Category: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr

New statement from Hay’at Taḥrīr al-Shām’s Ḍīyā’ al-‘Umar: “Regarding the So-Called Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr”

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

Click the following link for a safe PDF copy: Ḍīyā’ al-‘Umar — Regarding the So-Called Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr

__________________

Source: Telegram

To inquire about a translation for this statement for a fee email: [email protected]

Check out my new Sada Journal article co-authored with Erik Churchill: "A Balancing Act: Ennahda's Struggle with Salafis"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin


On a day when organizers had called for a peaceful protest to honor the Qur’an, most Tunisians will remember the images of young protesters who climbed a clock tower at Tunis’s main intersection to raise a black and white flag inscribed with the shahada, the Muslim testament of faith: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger.” On that day, March 25, a small group of protesters also attacked and harassed a troupe performing in front of the city’s municipal theater. These controversial and heavily covered events raise questions over how the Tunisian government, led by the Islamist party Ennahda, will handle growing conservative movements.
While much of the Tunisian and Western press has focused on the debate between Ennahda and the secular opposition, Tunisia’s ruling party has also faced criticism both from within its own party and from more conservative Salafi groups. Ennahda’s approach to instilling Islamic values in society contrasts sharply with that of Salafi trends: while the party believes that society should gradually, and through democratic institutions, adopt the principles it once lost under colonialism and secular dictatorships, many Salafis assert that democracy infringes on God’s sovereignty by establishing humans as legislators. This intra-Islamist debate may prove to be the true battleground in the ongoing transition.
Click the following links to read the rest in English or Arabic.

New essay from Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr: "How would a Khilāfah in Pakistan deal with the floods?"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (The Party of Liberation) is a Sunni pan-Islamist movement whose goal is to unite the Muslim ummah (community) and reinstate the Caliphate (al-khilāfah). Once the Caliphate is reinstated, the government would be ruled by Islamic law (sharī’ah) with the Caliph (khalīfah) being the head of state elected by a shūrā (consultation) council. Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqī ad-Dīn al-Nabhānī who was an Islamic scholar (‘ālim). Currently, Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is located in more than forty countries and is especially active in the United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the United States. The statement is unedited below.
—
The 2010 monsoon rains have left death and destruction across Pakistan. The monsoon season due every year near the end of July has in 2010 produced a year’s rain in 36 hours. The Indus River which flows through Pakistan was overwhelmed leading to the flooding of many villages.

Images of the president of Pakistan shuttling European cities as his own citizens pulled dead bodies from the floods beamed around the world as Zardari confirmed once and for all his complete disregard for his own people in the face of this unprecedented disaster.

Whilst it has become common practice to throw a number of emotional rants in times of government incompetence, successive governments in Pakistan have failed the nation one after the other and one disaster after the other. On this occasion we should go beyond this. Historically national disasters, war and travesties are occasions to review national purpose and a nation’s identity. The Pearl harbour bombings of 1941resulted in the US to mobilise for WW2. The new found purpose resulted in the expansion of the national defence system and society viewed it as its duty to defend America. This new found purpose turned America into the world’s superpower.

Pakistan is at such a cross road once again where its government has shown how it really feels about its people. The 2010 floods is Zardari’s Lal musjid and we should use this national disaster to chart a new course for the Ummah of Pakistan through establishing the Khilafah. Some of the actions a future Khilafah in Pakistan could undertake are:

1. Currently Pakistan has an unnecessary reliance on the US. The US needs Pakistan rather than Pakistan needing the US. The US relies on Pakistan for 80% of all equipment for its war effort in Afghanistan. It also needs Pakistani territory for meeting its fuel needs. According to Strategic Forecasting, the Texas-based private intelligence agency: “Pakistan remains the single-most important logistics route for the Afghan campaign. This is not by accident. It is by far the quickest and most efficient overland route to the open ocean.” As most of Pakistan was being subsumed by the flooding America was dropping bombs on Pakistan. On Pakistan’s Independence Day 13 Muslims were killed in a US drone attack. Three missiles were fired at a village near Mirali in Pakistan’s northwest tribal area of North Waziristan. It is not the so called extremists who are taking advantage of the floorings it is the US who is expanding is failed endeavour in Afghanistan into Pakistan. Pakistan can very easily weaken the US in the region by turning its back on it. The US is already losing the war in Afghanistan and it is only the current compliant leadership in Pakistan that allows the US to avoid embarrassment.

2. China from many perspectives needs Pakistan due to its strategic location. China’s navy has a strategic presence on the Mekran coast in Baluchistan, and along the Gwadar port that overlooks the supply routes for oil needed to keep the Chinese economy growing, and for checking on India’s hegemonistic ambitions. Developing strategic relations with China will allow Pakistan to move away from the US area of influence. This will at the same time complicate US plans to contain China. Pakistan should use such bargaining power with China to solve its Xinjiang separatist problem with a treaty of Hudaibiyah type deal.

3. Pakistan could begin to make better use of its strategic resources. Pakistan has significant quantities of copper, chromite, iron, antimony, zinc and Gold. Baluchistan has the world’s fifth largest reserves of copper and over 20 million ounces of untapped Gold reserves. Pakistan has no shortage of coal and gas. Pakistan has been blessed with the world’s largest coal field at Thar in Sindh. It comprises around 175 billion tonnes of coal which is the equivalent of 618 billion barrels of crude oil; this would meet the country’s fuel requirements for a century. Pakistan has been able to build five oil refineries and whilst their capacity is small, under an industrialisation drive these can be expanded and will make Pakistan self sufficient in energy. The shortage of oil refineries in the Middle East can potentially make Pakistan an important location for energy.

4. Pakistan should build upon its existing industry in order to industrialise and become self sufficient and independent. Pakistan surprisingly has managed to develop the foundations of an advanced military industry even though it has a dysfunctional economy. Pakistan began with virtually no military production capability, however it has managed to become self sufficient in areas such as aircraft overhaul, tanks, helicopters, frigates, submarine construction and fighter jets. Pakistan has on some individual military areas made stunning advances which need to be built upon. These include the development of nuclear weapons, the development of an advanced tactical ballistic missile programme, the development of a basic space programme and the development of its own drones. Such developments are the key for rapid industrialisation.

5. This national disaster is perfect time to end the army’s role in America’s war on terror where they can be re-deployed to reconstruction and relief efforts in the country. Politically America will undermine itself globally if it were to pressure Pakistan to leave its units where they are on the border to fight America’s war when the Muslims of Pakistan are drowning in the floods.

6. Whilst the UN and many around the world are organising charity, Much of Pakistani funds are going on America’s war on terror or on debt repayment which in handcuffing Pakistan for the foreseeable future. Pakistan politically can call for such debt to be written off in the face of this national disaster. This will then allow Pakistan to divert government funds to the relief effort. In this way Pakistan can come out of this disaster independent and stronger.

Whilst this is by no means an exhaustive list of actions that can be taken by Pakistan, Pakistan has all the necessary ingredients to rapidly industrialise, unify with the Muslim world and become a global player. From many perspectives Pakistan is in a much better position on the eve of development than many of the industrialised nations were. Both the US and Britain had very small populations whilst Germany and China today have energy challenges. Pakistan today has a population of 172 million where 50% of the population is under the age of 15. Only 4% of the population is over 65.
The Muslims of Pakistan must not allow this disaster to lead to some artificial change, its time the Ummah took their destiny into their own hands and made this change a reality. Those who save the deen, work to establish it and strengthen it have an exalted position in the eyes of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Their names will be remembered throughout history, with successive generations making du’a for them, and they will be highly rewarded by Allah سبحانه وتعالى.  The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم prophesied that Constantinople will be conquered one day, and it was Muhammed al-Fatih who Allah blessed with this honour. The 2010 floods should be the last time the Muslims of Pakistan are left to fend fore themselves when their government litters their pockets.

New essay from Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr member 'Ābid Muṣṭafā: "CIA's 20:20 Vision for the future Caliphate is Short Sighted"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (The Party of Liberation) is a Sunni pan-Islamist movement whose goal is to unite the Muslim ummah (community) and reinstate the Caliphate (al-khilāfah). Once the Caliphate is reinstated, the government would be ruled by Islamic law (sharī’ah) with the Caliph (khalīfah) being the head of state elected by a shūrā (consultation) council. Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqī ad-Dīn al-Nabhānī who was an Islamic scholar (‘ālim). Currently, Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is located in more than forty countries and is especially active in the United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the United States. The essay is unedited below.
—
By ‘Ābid Muṣṭafā
“They talk about wanting to re-establish what you could refer to as the Seventh Century Caliphate. This was the world as it was organized 1,200, 1,300 years, in effect, when Islam or Islamic people controlled everything from Portugal and Spain in the West; all through the Mediterranean to North Africa; all of North Africa; the Middle East; up into the Balkans; the Central Asian republics; the southern tip of Russia; a good swath of India; and on around to modern day Indonesia. In one sense from Bali and Jakarta on one end, to Madrid on the other.”
— Former US Vice President Cheney
In December 2004, The National Intelligence Council of the CIA predicted that in the year 2020 a new Caliphate would emerge on the world stage. The findings were published in a 123-page report titled “Mapping the Global Future”. The aim of the report is to prepare the next Bush administration for challenges that lie ahead by projecting current trends that may pose a threat to US interest. The report is presented to the US president, members of Congress, cabinet members and key officials involved in policymaking.
What is striking about the report is that it is full of references about political Islam and the various challenges it poses to US interests in the foreseeable future. There is even a fictional scenario depicting the emergence of Caliphate state in 2020 and its impact on the international situation.
However, the report is predicated on assumptions which undermine the validity of the report in various parts, especially the section on the Caliphate. Below is a critique of some of the arguments postulated in the fictional scenario: –
The report asserts that the strength of the new Caliphate will be borne out of the efforts of a global Islamic movement taking power. While it may be true that a global Islamic movement may instigate civil disobedience or initiate a coup to bring about the Caliphate, its strength and longevity is dependent upon something entirely different.
Intellectual conviction in a common set of values amongst the citizens of a state is the measure of the state’s strength and not the movement, which founded the state. The Soviet Union collapsed not because it was deficient in technology, but because its people abandoned communism and the communist party was powerless to convince them otherwise.
An accurate appraisal of the convictions of the Muslim masses for the resumption of the Islamic way of life through the re-establishment of the Caliphate is the single most important factor in determining whether the Caliphate will succeed or fail in the 21st century. This is more important than technology and resources, both of which can be quickly gained as long as the Caliphate is able to defend itself and base its progress exclusively on the Islamic ideology. Whenever Islamic movements are taken as the sole gauge for estimating the extent of Islamic revival in Muslim countries, a skewed picture will always emerge. The CIA is not alone in employing this false standard. The practice is wide spread and has tainted the analysis of respected think tanks and the writings of some notable commentators such as Francis Fukuyama and Samuel P. Huntington.
This flaw is not the result of their malice towards Islam, but is due to their adherence to the philosophy of individualism, which has marred their understanding of society and reduced it to a collection of individuals.
A proper understanding of society reveals that it is composed of individuals, which are bonded together by common thoughts and emotions, and live under a specific system. The degree of support amongst people towards the existing system of governance or for an alternative system of ruling can only be ascertained through the evaluation of these common thoughts and emotions.
The attachment to individualism has led the West to grossly underestimate the penetration of Islamic thoughts and sentiments in the Muslim countries, and also to miscalculate the wide spread support for the re-establishment of the Caliphate.
Another point of contention in the report is the claim that the emergence of the Caliphate will not cause the regimes in Muslim countries to collapse one after the other – the domino effect.
Again this understanding is derived from an incorrect understanding of society. A cursory study of the Muslim world shows that there exists strong polarisation in viewpoints between the regimes and the people they govern. Before the collapse of the Baath regime, Saddam an atheist was delivering speeches laced with Islamic terms. He did this, because he realised that the people were no longer motivated by Baathism, secularism or Arabism and only responded to Islam. Similarly, when Musharraf sided with America’ s war against Afghanistan he had to quote lengthy passages from life of the Messenger (SAW) to justify his stance.
The conflict between maintaining the secular order and preventing political Islam from assuming power is a daily occurrence in much of the Muslim world. The regimes in the Muslim world are viewed as the custodians of western interests and antagonistic towards Islam. Muslims simply loathed these regimes and are eager to extinguish their existence. The only reason these regimes survive is because of the dogged support from western governments.
Today, the Islamic Ummah stands on the cusp of a monumental change, just as the Warsaw pact countries stood some 18 years ago. The iron curtain came down because people had changed their viewpoint from communism to capitalism. Likewise the Muslim Ummah has abandoned both communism and capitalism, and is waiting for the emergence of the Caliphate, which will cause these regimes to collapse in spectacular fashion, only to be absorbed by the Caliphate.
Finally the report claims that Muslims would find the temptations of western materialism too much to bear, causing them to flee the shores of the new Caliphate. This view is obviously founded on the prevalent western notion that the Caliphate is the antithesis to modernisation.
Another factor that enhances this perception amongst westerners is the current exodus of Muslims from the Islamic world to the west. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, the Caliphate that Muslims want to establish is the rightly guided Caliphate, which was at the zenith of human civilisation. A historical fact widely recognised by several eminent experts on Islam- most notably Bernard Lewis.
Second, the mass migration of Muslims to the West is a consequence of western foreign policy ventures in the Muslim world and not because of Muslim infatuation with western values. Most migrants, if not all are either economic migrants or political asylum seekers escaping the tyranny of regimes often supported by western governments. Even those Muslims, who have settled in the west, have yet to embrace secular values for fear of corrupting their Islam.
The recent endeavour by Europe to coerce its Muslim population to adopt western values speaks volumes for Europe’ s obsession with secularising Muslims and runs counter to the stereotyped image projected by the western media that Muslim countries are pleading to be westernised.
The typecasting of Muslims is based on the erroneous understanding of anti-western feeling that pervades the Muslim world. Often in western circles, anti-western sentiments are equated with the total rejection of western civilisation and attributed to the fundamentalist camp.
To make matters worse, the desire amongst Muslims to own western goods are interpreted as a craving for the western way of life. Westerners often classify those who display admiration for western goods into the moderate camp.
To pigeonhole Muslims into the two camps based on such interpretations is wrong. This is because the anti-western rhetoric found amongst Muslims is a denunciation of western culture and not of western goods. Likewise, the expression for the admiration for western products is an acknowledgement of the superior quality of the goods and is not an affirmation for the wholesale acceptance of western culture.
For the first time in many years, the Muslim world has undergone a radical transformation in reconciling which aspects of the western way of life can be accepted or rejected with Islam. Muslims today accept western goods such as DVDs, Satellites Dishes, and TVs only because such items do not contradict their Islamic viewpoint. On the other hand western concepts such as freedom, democracy and individualism are discarded because are deemed to contradict Islam. Previously, the Muslim world was torn between two factions i.e. the modernists who wanted to adopt everything from the West and the traditionalists who were keen to rebuff all aspects of western civilisation. This mentality stifled progress and allowed the West to establish their hegemony over Muslim lands.
Today, it is not Muslims who are holding themselves back from human advancement and meeting the demands of the 21st century, but rather it is the West that chooses to suppress these developments and insists on imposing its values upon the Muslim masses in connivance with the regimes of the Muslim world.
This attitude has not only contributed to the West’ s misunderstanding of Islam, but has encouraged the West to define an inequitable relationship with the Muslim world.
Furthermore, the mindset has prompted the West to shun everything to do with Islam. West’ s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has already highlighted the abuse of the Muslim people, the pillage of their land and denigration of Islam.
If this attitude is not reversed then the West will find itself in a precarious position on two fronts.
First, the Caliphate will be a strong, progressive state charting a new destiny for the Muslim people after liberating them from the political, military and economic hegemony of the West. The West weakened by this abrupt loss of control will struggle to maintain its dominance in world affairs.
Secondly, the Caliphate will swiftly harness the synergy between Islam and science, thereby surpassing the West in terms of inventions, technologies and new scientific discoveries. Given the West’ s negative attitudes towards all things Islamic, it will find itself closing the doors to knowledge and shielding its people from progress and challenges of 21st century.

Sixth issue of the Turkestan Islamic Party's magazine "Ṣawt Al-Islām" released

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: According to the NEFA Foundation, the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP; Ḥizb al-Islāmī al-Turkistānī):

is a terrorist organization primarily based in Waziristan and elsewhere in the North West Frontier of Pakistan. The TIP is composed of Uighur Muslims from western regions of China – who have sworn to wage war against the Chinese government and have carried out scattered shooting and bombing attacks. It is a splinter faction of an organization known as East Turkestan Islamic Movement

—

Sawt Al-Islam- The 6th issue of the Turkestan Islamic Party magazine

New essay from Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr: "Who will fill the government posts in a future Khilāfah and from where in society will they be selected from?"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (The Party of Liberation) is a Sunni pan-Islamist movement whose goal is to unite the Muslim ummah (community) and reinstate the Caliphate (al-khilāfah). Once the Caliphate is reinstated, the government would be ruled by Islamic law (sharī’ah) with the Caliph (khalīfah) being the head of state elected by a shūrā (consultation) council. Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqī ad-Dīn al-Nabhānī who was an Islamic scholar (‘ālim). Currently, Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is located in more than forty countries and is especially active in the United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the United States. The essay is unedited below.
—
In answer to this there are two factors that need to be considered for someone to be suitable for a ruling position in the Khilafah – capability and strength of ideology.
Capability to Rule
Capability in carrying out the task of ruling is an explicit shar’i (Iegal) condition for the Khaleefah, Assistants (mu’awinoon) and the governors (wulah).
This ruling capability is manifested in certain traits that will enable the person to fulfil the responsibilities of office and manage the affairs of state. These traits are strength of personality, consciousness of Allah (taqwa), kindness and that he should not be one who causes aversion.
1. Strength of personality – The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم stipulated that the ruler must be strong and that the weak person is not suitable to become a ruler.
Muslim narrated from Abu Dharr who said: “I said: O Messenger of Allah, will you not appoint me as a governor/ruler? He صلى الله عليه وسلم struck my shoulder with his hand then said: “O Abu Dharr, you are weak and it is a trust (amanah). On the Day of Judgement it will be a disgrace and regret except for the one who took it by its right and fulfilled his duty in it.”
Strength of personality means the intellectual and emotional strength. It is necessary that this mentality be the ruling mentality by which he understands matters and relationships, and that his emotional disposition (nafsiyya) is that of a ruler who understands he is a ruler so his inclinations are of a leader.
2. Consciousness of Allah (taqwa) – Since the personality trait of strength has within it the potential of domination there is an obvious need for the ruler to have an attribute which protects him from the evil of domination. It is therefore necessary that he has the attribute of taqwa in taking care of the Ummah.
Muslim and Ahmad from Sulayman bin Buraydah from his father: “Whenever the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم would appoint an Amir over an army or expedition, he would command him with taqwa with himself and to be good to those Muslims who are with him.”
The ruler, if he is conscious of Allah and fears Him, and accounts himself in his own soul secretly and openly, then this would prevent him from tyranny in the first instance.
3. Kindness – Taqwa alone would not prevent the Khaleefah from harshness and severity since in his taking account of Allah he would restrict himself to His commands and prohibitions. And since he is a ruler, it is natural in his position to be severe and hard, and because of this the Lawgiver (Ash-Shari’) commanded him to be friendly and not to be hostile to the citizens.
From Aisha who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم saying in his house of mine: “O Allah, whoever is appointed over any matter of my Ummah and is hostile to them, then be hostile to him! And whoever is appointed over any matter of my Ummah and is friendly to them, then be friendly to him!”[Muslim]
4. Doesn’t cause aversion – He also commanded to be one who gives glad tidings not one who repels or turns people away.
From Abu Musa who said: When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم sent one of his companions in some of his affairs, he would say to him: “Give glad tidings and do not repel people, be easy and do not be hard (to the people).” [Muslim]
Strength of Ideology
The Khilafah is an ideological Islamic State where the Islamic aqeeda (belief) is the basis of the state, its institutions, systems and societal relationships. The Khilafah’s strength will depend directly on the strength of the ideology within the state. This means those in ruling positions must be of those who will work in protecting, implementing and propagating the Islamic ideology so the state remains strong and becomes a leading nation in the world.
This means those in ruling positions must be Muslim. This is because the Shari’a (Islamic law) has restricted ruling positions to those who believe in the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. This is no different to any ideological state within the world today. America or Western Europe for example would never accept a Muslim or Communist as President or Prime Minister. The fact that during Obama’s Presidential election campaign he was forced to distance himself from any hint of being a ‘secret Muslim’, such as removing two Muslim women in headscarfs from standing behind him in a speech is clear evidence of this.
Muhammad Asad in his book ‘The Principles of State and Government in Islam,’ writes on this point.
“One cannot escape the fact that no non-Muslim citizen – however great his personal integrity and his loyalty to the state – could, on psychological grounds, ever be supposed to work wholeheartedly for the ideological objectives of Islam; nor, in fairness, could such a demand be made of him. On the other hand, no ideological organization (whether based on religious or other doctrines) can afford to entrust the direction of its affairs to persons not professing its ideology. Is it, for instance, conceivable that a non-Communist could be given a political key position – not to speak of supreme leadership of the state – in Soviet Russia? Obviously not, and logically so: for as long as communism supplies the ideological basis of the state, only persons who identify themselves unreservedly with its aims can be relied upon to translate those aims into terms of administrative policy.”
Those in ruling positions must also be just (‘adl) and it is forbidden for them to be transgressors of the ideology (fasiq). The Shari’a has made justice a condition for the witness.
Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:
وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَيْ عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ
“Call two just witnesses from amongst you.” [At-Talaq, 65:2]
Since the Khaleefah, Assistants and Governors rule over witnesses, by greater reason (Bab Awla) they must also be just (‘adl).
Having established the characteristics of those suitable for taking up ruling positions within the Khilafah the next question is where in the state would we find such capable people?
Selection of Rulers during the Umayyad and Abbasid Khilafah
After the period of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs the rulers in the Khilafah were on the whole selected based on family ties where the Khaleefah would choose the next Khaleefah from his family. This led to the creation of ruling dynasties in the form of the Umayyads, Abbasids and later the Ottomans. The executive branch of the Khilafah started to resemble a monarchy, a period to which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to in the hadith narrated by Ahmed as a ‘biting kingship’.
Despite the misapplication of appointing rulers in the executive branch, the Islamic State was still a Khilafah, with the legislative and judicial branches held by the ulema (scholarly) class who ensured the shari’a was always implemented by the executive. Conflict between the ulema and executive always existed and ensured the independence of the judicial and legislative branches of government. This conflict came to a head during the inquisition (mihna) of Abbasid Khaleefah al-Ma’mun where Ahmed bin Hanbal refused to concede the Islamic position that the Qur’an was not created in favour of al-Ma’mun’s deviant view that the Qur’an was created. Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Malik, Imam Nawawi and Ibn Taymiyyah all faced persecution during their times for accounting the rulers and ensuring shari’a was always implemented by the executive.
One of the benefits cited for a monarchy is the clear line of succession for future rulers of the Kingdom. Historically, this was seen as providing a stable system that prevents a power vacuum after the King dies. When Mu’awiyah was Khaleefah he was the first to introduce the concept of hereditary bay’ah (pledge of allegiance) where the Khaleefah would nominate his son or other close relative to succeed him. In Mu’awiyah’s case he nominated his son Yazeed and took bay’ah for him before he died. The first to convince Mu’awiyah of such an idea was Al-Mughirah ibn Shu’bah who was Mu’awiyah’s governor in Basrah. He visited Mu’awiyah in Ash-Sham and said, “O Leader of the Believers! You are aware of what this Ummah faced of disorder (fitnah) and difference, and death is due on you; and I am afraid when it comes to you what had happened after the murder of Uthman will happen to the people. So assign to the people an outstanding person so that they take refuge in him, and make that person your son Yazeed.”
Mu’awiyah became convinced of the benefits in nominating his son and proceeded to implement this plan despite opposition from the senior companions (sahaba) within the state.
Regardless of the perceived benefit in having a clear line of succession as in a monarchy, Muslims are restricted by the shari’a rules. This deviation from the shari’a rules in misapplying the bay’ah resulted in severe weaknesses creeping in to the political structures of the state and in fact the hereditary bay’ah made the Khilafah less stable.
This weakness and instability occurred because restricting the post of Khaleefah to an elite few prevented any other aspiring candidates from reaching a ruling position. Political parties within the state were then forced to rebel and seize power militarily since no other mechanism was available to them for achieving power.
This is what the Abbasids did by seizing Persia and Iraq and using them as a platform to capture total power away from the Umayyads whom they then killed. They then followed in the footsteps of the Umayyads restricting the authority to the family of Banu Hashim in place of Banu Ummayyah.
Later the Fatimids took over the province of Egypt and established a state there. They tried to use this as a support point for transferring the rule of the Islamic State to the sons of Fatimah, daughter of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Their action caused instability within the Islamic State and stalled the Jihad allowing the crusaders to occupy the holy lands.
Selection of rulers by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs
A future Khilafah will not follow in the footsteps of the Umayyad and Abbasid Khilafah’s by selecting rulers based on tribal and family ties. The model for ruling is taken from the sunnah and the ways of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs (Khulufa Rashida).
On the authority of Abu Najih Al-Erbadh bin Sariah, who said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم gave us a sermon by which our hearts were filled with fear and tears came to our eyes. We said: “O Messenger of Allah, it is as though this is a farewell sermon, so counsel us.” He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “I counsel you to fear Allah and to give absolute obedience even if a slave becomes your leader. Verily he among you who lives [long] will see great controversy, so you must keep to my sunnah and to the sunnah of the rightly-guided Khaleefahs – cling to them stubbornly. Beware of newly invented matters, for every invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a going astray, and every going astray is in Hell-fire.” [Abu Dawud and Al-Tirmidhi]
If we look back to the first Islamic State in Medina and the states of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs we find those appointed to positions of authority were those who were strong in the Islamic ideology, and had the capability to rule i.e. they had a ruling mentality.
Those Muslims who before Islam were tribal leaders or from the ruling class already had this ruling mentality looking after the affairs of their tribe. An example is Mu’awiya, the sixth Khaleefah who before the conquest of Makkah was the crown prince primed for ruling Makkah after his father Abu Sufyan. Mu’awiya was appointed by Umar bin al-Khattab as governor of ash-sham (Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon) and remained in office until he took over the Khilafah from Imam Hasan.
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “You will find people to be like mines. The best of them in the Jahiliyya (days of ignorance) are the best of them in Islam when they have understanding.” [Bukhari, narrated by Abu Hurayra]
The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم also cultured the personalities of the sahaba and appointed them to positions of authority which developed their political experience. This political experience nurtured their ruling mentality and resulted in the sahaba becoming the future rulers once he صلى الله عليه وسلم had passed away. The sahaba were also the guarantors of the continued implementation of Islam even if they were not in government.
We can see this from the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs who were all Delegated Assistants (wazirs) at some point before becoming the Khaleefah. Abu Bakr and Umar were the wazirs for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Umar was also the wazir when Abu Bakr was Khaleefah. Uthman and Ali were the wazirs when Umar was Khaleefah. Ali and Marwan ibn al-Hakam were the wazirs when Uthman was Khaleefah. Incidentally Marwan later became Khaleefah after usurping power from Abdullah ibn Zubair.
In addition to holding the posts of wazir the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs held other positions within the state. Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali were chosen by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to be the people of shura (consultation) and effectively formed part of the Shura Council (majlis ush-shura) in Medina.
“The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم sent ‘Umar as responsible for sadaqah.” [Bukhari & Muslim]
“When the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم returned back from the umrah of Ji’ranah, he sent Abu Bakr responsible for hajj.” [Al-Nasa’i, reported by Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban]
He صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed ‘Uthman Ibn ‘Affan as an ambassador to Quraysh during the Hudaybiyah Treaty affair.
He صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib as a judge over Yemen, as secretary of agreements and peace treaties and commander of the Muslim army at different periods during his صلى الله عليه وسلم rule in Medina.
Khaleefah Umar ibn al-Khattab was very strict in ensuring he didn’t resemble a King and that family ties would have no place in ruling. One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “By Allah, I do not know whether I am a Khaleefah or a king, for if I am a king then this is a tremendous matter!” [Suyuti, History of the Khaleefahs]
When Umar was dying the Muslims came to him and requested him to assign a Khaleefah after him. One of the Muslims said to him: “Recommend your son ‘Abdullah.” Umar said: “May Allah fight you, by Allah you did not seek Allah’s pleasure by this opinion. Woe to you! How can I recommend a man who was unable to divorce his wife? There is no desire for us (family of Al-Khattab) in your affairs. I did not praise it (Khilafah) so as to like it to be for anyone from my family. If this matter (of Khilafah) was good then we have got our share. If it was bad then it is enough for family of ‘Umar that one person from them be accounted and be asked about the affairs of the Ummah of Muhammad. Really, I exerted myself and I deprived my family. If I managed to save myself sufficiently without sin and without reward, then I am happy.”
Selection of rulers in the future Khilafah
A ruling mentality is something generic that may be exhibited in both Muslim and non-Muslim rulers and is developed through political experience whether this is gained in government or not.
As an example America is a capitalist ideological state. Its rulers would therefore be from people who are strong in the Capitalist ideology which primarily means links to large corporations. For example Dick Cheney, the former Vice-President was chairman of Halliburton and Michael Bloomberg, the current New York Mayor is the eighth richest in America. The bulk of election campaign funding is received from major corporations in all government elections whether they are Presidential, Mayoral or Congress elections.
US Presidents are selected from those with former political experience such as governors, Senators, Vice-Presidents or military generals. George Washington was a former Military General, George Bush Junior was a former governor of Texas and Barack Obama a former Senator.
Obama was in fact attacked during his election campaign for not having enough political experience since he was only a Senator for three years, compared to John McCain’s long running political and military career. Obama used his grass-roots political work as a community organizer in Chicago as evidence of his political experience for the post of President.
Similarly a future Khilafah will choose rulers based on their ruling capability and strength of ideology as discussed previously. They will be those with a ruling mentality and political experience who have the skills to manage the affairs of state.
In practice this means the Khaleefah will be drawn from the pool of existing government posts. The Khaleefah may be a former governor, Ameer of Jihad, Delegated Assistant or Treasury Secretary with a wealth of political experience and well known to the ummah. As we saw with the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs it’s likely the Khaleefah will always have served as a former Delegated Assistant.
For the other government posts the Khaleefah is free to choose whoever fulfils the contractual conditions of that post and is able to perform the task at hand. These posts may be filled by former university professors, military generals, newspaper editors, heads of political parties, tribal leaders, imams, members of the Regional Assemblies (Majlis ul-Wiliyah) and members of the Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah).
In practice the majority of government posts will be drawn from the Majlis ul-Ummah since this is where the majority of politicians and statesman will be in the Khilafah.
A question arises, is it permissible for a member of the Majlis ul-Ummah to also be a member of the Khilafah government?
If we look back to the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم state in Medina we find he صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed fourteen men for shura (consultation) because they were the representatives of their people. There were seven from the Muhajiroon and seven from the Ansar. These fourteen men effectively formed a Shura Council (Majlis ush-Shura). Among the members of this council were Abu Bakr and Umar. Abu Bakr and Umar were also Delegated Assistants in the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم state so they held both positions, i.e. they were majlis members and rulers at the same time.
Therefore in a future Khilafah the state may adopt that Majlis Members can also be members of the government as we find in the UK where the elected representatives (MP’s) hold a dual role as Ministers and even the Prime Minister. However, due to the expansion in the role of the Majlis and its importance as a counterbalance to the executive power of the Khaleefah and its cabinet, the best solution would be for the Majlis Member to resign his position when taking up a government post. This is what happens in America when a Senator or Congressman is selected for government.
Path to government
As mentioned above closing off ruling positions to an elite few is not permitted in Shari’a and can cause huge problems to the Khilafah’s future stability. Therefore there needs to be a clear path to government and even the post of Khaleefah for any of the state’s citizens with such aspirations. This will be done primarily through allowing the formation of numerous Islamic political parties, establishment of Regional Assemblies (Majlis ul-Wiliyah) in each province and the empowerment of a central Council of the Ummah (Majlis ul-Ummah) in the Khilafah’s capital in the heart of government.
The scenario below attempts to illustrate this path.
Abdullah joins an Islamic political party in his youth. He is an activist of the party through his schooling and university. After completing university he pursues a full time career as an army officer in the Khilafah’s army. He rises up the ranks and then decides on pursuing a full time political career. His political party put him forward as a candidate for the 5-yearly majlis elections. He campaigns and wins his seat. He then becomes a member of the Majlis ul-wiliyah and makes a strong impression on his constituency and the majlis. In the elections for his second term he gains enough votes for a seat on the Majlis ul-ummah in the Khilafah’s capital. His work on some on the majlis committees impresses the Assistants (Mu’awinoon) who recommend his appointment to a government position. He works his way through various government posts finally becoming Foreign Affairs Secretary which is a cabinet position. From there he becomes a Delegated Assistant and when the Khaleefah unexpectedly dies he is shortlisted by the Majlis ul-Ummah for candidacy for the post of Khaleefah. His previous political and military experience wins over the Ummah who believe he can successfully manage their affairs and be the commander in chief of the armed forces. He gains the majority of votes during the election and becomes the Khaleefah.

Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr in Pakistan releases new statement: "Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is a political party and has no connection with militancy"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (The Party of Liberation) is a Sunni pan-Islamist movement whose goal is to unite the Muslim ummah (community) and reinstate the Caliphate (al-khilāfah). Once the Caliphate is reinstated, the government would be ruled by Islamic law (sharī’ah) with the Caliph (khalīfah) being the head of state elected by a shūrā (consultation) council. Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqī ad-Dīn al-Nabhānī who was an Islamic scholar (‘ālim). Currently, Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is located in more than forty countries and is especially active in the United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the United States. The statement is unedited below.
—
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Press Release
Date: 25th Rajab 1431 AH / 6th July 2010 CE
NO: PR10039
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political party and has no connection with militancy
Hizb ut-Tahrir will continue its non-militant struggle to establish the Khilafah
Once again Hizb ut-Tahrir’s name is being printed in various newspapers along with other militant organizations in order to portray Hizb as a militant outfit. Furthermore failed efforts are being made to link Hizb with terrorism. In these American endeavours Punjab government is seen working hand in glove with the Federal government.
Hizb ut-Tahrir condemns these nefarious plans and evil endeavours and reiterates that such allegations will not be able to deter Hizb from its non-violent struggle for the reestablishment of the Khilafah. Hizb ut-Tahrir’s writ against its illegal banning is still pending before the High Court for the past four years. This writ is a challenge for the “independent Judiciary” of Pakistan.
The current democratically elected Punjab government is no better than the Musharraf regime which was known for its subservience to America. Rather they are completely allied to an agent like Zardari in his anit-Islamic policies carried out under the guise of fighting “terrorism”. Currently, like the Federal government, the Punjab government is also dancing on the American tune that is working day and night to eradicate Islam from this region.
After the Lahore blast, as we had forewarned the Ummah, the government immediately started its activities against the Islamic groups and Madaris (Islamic seminaries) as if she was waiting for the blast. This is the part of the strategy which the US devised for this region after 9/11.
According to the policy all those elements were to be crushed which can pose any resistance in the US hegemony of the region or secularisation of its people. Hence efforts began to alienate the Ummah from all those who loved Jihad or the Islamic parties who were working to uproot this Kufr system with non-violent means by declaring them terrorist and then to crush them.
Not only this, the curriculum of all the schools were further secularised and work began to even change the curriculum of the Madaris. After crushing those who had the ability to posed any resistance in the Tribal region, America wants to move to Punjab and the Punjab government is completely in cahoots with them.
Furthermore the rulers are trying to link Hizb with militancy because they know that it is the Hizb that exposes colonialist plans before the Ummah and has the capability to establish the Khilafah by uprooting the kufr capitalist system. This is the US plan for whose implementation US agencies are busy conducting bomb blasts in order to provide government the necessary justification for operation.
The perpetual wave of terrorism in Pakistan started with US’s arrival and will end with its departure; there is no doubt about this in the minds of the people. The government is neglecting the obligation to eject US from the region. Hence the Ummah and the people of power will have to take this responsibility upon themselves. The Ummah should undertake non-violent and political steps to stop America’s supply line passing through Pakistan. No matter if they have to block the GT Road or socially boycott the owners of the tankers to achieve this objective. America’s supply line is her lifeline, cutting which we can easily eject US from the region.
Naveed Butt
Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan

New statement from Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr in Pakistan: "By conducting blasts in Lahore America wants to initiate another operation"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (The Party of Liberation) is a Sunni pan-Islamist movement whose goal is to unite the Muslim ummah (community) and reinstate the Caliphate (al-khilāfah). Once the Caliphate is reinstated, the government would be ruled by Islamic law (sharī’ah) with the Caliph (khalīfah) being the head of state elected by a shūrā (consultation) council. Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqī ad-Dīn al-Nabhānī who was an Islamic scholar (‘ālim). Currently, Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is located in more than forty countries and is especially active in the United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the United States. The statement is unedited below.
—
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Media Office in Pakistan
PRESS STATEMENT
NO: PR10038
Date: 21st Rajab 1431 AH / 2nd July 2010 CE
The nexus of Blackwater and the rulers, once again drenched Lahore with blood
By conducting blasts in Lahore America wants to initiate another operation
Hizb ut-Tahrir strongly condemns the bomb blasts in the Mosque adjacent to Ali Hajvairy’s (May Allah have mercy upon him) grave that killed more than 40 and injured around 200 Muslims. After a lull, America and its private army, Blackwater and DynCorp, have once again started the blood bath. The government of Punjab province just yesterday held a high-level meeting to initiate an operation against the “militants” in Punjab. The government cannot ask for a better opportunity/excuse to start this operation than a high-profile bomb blast like this. People know that it is not coincidental that Mosques, Islamic Universities, schools and market places are targeted whilst offices of Blackwater and other American terrorist organizations remain un-touched; this serves as a proof that America is behind these atrocious activities. She paves the public opinion for military operations by killing Muslims. Each time before conducting military operations for mass murder in Swat, South Waziristan and Orakzai Agency, string of bomb blasts were conducted in urban centres of Pakistan and the waves of public anger resulting from these blasts were used to support the military operations.
Let the US and their agent Muslims rulers know that the masses are no longer willing to buy this. This is why the people protested violently against the government immediately after the blast and held the government responsible for this crime. Moreover, with this terrorist act America aims at promoting sectarian hatred and wants to divide the Islamists so that they may indulge in sectarian feuds instead of uniting to kick US out of the region. This is the same policy which US adopted in Iraq.
Hizb ut-Tahrir sincerely calls the Ulema from all schools of thought that they should work together to stop US from achieving her heinous plans and call for the ejection of US from the region with a unified voice as it is solely because of American presence in the region that Pakistan has been turned into a ditch of hell. We also call upon the sincere Muslims in the people-of-power that they should reject the American order of killing their own Muslim brothers and concentrate all their efforts to rid this region from the evil presence of America. Only then this fire of fitnah can be extinguished.
Naveed Butt
Official Spokesman of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Pakistan

Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr publishes new article: "Islamic Ruling on Military Alliances with Non-Muslim States"

Posted on by Aaron Y. Zelin

NOTE: Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr (The Party of Liberation) is a Sunni pan-Islamist movement whose goal is to unite the Muslim ummah (community) and reinstate the Caliphate (al-khilāfah). Once the Caliphate is reinstated, the government would be ruled by Islamic law (sharī’ah) with the Caliph (khalīfah) being the head of state elected by a shūrā (consultation) council. Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem by Taqī ad-Dīn al-Nabhānī who was an Islamic scholar (‘ālim). Currently, Ḥizb ut-Taḥrīr is located in more than forty countries and is especially active in the United Kingdom and maintains a branch in the United States. The article is unedited below.
—
Today, we find Muslim countries making military alliances with the kuffar and fighting alongside them. Turkey is a member of NATO and has sent troops to Afghanistan under the UN International Security Assistance Force.
Pakistan has entered a military alliance with America to fight Muslims in the tribal areas and support the Afghan war.
Many Muslim countries participate in numerous other military alliances and collective security agreements.
Historically, the Khilafah entered in to military alliances with kafir states at certain times.
In America and Europe we find a small minority of Muslims joining the western armies and being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan with some scholars even issuing fatwas that this is permissible in Islam.
The Islamic ruling on military alliances and their permissibility is given below. This is taken from the bookShakhsiya Islamiyya (Islamic Personality) Volume 2 by Sheikh Taquideen an-Nabhani. The extract below is based on a draft translation from Arabic.
“Al-hilf” linguistically means covenant (‘ahd) and friendship. It is said “halifuhu” derived from “‘ahiduhu” (he covenanted with him). However, the technical definition of the word “al-hilf” specifically means military alliance.
Military alliances are the alliances contracted between two or more states that make their armies fight together with a common enemy, or exchange military intelligence and weapons between them, or if one of them enters in to war they will consult with the other state to enter war with them or not according to the interests they see.
These alliances could be dual treaties (mu’ahadat thinaiyya) contracted between two, three or more states, but they do not consider aggression upon one state as an aggression against all of them. Rather if aggression occurs upon one of the treaty states, the other states with which it has a military alliance have the option of joining the war alongside the state facing aggression or not according to what is in their interests.
These alliances could also be collective alliances in which aggression against one of the treaty states is an aggression against all of them. So if war occurs between one treaty state and another state then the other states with which it has a military alliance will enter the war alongside it.
All of these alliances, whether they were dual, collective or other than these, necessitate that the army fights with its ally to protect it and its entity whether there were numerous leaders or a single leader.
These alliances are void from their basis and are not contracted legitimately in Islam. The Ummah is not obliged to follow them even if the Muslims’ Khaleefah contracted them since they contradict the Shar’a. This is because these alliances make the Muslim fight under a kafir leadership, under a kufr banner, in order to preserve a kufr entity, all of which is haram. It is not allowed for a Muslim to fight except under a Muslim leadership and under the Islamic banner.
There came a prohibition in the sahih hadith against fighting under the disbelievers’ banner and their leadership.
Ahmad and An-Nisa’I narrated from Anas who said: The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Do not seek light with the fire of polytheists.” i.e. do not make the polytheists’ fire a light for you.
The fire is an indication of war. It is said the “fire of war was kindled” (awqada nar) i.e. its evil and violent passion was called into existence. The fire of fright (tahweel) is a fire the Arabs in jahiliyyah would kindle during alliances. The hadith alludes to war with polytheists and adopting their banner, so the prohibition of war together with polytheists is understood from it.
Alliances would also make the disbelievers fight with Muslims while preserving their entity i.e. they would fight as a state and not individuals. The Messenger prohibited seeking assistance of the disbelievers as an entity.
It came in the hadith of Adh-Dhahhak (RA), “that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم went out on the day of Uhud, when all of a sudden there was a good squadron or a harsh squadron so he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Who are these?’ They said: ‘The Jews of so and so.’ So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘We do not seek assistance of disbelievers.'”
Al-Bayhaqi said: The authentic report is what Al-Hafidh Abu Abdullah informed us via a chain leading to Abu Hameed as-Sa’idi who said: “The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم went out until he left behind Thaniyya al-Wada’, and all of a sudden there was a squadron. He said: ‘Who are these?’ They said: ‘Banu Qaynuqa and they are the people of Abdullah bin Salam.’ He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Have they embraced Islam?’ They said: ‘Rather they are on their deen.’ He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Tell them to return for we do not seek assistance of the polytheists.”
The Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم rejected assistance from the Jews and said in general manner: “We do not seek assistance of the disbelievers…We do not seek assistance of the polytheists.”
One should not say that we seek assistance with disbelievers against our enemy and seeking assistance with the disbeliever is allowed because the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم consented to Quzman fighting together with him in Uhud and he was a disbeliever, and he صلى الله عليه وسلم accepted assistance from some Jews of Khaybar in war. One should not say this because seeking assistance with disbelievers is allowed if they are individuals under the Muslims’ banner. Those whom the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم sought assistance from were individuals not an entity or state.
When Banu Qaynuqa came to the messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم they came as a tribe with their own leader, and they were like a state that previously made a treaty with the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم. They came to fight with the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and they were upon this situation and it was said to him: “They are the company of Abdullah bin Salam” so he refused to seek assistance from them due to this. Accordingly it is not allowed to seek assistance from a kafir army and under the banner of their disbelieving state.
Imam As-Sarakhsi said in ‘Al-Mabsut’ in the book of ‘Siyar’: “From the hadith of Adh-Dhahabi (ra) ‘that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم went out the day of Uhud where there was a husna squadron or he said khushna. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: Who are these? They said: The Jews so and so. So he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: We do not seek assistance of disbelievers.’ Its interpretation (ta’weel) is that they were powerful in themselves not fighting under the Muslims’ banner. For us, we only seek assistance from them if they were fighting under the Muslims’ banner whereas if they come independent with their own banner then we do not seek assistance from them. This is the interpretation of what was narrated when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists’ narrated by Ahmad and An-Nisa’I via the way of Anas and he صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “I am free (bariu) from every Muslim who fights together with a polytheist’ meaning if the Muslim is under the polytheists’ banner.”
From this it becomes clear that military alliances with disbelieving states are haram in the Shar’a and they are not contracted.
It is not allowed for the Muslim to shed his blood in the way of defending the belligerent disbeliever. Rather the Muslim only fights people so that they enter into Islam from disbelief (kufr). As for fighting disbelievers to enter from kufr into kufr and to shed his blood for that, this is also haram.