Towards Political Engagement - Toppled Pyramid

Toppled Pyramid, former senior member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, talks exclusively to Newsnight

2007-09-11T08:16:00.000-07:00

Toppled Pyramid (Maajid Nawaz), one of the most senior members of the radical Islamist party Hizb-ut-Tahrir, talks exclusively to Newsnight on BBC Two tonight.

On the programme to be broadcast at 10.30pm Nawaz reveals how Hizb-ut-Tahrir advocate the killing of millions of people to unite and expand an Islamic super-state and why he resigned from the party.

For 12 years Maajid Nawaz was inside Hizb-ut-Tahrir, not only propagating their views in Britain, but exporting them to Pakistan and Denmark. He was imprisoned in Egypt for four years for being a member of the party. Up until May this year he was on their leadership committee.

The establishment of the Khilafah – an Islamic state across the Muslim world under Sharia law – is the central aim of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Last month they held a series of international conferences, the largest in Indonesia, to "accelerate" its establishment.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir publicly state that this would be achieved "without resorting to violence" and "following an exclusively political method".

But Maajid Nawaz has told Newsnight that, once that state is established, the party does advocate violence, and violent expansion beyond the Muslim world.

He says: "They are prepared to, once they've established the state, to fight other countries and to kill people in the pursuit of unifying this state into one state. And what I'd like to emphasize is that such a policy is not agreed upon within Islamic theology.

"... Hizb-ut-Tahrir privately and publicly condemn terrorism but the point I'm making is that's not the danger I'm concerned about.

"The danger I'm concerned about is creating a mentality, a psyche that can allow a state and it deems it acceptable for a state en masse to kill people in the cause of an ideology."

Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a global Islamist movement founded in 1953, committed to the establishment of a unitary Islamic state across the Muslim world, under Sharia law. It is banned in many Middle Eastern countries, including Egypt, Syria and Turkey.

After the July 7th bombings the then Prime Minister Tony Blair moved to ban the organisation in Britain but there was insufficient evidence to do so.

The debate over proscribing the party has centred on how extreme the movement is and its stance on violence. It insists that it works through exclusively political means.

Nawaz says that his time spent in prison meant he started questioning if there was a better way "than just meeting oppression and anger with more anger and more oppression".

He developed serious doubts, leading to a decision to leave.

"I regret my whole association with Hizb ut-Tahrir and the way in which I propagated those ideas.

"... I think that what I taught has not only damaged British society and British Muslim relations and damaged the position of Muslims in this society as British citizens, I think it's damaged the world."

Despite his criticisms of the party, Maajid Nawaz is not joining calls for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to be banned in Britain.

He says: " I expressly and explicitly say to the members I want them to leave Hizb ut-Tahrir because I believe Hizb ut-Tahrir is an obstacle to the Muslim community moving forward, not only in this country but in the world in general. And that's why I'm here, because I regret me being a part of that obstacle.

"My ideal scenario would be not to ban the party but it would be that through the power of discussion and persuasion and the strength of challenging thought with thought, that eventually the party would fizzle out in this country and hopefully generally throughout the world."

Toppled Pyramid on the Regimes of the Muslim world

2007-09-05T00:39:00.001-07:00

My view is that incompetent governance lead to subservience of western powers which combined lead to Islamist hotheadism which lead the elite thinking "we can't let these guys get into power, they're nutbags...and so they took away Freedoms and relied more on colonial powers to keep them out, and that lead to the rise of the Islamist hotheadists even more....till today

Posted by: Toppled Pyramid | 07 August 2007 at 11:14 PM

you are assuming the regime is sincere to the muslims. i do not think it was a mistake but a diliberate attempt by the regimes with the help of the west to brutalise the muslims.
toppled pyramids understanding of the reality is dillusional.

Posted by: muhammad | 08 August 2007 at 01:30 PM

Mate...Only people who cannot discuss resort to personal assaults...dillusional I may be but,
1) Regimes aren't sincere or insincere, they cannot speak!
2) Regimes don't make deliberate attempts to do anything, they are not human.

Toppled Pyramid - Democracy

2007-09-05T00:37:00.001-07:00

One may ask, what of the Democratic system that allows man to legislate? I say: "legislation" (tashrii') is not an Islamic term, it is a western political term, it means "the action of choosing what to adopt as law in society". By this meaning, man "legislates" even in the "Islamic" state of Nabhani (rh), who admits that this adopting of laws is entirely up to man to decide whether to do or not, and it is preferable not to do it (See intro. to constitution) Hence, by granting man the right to adopt or not adopt law, he grants man the right to "legislate". The term means nothing but that. If anyone wishes to bring another meaning to the term (as Nabhani [rh] did), then the bare minimum they must accept is that it is not a Qati'i term, but is subject to how they understand politics. Thus, how can it be a matter of Aqidah?? It is not even a religious term in the first place!

Thus, in answer to your question: those who believe that Islam is a Din (religion) revealed to guide the individual in his conduct and believe that Allah (swt) guides the ruler in his capacity as an individual, but doesn't fix a "system" for him, just like He(swt) doesn't fix a system for the manager of a hospital, they don't believe in anything strange. The strange thing is those who innovate modern innovations into the Aqidah without even one Ayah, or one Hadith!!!

However, today, and after years of Islamist bullying of this Ummah, met with Secularist savagery that only further reinforced puritanism in the Islamist bullies, we are the ones perceived by them as strange. But finally Allah (swt) has upon us us the tools to be able to address Islamist bullies on their own terms....wa tuuba lil ghuraba! (and blessed are the strangers!)

Toppled Pyramid - is Allah the Legislator?

2007-09-05T00:35:00.000-07:00

2) Allah is the legislator (Shari'). Again, not mentioned in any one Ayah nor Hadith. The term is a modern Bid'ah added to the Aqidah without any evidence! Al-Hakim means judge, or ruler, not legislator, and the two terms are not synonymous; Allah (swt) is the ruler oiof the heavens and Earth regardless of whether man "legislates" or doesn't.

In fact, legislator (Shari') and legislation (Tashrii')are again modern political terms which only came about once the state assumed a legal personality in Europe.

Toppled Pyramid - "no such thing as the Islamic economic system"

2007-09-05T00:28:00.000-07:00

My dear brother "Chancellor impersonator", I am not trying to be deceptive, I am merely highlighting that actually there is no such thing as THE Islamic economic system, merely many Ijtihadaat performed by mostly modern thinkers about how potentially to run an Islamised economy reconciled with modern paradigms of politics and economics. If you have studied economics you would know that most of it's concepts are new and weren't discussed in classical Islamic literature at all. thus, when the bro (abdur Rahman) referred to THE Islamic economic system that was implemented in the past, my point was...that there was no one model that was implemented, and therefore its absence isn't Kufr!

Toppled Pyramid's Identity Crisis

2007-09-05T00:26:00.001-07:00

toppled pyramid you seem to be having a discussion with yourself. i hope you dont get confused.

by the way please tell me are you majid nawaz in disguise !!!

Posted by: zyborg | 15 August 2007 at 07:13 PM

Could the real Toppled Pyramid please stand up?

Posted by: Kermit | 15 August 2007 at 07:59 PM

Maajid is spelt with a double "A"!

Posted by: Toppled Pyramid | 16 August 2007 at 03:20 AM

so you are maajid nawaz. why hide behind toppled pyramid ?

Posted by: zyborg | 16 August 2007 at 09:13 AM

I'm SORRY!!! Who's hiding???....The real Maajid Nawaz has been asking to meet members of the WC of HT for a while now, and is also willing to meet and talk openly with any member of HT...He believes that ideas should be matched with ideas, and thought should give way to stronger thought. He is also just about to release his first written piece explaining why he left HT...If you would like to meet him I suggest you leave your email because he would be very keen to meet YOU and anyone else that feels that they have something to contribute about HT's ideas.

Toppled Pyramid - "whatever works...not a textual discussion"

2007-09-05T00:24:00.000-07:00

It is with such discussions that the point (often repeated) becomes clear, that it is all about choosing what works, and is thus all Madaniyyah and not set and fixed by the text....as clearly Islam didn't set any electoral system, nor did it even oblige elections per se, as the bay'ah process was more akin to an electoral college where certain tribal leaders simply selected from amongst themselves (or in Umars [ra] case, appointed) who the leader would be. The modern interpretation of that as providing an "Islamic" system of elections is clearly constructed because the bayah wasn't elections but a selection and/or appointment. This process changed with each one of the first four successors (khulafa) to the Prophet (saw), and thus isn't fixed, but is based on what the best thing to do was.

Thus there is an Ijma, that the correct thing to do is to actually adopt whatever works! Islam provides no clear guidance on whether appointment, selection, or elections are preferred (and ALL can be and have been construed as Bayah), and if elections are the preferred contruct, it definately gives no guidance on how those elections should proceed. Thus, it is all about what works politically, and is not a textual discussion at all.

Toppled Pyramid on Saudi Arabia

2007-09-05T00:21:00.001-07:00

Shaykh Uthamymin [rh] of the foremost Wahhabi scholars of this era considered Saudi Arabia Dar al-Islam (unlike HT who consider it Kufr), and the King as the legitimate Amir al-Mu'minin, or Amir of the believers(unlike HT who consider him an invalid ruler of Kufr)(see collection of Fatawi Muasara of Uthamymin)

Toppled Pyramid on "Kufr System"

2007-09-05T00:11:00.001-07:00

Therefore there is no such thing as a Kufr system, only a kafir or Muslim ruler...The term Kufr system is a modern post colonial Bidah...Thus Ahkam relate to individual servants, and not to systems. Systems are not accountable, they are not human. So, as our Ulema discussed, what matters is if the ruler is a Muslim or a Kafir, they never mentioned that the system has to be "Kufr" or "Islamic", that's like saying that a hospital is Kufr!

Toppled Pyramid on the division between religion and politics

2007-09-05T00:09:00.001-07:00

Surely State policy, and therefore the fate of millions of Muslims, must rely on more than mere blind faith in an INTERPRETATION of a hadith al-Ahad , which is thanni thubut and dalalah(though I do have tasdeeq in it but not tasdeeq jazim!)? After all, this is politics we're discussing and not theology.

Toppled Pyramid on Nationalism

2007-09-05T00:06:00.000-07:00

Nationalism and citizenship are modern phenomena, which aren't discussed in Shari'i texts explicitly. Therefore, our reconciliation with them is only ever going to be a process of political interpretation reconciled with an Ijtihad.

And so the issue becomes one of political argumentation about what is best practically, and not as much about whether this or that bond is Kufr or Islamic?

Toppled Pyramid on Assad of Syria

2007-09-05T00:02:00.000-07:00

So any ruler who is a Muslim is legitimate according to classical scholars.

Therefore, to evaluate whether the ruler in any one land is/was a Muslim, we turn to the scholars of that land who understand Islam and their reality better than we do. So, I assume a ruler is a Muslim until proven otherwise by the scholars of his land.

Specifically, therefore, until I see the Takfir of Ghaddafi from the scholars of his land, or the Takfir of any ruler from the scholars of his land, then I do not make such Takfir just because some politically motivated people do so. An example of this is Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti's and Syrian Ulema's lack of Takfir on the Syrian leader Bashar Asad.

Toppled Pyramid on Gadaffi

2007-09-05T00:00:00.001-07:00

Even if you do assume Ghaddafi the tyrant became a Murtad (I ask Allah to save him from that because I wish well for all humans), which I seriously haven't seeen any independent corraboration for - and don't tell me it's "well known", because that's like your "well known " Kufr Buwaha, the location of which not one of you seems to know, and we are still waiting for an answer to! - even if you do assume that, it doesn't automatically render the whole world Dar al-Kufr.

Toppled Pyramid on Qur'an and Sunnah

2007-09-04T10:25:00.001-07:00

Do the rulers even refer to Qu'ran and Sunnah?

Your principle that all matters must be referred to a Hukm, is a thanni principle, and not accepted by the majority of scholars who restrict this to the Ibadat only.

Most saw political systems as a Madaniya (which they are). This view is held explicitly by ibn taymiyyah, and Imran Ahsan Khan Niyazee (translator of Bidayat al-Mujtahid) in his book Theories of Islamic Jurisprudence.

So your assertion: they don't even refer to Qur'an and Sunnah...becomes as irrelevent as it would be when devising a management system for a hospital. Because you must accept this as a valid opinion and thus you must not call it Kufr.

Toppled Pyramid on Islam Karimov

2007-09-04T10:22:00.002-07:00

Do you assume that because Karimov boils people alive (an evil thing to do - but by HT theory - an "action", not a "law" and thus a "thulm") that he is illegitimate by that fact alone? Isn't that Thulm and oppression which your own books say must be disobeyed but cannot of themselves justify rebellion?

Why was it Haram to rebel against Hajjaj bin Yusuf who killed a Sahabi, and yet Halal to rebel against Karimov when he kills Muslims? Surely you need "Qati'i Kufr Buwaha?" So please show me where that is, not where Thulm is, we all know there is Thulm.

The only thing you can say is "because karimov rules by Kufr and Hajjaj didn't"....well then, please show me where the Qati'i Kufr buwaha (not thulm)is in ALL rulers (inc. Karimov) so that you can establish by Qati'i evidences that there is no Islamic state any where in the entire world.

Toppled Pyramid on killing Muslims

2007-09-04T10:22:00.001-07:00

Allowing American troops to kill Muslims is an executive decision of a ruler, not a legislative matter, and so is Haram and Thulm(not Kufr) even by HT's standards.

Many a Khalifah killed musilms, in fact Yazid was the Khalifah (according to HT) when he presided over the death of over 30 Ale bayt at Qarbala, including Imam Husayn [ra].

Killing Muslims isn't kufr. Allowing Americans to do it, is Haram, but is an executive decision (by HT standards), as it is not legislative and thus is not kufr.

Toppled Pyramid's Methodology for Change

2007-09-04T10:20:00.001-07:00

I have never claimed to lay out a detailed plan and methodology to save the world, and then conquer it too. I am simply saying that those who do, and then invite everyone to join them, and then say that those who don't are sinful, are wrong, and must be told they are wrong, just like I have spoken out many times against the US and UK, I will speak out against these guys too.

Which order I do it in is a matter of tactics, and I am sure you are not going to try and prove that even my tactics are now Kufr Buwaha aswell??

AS for intellectual revival, (and keeping aside tactical decisions and dogmatic principles) without writing a dissertation on it, I will say that everything you know about how to achieve revival from HT, is enough detail to use with these ideas instead. So I don't actually need to elaborate any further, unless you are saying that HT's ideas for revival are vague? So for example, the need for a political consesus in Muslim lands and to change ideas in society, however you do that with HT, you can do with these ideas too.

Toppled Pyramid on Islamism

2007-09-04T10:19:00.000-07:00

Are Islamists a greater danger or the US?

I think that the Islamists would rule with the iron fist domestically and foreign policy, IF in power (as is in their literature), and the US is ruling with the iron fist in foreign policy already.

Things aren't so black and white to say who is a greater danger, both are a grave danger, and both need to be addressed.

Islamists, though, seem to me to be a greater danger to the theological Islamic understanding, the danger from within, and that needs to be addressed.

Why am I focusing on HT? I am not, I am focussing on Islamists as part of my strategy to re-claim Islam. However, I am sure you would agree that HT are the most articulate of Islamists and the better versed in their ideology. So i will start at the the top.

Toppled Pyramid on Ed Husain

2007-09-04T10:18:00.001-07:00

I don't know what Ed husain said. So I cannot comment further, but I do know that if you know, then apply HT's criteria of a Shubhat Dalil on his view. If it becomes apparent that he has, then it doesn't mean that you have to agree with it, it simply means that he is not on Kufr.

Toppled Pyramid on Husni Mubarak

2007-09-04T10:16:00.000-07:00

Husni, it comes down to whether he is a valid ruler ruling by sin and oppression, or an invalid ruler.

It's strange that you ask whether he has a Shubhat Dalil for torturing people. This is only ever going to be oppression anyway, torturing people is not Kufr Buwaha, by HT's own ideas because it is not a matter of rule, but a mater of executive decision. Like when Hajjaj bin Yusuf was tyrannical. So I ask you brother, please move away from emotional examples, and you will soon see that most of what you are saying is Kufr, is actually simply something that you are angry about becuase it is a wrong.

So it all comes down to whether Hosni is on Kufr Buwaha or not, not on whether he is tyrannical by allowing torture (which is not kufr - and is definately not instituted by law in Egypt anyway - which HT would require for it to be Kufr). So is Husni on Kufr? For this refer to the principles in Question 1. I for one, cannot see where the Kufr Buwaha is.