Sharia and the caliphate concept for a better Indonesia

(The Jakarta Post; April 23, 2008 )

Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, Jakarta

The Jakarta Post recently published Prijosusilo’s opinion “Comparing the Ahmadiyah and the Hizbut Tahrir” (The Jakarta Post, April 16, 2008). Obviously, there are critical points that ought to be addressed. Prijosusilo has not backed up his statements with clear arguments or facts. For instance, he has accused HT of adopting Lenin’s and Trotsky’s styles of political movement. It is unfortunate that such an accusation did not cite any evidence gathered from any HT official literature. Rather, he cited largely an opinion of former HT activist, Ed Husain, without further references.

Furthermore, Prijosusilo has chosen to hide the fact that the verdicts of Muslim scholars against Ahmadiyah was due to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claim of messengership and prophethood, not because of being a messiah after the death of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Accusation against Hizbut Tahrir is not new. In December 2004, The Nixon Center published a book entitled Hizb at-Tahrir: Islam’s Political Insurgency by Zeyno Baran. Both Baran and Prijosusilo voice highly similar opinions regarding HT, including opinions that HT instigates hatred against the West, propagates anti-Semitic expression, supports terrorism and adopts communist methods of political struggle.

With regard to the accusation of instigating hatred, one must see the object of the hatred itself. As a political party, HT has vehemently opposed Israeli occupation in Palestine and the American brutal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. One must ask again, is it wrong to hate those clear oppressions?

Prijosusilo seemed oblivious to the reason why HT has expressed certain opinions, conveniently accusing HT of merely spreading wholesale hatred against America and its western allies. Prijosusilo must know that HT has maintained consistent opposition against capitalism.

Furthermore, hatred against American capitalist policies has become commonplace in different parts of the world as shown by massive demonstrations against capitalism and the “war on terror”.

One must also be clear that HT resisted the formation of the Israeli state at the expense of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, Islam has never been interested in purging Palestine from its Jewish or Christian inhabitants. Therefore, anti-Semitic accusation is misplaced, since the Islamic mission is ultimately providing justice to humanity.

History has witnessed the coexistence of Jewish and Muslim populations under the shade of the Islamic Caliphate for 13 centuries. Jewish citizens of the Islamic state enjoyed living standards that were at par with their fellow Muslim citizens. Non-Muslim and Muslim citizens both had protected access to welfare, peace, tranquility and security, as documented by Will Durant in his book The story of civilization.

Second, HT has adopted a nonviolent method to changing society, which begins with changing prevalent thoughts in society itself without the threat of violence. HT is an intellectual political entity seeking to challenge the current societal frame of thought via public discussions, seminars and debates. HT forbids the use of violence and armed struggle to overthrow current rulers as methods to reinstate the Islamic Caliphate.

Acknowledgement of this nonviolent method was expressed by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan in an interview with Al-Jazeera on May 17, 2005. Moreover, Bill Rammell, who served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, also stated there is no incriminating evidence of HT involvement in violence or with al-Qaeda (Hansard, 19/4/04). There is not a single European state banning HT’s existence on the grounds of terror involvement.

Third, HT’s method is clearly different from the communist movement. There will be no armed struggle or violence to justify the acquisition of power.

Baran has fallen into the fallacy of composition (a misplaced generalization). Obviously, the hierarchical structure of any organization cannot be said to be an exclusive trait of communist party structure. Following Baran’s logic, military and parochial organizations should be labeled communists as well.

In addition, Baran also pointed out that both HT and the Communist party have pursued utopian objectives, as stated in their manifesto. Baran’s statement may be true for communism, which never established a true communist state from the very day of its inception. However, Islamic ruling system (the Caliphate) is not a utopian dream, since it has existed for 13 centuries and has been led by many successors (Caliphs) of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Fourth, Prijosusilo has not disclosed the facts that the majority of Muslim states banning HT are repressive and dictatorial states like Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Syria. Dictatorial regimes have killed, tortured and imprisoned HT activists for criticizing injustice and calling for a just Islamic system of governance.

Fifth, the duty to reinstate a Caliphate cannot be compared with the deviancy of Ahmadiyah. The obligation to have an Islamic State is a mainstream opinion adopted by well-known orthodox Sunni scholars. Shaykh Abdurrahman al-Jazairi stated, “Scholars of the well-known Sunni school of legal thought, such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, Syafi’iy and Ahmad, have reached a consensus that the existence of a Caliphate is a must. The Muslim community must appoint a ruler (Caliph), who has duty to propagate the Islamic call and empower the frail and downtrodden.”

Similar thoughts are also stated by Ibnu Hazm in al-Fashlu fil Milal wa al-Ahwa wa an-Nihal. The rest of the classical scholars have also expressed similar opinions in their books, such as Ibnu Khaldun in Muqaddimah, Imam Al-Mawardi in Ahkbm as-Sulthoniyah, Imam al-Qurthubi in his tafseer al-Jami li Ahkam al-Qur’an al-Azhim and Imam An Nawawi in Syarh Shahih Muslim.

Last but not least, does HT present a clear and present danger to the Republic? Within the Indonesian context, HT’s call for Caliphate symbolizes a resistance to neocolonialism imposed by western capitalists in this nation. Therefore, the call for sharia and Caliphate is a civic duty of the HTI (HT Indonesia) to implement true independence from exploitation in all shapes and forms.

Asked about national sentiments and territorial integrity, HTI has maintained an unapologetic stance to resist any separatist movements. If national commitment means siding with national interests and its people, HTI has voiced loud opposition against policies that are not in favor of our citizens, such as legislations regarding oil and energy, water resources and capital investments.

Those legislations are heavily ladened with capitalist interests and exploit Indonesia‘s natural resources. However, if nationalism means unconditional allegiance to secularism, HTI takes a firm opposition for a simple reason — secularism has failed Indonesia time and again. To embrace a better Indonesia, sharia and Caliphate is a strategic choice.

The writer is spokesperson of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia.