| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Fighting the War of Ideas: Myth and Reality |
05 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
In contrast, HT derives the rules of political change from the divine revelation as found in the Qur'an and Sunnah.The grassroots of the movement of HT includes all types of people such as farmers, workers, employees, landlords, merchants, teachers, doctors, engineers, professors and others. Lenin propagated the conflicts between the classes of the society in an attempt to create a big rift between the classes as a pretext for the revolutionary change. HT, on the other hand, believes that all the people in the society should be the base for the change, and no antagonism is propagated. HT states [7]:
“The three groups which stand in the face of HT's mission are the rulers, the dark forces, and the ones obsessed with the foreign culture. The plan of the imperialists is to place these forces as rocks in the face of the Call to delay its progress towards achieving the objective. The imperialists know that these rocks do not prevent the Hizb from achieving the objective, although it causes delays. Therefore, the Hizb must avoid the clash with these groups (rocks) and any other rock to be placed in front of him. These rocks must become building blocks of the castles rather than obstacles. In other words, these groups must be won towards the Call. At least it must be understood by them and by all that they are only tools in the hands of the imperialists. If it is not possible to win them over, at least avoid their impact.”
This philosophical argument of HT is fundamentally distinct from the Leninist strategy, which is based on the struggle and conflicts between classes. As I said in the beginning of this section, I do not intend to carry a thorough comparative analysis in this article. However, there is clear evidence that there is no resemblance between HT's strategy and the Leninist one. In the mean time, I think that a thorough analysis is worth pursuing. It is worth mentioning though, that HT published a book entirely devoted to the disproof of the Marxist-Leninist theory [8]. HT provided a thorough criticism of the communist ideology in the book "System of Islam", which is considered the foundation of HT doctrines. The communist economic system is heavily criticised in the book "The Economic System in Islam" published by HT in 1953.
Does HT have a Wahhabi Theology?
Baran claims that HT has a Wahhabi theology, among other things which make HT a real threat:
“By combining fascist rhetoric, Leninist strategy, and Western sloganeering with Wahhabi theology …”
Here again, Baran does not provide any reference for such a claim and nor does she highlight any aspects of similarity between HT doctrines and those of Wahhabism.The purpose of associating HT with Wahhabism is to build an indirect link between HT and terrorism. The western media has already built a case that many of those who are accused of terrorism belong to the Saudi Wahhabi theological school. When Baran says that HT adopts the Wahhabi school of thought, she immediately builds a case against HT. The irony is that she provides no evidence to substantiate this claim, even though it should not be difficult to prove or disprove it. The Wahhabi school of thought is well known in the Muslim world, and the scholars who belong to this school are many and accessible via their websites and official status in Saudi Arabia. It suffices to quote any of the Wahhabi scholars and seek a professional opinion.This is only a shortcut which leads to fair conclusions. A more thorough analysis is warranted if this claim were to bear any credibility.
My quick thought on this issue is that, historically, the Wahhabi movement has been closely associated with Saudi Arabia. Its propagation outside Saudi Arabia has always been enabled by scholars who studied in Saudi schools of Shari'ah. The founder of HT (An-Nabhani) was educated in Al-Azhar in Egypt, which is known not to be on friendly terms with the Wahhabi school of thought.The successor of the first leader of HT (Abdul Qadeem Zalloum) was also educated in Al-Azhar. HT has been heavily criticised by Wahhabi scholars for some of its basic ideas that are related to the foundation of belief. Again, it takes a quick search on pro-Wahhabi websites to find out how much HT is criticised by this school of thought.The claim that HT is a Wahhabi faction is not founded on any evidence. Such a claim will be looked at with surprise by a great majority of Muslims who know HT and Wahhabism. I do not intend to comment on the Wahhabi school of thought in this article. I only want to emphasise that there is no correlation between HT and Wahhabism.
Conclusions
The conclusions of this research paper are clear: HT's methodology and approach has not and will not deviate from the political and intellectual path.The commitment of HT not to be involved in any violent activity is based on its faith and understanding of the revelation of God, which makes its involvement in any terrorist or violent activity impossible, either in theory and practice. No person can integrate into the body of HT until he or she adopts this political and intellectual methodology and approach.Thus, the claim that HT acts as a conveyor belt of terrorism is baseless and lacks any credible evidence. It contradicts 53 years of HT's activities and HT's documented literature that is accessible by the public at large.Any research paper that claims otherwise is defective and does not adhere to the norms of academic research that necessitate approaching any topic with the intention to get correct conclusions, not holding the conclusions in mind and framing the research to justify them. The claims of any resemblance between the strategy of HT and that of Leninism-Marxism, and between HT ideas and those of Wahhabism are contradictory to everything HT stood for since it was established in 1953. Leninism-Marxism stands for the total denial of the existence of God and its strategy is based on the conflicts between society classes, while HT is totally opposite to that. Wahhabism, on the other hand, gained credit among its followers during the times of the Ottoman Caliphate due to its denial of the legitimacy of that Caliphate, while HT stands firmly on the opposite of that. Recent papers by Baran of the Nixon Center and by Cohen of the Heritage Foundation concerning HT were conducted in contravention of standard academic research norms and approached the issue in an entirely subjective manner. Understanding HT must go through the total understanding of its well-documented literature, available to the public. In case any questions are not answered by the literature, HT has official spokesmen in Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. HT also has official media representatives in the UK and the Netherlands. Any of these officials can be approached with questions to be answered. In addition, such questions could be conveyed to HT's global leadership through these officials. Research based on such an approach and dependent on such official answers would gain significant credit and would be able to stand its ground when cross-examined against standard academic research norms and measures.
Reference- Nidhaam Al-Islam (The System of Islam) by An-Nabhani, 1953
- Shakhsiyyah Islamiah (The Islamic Personality) 3rd volume by An-Nabhani, 1959
- The Starting Point, Hizb ut-Tahrir, 1954
- Previous source, article 9
- Previous source, article 10
- "The Method of Hizb ut-Tahrir for Change", Muslim Arab Youth Association Conference, Dec. 1989, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
- "Starting Point", pg. 3
- "Refutation of Socialist Marxism", by Hizb ut-Tahrir, 1962
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 3 4 5
Page 5 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
