A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims - MyKhilafah.com
A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims - MyKhilafah.com
A Warm Call from Hizb ut-Tahrir to the Muslims - MyKhilafah.com
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
18 u A <strong>Warm</strong> <strong>Call</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>Hizb</strong> <strong>ut</strong>-<strong>Tahrir</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Muslims</strong><br />
attacked and defeated, because its claims were not in agreement with<br />
<strong>the</strong> reality. It also be<strong>com</strong>es clear that <strong>the</strong> Islamic thought with which<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>com</strong>munist thought was attacked is true because it agrees with reality.<br />
So in this issue <strong>the</strong> thought of <strong>Hizb</strong> <strong>ut</strong>-<strong>Tahrir</strong> has defeated <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>com</strong>munist thought. Also, for instance, <strong>the</strong> Capitalist thought defines<br />
society as consisting of individuals, i.e. an individual, plus ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />
individual and ano<strong>the</strong>r individual etc. make up society. Thus, <strong>the</strong> society<br />
for <strong>the</strong>m is a group of individuals that have ga<strong>the</strong>red <strong>to</strong>ge<strong>the</strong>r. So this<br />
thought, if it is true, will agree with <strong>the</strong> reality and if it is false its<br />
contradiction <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> reality will be apparent. When it is criticised and<br />
attacked, it is criticised on this basis. <strong>Hizb</strong> <strong>ut</strong>-<strong>Tahrir</strong> has attacked it and<br />
said that this definition is wrong because individuals only make a group<br />
and not a society. When permanent relationships arise between people<br />
<strong>the</strong>y be<strong>com</strong>e a society, and when <strong>the</strong>re are no permanent relationships<br />
between <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong>y do not form a society. This is because <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
nothing more than travel <strong>com</strong>panions, each going <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> port he intends<br />
<strong>to</strong> go. Whilst <strong>the</strong> inhabitants of a village of abo<strong>ut</strong> two hundred people,<br />
for example, form a society, because <strong>the</strong>y have permanent relationships.<br />
Therefore, <strong>the</strong> definition of <strong>the</strong> Capitalists is purely mistaken, because<br />
if a group of individuals do not have permanent relationships arising<br />
amongst <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong>y cannot be a society in any manner whatsoever.<br />
Hence <strong>the</strong> Capitalist thought regarding <strong>the</strong> definition of society is<br />
defeated and it is clear that it is false because of its contradiction with <strong>the</strong><br />
reality. In order <strong>to</strong> <strong>com</strong>prehend <strong>the</strong> definition of society correctly one<br />
has <strong>to</strong> study it deeply. Relationships arise between individuals based on<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir interests. Thus, <strong>the</strong> interests of individuals are what create <strong>the</strong><br />
relationships. The thoughts of <strong>the</strong> individuals must unite over something<br />
in terms of whe<strong>the</strong>r it is or not an interest in order for <strong>the</strong> relationship<br />
<strong>to</strong> exist. Their consent, anger, delight and sorrow regarding it must also<br />
unite. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong>ir emotions must unite in order for <strong>the</strong><br />
relationship <strong>to</strong> exist. The system by which <strong>the</strong>y treat this interest must<br />
also unite in order for <strong>the</strong> relationship <strong>to</strong> exist. When <strong>the</strong> thoughts differ<br />
over <strong>the</strong> interest: (one of <strong>the</strong>m considers it an interest and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
one does not consider it an interest), or when <strong>the</strong> emotions differ, (so<br />
that one is happy abo<strong>ut</strong> it and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r is angry abo<strong>ut</strong> it), or if <strong>the</strong><br />
systems differ (if one wishes <strong>to</strong> solve it by a particular system and <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r wishes <strong>to</strong> solve it by ano<strong>the</strong>r system). If any one of <strong>the</strong>se elements,<br />
namely <strong>the</strong> thoughts, emotions and systems differed among <strong>the</strong><br />
individuals regarding an issue, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>re will be no relationship, i.e. no<br />
A <strong>Warm</strong> <strong>Call</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>Hizb</strong> <strong>ut</strong>-<strong>Tahrir</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Muslims</strong> u 19<br />
society. Thus, <strong>Hizb</strong> <strong>ut</strong>-<strong>Tahrir</strong>, after demonstrating <strong>the</strong> fallacy of <strong>the</strong><br />
Capitalist thought regarding <strong>the</strong> definition of society, has <strong>com</strong>e and<br />
defined society as being a collection of people, thoughts, emotions and<br />
systems. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, it is <strong>the</strong> unification of <strong>the</strong> thoughts, emotions<br />
and systems of individuals over <strong>the</strong> interest that forms relationships and<br />
so a society exists. With this understanding <strong>the</strong> Capitalist thought has<br />
been attacked and exposed because it contradicts <strong>the</strong> reality and it is<br />
clear that <strong>the</strong> thought with which it was attacked is true because it agrees<br />
with reality. Thus, <strong>the</strong> thought of <strong>Hizb</strong> <strong>ut</strong>-<strong>Tahrir</strong> in this issue has<br />
dismantled <strong>the</strong> Capitalist thought, and so on and so forth. If <strong>the</strong> thought<br />
with which <strong>the</strong> Capitalists attacked and challenged Islam was correct,<br />
Islam would have been defeated and not <strong>the</strong> <strong>Muslims</strong>. B<strong>ut</strong> <strong>the</strong> thought<br />
with which <strong>the</strong>y undermined Islam does not actually conform <strong>to</strong> reality<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Islamic thought that is being attacked is actually what agrees<br />
with reality. Thus <strong>the</strong> true Islamic thought has been challenged by a false<br />
thought b<strong>ut</strong> <strong>the</strong> carriers of <strong>the</strong> tr<strong>ut</strong>h were not aware of it, in addition <strong>to</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> weak intellectual conviction. Thus, shocking defeat was inflicted on<br />
<strong>the</strong> ummah.<br />
These were some of <strong>the</strong> thoughts and rules of Islam that were attacked<br />
by Capitalist thoughts and rules. As for <strong>the</strong> attack on <strong>the</strong> Islamic Shari’ah,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y used <strong>the</strong> new issues and issues which only exist in <strong>the</strong> Capitalist<br />
society <strong>to</strong> show that <strong>the</strong> Shari’ah is unable <strong>to</strong> solve new problems. The<br />
angle of <strong>the</strong> Western discussion was that <strong>the</strong>y would give <strong>the</strong> opinion of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Capitalist system regarding a problem and <strong>the</strong>n attack Islam by saying<br />
that such an opinion does not exist in Islam nor does it hold such a<br />
view. Thus <strong>the</strong>y concluded that Islam has an inflexible legislation that is<br />
unable <strong>to</strong> <strong>com</strong>ply with time and does not give sol<strong>ut</strong>ions <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> problems<br />
that exist in every age. It <strong>the</strong>refore fails <strong>to</strong> permit usury although <strong>the</strong><br />
age has <strong>com</strong>e <strong>to</strong> need it. It is also unable <strong>to</strong> clarify <strong>the</strong> rule on insurance<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> trade and industry that emerged in this age<br />
require it. In addition, it cannot explain <strong>the</strong> trade relations between states<br />
according <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> requirements of <strong>the</strong> age. Therefore, it is not fit <strong>to</strong> be <strong>the</strong><br />
legislation for a nation or a system for a state in this modern age and in<br />
<strong>the</strong> new ages where <strong>the</strong>re will be new problems and issues that arise<br />
with time. This is <strong>the</strong> basis of discussion that <strong>the</strong> Westerners lay down<br />
and carried <strong>the</strong> discussion with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Muslims</strong> on its foundation and<br />
challenged Islam with it. The <strong>Muslims</strong> proceeded with <strong>the</strong> discussion<br />
on this basis. That is why <strong>the</strong>y became confused, because it was not<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
28<br />
29<br />
30<br />
31<br />
32<br />
33<br />
34<br />
35<br />
36<br />
37<br />
38<br />
39