A few readers have written to point out that Hizb ut-Tahrir have released a draft constitution for the HT state. Please discuss.
Draft Constitution for the HT State
March 22nd, 2008 | Austrolabe | Economics
March 22nd, 2008 | Austrolabe | Economics
A few readers have written to point out that Hizb ut-Tahrir have released a draft constitution for the HT state. Please discuss.
© Austrolabe — Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson
64 comments ↓
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim
These HT guys are idiots.
-Anonymous
I hope HT’s constitution is only a draft and to be revised some time in the near future …
Article 17 states that ‘Ruling is centralised and administration is de-centralised’.
Article 19 states that ‘No one is permitted to take charge of ruling, or any action considered to be of the nature of ruling, except a male who is free (Hurr), i.e. not a slave, mature (baaligh), sane (�aaqil), trustworthy (�adl), competent; and he must not be save a muslim’.
I couldn’t go on after that point. The laughter was killing me.
I skimmed through the economic system articles (119-164) and these are the ones that stood out.
Article’s 134, 136, 138, 161, 163.
134 states that a factory whose product is a mineral is considered public property, wouldn’t this dissuade private investment into industries such as iron ore? 136 explains this further and 138 seems to ban savings or maybe just too much saving 161 Seems to ban FDI, whilst 163 seems to limit the funds of the state to how much gold bullion is in the treasury.
Article 3 also sounds a bit iffy.
This state comes across as being a socialist state and a closed economy.
It sounds a bit like George Orwell’s 1984, but without all the frivolity. I feel relieved that Wassim Doureihi doesn’t feel there’s a need for it to be imposed on Australia yet…
Released? Lol. The Draft constitution was ‘released’ about..umm..50 yrs ago! Alright, maybe it was available in English about 20 yrs ago (!), but still, c’mon guys, get with the times!
I can’t wait for the Islamic state to come into existence. I want to run for the role of ‘Execution Assistant’ which would enable me to be one of the Khalifah’s entourage (Article 49).
Wasn’t this discussed here before?
http://austrolabe.com/2006/11/19/freedom-ht/
(Gman, scary. I said the exact same thing. *soulmates*)
The Hizb-ut-Tahrir ‘Constitution’ suffers from at least two fundamental errors: Both the State and the Constitution are two doctrines foreign to Islamic Law, having no precedence in Islam. Rather, they are two symptoms of the reformist esotericisation of Shari’a, which seeks to promote kufri concepts by attaching an “Islamic” adjective to them.
Statism is inherently foreign to Islam, for its historical development is tied up with the creation of the modern capitalist nation-state. The exaltation of the State is a self-perpetuating doctrine which cements the control of the powers-that-be. Its foundation is based on Ribaa (usury) and Taxation, which have no real basis in Shari’a. Islamic reformists tend to be authoritarian and statist:
“Now, the state is not the only form in which to organise a nation, and it is certainly not an Islamic model. The idea of an Islamic state is therefore entirely inconsistent with the meaning of both state and Islam. It ignores the specific existence of a model of government in Islam that precedes the state and is divinely ordained. It also identifies without any justification the interest of the state with the interest of the nation.” (Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, CapeTown, South Africa: Madinah Press, 2003, pp. 165-166).
Likewise, there is no Islamic precedence for a “Constitution”. Although they are alleged enthusiasts for the Khalifate, Hizb-ut-Tahrir represents those very symptoms which resulted from its decline (so in other words, not a solution):
“The world that resulted from the tragic elimination of the Khalifate was a cluster of separated nations each with its own flag, constitution and central bank. None of these realities are acceptable in Islam. Every one of these constitutions, including the so-called Islamic constitutions, is an assault on Islam….In this state of affairs a ‘reformed’ Islam has prevailed that has succeeded in keeping the status quo for almost a hundred years.” (ibid., p. 54).
“Constitutionalism has been the historical front of the anti-Khalifate program. It was associated with the breakdown of Dar al-Islam. Today we have a number of ‘Islamic constitutions.’…The constitutions have been an essential tool of esotericisation. Constitutions challenged the validity of the religious law, and provided the required political justification to the state.” (ibid., pp. 160-161).
The call for Ijtihad (Article 9) is nothing but a call to reforming of Shari’a, as the only ones permitted to use it are those qualified (mujtahid), not the lay-followers. This call seeks to throw off Islamic Fiqh and rejects all the madhhahib, a modernistic notion.
I am sure that the specific economic fallacies will be mentioned by other readers. I would like to mention how ridiculous it is to make “Arabic the sole language of the State” (Article 8): How would this standard be imposed, forcibly on most Muslims whose language is not Arabic?
The problems I have with this Constitution is its promotion of authoritarian, statist concepts having no basis in Shari’a. How are their programs to be implemented? I have mistrust towards such authorities that are entrusted with all this power. It all seems quite socialist. Hizb-ut-Tahrir represents another deviation from, not a move towards, Khalifate.
If the HT draft constitution was written 50 years ago (a time when Communism was on the march) that might explain its socialistic nature…
It was written 50 years ago and it’s still in draft.
Muslims have more freedom under Australian law than under the HT system. At least we are allowed to have private schools with our own curriculum here.
I just cannot see this as a system that has any future. I sure won’t be planning on moving to such a state.
I don’t know much about this group but does anyone know if the founder of the Party or whoever drafted this document was influenced by Leninism? The economic policies, with their emphasis on controlling steel, iron and industry and so on, smacks of the temporary “reforms” that Lenin introduced in the 1920s. I would be very surprised if, like many of the other Arab intellectuals of his period, Mr Nabahani wasn’t also influenced by the Socialist ideas that were de rigeur amongst revolutionary movements of his time.
In Article 155, they say that the State must supervise agriculture and in Article 156, they say that the State will supervise industry. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Prophet never left anything that went into this level of absurd detail about how an economy should be controlled and I suspect the desert Arabs of 1,400 years ago would have considered this document a hideous infringement on their freedoms and liberties. Did the Prophet order his follows to ban private education? Did he order his follows to take control of the education of religious minorities too and force them to adhere to Islamic customs such as the segregation of the sexes (Article 172). Why should Arabic be the language of the State even in places and societies where it isn’t spoken by the indigenous Muslims?
This document is a blueprint for Soviet-style totalitarianism. That’s not an argument to ban them (as I believe some governments are now considering) but it is an argument to view these people with some suspicion.
[…] up with an interesting draft constitution of an Islamic state. You can discuss the constitution at Australabe. (Please don’t do that […]
For those sincere Muslims on this forum: considering HT is marching ahead with its agenda, how about offering some genuine feedback regarding the validity or ortherwise of any one of its adoptions? The obligation of Khilafah does not rest upon the shoulders of HT alone, nor does its implementation.
So instead of stating the obvious (ie, the fact you disagree), how about you instruct us on how any one of our adoptions are a violation of Islamic law, and please provide an alternative view that is rooted in the Islamic, not liberal, texts.
If you are not comfortable (for whatever reason) detailing such views on a public forum, you can email myself at media@hizb-australia.org
For those non-Muslims on this forum, your views will be respectfully viewed as those necessarily emanating from an alternative worldview.
If you are “marching ahead” (interesting choice of metaphor), then what help do you need from us? Certainly we can be of no help in improving your goose step.
Second, it is ironic that you call this website “liberal” when any plain reading of the post shows it to the most religiously conservative english language Islamic blog in the world.
Third, you are not a Muslim organization, but rather a totalitarianism with an very transparent Islamic face. Your constitutions reveals it. Article 35.
Fourth, even if we did accept your beliefs, I don’t know how committed you are to your cause. Will we see you like your ex HT buddies Ed Husain, trashing Islam, just to keep your face in the news?
There are a lot of ex-HT people out there attacking Islam, and Austrolabe is forced to attack them (i.e. to clean up after the mess your group has made).
Fifth. Most people have some concern that your group will be banned and that you maybe arrested. Therefore any association with you must be considered in that light.
Sixth. The spelling errors and grammatical mistakes in your draft constitution don’t lend credibility to your cause. Example:
“Article 124
Private properties are a divine rule determined by the property itself or the benefit from it. As a result of this possession, the person who possesses it obtains a benefit from it or receives a return for it.”
Therefore the Prophet (PBUH) mutual defense pact with the Jews of Medina was wrong. What punishment would you have given him Wassim?
How does one trade with a state without strengthening that state?
What are “specific characters” is it like Monkey, Pigsey and Triptaka?
This is a draft constitution; please explain who article 181 can be codified into law. Its waffle and it was written by someone who was not in full control of their faculties.
so if a Muslim doctor from Hizbustan went to work in the UK for the NHS he would be having relations with a foreign state?
How does one define “etc.. ” in a constitutional document?
I don’t even need to attack this one. its screaming communism all by itself comrade Wassim
where is your daleel for this? Are you on the Manhaj of Islam or are you a communist?
“For those non-Muslims on this forum, your views will be respectfully viewed as those necessarily emanating from an alternative worldview.”
What the …? Is he seriously suggesting that one’s administration ability is determined by one’s religious affiliation?
I guess, then, Amir Muawiyah must have been wrong for getting all those nasty Jews and Christians to help him administer his caliphate.
“The obligation of Khilafah does not rest upon the shoulders of HT alone, nor does its implementation.”
No, but HT reps love getting on TV and telling the media “we know what Muslims want” and “we speak for the Muslim world”. Remember that HT fellow from the UL who appeared on HardTalk? It was hilarious to see the host asking him: “How do you know what Muslims want? How many have you asked?”
HT seems to treat Muslims like computer hardware. Just download the right software (Microsoft sharia 101) and get rid of any extraneous viruses and WHAMMO. You have instantaneous caliphate!
Look at this one..
Not specific to any deen (religion)?
Why should non-muslims who are unlucky enough to be born in the Caliphate have Muslim overlords dictating to them what they have to teach in their Christian/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu schools and universities!
I am glad that someone has drawn our attention to this constitution because it’s shows clearly what the end game is for HT.
T cell, are these questions you genuinely wish to pursue, or are you merely expressing a frustration?
Surely you must acknowledge that, at the very least, HT has since its establishment offered the Ummah a comprehensive view of the various systems of Islam. Importantly, our conception of an Islamic society and its myriad manifestations has, contrary to waning fads, always been rooted exclusively in the Islamic texts.
I wonder if you uncomfortable with HT adoptions because you regard them as an aberration of Islam, or is it because you are measuring them against an existing set of conceptions that may or may not be rooted in Islam?
In either case, your rejection of any of our adoptions must surely be based upon competing Islamic texts? I am also assuming you are familiar with our existing books on these subjects before dismissing them accordingly?
HT certainly does not have a monopoly on the understanding of Islam, and as such, is ready to be convinced of a stronger Islamic opinion. I eagerly await you (un)impassioned response.
Irfan, you know I love you as a brother, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt before dismissing your comments as mere pot-stirring.
please show me the daleels for this statement
Hizb ut-Tahrir Draft Constitution for Islamic State…
See a copy and discuss it at Austrolabe…
The onus is on HT to prove that the Prophet (saw) specified each of these things NOT on the rest of the community to provide their proof as to why HT ideas are wrong.
There should be a document that goes with this constitution that describes for each of these points the proofs from the shariah. For example you need to justfy why the Islamic ruler has to control the natural resources and agriculture production or why it’s forbidden for them to establish treaties with non Muslims.
It’s also not good enough to point to previous systems that were established many years after the Prophet saw and first three generations as proof or point to scholars who documented these systems like al-Mawardi. You need to provide with empirical evidence that each of these points is what Allah and His Prophet require Muslims to establish and how we are required to manage our affairs.
Not sure how relevant this is, but am doing a paper on Islamic governance for a class and came across this
Interesting book on this subject here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ordina.....1859641407
I am snickering inside. I read it and agree with many of the issues raised, however, will again add that there seems to be a lack of balance of power, in which abuse of power can be redressed. Then again HT is not a group I take seriously, anyway, they try to keep us all entertained.
“The onus is on HT to prove that the Prophet (saw) specified each of these things NOT on the rest of the community to provide their proof as to why HT ideas are wrong.”
I agree with this. The onus is on the one who makes a claim to present the evidence. However, equally, when anyone wants to assess or criticise that claim, then they too must do so on the basis of evidence from the Shari’ah, not from a liberal point of view. So to say that ‘HT are socialists’ and assume that that is some sort of criticism is naive. It’s like saying that becuase HT give authority to the people in electing the ruler they are democracts. Big woop! Doesn’t mean anything. The discussion must revolve around the Islamic texts.
“There should be a document that goes with this constitution that describes for each of these points the proofs from the shariah.”
There is such a book. It contains detailed evidences for every article. Unfortunately it has not been entirely translated into English yet.
It seems the name of the game is intellectual regression and the abandonment of experience. Experience shows that Socialism does not work. Moreover, any sort of Statism (ie Big Government) makes abuses of power easier than a REAL free market setup where power is decentralised.
I’m willing to bet that none of the ‘Islamic Texts’ HT rely on can compare with the practical results of 150 years of economic experimentation. For Abdullah to consider using this experience naive is naive itself.
Eduo,
I doubt that HT relies on any Islamic text, there constitution resembles Stalanism more than Islam
The problem is that the Islamic texts that discuss how states should be organised or how their economies should operate were written at a time and by people whose knowledge of both was limited. The Prophet just provided some guidelines and some guiding principles but not the nuts and bolts of how you run a country and most of that is the invention of men who came after him. It’s the work of the Abbasids or the Ummayads or the Uthmanis and not the work of the Prophet himself or a revelation from Allah.
A lot has been learned about economics in the last 100 years and it makes no sense for HT to ignore that. Planned and managed economies do not work as well as free economies and the thinking on Islamic economics must be updated to learn from this experience or you’ll just repeat the errors of the past.
Aaron
Communism is dead, and its time for HT and North Korea to realize this.
This is quite an interesting read from May last year:
http://austrolabe.com/2006/05/.....tention-1/
I find it relevant to the current topic.
I wonder which opinion on corporate power most people here hold:
1. Big Business isn’t a problem.
2. Big Business is a problem, and Big Government is the solution.
or
3. Big Business is a problem, and Big Government is the cause.
In my case, George, it’s closest to (3). I have no problem with businesses becoming ‘big’ or expanding but when business — big or small — teams up with government to get special favours such as tarrifs, subsidies, etc, then I think we all suffer as a result.
Obviously, on these sorts of topics, there is not a uniformity of views amongst Muslims. From my observation, a lot of ‘activist’ Muslims would hold (2) and subscribe to the sort of worldview promoted by the Chomskys, Monbiots and Kleins.
Hey Wassim, take your Khalifate and your constitution and jam them where the sun don’t shine.
I don’t see an issue with big business, as long as the interests of the consumer are served and looked after.
For me, #4: Big business may or may not be a problem; big government may or may not be a cause or a solution; it’s probably best to judge on a case-by-case basis.
Hey Darrin,
Will you do the same? Pretty please?
Congratulations on a witty and intelligent contribution to the debate Darrin.
It’s always about sticking things up backsides, isn’t it Darrin?
Darrin @ #40
Article 212
The State will prevent ugly neo-nazi halfwits with gay variations on common Anglo-Saxon first names from inserting any foreign objects, including but not limited to boomerangs, Holden Kingswood cars, Australian flags, Cronulla beach snow domes, Ian Thorpe memorabilia, thongs, vegemite, Steve Irwin’s daughter Bindi, and Vodafone silky green tracksuit pants where the sun don’t shine.
Ah! its Dariiiiinnn the Fuhrer’s vibrator salesman
If Wassim did as you suggest, then he would be a direct professional competitor to you wouldn’t he?
You, your opinions, your “toys” are not welcome here in a discussion between brothers.
I disagree profoundly with Wassim, but unlike you, he remains my brother.
One day when you have recovered from the vibration induced injury to your brain, you will be able to spell your name correctly.
Buzz off.
“You, your opinions, your “toys” are not welcome here in a discussion between brothers.”
You and your “brothers” can pack up your bombs, your burqas and your filthy religion and bugger off to the nearest Islamic hell-hole.
Another comment, another reference to buggery.
There’s definitely a recurring theme to your posts, Dazz. Can I call you Dazz?
Buggery aside, do you brush your teeth, Dazz? Just curious.
You’d be surprised at how many get shipped to Malaysia and Indonesia, then again you probably wouldn’t. I hear they keep them hidden in hollowed out Qur’ans.
Allāhu Akbuzzzzzzzzz.
I’m afraid we’ll all have to defer to your expert knowledge of the gay sex toy industry, Darrin.
How come they call you Darrin?
lol Muhammad Muhammad, first time I’ve heard of that one.
JDsg has a point on the judging case by case issue.
Darrin,
Your half Asian aren’t you, boy?
So let’s get this straight. You reckon I’m part Asian, the Nazi’s reckon I’m a Jew/ Christian Zionist and the leftists reckon I’m a Nazi. So does that make me an “Asian Christian Zionist Jew Nazi” or a “Jewish Asian Christian Zionist Nazi” ? Be sure to let me know once y’all get it sorted, thanks.
Dunno, personally I have doubts as to whether you’re even human.
Here’a flick y’all might enjoy: http://australianidentity.net/.....52#msg1452
Darrin, why dont you sit down and have a nice cup of shut the hell up.
Since when do ‘true blue’ Aussies use the word y’all? Or is this Darren Hodges a Yank with an axe to grind?
Dazza what is it with you fascists and your issues?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....649197.ece
T Cell, I dunno perhaps its because I am a degenerate in all aspects of my life
Acknowledging your nature is the first step in the reform process Darren. Good on you!
Leave a Comment