Marching on February 15th is Halal

It is the Height of Political Naiveté and a crime against the Muslim Ummah, to do otherwise!

(Answering Hizb-ut-Tahrir - Part II)

As the drive for war comes closer, so does the reality of the impending slaughter of many innocents within Iraq. The United States is leading the true `axis of evil' against the Muslim Ummah.

World opinion at present opposes an American-led war against Iraq – regardless of its hidden / open political and strategic objectives. Even many European states have voiced their opposition, France and Germany are the most recent examples. It is also self-evident that even the non-Muslims around the world are unified on this issue. It is for this reason that we urge the Muslims to attend the demonstration has been organised on the 15th in tandem with many others around the world.

Hence it is imperative that we the Muslim community voice our anger and opposition to this American-led war against Iraq and help galvanise national and international opinion against this war by undertaking a multiplicity of Mubah political actions. This is perhaps the absolute minimum that one can expect.

A recent leaflet entitled "Marching on February 15th is Haram and the Height of Political Naiveté" issued by Hizb-ut-Tahrir is quite bemusing. Its title and content exhibit the opposite of what it seeks to achieve. It lacks of awareness of the reality of the demonstration. The Hizb also attended the previous demonstration organised by STWC ("stop the war") in large numbers, and hence this message of asking the Muslims not to attend illustrates hypocrisy or it is a clear sign of a party that has become very confused. This is very harmful to the interests of the Muslim Ummah. While we agree with many of the substantive points made in the article, we take issue with a number of points that we believe are incorrect; representing a weak political understanding and are ultimately designed to push the point that only the Hizb are right, whilst everyone else's opinion is wrong'.

In our previous response we also highlighted the above, along with the incorrect comprehension of the reality of the war. Superficial claims such as that a US led war could not be physically waged i.e. "fanciful philosophy" without the co-operation of the Muslim countries. It is clear from this second leaflet that they were unable to deny the serious flaws in the arguments constructed in their earlier article (How to stop the war decisively).

As again no effective alternative course of action presented to the Muslim Ummah, with the exception that we get involved in petitioning the governments of the Muslim countries, and attend the colourful, self praising demonstrations of the HIZB. The first option is questionable from the legal texts, not to mention the height of Political niavete. Do the Hizb seriously expect the harsh dictatorial regimes in the Muslim countries to rattle in their boots from such petitions or simply give up their position to make way for the Khilafah? These regimes do not even listen to their own citizens and do they expect them to respond to the immigrant's communities in Europe!

As for the masses, they are unlikely to listen to the Hizb and revolt, as the party has little or no influence over them, which is very clear if one examines the Arab world. The other alternative being touted is that success is only assured by following the colourful demonstrations organised by the Hizb, which focuses more on the notion of members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir then it dose on Islam, general co-operation and unity amongst the Muslims. Such actions are clearly partisan. Surely if any party wants to work in helping the revival of the Ummah, they are compelled to recognise the fact that the Ummah is diverse and not everyone will subjugate themselves to a party which is marginalised; has suffered numerous splits and implicitly views the Ummah with disdain. Hence the party has failed in moving the masses of the Muslims in this country, and indeed in much of the Arab world and Turkey.

Let us now deal with major arguments presented in the leaflet.

a) The Role of Britain, the United States and the United Nations

The initial points raised in the article regarding the role of Britain, the United States as oppressive colonialist powers and the United Nations as a tool of the imperialist nations is well known to everyone, such opinions are perhaps highlighted more rigoursly with greater elaboration by the non-Muslims. Chomsky, Pilger, Fisk are one of many such examples. Which are more illuminating then the repeated slogans that are played like a tape recorder in the various articles and leaflets from the Hizb.

Many are attending the demonstration for precisely this reason, to protest against the Imperialist nature of this war, which they view as designed to colonise the Arab world and control the oil resources. This was clearly evident from the placards, slogans of the previous marches. Hence the march is the endorsement of this above view, and not an acknowledgement of the benevolent nature and role of the British and U.S. governments. For no one expects colonialist nations like Britain and U.S. to be benevolent towards Iraq willingly and no one to date has made this claim.

b) Coalition and the open platform

It is stated in the leaflet that:

`In the light of these clear political realities only the politically naïve would now claim that the STWC is merely an open platform opposed to the war – it is obvious that the STWC advocates a British Parliament or UN inspired resolution to the problems that afflict the Muslims of Iraq.'

`Others have thought that the STWC is opposed to any form of aggression against the Muslims of Iraq. Such claims have led some Muslims to express a desire to march side by side with the STWC on February 15th. However if one were to evaluate the actions and speeches of the STWC one would find that their aims contradict the Shari'ah aims and disagree with the Islamic view on politics.'

Nobody has made any such claims that the STWC is an open platform; rather it is the forthcoming demonstration that is the open platform. It is an open platform for everyone to attend, regardless of his or her ideological leanings, with one single message: opposition to the war against Iraq.

Furthermore the organisers of the march have not imposed any condition upon anyone attending regardless of their political beliefs and ideological orientation. None of the participants are obliged to uphold the constitution of STWC or every single statement made by STWC coalition. Therefore one has to conclude that the march is an open platform. Further evidence of its being free is based on the previous experience which has shown that the participants represented a very wide section of the British public, including people from Europe and other parts of the world, with different political, religious and ethnic backgrounds. STWC organisers, Socialists or communists were in fact a very small component in terms of their number. Muslim's were a sizeable proportion of those in attendance. As such, the endorsement from all the major organisations and Mosques to attend this demonstration shows that it is majority that are coming to march and not just `some Muslims' who the Hizb believes are politically impotent needing the analysis of the Hizb to safe the day. The march is a free platform, as evident being attended by everyone from the community, the majority of them are not affiliated to STWC.

It is absolutely wrong to assume that the SWTC and the demonstration are synonymous, as some have also argued that the march is entirely a reflection of the organisers and their viewpoints. This is again a clear error in their comprehension of the facts on the grounds. The organisers, who have simply prepared the logistics in terms of liasing with the police and setting out the routes, organising the transportation as well as one simple clear message, "stop the war" as far as this demonstration is concerned. Which is evident from their web site. If anything it is the participants with their placards and slogans rather then the organisers that will accurately or more substantially reflect the actual demonstration. What unified the march is the clear message to "stop the war", a demonstration of the anger and venom, with the hope that it can contribute to shaping the national and international opinion against this war. Whilst some Muslims are also concerned about being under the Socialists banners, but here again no one is obliged to uphold their banner, or accept it. The blocks were also clearly defined, some contained socialists, some only Muslims, some just ordinary members of the public, whilst most others were mixed.

As for the statement pertaining to the solution proposed by the STWC this is irrelevant as far as the march is concerned:

Firstly because the march is not about legitimising or actively promoting SWTC but simply to halt any military strike on Iraq, and hence simply "stop the war". This is the theme and the solution.

Secondly SWTC is not imposing the solution on the marchers, nor are we obliged to accept such solutions, furthermore it is impossible to persuade or force the participants whilst they are physically marching for four to five hours with such solutions from the SWTC or its specific slogans and placards. It is also naive to assume that during the procession, somehow you can convince the crowd, in particular the Muslims regarding the actual solutions. As the procession, contained approximately 500,000 people packed and difficult to physically administer let alone get into an active detailed dialogue about a particular comprehensive solution regarding Iraq.

As for the actual statements made by the organisers pertaining to the United Nations, although this even though this no particular or special relevance to the march it must be examined.

Firstly for the organisers to refer to the UN is not surprising as they are largely non-Muslims. The reason for their reference to UN is not because they approve of the bombings if sanctioned by the UN. No one to date has claimed this viewpoint. This is the real political naivety of the Hizb. Rather, it is to call upon the United Nations to act as a means to restrain the unilateralist policies of U.S. and thus a means to attempt to halt the attack. (NB, not that we advocate such a position)

In any case let us also assume that SWTC along with the socialists are trying to persuade the Muslims to join up with SWTC committee, with the aim of secularising the Muslims. Surely that is more of a reason to be present at the march and it would be irresponsible and a crime to do otherwise.

c) Issue of lobbying and intervention.

As stated previously, the first serious error of judgement is to equate the notion of lobbying with conceding sovereignty to taghoot. Conceding sovereignty to taghoot, which is not only haraam, but also actually an act of Kufr. To be more precise, it actually means accepting, obeying and surrendering, whilst lobbying means rejecting, disobeying and rebelling. They are almost the opposite if each other. How can the Hizb manage to lump them together is beyond us! Lobbying and demonstrations are performed with the view to influence and to apply pressure on the governments and the various institutions, to act in favour of the interest of the Muslims. Voicing the anger of the masses, elaborating on the political arguments, exposing the hypocrisy and the severe consequences of the government policies, all have the aim of protecting and helping the Muslims. This does not amount to conceding sovereignty to taghoot or asking the UN to intervene in our countries. Such pressures are applied with a view to halt the war only; it is not asking the British parliament lend help, approve or even try to create a permanent comprehensive solution for Iraq. It is rather dictating or trying to coerce the British government to act in a particular manner, i.e. not to aid the U.S. in this war, as citizens of the state, exercising our legitimate right to protest. In the same way we protest if the British government provides aid to the state of Israel. Furthermore if the non-Muslims force their own government to adopt certain measures and if it leads to saving of Muslim lives, why cannot this be encouraged directly or indirectly? How does this violate Sharia rules?

The Hizb are also lobbying the most dictatorial, and oppressive governments in the Muslim countries. Therefore, how can lobbying the British government be Haram whilst lobbying the Kuffar who rule over Muslims be considered Halal? Surely this is an inconsistency. It also highlights the increasing arrogance of the Hizb. Demonstfrate, petition, lobbying only valid if it emanates from Hizb. Hizb has often played the role of giving too little credibility to the Ummah's awareness and too much to itself. Lobbying a government, putting pressure upon their rule in order to change it (and yes according to Islam) is not forbidden.

In fact, the point raised regarding the notion of intervening in the Muslims lands, is precisely what the march is advocating, namely Stop bombing, invading Iraq, and stop the killing, the greed for oil, and intervention in other countries. The Hizb has completely missed the point - no one in the demonstration will be asking the British government or the UN simply to resolve the issue. Rather the aim is to try and coerce them to act in a manner to stop this war, i.e. stop the bombing and intervene in other countries to satisfy their interests and agenda.

d) Communist and Socialist agenda

The statements issued from the Communist and Socialist parties are not surprising or illuminating, and are in fact quite well known to the Muslims in general. If they have agenda to recruit Muslims and integrate them within their cause then surely this is more of a reason to attend the march and inform the unwary Muslims that are poised to attend this demonstration, as shown from previous two occasions.

By not attending the demonstration, this leaves the communists, socialists with a free hand to seduce the Muslims. That would be politically naive, and outright stupid. On a minor point the leaflet also implies that Martyn Hudson spoke as a representative or as an active member of SWTC. This is not clear from the SWTC web site. The Communist movement has in fact lost much, if not all of their political appeal since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Furthermore the impact of the socialists can be questioned, it is doubtful a simple interaction in the march will lead to our fellow Muslims metamorphosing into red comrades. In fact in the previous march many Muslims were conveying much information to many non-Muslims regarding Islam.

e) Conspiracy theories

As expected the Hizb are trying out their latest conspiracy theory, which exists in abundance inside the party. Most of these bizarre theories verge on absolute lunacy. The leaflets states that:

`It would be true to say that the STWC is in fact an alternative colonialist expression, albeit inspired by the British, whose vision for the future of Iraq is not too dissimilar to that of a right wing `hawk' in the Bush administration.'

It also goes on to say:

`It would appear to the independent observer that the British Government and the STWC share the same speechwriters.'

The British government attempted to ban the March recently. As it is sending troops to Iraq, it is demoralising for the troops to witness strong opposition at home. It also directly challenges Labour party's leadership in giving blind allegiance to the U.S. administration. The political reality missed by Hizb is that much of the British military establishment is deeply sceptical of the war on Iraq and its associated objectives. The Blair government is trying to keep as close to the Bush administration in public, while jockeying for position behind the scenes in order to modify American policy and extract concessions for the British. Contrary to this view, the party would have us believe in a non-existent conspiracy theory to divide Iraq and that the present war is really a conflict between Britain and America because Saddam is a British agent – WHAT NONSENSE! . We apologise for those who will demand which party leaflet stated this. Answer is very simple, no party leaflet, but professed by many individual members of the party, naturally that does not count until the circumstances become convieniant !

The so-called political analysis of the Hizb has been shown to be woefully inadequate at the best of times. One need only look at the shallow analysis which is put out in the party publications to see that the party is unfortunately trapped in a time warp from the 1960s. Rather than analysing the true nature of the American-led war against Iraq – which is to seek to redraw the political character of key states within the Middle East (namely Iraq, Iran, Syria and then the Gulf States) seeking to make the Ummah conform to an American imposed democratic secularism and outlaw what they view as `radical Islam' – the party is more interested in discussing: is Saddam a British or American agent? And are the rulers of Turkey are British agents? This laughable analysis produced by a party which claims that it has a `Birdseye' view of reality and the world, only demonstrates how far from the reality of the Muslims they really are!

Hence the realities simply do not match what the party claims. Many from Hizb have asserted the march is actually a British government conspiracy to integrate the Muslim community. This is again another exaggeration and result of the conspiracy mentality that exists in the party in the name of political "analysis". For sure the British government have an agenda to integrate the Muslim community and it is using other means to achieve that end, like creating the MCB.

f) Advice to the Hizb

As has been previously written, the Hizb attended the previous demonstration and hence this message of asking the Muslims not to attend illustrates hypocrisy and arrogance. Worse than this, the Hizb continually touts the message that only it is politically astute and can lead the Ummah when in fact this is complete nonsense.

At the previous demonstration their presence aided the numbers and the message of the overall march, "stop the war", which they did not oppose. At one stage it looked as though they had organised the entire event, due to their colourful banners and T-shirt's. If the Hizb members were serious about their position; that they had attended to advise the Muslims from not attending the demonstration, then they should have turned up at the beginning not at the end of the march, by then the event was almost finished. More worryingly there is a strong degree of arrogance in the party because many have argued that they merely came to advise and influence the Muslims who are present in the demonstration, since as members they are completely "immune" from the Socialists unlike the rest of the Ummah. No doubt the die-hard HT members will provide counter arguments and deep "discussions" on the semantics of what constitutes joining a march.

However the party would benefit from being less arrogant in its stance and would achieve the following if it attended the demonstration along with the rest of the Muslim organisations in the UK:

1. Protect the innocent Muslims who may be preyed upon by the Socialists and Communists.

2. Help to Islamicise the march by the correct slogans and placards.

3. Help to boost the numbers of the march and help to galvanise international opposition to the war.

4. Invite many Muslims to become more active via joining the party.

5. Invite the non-Muslims to examine Islam.

6. Co-operate with other movements and establish a united front against the non-Muslims, there by increasing the unity and brotherhood amongst us, above the partisan bond.

7. Impress upon all the Muslims to reject the call of America – to liberate us to the Hellfire by adopting democracy, secularism and freedom – the mother of all Shirk.

Yamin Zakaria (Ex-Member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir)

Dr. Muhammad Al-Massari (Ex-Member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir)