and a system which abides by the creators laws. Your article is nothing but an irrational cocncoction in my opinion. Inshallah may Allah guide us all.

Anonymous said...


A small historical point with reference to one of the comments of Br. 'Umar - it is incorrect to say al-Andalus did not separate from the Abbasi khilafa. Abd al-Rahman III declared himself khalifa in 929 CE.

I am not qualified to comment on all the issues raised here. I only want to add that I know Maajid, and - having nothing really to do with HT or this debate - I have never seen anything from him except sincerity and beauty of character. Anyone who doubts his motives or believes for one second he is any kind of government apologist is quite wrong. May God protect him and reward his efforts to search for the truth, even at significant personal cost. And may He extend his mercy to all of us, because wherever we stand on the difficult issues of the day we will all need it.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Salam alaykum my dear brother,
JazakAllahu khayr once again for your response, I will try to answer all of your questions:
With respect, the three stage method is entirely conditional on the existence of Dar al-Kufr.
1) The 3 stage method is adopted (as demonstrated in my article) upon the basis that it was the only other time that  Muslims were in Dar al-Kufr.
The absence of sovereignty for the Shari'ah in Dar al-Islam (which the party must now accept the Muslim world is) allows only the method of direct combat with the rulers (according to HT's own adoption as quoted in my article in some detail). Not the 3 stage method which is taken by analogy from the only other time that Dar al-Kufr existed. Thus, the presence of Dar al-Kufr is axiomatic to the 3 stage method, otherwise Kufr laws in Dar al-Islam obliges the fighting method according to HT (this is detailed in the article itself with references from adopted books, please refer).
2) For clarification, it is worth noting that though HT accept the existence of Dar al Islam without a Khilafah (ie: a land that rules by Islam, and is secure, but for some Ijtihadi reason has not given bay'ah to the Khaleefah - like Muawiyyah [r.a.]), they cannot however accept a Khilafah in Dar al-Kufr, because the first condition of Dar al-Islam (governing by Shari'ah) also happens to be the first condition of the "Khilafah Ruling System" (sovereignty for Shari'ah).
This point has relevance because it is incorrect to argue that HT call for the 3 stage method to establish the Khilafah, not to establish Dar al-Islam, because to argue that there is Kufr in the laws invalidates both the Khilafah and Dar al-Islam together (by HT's criteria). Thus, by my proving that there is Dar-Islam by an Islamic criteria, HT can only accept that there is Kufr in the laws within that Dar al-Islam. And the assumption that there is Kufr is the laws is the subject of my next article.
3) My next article will also prove that the issue of the "Khilafah" as understood by HT, is also not Qat'i. What I mean by this is that all of their pillars of the "Islamic Ruling System", and all of their understanding of issues such as “sovereignty for the Shar'a” (by their meaning) etc... are all absolutely and entirely zanni, and I aim to prove this with as many detailed and referenced citations as I have done in my first article, so as to leave no room for doubt that what HT calls "Qati'i Kufr Buwaha" is but their Ijtihad, with the majority of scholars differing with them (which doesn't really matter because even if it were a minority differing then it would still render their understanding of Kufr Buwaha zanni.
4) Once this is established it leaves HT with no grounds to claim that the systems are on Qati'i Kufr Buwaha, and that the rulers are on Qati'i Kufr Buwaha, thus they must accept that they cannot overthrow the systems and rulers, because their own adoption binds them to not rebel against rulers that are sinful and oppressive yet essentially not on Qati'i Kufr Buwah.
5) These two articles would then have established that the lands are Dar al-Islam because the scholars who say they are are on Islamic opinions, and that the systems are not Kufr systems, and that the rulers are not ruling by Qati'i Kufr Buwah, in which case at most they are tyrannical rulers within Dar al-Islam.  HT will no longer have a case to rebel against them, but rather must work to reform them according to its own adoption.
I ask of you, my dear brother, to read my next article (I am writing it as we speak) and I pray that this will become clear.
6) As for my asking the leadership my questions. I didn't send them written questions, and I don't remember claiming that I did, maybe you have misheard. What I did say is that another member has sent them and is waiting for an answer.
I reached a level of certainty where I no longer doubted in the zanni nature of HT's "Qati'i" raison d'etre, and thus it became unconscionable for me to stay. Sending questions is not obligatory, and is only for those who want further clarification. I already had read clarification from many many other Ulema, and so decided to leave. The nature of my argument is such that any clarification can only but be a zanni interpretation of zanni texts. And thus it became intellectually impossible for me to perceive an answer that could deal with the nature of my problem. I made therefore the strategic choice of not getting into a dispute with the Amir.

I look forward to your comments on my second article which will finish off what is yet only half of my view.
Your brother

Anonymous said...

Jzk for your efforts in compiling this document and stating your reasons for leaving.

Since the announcement of your resignation I was interested in hearing your views. I did not for a moment believe they would be as shallow and infantile , as many brothers have speculated/misrepresented.

From your research it is apparent that there is a plethora of views on the issue of Dar al Islam/Kufr from classical and contemporary scholars. For the layman like myself this seems a detailed topic and much consideration.
Reading your articIe and observing the barrage of comments, I do feel that many of your critics have somewhat missed the point. The heart of your argument is not about claiming the present lands are ideal states/systems (from an Islamic perspective) or that you indeed endorse them. Rather it is a 'legal' point - that by its own principles, logic etc Hizb ut Tahirir's position on this topic seems to be at odds with its views on Ikhtilaf/Semblance of Evidence- or at the very least requires a detailed elaboration by its current Leadership.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear AL,

I thank you for your comment:

1) The point made in this article is simply that the Muslim world is Dar al-Islam by a valid criteria.

2) This leaves HT one of two choices,
a) To declare that the rulers rule with Qati'i Kufr Buwah in Dar al-Islam, in which case their adoption binds them to fight the rulers.
b) To accept that there is no Qati'i Kufr Buwah in Dar al-Islam, in which case their adoption binds them to reform the tyrant rulers from within the existing systems.

The second half of my article (part 2) will discuss this topic InshaaAllah.

3) The point is not made in this article that the rulers rule by Islam or Kufr.

The point of the rulers ruling by Islam or Kufr will be made in the second half of my article (part 2) that is mostly already written.

4) My argument is not circular because though the point of the ruler adopting is assuming he is valid (which will be discussed in part 2), this is not the only issue at hand, and is not the axle of my argument. If you notice I also state another reason for why the party must accept that the lands are Dar al-Islam, and that is because there is no Munkar in a valid opinion.

I remind all that this article is NOT why I left HT. It is the first half (part 1) of the first instalment of why I left HT. The second half of the first instalment (part 2) is on its way InshaAllah, and that will finish off the point. Then there will be other instalments.

Thank you again



Maajid Nawaz said...

Wassalam abu Talha,

I thank you for your question.

Your question skips to the end of the second half of my article (part 2), I humbly ask of you to wait till that is published, after which I pray that you will see exactly what I am saying.



Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear Mohammed,

I thank you for your question:

1) Please leave my motivation out of it as I will never be able to show you what is in my heart, or visa-versa, so it becomes irrelevant. Please stick to the arguments raised.

2) Why I associate with Ed Husain?
My dear brother, assuming that I do even associate with him, you may as well ask why I associae with human beings.

Since when is it Haram to engage with someone who you may or may not agree with? Since when is it Haram to speak to your fellow Muslim?

For the sake of your argument, I am sure that you speak to certain people that I may consider don't live up to your upright character, does that mean that I have a right to tell you not to speak to them, and then question your motives if you do?

Surely, you make the decision who to engage with in your life based upon what you deem is in the best interests of Islam, whether they be Muslim or not, and even whether they be politicians, journalists, intellectuals etc, even if they, say, supported the Iraq war, you would speak to them to achieve a need.

Please allow me the right to make such decisions too. Please lets try to keep the discussion on the intellectual issues because revival is the result of thoughts.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

From the artilce i have gathered two principles:

firstly, that designating a land as dar al islam or dar al kufr is based upon dhanni rather than qat'i evidence and as such becomes a matter of ijtihad. All

ijtihadat must be accepted and cannot be disregarded outright.

secondly, and as a consequence of the first premise, is that when a diifference of opinion arises where one party judges something to be munkar whereas

another sees no munkar, then the first party is not authorised to act upon their position and remove said munkar, on account of the difference of opinion

(regardless of the strength of either opinion, since it is deemed to be a valid opinion regardless of its strength).

If we apply these principles across the board then please allow me to demonstrate a scenario:

Certain groups or individuals in the UK have made ijtihad and come to the conclusion that the UK is not only dar al kufr but in fact they have gone one step

further and designated it dar al harb. Now, however untenable this position is, it has in it some degree of strength. We now have to accept this opinion as a

valid opinion.

Now consider this: According to the shari'ah, the original ruling regarding the blood and wealth of the kuffar is that they are permissable unless they

reside under some form of security - which of course in dar al harb there is no such protection (lets not go into details here for the sake of brevity. some

may argue against this but again i can plead ijtihad) :P

If now this group of individuals decide to run amok killing UK citizens, we could apply the same two premises and come to the conclusion that since these

individualls are acting upon an valid opinion reached through ijtihad, then from their point of view no munkar has occurred. Regardless of how much we might

disagree with their ijtihad, we would be powerless to stop them on their killing spree.

If my understanding is right, then something smells a bit off here.

If my understanding is wrong, then please feel free to correct me.

With utmost respect

your brother

Anonymous said...


Dear Maajid

I thank you for your reply to my post I would also like to add a few other points based upon that reply.

You said,

‘My argument is not circular because though the point of the ruler adopting is assuming he is valid (which will be discussed in part 2), this is not the only issue at hand, and is not the axle of my argument. If you notice I also state another reason for why the party must accept that the lands are Dar al-Islam, and that is because there is no Munkar in a valid opinion.’

You have stated implicitly in this sentence that there exists two reasons that prevent the hizb enacting upon its hukm.

1. the Valid ruler has the ability to adopt valid opinions which must be obeyed by all muslims even if it differs from their opinion. (this you say is a minor point in your argument)
2. That other scholars have other opinions on the definition of darul islam hence how can the hizb work to remove darul kufr as some scholars do not view their lands as darul kufr thus there is no munkar to be removed.

I hope I have understood your argument from your quoted statement above. The first point assumes the validity of the ruler which you and I both agree hasn’t been proven in your first post, hence we cannot use this argument to justify ones position.

This leads to the second point then and I believe you have mis-identified the munkar the hizb is seeking to remove and as a result your 18 page article misses the mark. The book ‘hizb ut tahrir’ states, ‘Today we live within Dar al-Kufr because everywhere around us the rules of Kufr are applied’

And in the book ‘methdology of hizb ut tahrir for change’ it states, ‘Yet, they are not
unfortunately considered to be Dar ul-Islam despite being Islamic lands and their inhabitants being Muslims, because what matters concerning the land is the laws and Aman (security), not the land and the inhabitants.’

The first statement that ‘today we live within dar al kufr’ has been conditioned upon a reason, that reason being ‘because everywhere around us the rules of kufr are applied.’ Thus we find also in the book, ‘Methodology of hizb ut tahrir for change’ it states, ‘The Khalifah is given pledge to be listened to and obeyed, on the condition that he governs over the people with the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Prophet (saw), and demolishes the laws of Kufr and its systems, replacing them by the laws and systems of Islam. Thereby transferring the Islamic lands to Dar ul islam, transferring the society in the Islamic lands to an Islamic society, unifying the Muslim lands under the khilafah state, and then carrying Islam to the rest of the world by invitation and Jihad.’

Hence when the hizb looks to the position of changing the munkar and the enforcement of the good within the current societies of the Muslim world then the Munkar they seek to remove according to their very own statements is the removal of kufr laws. To not see this is to miss the obvious. Therefore your second point which you said, by implication, forms the main axle becomes redundant. That is because the munkar here is not the removal of darul kufr and bringing the muslim lands back to darul islam by ones particular definition, rather it is the removal of kufr laws and implementing Islamic laws. As we know there is no ikhtelaf on this point and thus this is a clear matter of marouf and munkar. Thus the hizb are not impeded on this issue by the arguments you have mentioned as there is no ikhtelaf on the removal of kufr laws.

Therefore I can only conclude that your first article fails to establish the hizbs method being wrong. Also it fails to prove your conclusions on the hizb in which you said,

‘This leaves HT one of two choices,
a) To declare that the rulers rule with Qati'i Kufr Buwah in Dar al-Islam, in which case their adoption binds them to fight the rulers.
b) To accept that there is no Qati'i Kufr Buwah in Dar al-Islam, in which case their adoption binds them to reform the tyrant rulers from within the existing systems.’

So this conclusion cannot be arrived at from your arguments from the above points I have mentioned.

However let us move from those two points and focus on another issue regarding your conclusion of the hizbs apparent ‘two choices.’ Firstly let me establish a premise and that is that if I adopt a hukm different to yours then the conditions of the ahkam that binds upon me remains binding upon me and is not affected by the khilaaf of your opinion. So for example if I adopt that the Muslim lands are not darul islam due to the implementation of kufr laws, and someone else adopts that it is darul islam due to the ability to pray then the ruler who commits kufr buwah does not necessitate me to fight him. Because for me the hukm of it being a ruler who commits kufr buwah in darul islam and this necessitates me to fight him does not exist. That is because in origin I never viewed the land as darul islam thus the conditions and sabab for the cause of the hukm does not exist from the adoption of my hukm shari’i. So the point being is that it doesn’t matter whether another scholar adopts whether it is darul islam as I am not bound by his adoption, hence I do not view the ruler who implements kufr as the same as the ruler who implements kufr in darul islam. Therefore the hizb is bound by its adoption on this matter of fighting the ruler who commits kufr buwah in a land that it considers as darul islam, and not upon a land that another scholar whom they do not adopt considers it as darul islam.

Thus the clarity of this point nullifies your statement when you said, ‘a) To declare that the rulers rule with Qati'i Kufr Buwah in Dar al-Islam, in which case their adoption binds them to fight the rulers.’

Secondly, the hizb discusses the physical fighting of the ruler who commits kufr buwah in a more deeper way than what you have presented. It is rather shallow to think that the hizb is bound by another scholars adoption of the term of darul islam and thus are obliged by another scholars definition to fight a ruler simply because the ruler has committed kufr buwah. Rather the hizb believes that a land that implements the shariah, has the systems of islam, such as the existence of judges, wilayah etc and thus in this situation where shariah is already being implemented that the ruler commits kufr buwah. Thus the ruler is first to be accounted and if he maintains the clear kufr in a land which implements the shariah then his removal becomes automatic without the need of the permission of anyone. Thus the condition of fighting is built around the existence of a land that implements the ahkam Shariah, not merely the adoption of another scholars opinion on the definition of a word. This condition according to the hizb does not exist as non of the muslim countries implement the shariah laws, thus the article fails to address this issue and therefore remains unproven and semantical.

That’s why I am most surprised at your presumed conclusion on these matters as they seem to be far from the correct understanding.

I hope to see my post on your blog,

Many Thanks


Maajid Nawaz said...

Assalaamu alaykum

Today, 'The Sunday Telegraph' (09/09/2007) has published an article announcing my impending Newsnight interview due to be aired this Tuesday (11/09/2007). The article states that that I will claim on Newsnight this Tuesday that some of HTB's recruits eventually leave to fight in Iraq.

For the record, I wasn't interviewed for the Telegraph article, and I did not make such a claim on Newsnight or elsewhere. I do not know who the journalist sourced the quote from, but I can state openly that it is inaccurate.

HTB does not encourage direct military action from its members. Though HTB does, in principle, agree with the right of inhabitants of occupied lands to defend themselves the Party does not facilitate or recruit for such a purpose.

I will continue to try and ensure that I maintain the highest standards of accuracy in my critique, and hope that such inaccuracies in the future are minimised. I am sure that HTB will appreciate that such an aim is not always that easy to attain.

I also hope that HTB will check any inaccuracies that they may hear or propagate about me too.

Thank you,

Maajid Nawaz

Maajid Nawaz said...


It seems that there is an (internal to HTB) argument in an attempt to respond to some of the issues raised by me here. The following are the points raised and my response to them:
(I would say here that firstly, my article is only part 1 of a two part article. Please read the second part out soon.)

1) Why cannot HT act on its Ijtihad?:

It cannot and the article addresses why. This is so not because it isn't on an Ijtihad, but rather because, as the article states, they are bound to not "forbid the Munkar" of other opinions as long as they're valid opinions, and here "acting on their opinion" means forbidding the Munkar of other opinions by default. So HT must recognise that the lands are Dar al-Islam, and not act on their Ijtihad due to their own principles that state that they must tolerate different opinions.

The issue of the "valid ruler" adopting the definition of his choosing is a peripheral issue (subject to verification in my second article) but is not neccessary to make the point that HT must accept other opinions.

Thus it is true that HT's argument is circular and contradictory.

2) It is an issue of semantics:

It is absolutely not a semantic debate according to classical and last century scholars.

Why did scholars even enter this debate?
Scholars deemed it necessary to define Dar al-Islam for the purpose of settling whether Hijra (emigration) was obligatory from that land, ie: whether Muslims could live there in peace and security as long as they could practice their religion in such lands or whether the obstacles to the practice of the religion would need to be removed.

If Hijra was necessary it meant that there were obstacles to the da'wah in such a land as it would not allow the practice of ibadat. Here, historically, the Muslims' state would begin Jihad to remove such obstacles to the practice of the religion, and once that was done the land was deemed Dar al-Islam.

In the absence of the need for Hijrah, (ie: when the land is Dar al-Islam because Muslims were allowed to practice their religion in peace and security), the Muslim state would not invade because they would hear the azan (call to prayer) etc... ie: the system is not to be fought because the sha'a'ir (insignia) were present.

This is how the matter of defining the terms arose, and thus the legal issue at dispute was:

By allowing Muslims to pray and fast etc... do the rulers of such lands where this occurs guarantee their rulership?

Or does it require more than that to guarantee the continuation of the existent ruler, such as him becoming a Muslim, or "ruling by the Shari'ah".

Once he became a Muslim, there was another discussion about how to subsequently invalidate his rule, is it by him becoming a disbeliever or a transgressor etc.. (but this part is second article stuff)

Hence, though I have not stated my own preference, this issue is absolutely not one of semantics.

The issue of dar al-Islam used to affect (in the days of Empire) the issue of whether the Muslim army would invade/fight or not. ie: what is the bare minimum expected for such a land to be left alone: is it just that they allow Muslims to practice their religion? Or is more required, such as the ruler being a Muslim?

This is a classical debate and is the very reason why the scholars even bothered entering into defining the Dar in the first place.

This is also why the Ulema of Hind gave the fatwa (refer to in my article as quoted from Shaykh Nuh Kellars "Reliance") that India was dar al-Islam under the British, because they were still allowed to practice their religion. Based upon these religious rights the Fatwa accepted co-existence.

Another Fatwa in Algeria (1841) ruled by the same thing: Here the French general Bugeaud was being fought by a wahhabite leader by the name of 'abd al-Qadir. 'Abd al-Qadir declared that Muslims must not submit to the rule of the unbelievers obtaining a Fatwa to this effect from Fez.

The Sufi order of Tijaniyyah (who rivalled the Wahhabist 'abd al-Qadir) also sought a fatwa, which was sought from Qayrawan, the famous religious centre in Tunisia.

The Qayrawan fatwa declared that, having fought but failed, it was acceptable for Algerians to cease fighting provided that the French promised to allow them to practice their religion and didn't dishonour their women. Towards the middle of the ninteenth century, three of the four Sunni madhahib had adopted this view. (see "Muslims Under non-Muslim Rule by Yahya Michot, foreword by James Piscatori, page xiii)

Readers may or may not agree with this view, but one thing that cannot be argued is that it is a semantic debate. The definition of Dar al-Islam is absolutely not a semantic debate. Rather, the way in which it is defined affects the minimum threshold from which a jurist would gurantee security to the land's ruler (in return for security to practice Islam).

This minimum threshold is the very matter disputed over in definintions. Moreover, HT define this issue of minimum threshold (ie: the issue of when the security of a ruler is secured in return for the security of Islam) in an unprecedented way. They insist that for the land to be Dar al-Islam, it must be governed by the Sharia. Thus, for HT, anything less than that renders the ruler as being removable. However, this is not the same minimum threshold adhered to by other jurists.

2) I hope that by now I have stressed enough that the presence/absence of Kufr Buwah is the topic of my next article and it was not the intended aim to prove either way in this article.

Thank you

Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear Al


I thank you for your reply.

1) I refer you to my very last post which demonstrates why the issue of Dar al-Islam is not a semantical one.

2) You assume that there is no Ikhtilaf on the meaning "ruling by Kufr", or the "Khilafah ruling system" or the meaning of "sovereignty is for Allah" but I hope to show clearly in my second article that these concepts are classically differed over, InshaAllah. Therefore, I advise that you don't build arguments (as you have done in your last post) on the assupmtion that they are Qati'i concepts, because they are not.

Therefore, your point that HT is not bound by the implications of others' opinions, but rather, because all agree that 'ruling by Kufr' is the Kufr Buwah that warrants removing the ruler, HT can forbid that Munkar as it is not disagreed over, is an inaccuracy as I will try to show in my next article InshaAllah.

3) As you are no doubt aware, the Hukm of the Dar is different to the Hukm of the Khilafah even in HT ideology.

If it can be demonstrated that some scholars believe that merely by granting the permission to practice ones religion (ie: by making it dar al-Islam by the majority criteria), the ruler is not removed (as has been deomstrated in my last post about why it is not a semantic debate) then, even on the issue of the Dar the ruler has the right to adopt because he has been accepted as a ruler due to acquiring his own security in return for granting security for the Din (please see my last posting for references to two Fatwa's where this happened in the last century).

Thus, on the issue of the definition of the Dar alone (without even considereing the Kufr Buwah debate - which is coming), the ruler can be left alone (in some opinions) to rule as long as he grants Muslims the right to practice their religion.

4) My dear brother, your point that HT only allow fighting in Dar al-Islam when the ruler was ruling by Islam and then starts to rule by Kufr, because that's how they define Dar al-Islam (ie: according to the rules implemented), is simply a statement of the obvious. Of course that is how HT define it, and they would follow through the logic of their adoption.

With respect, I believe that you have missed my point. I ask, is that whole construct, (ie: of the ruler who rules by Kufr after having ruled by Islam in Dar al-Islam), not differed over?

Do not other scholars say that even if he rules by "Kufr" (according to how you define it) as long as in their definition of dar al-Islam, ie: he allows you to practice your religion, then he is not fought? (see my last post) And thus are HT not bound to accept that there is no Kufr because even this issue is disputed over?


Maajid Nawaz said...

Salam my dear Salman,

I hope you are well?

In answer to your post...nice try, someone has already tried that one with me on the phone! : )

In essence my view is that your post misses the crux of what I am trying to say:

1) Firstly, my point isn't that you cannot speak out against other stances. Rather, it is that you cannot call Islamic opinions Kufr, and use force to impose your own view due to deeming the other one as Kufr. Speaking out (as I have posted many times before) is actually the better option.

Moreoever, and importantly, I am not making this argument based upon my own views, rather, I have constructed an argument based on HT's own adopted ideas.

Thus, if what you have said is correct (which I believe it is not) then it doesn't pose a problem for me, rather it poses a problem for you, because HT's ideas would bind you to your conclusion (due to tolerating Ikhtilaf); and Salman, you know (or at least I do)that there are many inside HT, or influenced by your ideology, who actually do conclude in the logic you have used (or at least have done), and state that the matter is zanni, and so the Jihadists (though in disagreement with us) are on valid opinions, it is prohibited to report them because no Munkar has occurred.

So I don't know why you ask me this question when the problem is actually yours by your own party adoption, and present within your ranks.

On the other hand, and despite being bound to accept the validity of this "opinion" by your adoption, you also have members who have gone on the record as saying that one should report such people to the police (ie: for carrying out their "Islamic" opinions), because it is a Munkar. Incidentally, does that type of thinking ring a bell, I wonder how you would reconcile that if the same concept were to be applied in Syria?

2) HT call the Muslim world Dar al-Kufr when others (majority) say it is Dar al-Islam. This is not a semantic debate, as I have demonstrated in my second from last post, but rather the matter of which definition one takes actually affects ones actions vis a vis accepting a ruler, after a judgement is made.

I have no problem with HT claiming that their unprecedented definition is the strongest, and then even asking people to subsribe to it. Rather, I have a problem with HT forcing their definition upon society against the wishes of those in authority, who are also on Islamic opinions.

3) I don't claim that the Jihadists who kill civilians are on a "Kufr" opinion (An opinion which renders one an apostate for believing in it), but HT do state that those who work with the givernments are on a Kufr opinion. Thus again, the problem isn't with me, it is with HT.

I still condemn the criminal actions of Jihadists who target civilians because, as you know Salman, actions (Ahkam Sharia) don't need Qati'i proofs to be condemned, but zanni proofs are sufficent. However, what HT condemn and rebel against requires Qati'i proofs according to HT's own ideas, because anything less than Kufr doesn't allow for rebelling. What requires Qati'i proofs (according to HT) is Iman and Kufr matters, which is what we are discussing here, not criminal actions.

4) Those in authority in any land that allows the practice of our religion (be it Muslim majority or not) have the right to adopt criminal legislation against such behaviour, and the citizens of that nation (Muslim or not) are bound by such laws, and all I need to do is to prove that in a zanni way because that is all that is needed for a leader anway to adopt a law. However, for HT to call that opinion Kufr, they need Qati'i proofs, because it is now a matter of rebellion, which is only permitted where Qati'i Kufr is established.


Anonymous said...

I saw your ridiculous response to the allegations made by the Sunday Telegraph - I can't accept that Ed did not tell you that he had commented on the story that they were producing and it seems to me it is likely that he is the "source" close to you. A real test of your sincerity will be if you insist on a correction in the Sunday Telegraph or take legal action. The absence of such a correction will lead me to draw my own conclusions. You a thoroughly discredited man it seems. What a pity.

Anonymous said...

Dear Maajid,

What you say here is not new, and similarly HT's argument about sovereignty is also flawed. Many jurists in the non-HT world have stated this on several occasions.

However what is staggering is that you as an ex member have come to this conclusion and for that you deserve credit. May Allah reward you for your effort in understanding the religion as it is meant to be.

Do you know if HT are planning to respond to this?

Otherwise, i hope no matter what, you continue work in opposing oppression from this world, whether it be done by Muslim rules or non-Muslim rulers, as all jurists agree that oppression is wrong and must be countered.

Anonymous said...


Dear Maajid

Please forgive the delay in replying to your comment. Unfortunately, due to other commitments I can only reply when I have time.

I would like to begin to explain the purpose of my posts on your comments section. After reading your first article I was interested to analyse whether it achieves what it initially sets out to do which I believe is to present a conclusion showing that the current actions of hizb ut tahrir are inconsistent with their own principles. Hence, I seek to understand your arguments, the premises you build and the conclusions you arrive at in order to understand the validity of those conclusions. As you would be aware the validity of those conclusions is established upon the proofs of the premises set forth.

You have agreed that the validity of the ruler has not been established and will be discussed in your next article, therefore, we cannot rely upon this point to verify your conclusions, as we would be relying upon an unproven premise.

You said,

‘Also, in any matter of legal differences of opinion (Ikhtilāf Shari'i) the Party accepts the legal maxim 'the ruler of the land settles disputes' (Amr al-Imām Yarfa'u al-Khilāf). Consequently, once it is accepted that the definitions of Dār al-Islām are differed over, according to this principle the Party believes that all Muslims must abandon their own individual legal opinions (Ijtihādāt) and obey that of the rulers who adopts the one which he sees fit,’

From my understanding this point is not a peripheral issue it is rather one of the central planks upon which your argument rests. As the rulers’ adoption becomes binding upon the rest of the muslims whether they agree with it or not. But the rulers’ ability to adopt is subject to him being valid. Thus an invalid ruler cannot adopt upon these matters and because the discussion on whether the rulers are valid or not has not taken place we thus cannot rely upon this argument. This is something I believe you are well aware of when you said, ‘My argument is not circular because though the point of the ruler adopting is assuming he is valid (which will be discussed in part 2), this is not the only issue at hand,’

This then leads to the second main ‘axle’ of your argument that is the forbiddance of munkar in the presence of multiple Islamic opinions. You have rightly stated that one cannot forbid an issue where there are valid Islamic opinions. However, the subject here has been what does the hizb seek to forbid? From your perspective you believe the question of the definition of the term darul islam is central to the point that the hizb are unable to enact its ijtihad as it would be forbidding a munkar that other scholars do not see as a munkar.

Thus, from my understanding of your argument, you have stated that the hizb seeks to forbid the munkar of darul kufr, yet you had said other scholars believe those muslim lands are in fact darul islam. Therefore, according to your view, how can the hizb forbid darul kufr when other scholars view it as darul islam? This you believe is an impediment for the hizb to act upon its method.

You have attempted to counter those arguments which have stated that the discussion on the definition of the word darul islam is merely semantical. You said, ‘It is absolutely not a semantic debate according to classical and last century scholars. Why did scholars even enter this debate? Scholars deemed it necessary to define Dar al-Islam for the purpose of settling whether Hijra (emigration) was obligatory from that land.’

Therefore from this quote and from other points raised in your article you seem to provide a reason for the scholars to define what darul islam is, that is to determine the nature of that land and the rights and obligations thus laid down by such a land.

I do not believe that this explanation sufficiently explains away the problem of understanding the underlying reasons why the hizb believes it is able to forbid the munkar in the Muslim lands and what that munkar is. I do not believe this is axiomatic upon its definition of the word ‘darul islam.’

Firstly, both you and I agree that the term is a juristic definition derived from surveying the texts that deals with the concept of land and its different types. We understand that scholars adopt terms that may not have been originally found in the quran and the sunnah as a way of explanation and clarity. For example the term Aqeeda was a term defined and then adopted by the scholars in order to determine the fundamental beliefs that bind a muslim. However scholars did differ on its definition, for instance some believed it was the distinction between iman and kufr, others said it was the difference between ahlel sunnah wal jammah and the deviants, others placed only those things which are qati’ by itself and not on matters where definitive beliefs were debated (i.e. on matters where some scholars believed it was definitive and others didn’t). Thus just because the word aqeeda didn’t exist before it was coined and then defined by the scholars does not mean the concept of the term didn’t exist. In fact we know the adoption of that and other such terms was a way to explain and articulate what the early muslims understood implicitly.

The reason why I have stated such a point is to explain that having one broad definition of the term darul islam may necessitate other subtypes. For example, if a scholar were to define darul islam as a place where muslims could pray and fast then this would lead us to different subtypes of the term darul islam and thus different ahkam relating to them.


1. Darul islam in which the ruler was muslim implementing the ahkam shariah
2. Darul islam in which the ruler was a disbliever not implementing ahkam shariah and the security were with the muslims but allowing the muslims to pray and fast
3. darul islam in which the ruler was Muslim but the security was maintained by kuffar but they allow muslims to pray and fast
4. Darul Islam in which the ruler was kafir and the security was maintained by kuffar, but they allow the Muslims to pray and fast
5. Darul Islam which has never been under any Islamic authority but any muslim resident is allowed to pray and fast even though the leadership are kuffar and the security is maintained by kuffar.

Thus each subtype of darul islam would still necessitate a different action, and this is testified by Saeed Ramadhan al-Buti. You quoted him as saying, “Indeed, Dār al-harb becomes Dār al-Islām by establishing the rulings (Ahkām) of Islām such as the Friday prayer and the 'Eid prayer; even if the indigenous non-Muslims remain therein and that country is not adjoined to Dār al-Islām.”39 See al-Būţi, Muhammad Sa'id Ramađān, Qađāya Fiqhiyya Mu‘āşarah, (Maktabah al-Fārābi, Damascus 1994) p. 182.

In another quote al-Buti states, “This is because the simplest student of Islamic knowledge knows what is established in all sources of Islamic Shari’a, that the Dar-ul-Islam stays, legally, a Dar-ul-Islam until the Day of Resurrection no matter to what extent the kafir, or enemy, went to, in order to spread corruption in it.” [Taken from the book "Strife in Islam" (Al-Jihad fil Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Kayfa Numarisuhu), by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, 2nd edition, Dar Al-Fikr, Damascus, Syria, 1997.]

Al-Buti then goes on to say in the very next line, “And it is an obligation on the Muslims to bear the responsibility to cleanse it from the defilement and aggression.” Ibid

He even quotes the opinion of Abu Hanifah, “And regarding Abu Hanifah who opined the possibility of the return of Dar-ul-Islam into a Dur-ul-Kufr, conditioned for it that the Islamic sha’air […] be removed from it, and be replaced with the rules of Kufr, that no Muslim or thimmi [non-Muslim citizen] to remain in it secure with the original Islamic security, and that it be bordering a Dar-ul-Kufr or Dar-ul-Harb. It is well known that non of these three conditions exists in the Occupied Land, since the sha’air of Islam are still publicly existent in it, the Muslims in it enjoy the original Islamic security, and there is no Dar-ul-Kufr or Dar-ul-Harb on the confines of this Occupied Land, today.” Ibid

These quotes were in relation to the lands being occupied in Palestine by the Israelis. Now if I were to take your understanding then my conclusion would be that if Saeed Ramadhan al-Buti states Palestine is darul islam by two different definitions that he gives then the hukm shari’ remains the same as a land that implements the ahkam shariah and whose security is maintained by muslims. This is because both lands would be termed as darul islam. But as al-Buti implies the hukm is completely different, “And it is an obligation on the Muslims to bear the responsibility to cleanse it (Palestine) from the defilement and aggression.”

This to me shows clearly that you have shallowly taken different scholars definitions of the term and thus tried to then state that all these definitions means that there would be only one hukm shari’ to be implemented. Whereas we see al-Buti separates the different rulings between Palestine and other lands even though he considers both to be darul islam. Thus the word darul islam is semantical from the implication of Saeed Ramadhan al-Buti.

So even if we take the hizb’s definition of the word darul islam then the hukm shari’ still wouldn’t change between al-Buti and the hizb with regards to Palestine. So although al-Buti still considers it as darul islam and according to the hizb’s definition it is darul kufr/harb then both agree with “the responsibility to cleanse it from the defilement and aggression.”

So we see if the only difference between al-Buti and the hizb on the issue of Palestine is a semantical one. This is because what matters is the presence of the sabab of the hukm which is defined by the texts and observed from the reality and not a definition by jurists. And this is indicated by the example of al-Buti.

Therefore, the hizb believes that the removal of the munkar is the removal of the kufr laws implemented in the Muslim lands, and this isn’t affected by another scholars definition of darul Islam, as the sabab is still in existence (a point mentioned in a previous comment).

It is also interesting you quote the fatwas of which you believed legitimised the occupation of the Muslim lands. Al-Buti states, “And we thank Allah truly that there was not for the Sheikh nor for his null (Batila) fatwa an existence in the days in which the Syrians, Algerians, Egyptians, and Libyans were waging Jihad in their home countries, for the sake of cleansing them from the colonization and the aggression of the tyrants.” [Taken from the book "Strife in Islam" (Al-Jihad fil Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Kayfa Numarisuhu), by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, 2nd edition, Dar Al-Fikr, Damascus, Syria, 1997.]

I think sheikh al-Buti has said enough with regards to that.

Therefore this point shows that the discussion your having has been a simple discussion of semantics and really you haven’t provided sufficient depth into the understanding of darul islam, the obligations and rights that exist there and the situation of the dar being ruled by kufr, as defined by the ulema themselves. Nor have you elaborated the sabab, the reality that exists and the differences over the hukm shari’ from the scholars.

You then said specifically to my last comment that, ‘1) I refer you to my very last post which demonstrates why the issue of Dar al-Islam is not a semantical one.’ I have shown how al-Buti’s definition of Palestine as being darul islam does not change the hukm of the occupation thus showing that in this case it is a semantical one.

Your next point

‘2) You assume that there is no Ikhtilaf on the meaning "ruling by Kufr", or the "Khilafah ruling system" or the meaning of "sovereignty is for Allah" but I hope to show clearly in my second article that these concepts are classically differed over, InshaAllah. Therefore, I advise that you don't build arguments (as you have done in your last post) on the assupmtion that they are Qati'i concepts, because they are not.’

Firstly when did there exist ikhtelaf on whether it was permitted to rule by kufr? I had always thought it was agreed upon by all scholars that this was a munkar. Secondly, your initial article was there to establish from the hizbs own principles the inconsistency of the hizb and how it would have to change its methodology (either to fighting or to accept the rulers as legitimate). As I have mentioned the purpose of my comments is to identify whether your article achieves that or whether it remains unproven. Hence the burden of proof is upon you to show that there exists ikhtelaf that permits the ruling by kufr. The hizb believe that ruling by kufr is not allowed and this is a munkar established from definite texts that has definite meaning. I am sure you may try to explain that ruling by kufr means ordering by sin, and isn’t the basis for the removal of the rulers. Or that what matters here is the faith of the person and not the system of ruling as islam doesn’t define a particular system. However all of this remains unproven and unsubstantiated from your first article, so where does that leave the first article?

Your next point,

‘If it can be demonstrated that some scholars believe that merely by granting the permission to practice ones religion (ie: by making it dar al-Islam by the majority criteria), the ruler is not removed (as has been deomstrated in my last post about why it is not a semantic debate) then, even on the issue of the Dar the ruler has the right to adopt because he has been accepted as a ruler due to acquiring his own security in return for granting security for the Din (please see my last posting for references to two Fatwa's where this happened in the last century).’

Very strange point, firstly I have shown from quotes of scholars that this issue of darul islam can be a semantical one if one doesn’t look at the specifics of the discussion and the reality, so I remind you to re-read what I had quoted from Sheikh al-Buti. Secondly the hizb believes the ruler has committed kufr buwah, changing the deen of islam and preventing the ruling of Allah’s laws. It has always been up to you to prove otherwise but as your article does not attempt to do this then we are left with another unproven premise. Finally, are u saying that due to the fatwa given about the French occupation that they became legitimate rulers who had the right of adoption which then becomes binding upon the rest of the ummah?

You then say,

‘4) My dear brother, your point that HT only allow fighting in Dar al-Islam when the ruler was ruling by Islam and then starts to rule by Kufr, because that's how they define Dar al-Islam (ie: according to the rules implemented), is simply a statement of the obvious. Of course that is how HT define it, and they would follow through the logic of their adoption.’

You had previously stated in your article, ‘they must either, i) Accept the lands are Dār al-Islām and go on to insist that there is manifest Kufr (Kufr Buwāh) in the laws of these lands, in which case the Jihadist method is obligated upon them according to the Party's own ideas.’

I had then said, ‘Therefore the hizb is bound by its adoption on this matter of fighting the ruler who commits kufr buwah in a land that it considers as darul islam, and not upon a land that another scholar whom they do not adopt considers it as darul islam.’

So do you agree now that your first conclusion was flawed, that the hizb would not be bound by other scholars opinions but are bound only by their opinion. Hence it is irrelevant whether one scholar believes it to be darul islam or not, as this would not stop the hizb from believing it to be darul kufr therefore the ruler who commits kufr buwah is not the same subject that the hizb discusses in the matter of fighting the ruler. This is why I believed you had a very superficial understanding of this hukm shari’ defined by the hizb itself. If it were so obvious then why make it one of your conclusions? And if you still stand by it then this can only show the incorrectness of your understanding of usool and fiqh.

As to your statement, ‘With respect, I believe that you have missed my point. I ask, is that whole construct, (ie: of the ruler who rules by Kufr after having ruled by Islam in Dar al-Islam), not differed over?’ Again its irrelevant whether other scholars adopted different opinions from the hizb principles they believe that the rulers have committed clear kufr upon which they contradicted definitive texts from the quran and the sunnah and that they had never ruled by islam. Therefore, from their opinion they don’t believe the rulers are in the same state as the one who is fought against.

Finally you say, ‘Do not other scholars say that even if he rules by "Kufr" (according to how you define it) as long as in their definition of dar al-Islam, ie: he allows you to practice your religion, then he is not fought? (see my last post) And thus are HT not bound to accept that there is no Kufr because even this issue is disputed over?’

If from your last post you are using the example of the fatwa of the occupation of Algeria and India as a basis of not fighting the ruler who is kafir and rules by kufr so long as they allow you to pray and fast then I believe you have completely misunderstood the fatwa. We know that when a land has been taken and the occupants are completely subdued and are unable to remove the occupation then the occupants are not obliged to fight, but the munkar of the occupation remains and the obligation spreads to the other muslim countries till they implement the hukm of removing the munkar i.e. the occupation. The ulema then discussed whether in such a situation it becomes obligation for the muslims who are occupied to make hijra and they said if they are allowed to pray and fast and not ordered to commit sin they can remain there. You seem to be mixing many different points into one issue that of darul islam. As I have shown even Sheikh Saeed Ramadhan al-Buti understands that just because one land maybe termed as darul islam this does not necessarily affect the other ahkam involved like removing the occupiers. And he also praised the fighting against the colonial occupiers stating, ‘Then, it would have been an obligation on all these Muslims to depart from their counties – since they are characterized as Dar-ul-Kufr – a possession of their enemies. And we would have looked at it today and seen it a legal obtained right of these tyrants and occupiers. And who knows? This might be what the "Sheikh" prefers and likes.’ [Taken from the book "Strife in Islam" (Al-Jihad fil Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Kayfa Numarisuhu), by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti, 2nd edition, Dar Al-Fikr, Damascus, Syria, 1997.] So this fatwa should not be mixed up and thus ijtihad and ta’aweel is made from the statements of scholars to then be applied to todays situation. This would be an erroneous methodology, not accepted by the hizb.

Finally after reading your article and now your specific comments to me, I find nothing that compels me to accept your argument. I have tried to be sincere and understand your arguments as clearly as I can but I cannot even find a suspicion of an evidence in accepting what you have said. Therefore, I am left with concluding that your premises either are incorrect or remain unproven, that your conclusions are thus not sound and in the matter of the hizb being forced to fight the ruler then this is plainly mistaken.

To summarise the following points are either wrong or unproven.

1. Validity of the rulers in the muslim land…. Remains unproven
2. Identification of the munkar the hizb wishes to remove…. Mis-identified
3. ikhtelaf on whether it is allowed to rule by kufr… unproven
4. Proving that this discussion is more than semantics…. Remains unproven and contradictory to statements from other scholars (see al-Buti)
5. The hizb being bound by the jihadist methodology is accepting the rulers committed kufr buwah…. Incorrect

Therefore I stand by my previous post in which I stated that your 18 page article misses the mark and cannot be substantiated due to either mistakes or incompleteness. These are just brief remarks and a lot more could be said.

I hope to see my post unedited and posted up on your blog.

Many thanks


Your Brother


Anonymous said...

I see you are selective in the comments you put up-i.e. you only put up ones you believe you can use to perpetuate your devious way of thinking.

Please take a step back and think about what you are doing to yourself- and save yourself from further self-destruction. It is not too late to choose an alternative way of dealing with your personal conflicts. May Allah save you if you deserve it and He (swt) has full knowledge of what is in the breasts of men.

Anonymous said...


Fear allah joker. You post what suits you and what you can defend. You weak and kufr ideas will come to nothing. You will be forgotten like the rest fo the traitors. By the way i am not with HT. But someone who see the shallow ideas and the fear you have of leetying people post their views. Your ignorance is such that you donot accept clear points that are made in the comments. You are insincere in this discussion. Fear Allah.

Anonymous said...

You think you have found some great answer and this has blinded you to the truth. Being a political prisonert in Egypt meant nothing as you were not there to carry dawah with Ht. You got caught up in it.

Anonymous said...

What was the Islamic legitimacy of the Ottoman Caliphate anyway? The Ottoman Sultans weren't even from the Qurayshi tribe, as is required for all candidates for the office.

Anonymous said...

The Prophet said, "Whoever does not give up false statements (i.e. telling lies), and evil deeds, and speaking bad words to others, Allah is not in need of his leaving his food and drink (fasting)." Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.83, Narrated by Abu Huraira.

Anonymous said...

Salaam Aleak Brother Majid

I hope that you have courage to listen to what people have to say about your views. I hope you publish my comment on your blog.

After watching your news night exclusive report it remind me of one of the story of British raj period of India, there was a very intelligent and very articulate man called Mirza Ahmed from Qadiyan Punjab, he was also taken part in British Raj campaign to suppress the spirit of Jihad at that time in indian subcontinent, British were recruiting and funding whoever support their campaign by using Islamic text and its terminologies, he joined that Campaign against the Jihad and its spirit with very intellectual argument and he justifies by Text of Islam that Jihad Against the British Occupation and colonisation of India is Haraam, moreover he claimed that occupied India is Darul Islam and the queen is our Caliph and we cant fight against british rule as long as they establish Namaz and Roza(Salath and Saum).He was very ambitious young man as well as an hanafi Alim he pursued on this path which led him to claim that he is the Mehdi and then He is the last Messenger (Audhubillah min zalik )

I think Majid there is a lot of similarities between his and your case. has chosen the path of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani to become the tool and to be used by british establishment and Agenceis. I would like to remind you those who chooses the path of pleasing the establishments and to fight Allah Deen they will never successful in this world and in the Aakhira their abode is Jahannam. I pray that you realise those similarities in this blessed month of ramadhan and repent and turn back to your Lord Allah Azzawajallah not British Govt.

I would like to emphasise here that by no means I am saying Majid is out of islam or anything of that nature, I was just trying to draw analogy from the initial actions of ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani that led him astray.

Wassalamu Aleakum

Abdul Wasi

abusaif said...

After watching your performance on Newsnight it seems that you have abandoned all those years of working to please Allah swt. May Allah swt guide you my dear brother

Anonymous said...

Muhammad (saw) body was delayed for burial until the sahaba elected a Khalif to which the ijmah was Abu Bakr (ra) was the successor. They delayed the burial of the most loved man amongst the Muslims as the issue of electing ONE Chlaif was deemed more important.

Why did Prophet Muhammad (saw) say if 2 Chalifs are elected then kill the latter one?

These examples/evidences clearly illustrate the importance of having ONE ruler and one system….. Al Khilafah.

If everything is Dar-ul Islam, what was the need of our beloved prophet creating an Islamic state in yathrib (madinah)? Is Britain dar-ul Islam?

If we do not have an allegiance to one Chlaiph then we will die the life of Jahiliyah.

I don’t understand how you can miss understand that Islam is a system in which humans live under in peace and tranquility, 2/3rds of the first Islamic state in Madinah were non Muslims who agreed that Islam is the best system that can unite the fighting clans, not just in the Arab lands but all over the world.

My request to you is to remove your blog, re-tract your statements as it will create confusion amongst people that Islam cannot look after the affairs of the human beings. It is proven history that the Khilafah was the only system that could integrate human beings under one system to the point even the Christian fought alongside with Muslims to defeat the crusaders.

I make duwah that Allah gives us the victory of the Khilafah in this blessed month, Ameen.

Anonymous said...

Assalamu Alaikum Maajid,
Ramadan Kareem first of all!
As someone who exited HT in the late 90's for similar reasons to yourself, I must commend you for the approach you have taken. It takes a LOT of courage and responsibility to do what you are doing and I sincerely pray that Allah gives you the Tawfeeq in your endeavors in Dunya and Akhirah for I believe you are sincere.

When I first heard about your blog on your exit from HT, I was cautiously skeptical given the unfortunate style and direction Ed Hussain has taken his campaign. You took a bit of a gamble with the News Night program given the media has had a tendency to twist things the way they want. Of course, they still played the violence angle as much as they could but Alhumdullillah, it wasn't a focus and your story came out fairly well.

A question a lot of people are asking is if you had changed your views on HT while in prison, why did you continue to represent them when you returned from Egypt in media and events. The answer to this is fairly simple I think..from my experience the transition process was not an on or off switch. It was actually quite painful as I battled with a lot inner thoughts and emotions, questioning and doubting myself looking for alternatives. While this is going on you try and continue life as normal as possible. There comes a tipping point soon though where you have to say stop and cannot continue. I'm not sure if this was the case for you.

I'm curious to hear your views on the following questions:
1. I was under the impression that HT had changed a lot since the 90's in the way they deal with other Muslim groups and opinions. I'm not in the UK so can't be sure, but in my visits and interactions with the Shabab it seems to be the case. Are you saying that polarization is still happening ?

2. In your Newsnight interview you indicated you used to advocate the destruction of the state of Israel (not sure of the exact words you used). What are your current views on Israel? Islamically, Hamas for example have similar views to HT on the status of Israel but they say that they can enter into a 10 year renewable peace treaty with them.

3. If we take the discussion on definitions of Dar-Al-Islam vs Kufr out of the equation, what do you think about Muslims striving for the application of Sharia in general in the Muslim countries? Is it an obligation (Fard Ayn or Fard Kifayah) or something praiseworthy?

4. How do you view the system of democracy keeping in mind HT definitions where it's more than just a system of election but of legislation as well. Following up from that, do you see political participation in the system in the West or the Muslim world allowed Islamically?

Just a comment in general…you talked about the cult mentality that is there in HT. I'd say that mentality is there in ANY group or organization, whether it is HT or a Sufi group (perhaps not to the same extent because the nature of the groups are different) . Not sure if you follow the traditionalist Islam circles but read for example a recent discussion that took place between Imam Suhaib Webb (he is a very popular Da'i and student of knowledge in the US, studying in Azhar) and the traditionalists in which Imam Suhaib was very critical of the cult mentality of the traditionalists

The Muslims need to grow up beyond these mentalities and realize that any progress we make will need a joint effort from all the different groups, organizations and scholars. which doesn't mean that we have to work together on everything. It could start simply by us not attacking and insulting each other and learning to respect the differences of opinion which are natural.


Anonymous said...

as-salamu `alaykum

i commend brother maajid for the courage to come out like this and address some of the problems we face as muslims, especially in the west.

it is about time hizb-ut-tahrir britain re-evaluate their stance, and work for the betterment of muslims in the UK. we have positive changes from them, which clearly prove that the party formed for the muslim lands in the 1950s, cannot operate in the reality of Britain 2007.

what i find astonishing is the number of so-called sincere brothers or sisters who have posted in the comments section, with nothing but abuse, or quesitioning brother maajid's intentions - without really addressing the points made in the article. it is this party indoctrination which makes its members believe only they are on the complete haqq.

i also criticise the party for not addressing the issues which Maajid raised on newsnight, and resorting to the usual 'khilafah is imminent' rhetorick (as it has been for 50 years), and that opinion polls time and again prove so.

the plain and simple fact is that hizb-ut-tahrir, when compared to the likes of ikhwan al-muslimun, have had comparatively little or no political success in the muslim lands with the majority of people not even knowing about them due to them being banned.

its time for the HT members to abandon this cultish organisation and attach themselves to true scholars, as we are commanded to.

Anonymous said...

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

Assalaamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu'Allahi wa Barakatuh,

My dear brother,

Please, for the sake of Allah read and consider my thoughts. I think they represent the thoughts of many, many of your brothers and sisters.

When you were in prison in Egypt I worried for you, cried for you and prayed and begged Allah for you while I myself was going through a very severe physical trial. I was constantly heartbroken for you, the other brothers and your families. When you were released, there was no one happier than me. I watched the video of your arrival and broke down with joy and release as though you were my own flesh and blood, so grateful that Allah had answered our prayers.

When I heard of your leaving the Hizb, I was surprised and looked forward to reading your reasons with great anticipation and sincerity thinking and hoping you would show us some truly great insight.

When I read your paper, I was disappointed by the way you had presented your thinking and “method”. Nevertheless I have tried to understand it and confirm whether you are in fact right. In my humble opinion, you would have garnered much more respect and authority for your argument if you had presented it as less of a attack on HT and more of a stand alone argument. You could have still refuted their ideas in a more dignified way. You should have first presented your solution, then your proofs and then you could have, if you really felt the need to, refuted the ideas of HT.

My disappointment turned to shock, then sorrow and grief when I watched you on Newsnight engaging in a vitriolic attack on your brothers. My dear brother, how could you be so naïve as to allow the kufr media to make you a pawn in their agenda against Islam? Have you completely lost the concept of al-Wala wal Bara and any political awareness? I think that if a person with intelligence lets their enemy beguile them after the truth has been made clear to them then they are responsible for their own downfall.

And then you lost most of the credibility that you had with me when you used words such as jihadists and “kill millions of people to expand”. Would you call the Sahaba jihadists, expansionists and would you say they killed hundreds of thousands to expand their state? Would you call them an expansionist cult and dangerous for their nation and for the world? La hawla wa la quwatta illa billah. My dear brother, I implore you out of deep fear for you, fear Allah.

I pray for you as I pray for myself and all the believers that Allah guides us to al-haqq. I implore to take the following advice. Please take a deep breath, leave all associations for a while, isolate yourself completely with only Allah, the Glorified and Exalted, the one who is nearer to us than our jugular vein, the one with whom we can be alone without an intercessor and with the deepest, sincerest and heartfelt prayer, call upon Him. Call upon Him to remove from your heart any falsehood and from you senses any illusion? Do some soul searching and examine your heart, to see if there may be a complaint or other negative feeling that you may hold against your brothers. Clarify your intentions and motivations. May Allah (swt) purify all our hearts and make clear to us the reality. I read a wise saying recently, ‘One of the greatest tribulations is for a servant to be guilty of dissimulation in his knowledge or actions. However, few are they who realize this.’ Remember that Allah (swt) has told us that the Shaitan can make our deeds seem alluring to us but that the sincere are protected from this. May Allah (swt) protect us from this. (Iblis) said: "O my Lord! because Thou hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on the earth, and I will put them all in the wrong, - Except Thy servants among them, sincere and purified (by Thy Grace)." (15:40-41) May Allah (swt) make and keep us of the sincere.
My dear brother, I have no connection to you except that like you I have believed in Allah and His messenger and because you stood for the Haqq, I therefore have felt this deep caring for you. The victory will be for Allah and His deen and Allah (swt) will definitely perfect his light no matter what plots and tricks the kuffar employ and those who are mislead by them. Nothing can prevent this. We just have to make sure that we are on the train to this victory and not off of it or an obstacle in its path.

My dear brother, even if you disagree with the opinion of your brothers, do not revile them nor assist the kuffar against them. Know that they are working for the deen of Allah. Even if you think they are on the wrong method, you should not help the disbelievers against them.

I still have hope that you will see the error of your ways and correct yourself. I will continue to make du'a for you insha'Allah.

Abu Hurairah (RA) related that Allaah’s Messenger (SAW) said: The believer is a mirror for the believer, and the believer is the brother of the believer. He safeguards his property for him and defends him from behind.
{Reported by al-Bukhaaree in al-Adabul Mufrad (no. 239}

Utterly Disappointed and Heartbroken

I hope that you will post my comment.

Bruce Kaylor said...


I listened to your interview on PRI's The World yesterday and was struck by your sincerity. As a complete outsider to all fundamentalist religious movements (Judaeo-Christian and Muslim) it is hard for me to understand where such a focused view of the world takes root. I truly appreciate your willingness to share and your courage to speak out against insular thinking.

This world is far too diverse and free will is far too strong for such a monolithic society to ever exist. And that is a good thing! No matter where you believe it came from, it is the wonderful diversity of this universe that makes all possible. Our very survival depends on our ability to better understand this diversity in order find our place in the world.

I think that this complex diversity is also another reason people tend to embrace such singular views. They help to make such a confusing world seem simple and focused. As attractive as this simplicity is, it is ultimately temporary. If the rise and fall of great societies has taught us anything, it is that they all eventually fail.

The only lasting great society that there will ever be is one that fully accepts both change and diversity. But perhaps that goes against the very definition of society? I hope not.


Anonymous said...

Assalam U Alaikum

Maajid, May Allah protect you and reward you for your efforts in trying to pursue the truth. I love you for the sake of Allah.

I have known you since the "Church Road" days and we eventually ended up studying law together at university years later. I have only ever known you to be seeking the pleasure of Allah in what you do.

While I stopped sharing the views of HT many years ago, I do not question, like you, the sincerity of those still with the party. It is regretful, however, to read some comments whereby supporters of the hizb question yours. Allahu musata'an.

Your brother in Islam

Anonymous said...

Salams Maajid,
I admire your courage and analysis in your endeavors and pray Allah guides us all in this month of mercy.
I would like to ask you for your reasons for going on programs like Newsnight. Wouldn't your disagreements and goals to discuss, debate and offer your viewpoints with HT be better suited to forums such as this or others in the Islamic circle?
Why take this to the general media where it may be construed that you are just seeking fame and some sort of acknowledgment and acceptance from the non-Muslim media who lets face it doesn't have your best interests at heart. They merely want the story which will support propaganda against Muslims and anything that can vaguely be construed as being militant Islam.
If your goal is to reach out to people in HT and to make them think, this will not help your cause as people will view you as an opportunist and be turned off even more.
Wallahu Alam
Your brother in Islam

Anonymous said...

Sorry to break it to you Maajid but you haven't now entered the ranks of the intelligentsia or the profound thinkers with this risible article. The arguments you have presented are as vacuous as they are sophomoric and demonstrate your lack of perspicacity when evaluating political realities against classical Islamic texts. As for your association with that academic failure currently conducting "doctoral research" into a wholly pointless subject then beware lest his buffoonery further tarnish you're already damaged reputation.

Anonymous said...

Another 'brother' who has sold out to the munafiqeen!

It best when people like you keep your opinions like you to yourself and advise people within your ex-party on some of you issues.

'Gangadin Brothers' like you should either say something useful, or stay quiet.

Allah swt will deal with you and others like you (Ed Hussain, Tariq Ramadan et al)

Anonymous said...

BROTHER... ITS NOT TOO LATE...STOP DENYING THE TRUTH...inshAllah may Allah guide dua 4 you...i have seen you speak several times and its just sad to see you on this verge of denial.

Anonymous said...

As for those who sell for a small price the covenant and faith they owe to Allah and their own plighted word for a small price, they shall have no portion in the Hereafter. Nor will Allah speak to them or look at them on the Day of Judgment, nor will He cleanse them: They shall have a grievous torment, a painful doom." [3:77]

By the Will of Allah SWT you and Majid have exposed yourself to the world. If you scan the internet 9/10 muslims view you as you are; traitors, colonialist collaborators and deviants who not only seek to protect the regimes of the Muslim world, but Israel too! Allah (SWT) has disgraced you and will ISA disgrace you further. In the hereafter, your despicable treachery will haunt you and there will be no escape by the Will of Allah (SWT).

ALLYING WITH the british and the Israelis (by openly advocating its existence) will lead to failure in this life too, when they dump you after they have manipulated YOU all they can!

The believers (Tabligi, DEOBANDI, Salafi, Ikwani, Tahriri or Sufi)will not be diverted by traitors and the march towards revival will continue. If anything, just as with the 'War on Terror' the apostasy and / or selling out of a few traitors increases the desire of the rest to want to work and revive the Muslim world.

Anonymous said...

Islam is always presented as a peaceful religion, and knowing lots of Muslims in my personal life reinforces that idea for me. I have known muslims to be kind, caring, considerate and upstanding members of society.

It's unfortunate that the Islamists, as you describe them, are busy distorting this view in the west.

I commend you on your courage to speak out where, in reality, so few have. And it's clear to see the shallow Islamist reaction on your website, resorting to petty comments and jibes.

Islamists claim they want to convert non Muslims to Islam. They should ask themselves, would a non Muslims be attracted to them or people like yourself. I know who'd I'd choose.

Maajid Nawaz said...

I am receiving many questions, in person, on my personal mail account and on this blog. As would be obvious to all those of civility, this coupled with my other life and daw'ah responsibilities means that my rate of responding to questions will inevitably be slow.

I humbly request those who are waiting to please remain patient as I can assure you that answers will indeed be forthcoming.

Thank you


Anonymous said...

Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatuh,

At this point, let it be clear that the only reason even the idea of Khilafah holds any value is because it is a tool for implementing the laws of Allah, the all-Mighty. As slaves of Allah, we are obligated to implement all of His commands, i.e. as individuals and as a nation. We do not long for Khilafah because we want personal power or we hate the kuffar or because the kuffar and the tyrants that they have installed over us are racist, or oppressive towards us or shed our blood or steal our wealth. If Allah (swt) had not commanded us to rule only by what He (swt) has revealed then we would never have to raise this call. We could sit at home and let the world take it’s course. We do not raise this call to settle personal or communal historical scores with the kuffar. We raise the call of Khilafah simply because Allah (swt) commanded us to rule by what He has revealed.

Br. Majid, my point here is this. If a person does not have the correct motivations for an action and is not clear about their motivations then even a small seed of error or delusion in their thinking will slowly take root in their heart and grow. They may be saying the right things and doing the right things but this seed will grow into a tree which will poison and devour their heart and give the Shaitan power to eventually lead them astray.

It seems from your TimesOnline article that your motivation for joining HT and working for the re-establishment of the Khilafah was based on personal emotional reasons more specifically the racism that you experienced growing up in London in the 1990’s. This racism must have felt all the more bitter since you said on BBC that your family was integrated into British society with many professionals such as doctor’s among them.

It is unfortunate that from your words it seems that it was the bitter taste of the institutional racism that led you to support the ideas of HT. Did talk of Khilafah help to nurse your injuries or did it make you feel a sense of power in world where you felt the victim? It would be natural for a young boy to feel this way but it would not be right. I am not answering these questions because only you can answer and Allah (swt) knows what the truth is. My reason for raising them is simply to ask you again to do some soul-searching to see whether you did indeed form your ideas on a shaky foundation. If your intentions were not the right ones then it is perhaps even more unfortunate for you that perhaps the actions you undertook in this state may be completely fruitless vis-à-vis the akhirah. If you had these feelings and ideas and didn’t hide them from others and were forthcoming about them, and no-one around you recognized and addressed the misconception that you held then they are also to blame.

I have tried to not make any assumptions about what is in your heart. I have only taken from your own words and posed for you some questions. If I have erred then please correct me and forgive me as your well-wishing sister in Islam. I only ask that you look for their answers within yourself with sincerity. Al-hamdulillah, Glory is to Allah that His Mercy, Guidance and Forgivness is always available to the believers.

May Allah (swt) correct the believers in their thoughts and emotions during this blessed month and guide us on the correct path. May He (swt) forgive all our sins, purify us and grant us a clean slate. May He (swt) help us to account ourselves before we are brought to account. May He open for us the gates of His Mercy, His Forgiveness and of Jannat and never close them and may He close the gates of Hell-fire and His punishment and anger and never open them. May He (swt) grant comfort, steadfastness, protection to those of this ummah who are suffering and oppressed. May guide the sincere souls to His guiding light. May the mercy, the light, the beauty of Islam be available for all to experience. May the deen of Allah be established at the hands of His sincere, devoted and humble slaves.

May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you and all the believers.

Not so confused anymore but still saddened

jazakumAllah khair for posting my earlier comment. plz do post this as well.

Anonymous said...

AoA Brother Majid,

I must admit that the news of your quitting hizb ut tahrir came as a surprise. When i heard that you have written an article explaining the reasons why you quit, i was anxious to know why a person like yourself felt to take such an extreme step. I must also admit that i read your article reluctantly and with a fear in my mind, believing that you would have a solid reason to leave HT. I feared that your reasoning may as well confuse me. I kept reminding myself that no matter what, i would stick to this dawah because it is Fardh. With this fear i read your article, and i must say i was relieved, disappointed and saddened. Relieved for myself, that the article didnt create anything substantial to confuse a normal shab of Hizb. Disappointed that a person like yourself should present such shallow arguments to leave HT. Saddened that you chose not only to publically attack HT but vowed to undo what you call your past mistakes.
Please brother, fear Allah. You have been long enough in Hizb to know that i am not asking this from you because it would hurt dawah or Hizb, i am asking you this because it would hurt you.

Alhumdulilah, Hizb has seen through and faced many challenges. You are not the first one to leave nor the first to try to malign the efforts of Hizb, and you know it, perhaps better than i do, that Hizb has stood out at all such criticism by the Grace of Allah.

Brother by Allah, I am only writing this comment because of care and love for you, for I fear for you. As for dawah, this is Allah's work and Allah protects it.

Kindly hold on to your nerves, and resist the urge of adrealine. Thirteen years with the Hizb, through hot and cold times, and now you choose to leave at a time when we are almost there. When it is time to reap the rewards of the hard effort you and your brothers in dawah have been putting in for the past 54 years.As i said before your leaving doesnt matter, what is saddening and what makes your brothers cry is that you should not only just leave at a time when we are almost at our goal, but you also want to disassociate yourself and undo your previous efforts for the cause of this dawah.

You accuse hizb of superimposing a political ideology on theological interpretations, while you yourself have been holding the same view for the group which you have joined now. The Maulvis and Scholars, on government pay rolls, or who dont have the courage to stand up to the dictatorial regimes, superimposing the justification of their corrupt rule on theological interpretations, thus protecting them.

Brother it seems you want to wipe out the khair of your past and i fear Allah for you and i pray to him, that he guides you. The regret when once this State is a reality would be too much for you to bear. I invite you to think and think again, and cut yourself off from this tempting world for a while and ponder over your doings. Its never too late to return.

I pray to Allah that May he give Istiqamah to every brother in dawah, and May HE save us, the dawah carriers, and the Ummah from the torment of fire.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Reply to Al's comment:

Note 1: Dear readers, apologies for the length of this reply, but it is written to respond to a lengthy comment.

Note 2: Apologies for late responses but I am now involved in trying to finish my second article and thus I will not be as free to reply to everything as fast as you would all have liked.

Dear “Al”:
Considering that you began your article with an apology for your delayed response I am saddened that you deemed it necessary to follow up your post with two further comments implying that my delay was due to my inability to answer you. Humility is important in a discussion, especially since anything you post up will only ever be your view. Perhaps, dear abu Laith, you should not be so quick to assume that I have not thought out my views, especially so since you know me so well. If the timing is an issue for you, I am more than willing to meet you in person and discuss. Please give me a call, if you have not deleted my number. The point you made about removing moderation from my blog is both impractical and a double-standard. Impractical because though I am posting up most of the abuse posted to me by your “Islamic”colleagues, there is some that I just cannot publish. A double-standard because your HTB website and your HT global website are also moderated. I await your phone call in earnest.

Answering your questions:

1) Though I said that assuming the ruler is valid will be discussed in my next article, it is still possible to make this point here. The only reason I tried to avoid it was so that we didn't get bogged down on this point.

This point can still be made here because the Ulema considered that a ruler who is Muslim is the bare minimum needed to maintain his validity in Dar al-Islam as defined by them. This is factually a narration of the stance taken by many Ulema. You may not like it, or agree with it, but you have no way of denying that it is factually the view of many Ulema. My article cites this is the view of Imam al-Rafi'i of the Shafi'is, where he says that merely being in the hands of the Imam and his Islam is sufficient for a land to be Dar al-Islam. It also cites ibn Hazm where he considers that a land is associated to its ruler, hence for him a land with a Muslim ruler means that it is Dar al-Islam (please check the article for citations).

Thus, these scholars consider that a land is Dar al-Islam due to it having a Muslim Imam, (that is why al-Rafi'i refers to him as an Imam in his quote). Please take care to avoid mixing scriptural and scholarly quotes on the “obligation of a ruler adhering to the Shari'ah” with this discussion on when a ruler becomes invalid. They are two different topics. You will find that most Ulema considered any Dar al-Islam with a Muslim ruler a legitimate arrangement, though if he fell short of his duties by misapplying the Shari'ah they did not condone that. This is narrated by Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in fath al-Bari as the ahl-Sunnah view, where he says that only by a ruler becoming a disbeliever does he invalidate his ruler.

2) Now on to your point addressing whether there is a Munkar to forbid:

You asked: the term Aqeedah didn't exist and so does that mean that there was no Aqeedah?

My brother abu Laith, yes, Aqeedah as a term never existed, and is differed over, but then that is merely a definition given for what you believe is a definitive and rational belief that requires no scriptural evidences to support it anyway. The same applies for the term Qur'an and any other emotive Aqeedah example you may bring.

What we are discussing is a difference over a legal definition, upon which action must or must not be taken ie: Hukm Shari'i. And as I have shown in one of my comments, as well as above in this answer, this is not a semantic dispute but rather carries with it implications for when security in a land to practice Islam is exchanged for security granted to the ruler to remain in place. Many Ulema said that the ruler being a Muslim is sufficient for this to occur in Muslim lands, and in the case of occupation in Hind and North Africa, they said that once the resistance had failed it was acceptable, though not desirable, that if Muslims could practice their religion they should cease fighting even the occupier (this will be judged by time and place by the Ulema of any region, and is not a general fatwa - as they never are). You may not like these views, you may not agree with them, but you cannot deny their existence, and their subsequent implication that this debate is not over semantics.

3) Your quotation of Sh. Ramadan al-Buti surprises me abu Laith. You have used a quote that further demonstrates my point. Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti, whose stance with the Syrian regime is well known, and is the antithesis of your stance, is saying that Palestine is still Dar al-Islam, but the obligation to remove the occupation remains. This is totally different to propagating that the Syrian regime is theologically invalid and must be militarily removed. Please do not mix up the discussion of the obligation to reform and remove corruption or occupation, with the question of the theological invalidity of the Syrian regime. I also remind you that the various opinions quoted above by me, demonstrate that the matter of when to cease fighting occupation is differed over. This does not preclude action in itself, because one is allowed to follow ones opinion, but it does preclude action where the condition set for such action is decisiveness (Qat'a). Thus, one may follow their subjective opinion (and ignore others) in executing an executive action, such as whether to repel aggressors or not (even if the matter is differed over) but HT cannot enact their opinion to remove systems and rulers that “rule with Kufr” if Kufr cannot be shown, but only a difference of opinion. This is so because for them such Kufr must be Qati'i, and thus my point is not that one cannot act out ones subjective ijtihad (legal opinion) in any action (including removing occupation) but that HT cannot act out their opinion of removing “systems and rulers of Kufr” if they have stipulated the condition they must reach to do this is definitiveness, yet some Ulema consider it acceptable for the land merely to be in the hands of a Muslim.

I also implore you to cite Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti more often in your talks and articles, you will find that not only does he consider Syria Dar al-Islam, but that he forbids the militarily overthrow of the Syrian regime. In summary, the Shaykhs stance is that Dar al-Islam with who he considers a Muslim ruler (Syria) is not theologically illegitimate, but that the rulers of occupied Dar al-Islam (Palestine), must be resisted. This second point is differed over (as I have quoted in my previous comment about India and North Africa) but such a difference doesn't preclude executive action because one hasn't stipulated that such an action must derive from a Qati'i source, unlike HT who stipulate that the action to remove the “Kufr systems” must derive form Qati'i evidences. If you cannot see this, I ask you to think about it from this angle: you made the point that the Sabab (of Kufr) is the real issue at hand, is not that very same Sabab present in Syria for Shaykh al-Buti to see? Why does he not see that Sabab in Syria then?

Also my dear brother, for arguments sake, even if you had demonstrated that the issue in Shaykh al-Buti's Palestine example is a semantic one, how does that remove the historical fact, and I repeat, historical fact, that for the Deobandi scholars of Hind and the Sufi scholars of North Africa, it wasn't a semantic one (in the very same example of occupied land), as I have quoted. All you would have proved is that it is semantic for this one scholar, in this one issue.

Proving one scholars opinion doesn't automatically invalidate the opinion of another scholar, and that is going to be a constant weakness in your argument, because it is always going to be easier for me to prove dissent (all I need to do is prove that one classical opinion exists), than for you to prove definitiveness (you'll need to prove that no one said the opposite of what you say, and that no one possibly could have or ever can).

4) About your point on Ikhtilaf (difference) on ruling by Kufr.

If you read what I said carefully my friend, you will see that I wrote exactly the following:
“you assume that there is no Ikhtilaf on the meaning of “ruling by Kufr”....” (end of quote).
Thus, what I said was, how one defines “ruling by Kufr” is differed over. I didn't say that ruling by Kufr itself is allowed. I repeat, I said that what that actually means is differed over. I repeat once again, so that none of your less than Islamic supporters declare Takfir (ex-communicate) me, I didn't say that ruling by Kufr is allowed, I said: what that actually means is differed over. I hope that is now clear. Next time, please pay attention to my words on such precarious topics such as Iman and Kufr, JazakAllah khayr.

You state that this is not substantiated in the first article, and so where does this leave the first article. It leaves it exactly as I have stated, that by defining a land wherein one can practice ones faith as Dar al-Islam, some Ulema grant such a place the status of a land of security and stability, not one where you can work to undermine the secuirty and stablity of a ruler who has allowed you to practice your Deen. Their main concern in doing so (as is abundantly clear in my article citation of Imam al-Ramli's fatwa) was the spread of the religion, and not political ambitions, as the Deen for them was about spreading the religion to all, not seeking power. They had the foresight to recognise that political stances come and go, but the creed is what should be spread to people. My major mistake was assuming that a HT readership would enter this discussion fully realising the Shari'i implication of defining a land as Dar al-Islam.

5) My point about the French occupation was not to make it binding upon the Ummah. I was merely demonstrating that it is not a semantic debate. I have already mentioned this above. Hence, your point about Shaykh al-Buti's apparent semantic definition (to which I do not conceded) should also not be binding upon the Ummah, true? So just because you can prove that it is not semantic for one scholar doesn't mean that it is not semantic for another. I advise that you stop trying to prove that some scholars agreed with you (by their usage of the term in a semantic way), and start trying to prove that no scholars disagreed with you (by their usage of the term in a non semantic way)....then and only then will you be addressing the issue.

6) As for your point labelled number 4. May I humbly advise you, my dear friend, that it doesn't help the discussion for you to state that I have a shallow, superficial or incorrect understanding of party culture and Usul al-Fiqh, just because I now disagree with your party, such talk is superfluous.

The point I was making is, I believe, quite clear. HT adopts that the lands are Dar al-Kufr, due to the presence of Kufr in the laws. Other scholars believe that they are Dar al-Islam simply by there being security to practice the Deen. This is not a semantic issue. Therefore, it is a legitimate legal difference that has implications. The ruler, according to those opinions that define the lands as Dar al-Islam, is a theologically valid ruler so long as he is Muslim. Hence, the ruler is theologically valid according to a valid Islamic opinion. HT must recognise, though not agree with, this legal difference as an Islamic opinion. Thus, according to HT, it is an Islamic opinion that the Muslim ruler cannot be removed in what is a valid definition of Dar al-Islam. Therefore, according to HT, the ruler is a theologically valid ruler. It matters not whether the logic of legitimacy is another scholars being imposed upon them, because HT binds itself to recognise as “Hukm Shari'i for all Muslims” (see article for citation) any valid Islamic opinion.

7) I agree with your final point about not mixing up issues. May Allah protect us from that. I think that you will find that the classical Ulema deemed it acceptable that any ruler who is Muslim, in a land where the Deen can be practised, is a theologically valid ruler. I suggest that you start with Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti himself, and his views regarding Syria, that you consider is a Kufr regime, with a ruler ruling by Kufr.

8) In summary I will now address your summary:

i) Validity of the rulers in Muslim lands: I believe that it is indeed proven because this article demonstrates that a land is Dar al-Islam as long as the Deen can be practised. My assumption was that the Shari'i implications of this argument were understood by all. I hope that the discussion in this comments section has finally clarified the Shari'i implications of deeming a Muslim land to be Dar al-Islam, as it grants security to the ruler in return for security to the inhabitants to practise their religion.

ii) Your point about the Munkar that HT wants to remove:
I hope that I have shown that your 'Sabab of removing a ruler is Kufr' point is not considered the Sabab by other Ulema. Hence, whether such a Munkar warrants the removal of the ruler is differed over. This doesn't preclude it from being a Munkar, but it isn't the actual Munkar required for removing the ruler according to other classical Ulema.

iii) I never said that there is Ikhtilaf on whether it is allowed to rule by Kufr, I said that there is Ikhtilaf on what “ruling by Kufr” actually means. Also, I didn't claim this in the article itself but in the comments section, and my second article will InshaAllah show this.

iv) On the semantics point: I have clarified above that it is you who must prove that no scholar used these terms in a non-semantic way, not me who must disprove that one did. Merely by (I believe incorrectly) demonstrating that one did consider it semantic, this doesn't prevent there being a difference on this very issue by another. I have quoted others for whom it wasn't semantic, and you must accept the historic fact that they used these terms in a non-semantic way,.

v) I stand by my conclusion, and have shown why HT is bound to accept that the lands being Dar al-Islam is an Islamic opinion for all Muslims. Thus they are still bound by the two point conclusion.

Therefore I stand by my article and pray that Allah (swt) opens up your heart to my words my dear friend. Perhaps we should meet?


Maajid Nawaz said...

Assalamu alaykum

In the interests of a fair and open debate I would like to inform all readers that a response to my article has been written.

I earnestly advise all readers to take the time out to read this response.

As a prelimiary remark, before responding in every detail to the response, I will say that there are certain factual errors made in the analysis:

1) I am not and never have been an agent of any country's security services. I am dismayed that the level of the debate has stooped so low. Especially since one person cited in this article as authority for such points has also written articles explicitly claiming that HTB are also agents of, and have been penetrated by, UK security services. These articles making such claims by the same author are freely available on the net for all to see. It seems that HT supporters are prepared to grab at anything rather than focus on the issues.

2) My article references are not misquotations, and that is shown by the respondant himself. He cites the "full" quote of my Imam al-Bujayrimi citation (which incidentally I had already posted up on here in my comments section anyway). The quote he uses is this:

"(About Dar al-Islam) that Muslims live there and if with them there, there were ahl al-dhimma, OR it was opened up by muslims, OR it was given to govern by the hand of non-muslims OR they were living there and were expelled by the kuffar from it."

And in his Nihaya al-Muhtaj he provides a fuller definition of Dar al-Islam : "Dar al-Islam is the entire land where the Islamic laws (ahkam al-Islam) appear and it is intended by the phrase "appearance of the Islamic rules", every rule from its rule, OR Muslims live there and if with them there, there were ahl al-dhimma, OR it was opened up by muslims, OR it was given to govern by the hand of non-muslims OR they were living there and were expelled by the kuffar from it."

Strangely, the author then proceeds to state that my quoting merely one of the Imams definitions from this list of definitions provided by the Imam(all of which come with the word OR between them) betrays the context of the quote that clearly proves that the intended meaning of the Imam is that the for the lands to be considred dar al-Islam they must be ruled by "the Shari'ah laws".

I find it very strange indeed that the author has missed that the word OR is in between every category of the Imams various definitions. This clearly means that for the Imam, the land is dar al-Islam if any ONE of the categories in this list is achieved, which is why he uses the word "OR". Hence, quoting the full citation (though already done on this blog) takes nothing away from the meaning of quoting merely one of the categories on the Imams list, because ONE category would indeed suffice due to his usage of the word "OR". By way of example, If I say to person x, "you may have £10 if you give me a lift OR arrange a lift for me", all person x has to do is ONE of my two conditions to get the £10, because i used the word "OR".

3) It is factually wrong that the murder in East Ham college was drugs related. This is factually wrong by police records, court records, and by eye witness testimony (I was one of the many eye witnesses interviewed by the police). The author fails to substantiate this, and instead insists that the murderer had no link to HT.

I was the HT representative and President of the Students union on site. The man convicted for the murder came on campus as my friend and "Party contact", his name was Saeed Nur. His only link to that college was through us. He was not a student and the first time he came to campus was as our guest.

The author then claims that I (the HT man on campus)am eager to distance myself from all personal responsibilty for this incident, despite in the same article stating that HT (ie: me on campus)were not responsible.

However, I did exactly that in my Newsnight interview wherein I stated that though I am not responsible for the murder (I had no direct or indirect part in the criminal act itself) I am responsible for creating an atmosphere where that was possible. I also stated that the murder occurred due to Muslims of all ethnicities bonding on a "Musilm idenitity" to challenge an opposing gang of Nigerians, thus it was a gang murder, in which HT played no direct part. However, it was primarily us HT activists that provided that gang culture with a "Muslim" identity.

I remind the author that non-eye witness accounts posted on internet chat forums by HT supporters, claiming that the murder was drugs related are not objective sources. In one occasion a non-eye witness source who wasn't even a student on campus has relied on, and cited, their closeness to me personally to lend authority to their claim made on a chat forum that it was soley gang related. However, if they derive authority for their point from their association to me, yet I (an eye witness and the HT activist that invited Saeed Nur on campus) am saying differently, where does that leave such opinions?

4) As for footnote 90, it is absurd. As a fact, I attended no clandestine, subversive secret meetings to undermine HT whilst I was a member. This claim is laughable and wholly unsubstantiated.

The rest of the claims made in the article are, I believe, of a similar vein, and I hope to address it point by point as soon as I can. In the meantime, I humbly ask that you are patient with me as I am also trying to get the second article finished, whilst balancing my many other commitments.

The response is to be found at:

I hope you have a good read.

Maajid Nawaz said...

My dear sister "heartbroken"

I thank you for your comment,

What I meant by my words in my Times article, and also my interviews, is that such treatment during my youth acted as the 'shocks' necessary to be an impetus for me to start thinking about political issues, and to be willing to consider an alternative lifestyle.

Once I had understood HT's ideas, however, I adopted them purely on the basis of Islam, and then dedicated what I could of my life to this cause. I believe that all change in thoughts comes through such 'shocks' as even Shaykh Nabhani described in "Takattal al-Hizbi".

My explanation should suffice for you, as you cannot look into my heart, and thus I trust that you will need no further clarification on my motives for joining, staying with, or leaving HT.

My dear sis, there is no reason to be heartbroken. If I am eventually shown to be correct then you will rejoice at discovering the truth, as your happiness is in seeking Allah's (swt) pleasure alone. If I am shown to be wrong, then you will be glad that a bad apple has been removed from your ranks, and that your body has been puried, thus making you stronger to carry the call without such weaknesses to contaminate your ideological purity. Either way, please do not be heartbroken, for Allah (swt) will look after his Deen, and He is in no need of us to perfect His light.


Your brother

Anonymous said...

assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatuh,

Dear brother in Islam,

JazakumAllah khair for you reply and for explaining yourself. There is no further need for clarification. There was no need for one in the first place. The issue is between you and Allah (swt). My request was only that you be clear with yourself as the Prophet (saw) told us that the deen is naseeha. So my only aim in giving naseeha is to seek the pleasure of Allah (swt). I pray that He makes clear to us all what is in our hearts.

As for my sadness and sorrow, just so you are clear about my motivations, I will relate the following. Umar bin al Khattab , the real amir ul-mu'mineen was once passing by a monastery and he wept when he saw a monk doing his rituals. He was sad that this person was working so hard and yet he was wasting all his efforts for something that would only take him to the hell-fire. This was because Islam made him care for all people and their akhira.

Dear brother, I am not calling you a disbeliever nor even comparing you to a one rather I am comparing my sadness to the sadness that Umar felt when he saw a person who was expending his efforts towards a futile goal. The sadness we feel is all the more when we feel that a Muslim, our brother, has turned towards the wrong path. This alone is the source of the grief.

As for the victory of Allah, indeed it is not in need of the help of any particular person or group. Allah (swt) will indeed perfect His light as you have stated. However, I just want to clarify that the victory of Allah will come through the hands of the believers, so we still need to work for it. It is not that angels will descend from heaven and institute the laws of Allah (swt). It's similar to the saying of Allah that the Quran would be preserved by Him and the understanding of this by the Sahaba. Umar understood it as that the Quran would be preserved by Allah (swt) but through the efforts of the Muslims. Khair, I am sure you already understand this.

And yes brother, because your arguments are indeed superficial, mis-informed and weak and therefore as you said, al-hamdulillah that Allah (swt) has purified the ranks of those who are working in His cause on the correct method. You have confused the rules of Shariah with definitions which are just used to characterize a certain reality. You do not consider what the purpose of the definition was and hence the shallow analysis. If I am wrong then may Allah (swt) correct me in an easy and gentle way. Ameen.

I hope that you will be sincere in following the truth even if it leads to you recanting the ideas of which you have now become the proponent of. I also hope that as ready as you were to abandon all that you had believed in before because you thought you had found what looked like the truth, you will be as ready to abandon it if you start doubting it’s validity.

May Allah make clear to us the truth, guide us on it and make us of those who fight for it. May Allah (swt) also clarify for us the falsehood, distance us from it and stand us in firm opposition to it.

Walaykum assalaam wa rahmatu’Allahi wa barakatuh

Anonymous said...

Asalaam Brother Majid

The article by abu-ibrahim is well thought out and written. May Allah guide us all in this blessed month of Ramadhan to find the truth and avoid any issues of pride. Just a quick thought on your quick response, you mentioned that "or" meant any of the conditions, but the condition of "or Muslims live there even if there were with them ahl al-dhimma" as Abu-Ibrahim mentions the issue of a ahl al-dhimma is linked to the rule of Islam. So the arguement you are trying to present is not supported by this point.

May Allah(swt) guide you to the truth.

Ibn Adam said...

Please find my respone here.

Anonymous said...


Reading the anti-Maajid responses just makes me believe that we REALLY need to route out extremists and crush them all. All of us, Muslims, non-muslims, British, American, Egyptian, humans with brains generally.

There's not much wrong with what he's saying but the extremists are so unvbelievably politisised, agendasised, brainwashed and hell bent on their goal that they act like kids who've had their toys taken away...

As for abu ibrahims blog its starts out pretending to be a research paper but its a thinly (if at all) disguised rant at him having his toys taken away like all the other haters.

Who does a research paper under a pseudonym anyway? Be man enough to come out and be named like Maajid.

Anonymous said...

Why have you taken the post off abu-ibrahim blog?

Anonymous said...

yes i agree there are some that use islam to justify thier political objectives. anyone who wants to have something any any culture, religion, past and future civilisations will manipulate the truth to get what they want but Hizb ut Tahrir are not doing this if they were they would far from islam and supporters would be of a mimimum. For you to say HT are off the line of islam then this assumes the millions of supporters are with them without any deep intellectual pondering before lending a hand to them.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear anonymous,

I don't believe I have the power or ability to take off posts from other peoples blogs. I think it's still up there, try having a look without being signed on to gmail, there may be a blip in the system.


Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear Abu Hassan,

With respect, I disagree. The insertion of "even if Ahl al-Zimma live there" into Imam al-Bujayrimi's definition does not imply that the laws of Islam are implemented in any way. All it implies is that a Muslim ruler has granted non-Musilms the right to live there in return for them pying a tax (and Imam sl-Shafi'i said that the tax does not have to be called Jizya, as long as it is a tax).

How you jump from this issue (a Muslim ruler granting status to non-Muslims) to the claim that the whole of Shari'ah being enforced on state level is what the Imam meant, is beyond me.


Anonymous said...

Dear Majid,

The quote which you mention does imply that a tax, call it Jizya or something else is required right? I'd like to make two suggestions to you which should conform with your your current line of thinking:

1)Call the non muslims currently residing in the muslim lands dhimmi as this is the "traditional" word used. Lets avoid using "innovative" new words such as "non muslims"

2)Call the rulers to impose a tax on these dhimmi so that the land fits in more closer to the definition of dar ul islam

I'm sure you can see how nonsensical this points are. Its not beyond simple reasoning to deduce that the quote stated implied a lot more then what you saying which is similar to the above two points.

May Allah(SWT) guide us and keep us on the straight path

Ibn Adam said...

Well Maajid we then have a series of possibilites which are contradictory for Imam Bujayrimi. In the first part of the phrase he has the crucial part "every law" to clarify what he meant. He either believes all are possible which is a manifest contradiction. (I mean you cant have a definition that allows some application and one that is universal in application) or he is just listing a series of possibilites and not supporting any. If the latter is the case then you are again misquoting by claiming that one of the possibilities is his position.

Finally what about the last possibilty where the muslims are driven out. Is that Dar Islam to you? What about your consensus?

It just gets worse for you Maajid doesnt it.

Anonymous said...

Maajid, I left a question for you which you have selectivley left out, while it appears that you leave in particularly degrading insults like "u Israeli tart"....Why is it that you don't censor that too? My question was:

Why is that after 4 years of thinking and studying in prison you continued at your more mature age of 28 or so to propogate and promote HT...You were released in March 2006, yet I saw you in December 2006 (5 months before you left) speaking so passionatley about the need for the Khilafah and asking people to join HT. It certainly didn't sound like a man who had a any doubts about his beliefs. And then 5 months later we find you going against everything that you spoke of. Its abit like Nick Griffin (BNP) announcing in 5 months time that he supports integration and immigration, and would like to see more blacks in the country.

Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear Abunuha,

With respect, you are just plain wrong. The presence of Ahl Dhimma simply means that they are present. Their presence does not mean that the entire "Islamic ruling system" as you would have it, is stipulated as a condition.

To make such an assumption is just too much a leap of faith, and smacks of a desperate need to disprove that there was Ikhtilaf over the definitions of Dar a-Islam.

The fact is, and you must concede this as it is plain for all to see, that the definitions are and were differered over, even the author of the apparent attempt to respond to my article must concede that.

I look forward to your comments on my next article that aims to prove there is no "Kufr" in the regimes and laws.


Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear anonymous,

Please refrain from assuming that I "selectively left your comment out". You don't know what is in my heart and it befits you not to try and appear as if you do, for you will fail point both rationally and textually.

As for your question, I believed that I had answered it already but will nevertheless answer it again:

1) Since what I will now say concerns my own thoughts and my own motives, my answer must be received by you as a fact, because no one is permitted to suspect anothers intentions Islam.

2) Fact one: I had many doubts in prison, and I had alot of time to develop my thoughts.

3) Fact two: I didn't voice them because I hadn't reached the level of certainty needed to leave, and was bound by Party adoption which means that it would have been a violation of my oath to speak out.

4) Fact three: I decided (since my doubts were not matters of certainty) that I would leap back into the Da'wah to recover my lost zeal in an attempt to ignore my doubts, and convinced myself that I was bound by adoption to propogate the same ideas. This was a period of pyschological denial, after 12 years of being in HT.

5) Fact five: My doubts only grew and grew. The more talks I did, trying to ignore them, the more they grew.

6) Eventually, the doubts became too big, and I unilaterally withdrew from all activities (around my exam time), in a way that didn't break my oath and didn't involve sedition. I also agreed (upon request of your leadership) to remain quiet for a while.

7) Then, I announced my resignation, after a few days of agreed upon respite for your leadership.

8)Then, I secluded myself to gather my thoughts (agian agreed with your leadership).

9) Then I announced my thoughts

Whether you choose to continue in your line of doubting or not is down to your own weakness. If you like (and since you claim to know me) I will meet you to relieve you of any further whisperings.

However, what seems to me to be relevant now are the issues themselves, and not why I left in a way that you found uncomfortable.



Maajid Nawaz said...

ibn Adam

It seems that you cannot come to terms with the fact that the definitions are disputed. It is a fact. Please just accept it.

Can you not accept that perhaps people read quotes and understand them in a different way to yo? Does it have to be about proving who is "misquoting"? Why are you guys so intent on proving insincerity?

As for your question: there will be a detailed response to that article InshaAllah. However, I invite you to consider that the "appearance" of all of the Islamic rulings in society is not the same as their "implementation on state level as law".

And as for your question about Dar al-Islam and occupation, yes, some scholars do still consider that dar al-Islam, with the obligation of resisting being dependant upon capability.


Anonymous said...

"Why are you guys so intent on proving insincerity?"

Majid, it's a religious pathology.

Anonymous said...

Brother Majid you said

"How you jump from this issue (a Muslim ruler granting status to non-Muslims) to the claim that the whole of Shari'ah being enforced on state level is what the Imam meant, is beyond me." is less of a jump tham trying to use this quote to justify that Darul Islam is where islamic laws were not present and the authority of islam is not present and that it was just where muslims lived with non-muslims in peace. I fail to see how this quote or any other quote justifies this position. Also can you please clarify if you accept abu-ibrahims position about the point that the discussion of darul Islam in the contect of the Ijtijhad of HT. Also please let us know what points you agree and disagree with in his article. From my understanding of the articles in question, your attempt at using the hizbs adopted culture to disaprove their method using the arguement of darul Islam has failed as they donot use this arguement to build their method. PLease respond to the article of abu-ibrahim and where you agree and disagree with sincerity

May Allah(swt) reward you for the good you do and forgive you for the msitakes that you make

Maajid Nawaz said...

Maajid Nawaz said...
To ibn Adam, whoever you may be,

I have read all your comments on your site and what you have posted me. Due to the extremely confident nature in which you believe yourself to be so right, and believe that you can address the meaning of my words and intent without seeking clarification from me, I ask you to end this banter over messages and meet me prsonally instead. I have found that personal meetings usually bring out the "brotherly" politeness of many who are quite rude or sarcastic whilst anonymously posting on the internet. Moreover, it is much faster when speaking to clarify any misunderstandings.

I look forward to you posting me your contact details (don't worry I won't publish them and reveal your identity), alternatively, I'm sure you can get hold of my number so go ahead and just phone me. I have asked that of Abu Laith too, so if you know him please remind him that I would like to meet him as I am yet to hear from him.



Maajid Nawaz said...

Dear Abu Hasan,

You mentioned that you don't see how any quote supports the claim that Dar al-Islam is a place wherein Muslims reside. It is a fact that there are many Ulema who hold on to the view that Dar al-Islam is where Muslims live and practise their religion, without these scholars refering to the rulings of Islam being the law of the land. My article is full of such references. You may not like this fact, but nevertheless it is true.

The way in which you are reading Imam al-Bujayrimi's quote, that it stipulates the condition of every one of the rulings of Islam being made into state law, as a condition for Dar al-Islam is plain wrong.

He mentioned the word "Zuhur" in the Arabic. That means "appearance". Appearance of "every ruling of Islam" can occur in any way (as it is unrestricted), and it doesn't have to occur on the state level as law (why have you restricted it to this?).

Ask yourself this: why is it when he mentiones 'appearance of the every one of the rulings of Islam (ahkam al-Islam)" you automatically read this as "implementation on state level the state laws of Islam".

My dear brother, you are assuming, firstly, that "appearance" means the same as executing on state level; and secondly, you are reading the words Ahkam al-Islam (rulings of Islam) as "state laws of Islam", and you are interpreting the word "laws" in its modern (post nation state) concept of state laws applied on a national level.

Well, in fact, even Shaykh Nabhani (see Muqaddimat Distur) believes that the state doesn't have to adopt state laws from the Ahkam of Islam, and that the ideal scenario is that the judges settle disputes without adoption by the state (as it was in the past).

This alone should demonstrate to you that if a classical jurist said the "appearance of every one of the rulings of Islam" they meant their appearance in society, ie: the practice of Islam by the people. This is because they didn't have states that had statutes and legislation until the later period. Rather, they ruled by the orders of the Imam.

Hence, I believe that it is incorrect to super-impose a modern political understanding of statehood and legislation upon these texts. This is the 'innovation' I was talking about in HT's thinking, and what I meant by the word innovation was it's linguistic meaning of something new. And this is where I disagree with the apparent attampt at responding to my article.

As I have said to you, I am working on many things at once, including my second article proving that there is no Kufr in the regimes and laws. Thus, I cannot immediately do a point by point rebuttal of the many HT critics who critique what I have written.

I would have hoped though that all Muslims, you included, would find it distasteful that such articles focus on my motives and intentions, using sarcastic or insulting language. I would have thought that people wouldn't turn a blind eye to the excesses of someone in their camp just because he is writing what they are desperate to hear. And Allah (swt) warns.

"Kullu Hizbin bi ma Ladayhi Farihun"
'And every party rejoices in what it has'

And may Allah (swt) also forgive your mistakes and reward your good actions

Maajid Nawaz said...

Salam Abu Layth (AL)

If you look far above you will see that your comment is indeed posted, and has been since the day that I posted my reply. It just chose to slot itself up there!

Please now call me, as a brother should, and we can discuss this matter face to face InshaAllah.