HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

More on Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Caliphate

We briefly discussed Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Caliphate, which centered around a Christian Science Monitor article on the group and their belief in the reestablishment of the Caliphate.

Charlie at OPFOR notes the same article this afternoon and spares few adjectives in describing the three interviewed in the article "waxing philosophical about the governmental structure of the caliphate." He reaches a very logical (and in my view very correct) conclusion.

Who would rule in this new caliphate? Shias or Sunnis? What about the Alawites, Sufis, Moros, Berbers, and other minorities? Which nations would hold the seats of power? Who controls the oil? What about the threats from America, China, Russia, and Europe to this “rising power”? Everyone could probably agree on a capitol: Mecca, but that’s probably all they could agree on.

Indeed, if consensus cannot be agreed upon at the UN regarding nuclear weapons or even a definition of terrorism, imagine the ‘battle royale’ that will emerge once an internal Sunni-Shi'ite power struggle commences for the control of the future of Islam.

If the world thinks the hatred for the West and Westerners shared by the radical among them is unending, with beheadings of infidels with dull Gerber hunting knives and the suspending of charred corpses from bridges for public celebratory purposes, just wait (theoretically) until they have no enemy but each other, Beheader v. Beheader, Shi'ite v. Sunni and Clan v. Clan.

Also note the response given by one of the younger followers in the article to a question about how the Caliphate will eventually convert the world's Western governments to inclusion within their global Caliphate.

"In the beginning, the Caliphate would strengthen itself internally and it wouldn't initiate jihad."

"But after that we would carry Islam as an intellectual call to all the world," says Abu Mohammed, a pseudonym. "And we will make people bordering the Caliphate believe in Islam. Or if they refuse then we'll ask them to be ruled by Islam."

And after that? Abu Mohammed pauses and fiddles with his Pepsi before replying.

"And if after all discussions and negotiations they still refuse, then the last resort will be a jihad to spread the spirit of Islam and the rule of Islam," he says, smiling. "This is done in the interests of all people to get them out of darkness and into light."

In their mind, though they see themselves as a 'peaceful' movement today (British 7/7 bombings by splinter members of the same group notwithstanding, of course), jihad is the answer for the world's rejection. So, as Charlie suggests they do, Hizb ut-Tahrir will indeed "pick up an RPG and join the revolution" (again, the bombing of London notwithstanding).

What I would add to Charlie's assessment is simply that the threat posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir has nothing to do with whether Hizb ut-Tahrir's reestablishment of the Caliphate is realistic or not. Rather, the threat has everything to do with their firm belief in its necessity and deep conviction to make it so.



I was surprised when stumbling upon your piece about Hizb ut-Tahrir as to how little you know about this organisation.

I am a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and would like to point out that Hizb ut-Tahrir above anything else has studied the many modern problems a new Caliphate would face and has elucidated the detailed solution to these problems and challenges. Questions such as 'who would rule' and 'how would a caliphate unite sunni and shia' have been answered in some great detail. Furthermore, Hizb ut-Tahrir has detailed how a modern Islamic state would run an economy and develop civic institutions.

I note that your website is interestingly named 'threats watch'. Well 'know your enemy' - it may be a better excercise for the US to really understand what Hizb ut-Tahrir is about and go beyond the usual hyperbolic statements which makes you feel comfortable about your governments naive view of the Muslim world.

Well it seems that Hizb ut Tahrir are not talking about picking up an RPG as you infer, but of a state that will carry an Islamic message to the West in a open manner as a foreign policy. After all has not the west been carrying democracy to the Muslim world through invading their countries and murdering tens of thousands of civilians in the process?

So you would say that an intellectual belief in a system other than the one you believe in is a threat? As their method is intellectual and political surely if your ideas are stronger, intellectually or politically then there is no threat? Or is it that you lack faith in people to make the 'right choice'?

>>British 7/7 bombings by splinter members of the same group notwithstanding, of course

This is not true. H.T. IS a non violent organisation and has been since 1953. It is their FIRM BELIEF and CONVICTION that change will only come about through dialogue and reason. People who attempt to label this organisation as violent have malicious intent.

It would be of more use if you engaged different ideas rather that maligning them at every available opportunity. No-doubt the relatives of the many million citizens who have been murdered by Democratic bombs delivered courtesy of America would place the USA and corporate Capitalism as number one of their threat-list