Ahmadiyah and Hizbut Tahrir

Comparing the Ahmadiyah and the Hizbut Tahrir

*Bramantyo Prijosusilo* , Ngawi, East Java | Wed, 04/16/2008 12:31 PM |
Opinion

Followers of Ahmadiyah believe their leaders are rightly guided Caliphs and
their congregations of faithfuls constitute a Caliphate. The Hizb ut Tahrir
al Islami (the Islamic Party of Liberation, HT for short) is also
preoccupied with the idea of a Caliphate, a State with its own constitution,
armed forces and geographical boundaries.

Where as the Ahmadiyah seek to convert people into believing in the Ahmadi
version of Islam, which maintains Mirza Gulam Ahmad was the promised
Messiah, the HT also attempts to convert people into believing their own
version of Islam, which prescribes the struggle to establish a physical
Caliphate as a *wajib*, or fundamental obligation, for Muslims.

Both peculiarities are unique to their groups and represent a 'deviation'
from the traditional mainstream Islamic thought. HT was founded in 1953 in
Jerusalem by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, and is banned in many Islamic countries
but has supporters in high places in Jakarta. Ahmadiyah is also banned in
many countries and has no open supporters among the elite in Indonesia.

Although Islamic traditions state the Messiah will descend sometime before
the end of the world, not many Muslims believe he has already arrived and
departed in the form of Mirza Gulam Ahmad in India before its partition.

Similarly, although Islamic tradition does note early Muslims after the
death of the Prophet were organized under the banner of a Caliphate, most
Muslims also believe the establishing of a Caliphate is not a religious
duty, and that any form of State is fine as long as it promotes justice and
allows the practices of Islam and doesn't prosecute Muslims because of their
faith.

Most modern Muslims believe secular democracy is better than any form of
government yet invented and refer to the process of electing Abu Bakar as
the first Caliph after the Prophet's death as the precedence for democracy
in Islam.

Of course, there are some fundamental differences between the Ahmadiyah and
the HT. The main difference is the HT aims to establish a political
Caliphate.

Everywhere the HT is active, it denounces democracy as a Western vice. A
glance through HT websites impresses upon the reader a hatred for Jews and
the West, who are portrayed as evil controllers of the world that can only
be dealt with through the establishment of a Caliphate. In contrast, the
Ahmadiyah websites proclaim their motto "Love for all, hatred for none" and
do not aim to overthrow any government or form any State whatsoever.

Both the Ahmadiyah and the HT are prosecuted and banned in many countries,
but for different reasons. The HT is banned in many Middle Eastern countries
because it is hostile toward the governments and aims to overthrow the
State. In some European Union countries, the HT is banned because it breeds
anti-Semitic and extremist views, and several European terrorists were found
to have links to the HT and to possess substantial amounts of HT literature.
The Ahmadiyah are banned in some Islamic countries because they are judged
as deviating from 'true' Islam, especially in their faith in Mirza Gulam
Ahmad being the promised Messiah.

In Indonesia, the MUI organization of clerics has called for the Ahmadiyah
to be banned, and several Islamic organizations have viciously attacked and
closed down Ahmadiyah mosques. The Indonesian chapter of the HT, in
contrast, enjoys tacit support from some ministers and overt support from
hard organizations.

One might be tempted to ask, if Ahmadiyah preaches love for all and hatred
for no one, and HT preaches hatred for democracy and calls for the overthrow
of existing States, why is it that in Indonesia, the establishment is more
worried about Ahmadiyah than it is concerned about the anti-democracy
ideology of the HT? Why are there cabinet ministers who overtly and tacitly
support the anti-democracy, theocratic, ideology that aims to overthrow the
State to replace it with their version of a Caliphate? Does that not sound
like hypocrisy?

Further more, one might want to examine whether HT's version of establishing
a Caliphate is truly as Islamic as they claim. Though HT activists are
taught their strategy is to follow the example of the Prophet, many
ex-activists, such as the British writer Ed Husain have pointed out that HT
has a lot to thank Lenin and Trotsky for. While Muhammad taught a religion,
HT seeks political power using Leninist methods. The HT goes on and adopts a
Trotskyist, internationalist vision.

Maybe because Lenin's thoughts have for decades been banned here, no one has
actually pointed out the Leninism in HT's methods, because no one is sure
what Leninism is. The HT seeks, just like the Bolsheviks, to firstly develop
a core of firm believers that communicate clear and simple slogans to the
masses, and when the time ripens, one day seize power and establish their
Caliphate (Soviet).

Then from that Caliphate, like falling dominoes, their ideology will spread
throughout Islamdom. Eventually the Caliphate will convert the whole world
through jihad and da'wah. Just because they wrap their Leninist ideas in
Islamic jargon it doesn't mean that Leninism isn't there. The rank and file
of the HT is unlikely to be aware of their debt to Lenin but a debt there
certainly is.

Both the Ahmadiyah and HT seek to convert people to believing their version
of Islam, but while the first is concerned with the spiritual aspect of
life, the second is concerned with the political aspect. One would be happy
to see the Republic of Indonesia prosper and flourish, while the other would
succeed only once it had overthrown the Republic and established a Caliphate
in its place. Which is more dangerous for the nation?