1. The principle problem is that the HT vision of the Islamic state is utopian. It promises to solve every problem and malaise facing the Muslim world today and is often argued using an idealistic and largely unrealistic picture of Muslim history. For example, the khalifate is held up as an alternative to monarchy and yet pretty much every khalifah from the time of Umar Abdul Aziz until the end of the Ottomans was essentially a monarchy where rule passed from father to son. It purports to solve an assortment of economic problems and yet the Ottomans were an economic basket case.

Thanks for your comments. Unlike the majority I like to use the positive perspective of utopian. There is nothing wrong in being optimistic, is there?
We can ‘start ‘ to solve the problems by implementing the shariah of Allah(swt). The problems will not go away automatically until the muslims succeed in implementing Islam and then dealing with the problems by the shariah of Allah(swt).
I agree on the point of ‘khaleefah’s coming in power’ not through the bayah process. Indeed this was unislamic. However we cannot say that because of this matter the whole Islamic state structure was unislamic? An illustration for this is to evaluate the effect caused by the the leader of a country who comes into power through however does it mean that the entire system implemented in that country becomes invalidated? Surely not. The manipulation of power which was present in the history of Khilafat was there because the muslims became relaxed about such issues. If the muslims remain vigilant, then they will never allow anyone even the khaleefah to abuse his power!

Furthermore, it seems to me that HT’s vision of a khalifah is itself very much a man-made system. Whilst the laws themselves may be Islamic in origin, the institutions that HT propose be established and the manner in which that state will conduct its affairs are very much the products of men. The Prophet Muhammad (saw), for example, never articulated a vision of a centrally planned economy.

Islam needs to be implemented on the land. If any Islamic movement performs ijtihad and propses a blueprint for the khilafah then nothing wrong with it. HT is not claiming their proposed blueprint for the khilafah to be the only valid one but rather it engages in Islamic discourse with other movements and scholars and concerned muslims. As long the proposed blueprint is based on the Islamic evidences ie ijtihad then there is nothing wrong with it.
The prophet (saw) spend his life after attaining prophethood in a struggle to implement Islam as a system. Does he(saw) needed to spell out his mission in such terms? I think we only need to look at his life from prophethood till he died to realise his mission what other conclusion can we draw other than to implement Islam and spread islam through dawah and jihad?

To substantiate my claims; just look at the situation of the world today and work out why such an imbalance exists amongst the people’s and countries and continents? ie 1st world countries, third world countries, unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Who is responsible for such man-made disasters?

When did the Prophet (saw) ever say that it was the objective of Islam to equalise the distribution of wealth and resources througout the world? That’s an idea that has no pedigree whatsoever in Islam but betrays something of the socialist underpinnings of HT ideology.

Furthermore, it seems to me that HT’s vision of a khalifah is itself very much a man-made system. Whilst the laws themselves may be Islamic in origin, the institutions that HT propose be established and the manner in which that state will conduct its affairs are very much the products of men. The Prophet Muhammad (saw), for example, never articulated a vision of a centrally planned economy.

Now as the French and Russian revolutions demonstrated, revolutions to impose some utopian new order on a society usually involve bloodshed and violence. The reason is that that systems, societies and states are organic and are the evolutionary products of history. The sort of massive change that HT espouse cannot possibly be realised in the Muslim world without revolution and, given that little emphasis is placed on reform of the individual, the first people to rebel against such a state are likely to be the Muslims themselves.

Oh, br. haroon,

Re: the “kufr system” – I’d be interested as to which specific aspects of it you find particularly offensive?

I am certainly not referring to some aspects of the system we live under in the west. but rather I am referring to the idoelogy of western secular system itself. The basis of the secular society goes completely against the ideology of Islam.

As a Muslim, I much prefer the “kufr” system that Australia currently operates under than the kind of society the good folk at the Hizb headquarters are trying to manufacture.

We should not fall into the trap of comparing the situation in terms of the living standards of the western countries and compare that to the state of affairs in our home countries. The reason being that in the west people believe in separation of powers between the state and the religion and this the western system is build upon this basis. On the other hand in our countries the system the muslim believe ie Islam, is not implemented and thus the bad living standards which we all try to run away from. This distinction needs to be made before aforementioned conclusions are drawn.

Also what is wrong in the idea of Islam being implemented as a system of life again? I mean it was implemented for over 1300 years. The world civilisation benefitted from the Islamic civilisation only because Islam was implemented as a system. Its fair to say that justice and peace can only be achieved through the implementation of the system of the creator and never through the implementation of man-made systems no matter how much reforms are put into place! To substantiate my claims; just look at the situation of the world today and work out why such an imbalance exists amongst the people’s and countries and continents? ie 1st world countries, third world countries, unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Who is responsible for such man-made disasters?

Oh, br. haroon,

Re: the “kufr system” – I’d be interested as to which specific aspects of it you find particularly offensive?

As a Muslim, I much prefer the “kufr” system that Australia currently operates under than the kind of society the good folk at the Hizb headquarters are trying to manufacture.

What about kufr systems(in east and west) we live under?
are we suppose to live under the man-made system or system of the creator?

1. The media is hardly a monolith, even within one news organization there are several competing agendas. Muslims agree with liberal media such as fairfax press with regards to Australia’s mid east policy, but are more comfortable with the Australians social policy agenda

The point which is being made here is that the media is trying very hard to demonise Islam and the Muslims.

Muslims in Australia do not agree with media such as Fairfax with regards to Australian’s mid-east policy! How did you came to that conclusion?

2. One does not wage war through media unless you are HT

What’s wrong in expressing different opinions? Why are people worried soo much about people expressing opinions while at the same time silent about the atrocities being committed by the Australian Government foreign policies? We should see the imbalance in such state of affairs!

3. The government does not need to put Muslims on the defensive so they won’t attack their foreign policy. That is a delusion. Muslims are 1% on the most marginal and least accepted voices in this country. The howard govt attacks muslims simply because it can. They don’t care what muslims say, its like worrying about offending an ant before you squish it

Not much political profoundness shown in this point. Its not a numbers game and even if Muslims are small in number, their presence cannot and should not be underestimated. It’s the ideology of Islam which Muslims carry which makes them strong.
Government’s, Australian or otherwise would not like to hear any sort of internal opposition to their foreign agendas specially from those who do not believe in their western democratic framework. I wish your comment about “its like worrying about offending an ant before you squish it” was as simple as you put it; The balance of power can change very quickly and if Australia and other countries treat the Muslims in an inhumane manner then this all will result in ramifications in the future. In other words when the Khilafah State gets established then it will seek to put those in account who committed injustices against the Muslims.

3. Ah yes the “little people concern themselves with trivial issues”, whilst you, the underestimated colossus is left to your unutterable grand designs. when will these little trivial people listen and understand your greatness? If only they knew

sooner or later…

4. And yet in this country where there is no “freedom of speech”, you can post your child like observations wherever you like.

Thanks for your sarcasm however what do you have to say about the sedition laws??

HT engage in the worst kind of shirk… Where does this supreme belief in the infallibility of the State come from? Man/woman’s justice is always an approximation, it can never even come close to the divine- so just acknowledge that. When it pretends to be- all controversy, dissent, variety in opinion, intepretation and intellectual curiosity suddenly silenced for its “divine” pronouncements.

Utopias then lead to dystopias like the Ayatollah’s Iran and hit squads like “prevention of vice and promotion of virtue.” *shudders*

‘Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!’