User:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Hizb ut-Tahrir in Central Asia

=for section of main HT article=

Positions/policies
The party has been described as being "centralised" in leadership and strategy, with its ideology based on the writings of its (deceased) founder al-Nabhani since the party's founding and unlikely to change. The party itself claims its "ideology and its method of work" has been "meticulously thought out and published in many detailed books." Prospective HT members study the "core books" of HT in preparation for being accepted as members. (Hizb ut-Tahrir websites, speeches, etc. also detail party positions.)

Critics have pointed out differences between party texts and public statements and accused HT of varying its "message to suit different audiences", or of attempting to "soften" its public image (by deleting pamphlets from its website and other means), "as a defensive reaction to increased scrutiny," while leaving its original strategy/ideology untouched. HT itself claims there is "a lot of ... propaganda and disinformation" about the party and the caliphate being spread by enemies to "demonise" HT.


 * Draft Constitution

The HT Draft Constitution or "proposed constitution" which contains many party positions, has been described by one party leader (Jalaluddin Patel), as "the sum of all the work and research" the party has "done in this field", "based on Ijtihad", interpretations of Islamic texts and traditions, schools of fiqh and individual scholars, (including Shi'a) and consultation with "various Islamic groups around the world". Patel also told Jamestown that if the "the future Caliph" is not a member of HT, the party will offer the constitution to him as a "working document" which he can "accept, amend or indeed reject in favor of his own opinion and Ijtihad (interpretation)".

Khilafah/Caliphate and Islam
Hizb ut-Tahrir texts and websites holds that re-establishing the Khilafah state or Caliphate with sharia law, has been decreed by God as the "most important" obligation of Muslims, who will be punished if they neglect it. Without the caliphate and true sharia law, Muslims have been living in a state of jahiliyya (pre-Islamic ignorance). "Not a single country or state" has escaped jahilayya and Dar al-Kufr (unbelief), including ones that consider themselves to be Islamic states, such as Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Islamic Republic of Iran. These and all other Muslim-majority states and polities -- Kurds, Turks, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. -- serve as "agents" of a non-Muslim power (usually of the United States), and their anti-American rhetoric/policies or their fighting amongst each other nothwithstanding, are actually "working harmoniously within US policy".
 * Caliphate

One HT website (HT Britain) states that the Caliphate "dominated 95% of Islamic history" as a "stable, independent, accountable and representative state", and that then party goals of unifying all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state where sharia law is strictly applied have strong support in the Muslim world. The caliphate will bring stability, the party argues, by providing a political system that is "accountable" and ruler who is legitimized by virtue of elected representation; by returning the Muslim world to Islamic practice and traditional readings of Islamic values and history; and because it is "the only institution able to provide credible leadership on Islamic issues and for Muslims".

The ruler of the caliphate, the Caliph (or Khaleefah), should be elected, not chosen through blood lines or imposed on Muslims, according to the Hizb ut-Tahrir Draft Constitution, and should be given a pledge of loyalty (ba’iah)  by the Muslim community following his election. The Muslim community would have "no right to dismiss him after he has legitimately attained the ba’iah of contracting."

HT sources (an HT "Information Pack" issued to British media by HT Britain circa 2010 (no longer available on HT website but copied to another site), and the HT Britain magazine New Civilisation) describe the ruler of the proposed caliphate as "an elected and accountable ruler" and a "servant to the masses, governing them with justice", "legitimate only through popular consent"  who can be removed at the demand of the people through "the independent judiciary" of the caliphate, and whose judicial opinion on adopting a law does not prevent further debate and amendment. Along with "an independent judiciary, political parties" and the elected representative of the Majlis al-Umma ("the council of the Muslim community", whose decisions are binding on the Caliph according to a Nabhani's book, Nethaam al-Huqm fil-Islam ) the caliph rules a state that is uniquely representative will provide "rule of law and equal rights for minority groups", and so bears no "resemblance to a totalitarian state", criticism notwithstanding.

But critics complain that the HT draft constitution describes the the Caliph as simply "the State". The constitution states the Caliph "possesses all the powers and function of the State ..." appointing and dismissing the governors and assistants of all the provinces of caliphate, the directors of departments, the heads of the armed forces and the generals, the chief judge and most judges, "who are all responsible to the Khaleefah [Caliph] and not to the Majlis al-Ummah" (according to Article 35e of the constitution). The founder an-Nabhani, in his book the System of Islam, specifically notes that the shura (consultative) body of the caliphate (the Majlis al-Ummah), "is for seeking the opinion and not for ruling", so that if the Caliph neglects the majlis "he would be negligent, but the ruling system would still remain Islamic. This is because the shura (consultation) in Islam . This is contrary to the parliamentary system in democracy.

There is also no limitation on the Khaleefah’s period in office, "so as long as he abides by the sharia’". Critics (Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart of The Centre for Social Cohesion ) complain that non-Muslims living the caliphate are not included among those giving "popular consent" nor able to serve in the government, while the judges ruling over any recall attempt of the caliph are appointed by him or by a judge (the Supreme Judge) who is appointed by the Caliph. Regarding debate and amendment of legal rulings of the caliph, articles 3 and 35a of the proposed constitution stipulate that they must be obeyed. One issue not open to "popular consent" or differing opinion (according to HT doctrine) is seceding from the Caliphate. "Preventing the dismemberment of any country from the body of the Khilafah" is imperative, "even if" it leads "to several years of fighting and ... the killing of millions of Muslims" (according to the second Amir of the party).

Islamic lands
"Islamic lands" to make up the HT Caliphate include not only Muslim-majority countries but also include Muslim-majority regions -- such as southern Central Asia (in China); the Caucasus, and Kazan (in Russia)),  even though they have been part of non-Muslim countries for many years; and states/regions which have had a non-Muslim majority population for many years -- such as northern India, East Timor, southern Spain, Sicily, Crimea,  Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Myanmar and the Philippines -- that were once ‘ruled by Muslims under the authority of Islam’.

HT founder an-Nabhani, explains that while some believe that a country "whose population is of non-Muslims", like Spain, "is not an Islamic country; ... This conclusion is false. ... because a country is deemed Islamic if it was once ruled by Islam or if the majority of its population is of Muslims." So that "Spain is indeed an Islamic country".


 * Expansion to non-Muslim lands

Hizb ut-Tahrir sees the Caliphate as eventually replacing not only Muslim states but Western non-Muslim ones,   but whether it calls for violence to achieve this is disputed. The HT "Information Pack" for the Britain Media states that "the suggestion that Hizb ut-Tahrir will be permitted to engage in an armed struggle when the Caliphate re-emerges, is absolutely false", but Michael Whine quotes HT founder An-Nabhani urging Muslims to follow the example of the original Islamic empire attacking and conquering adjacent territory of Persia and the Byzantine Empire, noting "what are we to say about the Ummah today; numbering more than one billion, ... She would undoubtedly constitute a front which would be stronger in every respect than the leading superpowers put together". Another HT text (The Ummah’s Charter, quoted by Ahmed and Stuart), states that the Caliphate "must rise to declare Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation," and a HT pamphlet (quoted by Dave Rich) predicts, “In the forthcoming days the Muslims will conquer Rome and the dominion of the Ummah of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) will reach the whole world and the rule of the Muslims will reach as far as the day and night. And the Dīn of Muhammad (saw) will prevail over all other ways of life including Western Capitalism and the culture of Western Liberalism”.

Among the criticisms of HT's vision of the caliphate are historical inaccuracy and danger of violence involved in re-establishing the caliphate:
 * Criticism
 * the historical Abbasid and Ottoman caliphates were "ignored or opposed by five of the civilizations [HT] seemed to think it had governed". (legal historian Sadakat Kadri)
 * eras of great Islamic cultural achievement occurred not under rulers who strictly applied Sharia, but "under open-minded rulers whom the group would consider heretical: the Mu'talite caliphs and Shi'a sultans of the ninth and tenth-century Baghdad, for example and the eclectic emperors who emerged out of Anatolia, Persia, and central Asia after the Mongol invasions." (Sadakat Kadri)
 * "during its heyday" the society of the Abbasid caliphate, "thrived on multiculturalism, science, innovation, learning and culture", not strict enforcement of sharia, and had famous free thinkers (Al-Maʿarri) and irreverent, impious poets (namely Abu Nuwas). (Journalist Khaled Diab)
 * that rather than being protected and purified by the caliphate, the religion of Islam "throughout Muslim history has operated as an alternative, in tension with the caliphate: it was a repository of ideals of justice and equity, and its purpose was to speak the truth to the vainglory of institutions of power." (Ziauddin Sardar)
 * How would the "security, safety and peace in the Muslim world" come about "through the forceful removal of all current Muslim governments" in the creation of a unified caliphate state, especially in light of Abdul Qadeem Zallum's statement in a "party text" that "if necessary millions of Muslims and non-Muslims will be killed"?


 * Defence

Responsibility for defense in Hizb ut-Tahrir's constitutional vision of the caliphate would go to the Amir al-Jihad who would be "the supervisor and director" of four governmental departments comprising "the army, the police, equipment, tasks, armament supplies", internal security, foreign affairs, and industry ("all factories of whatever type should be established on the basis of the military policy"). The Amir al-Jihad does not serve as the commander-in-chief, who, along with his immediate subordinates, is appointed by the Caliph. Conscription is compulsory for all male Muslims 15 and over in the proposed state "in readiness for jihad."


 * Economy

The draft constitution also details an economic system that allows private enterprise, but requires that "the State" should "provide employment" and "basic needs" for its citizens. To provide for this the state will draw from "permanent" sources of income from special taxes on non-Muslims: spoils or fei` (spoils of jihad when the non-Muslim enemy has surrendered or fled), jizyah (a poll tax on non-Muslims), kharaj (land conquered from non-Muslims in jihad). It also includes a "tax" of one/fifth of discovered buried treasure (rikaaz) and zakaah (annual Islamic charitable donation of 2.5% of a Muslim's total savings and wealth excluding a minimum amount) and other taxes if necessary.

The constitution also reserves public ownership of utilities, public transport, health care, energy resources such as oil, and unused farm land. Constitutionally forbidden activities include: "squandering, extravagance and miserliness", "capitalist companies, co-operatives", usury (riba), "fraud, monopolies, gambling and the like", leasing of land for agriculture, and the failure of a land owner to use their land, (such as leaving land fallow for more than three years). For monetary policy the constitution calls for use of the Gold Standard, and gold and silver coinage.

Outsider observers have called HT's economic proposals "very vague" (International Crisis Group), or lacking in coherence (Ahmed & Stuart, Zeyno Baran ). Former HT UK leader Jalaluddin Patel defends it, writing that "the Islamic economic system comes from the Creator", who has "better insight into the human condition than humans."

Jihad
HT texts define Jihad as "war undertaken for the sake of Allah (swt) to raise high His (swt) word" and requiring an army (Institutions of State in the Khilafah). They declare the necessity of jihad so that Da'wah will be carried "to all mankind" and will "bring them into the Khilafah state," and the importance of declaring "Jihad against the Kuffar without any lenience or hesitation;" (Ummah's Charter), as well as the need to fight unbelievers who refuse to be ruled by Islam, even if they pay tribute (The Islamic Personality).

On the other hand, public statements by Hizb ut-Tahrir deny "Hizb ut-Tahrir will be permitted to engage in an armed struggle when the Caliphate re-emerges, ... The party is not waiting for any order to begin an `armed struggle`".

Other HT texts differ over whether jihad is by nature offensive rather than defensive (supported in The Inevitability of the Clash of Civilisations), or encompasses both "defensive and offensive war" (supported on a different page of The Inevitability of the Clash of Civilisations). Statements also conflict as to whether offensive jihad must wait for the caliphate to be established (as the head of HT Britain, Jalaluddin Patel, told an interviewer in 2004), or requires only an "amir" to lead Muslims (Hizb ut-Tahrir pamphlet). The party does support "defensive jihad" in Iraq and Afghanistan against American occupation -- defensive jihad not requiring the "appropriate political and military capabilities" of an Islamic State, it need not wait for either a caliph or amir.

Shariah
Along with the establishment of an Islamic State, Hizb ut-Tahrir's other main principle/objective is the enforcement of shariah law to regulate all aspects of human life— politics, economics, sciences, and ethics. The law will be based upon fair interpretations of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus of the companions (Ijma al-Sahaba), and legitimate analogies (Qiyas) drawn from those three sources. The Islamic state will not "adopt a particular" Madhhab (school of fiqh)..) According to Forum 18 News Service, it was told by an HT representatives that "the only true Muslims" are those who adhere to one the four Sunni madhhabs, and "those who depart" the four "would be considered as apostates and liable to punishment according to Islamic law."

Regarding traditional hudud penal code, the HT text Concepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir describes their abandonment as part of the "misinterpreted the Islamic rules to adapt them to contemporary life" that started in the late 19th century. In a HT video on how Muslims should answer criticism of the "harsh" punishments of hudood, HT member Taji Mustafa argues chopping off hands and fee "are a huge deterrent" to crime. HT texts state adultery should be punished by stoning and pre-marital sex by lashing, apostasy from Islam by death. "Brigandage" and murder would be punished by execution, crucifixion or amputation. (Use of the punishments of ‘chopping off’ of hands for theft and stoning to death for adultery, would become law in the HT caliphate was confirmed in a 2009 interview of Tayyib Muqeem, a HT leader. )

Non-Muslim would be subject to the same laws and in addition would be subject to special taxes -- the poll tax of jizya and the land tax of Kharaj. Men and women are to be segregated in public except when absolutely necessary according to HT Draft Constitution. A women's body may not be revealed, "apart from her face and hands". (This was also reaffirmed by HT leader Tayyib Muqeem in a 2009 interview -- `Every woman would have to cover up.’ )  (see below for regulations for non-Muslims and women)

One of the benefits of the caliphate is that in its court system, (according to founder an-Nabhani) there has never been "even one case ... settled according to other than the Islamic Shari’ah rules" (This is diputed by historians. )

Unlike many court systems the caliphate would have no courts of appeal or cessation. ‘If the judge pronounced a sentence, it would become binding, and the sentence of another judge would not under any circumstances reverse it.’ (However, if circumstantial evidence changed, a judge could reverse a decision. )


 * Punishment for apostasy

In the HT Draft Constitution, Article 7 declares that Muslims who "have by themselves renounced Islam... are guilty of apostasy (ridda) from Islam are to be executed." At least one HT text (How the Khilafah was Destroyed written by Abdul Qadeem Zallum, HT global leader from 1977 to 2003) emphasizes the importance of the "rule of Shariah" calling for the killing of apostates from Islam (those who have left Islam). Abdul Qadeem Zallum warns that the abolition of the caliphate in 1924 by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was a consequence of wayward Muslims like Kemal no longer feeling any fear that they might be killed (since according to HT ending the caliphate was an act of apostacy). To prevent this from happening again, "it is imperative to put back this issue in its rightful place and consider it to be a vital issue, by killing every apostate even if they numbered millions."

One recent case of alleged apostacy HT has commented on was the May 2014 sentence of one Meriam Ibrahima to one hundred lashes to be followed by death by hanging issued by the Sudanese Sharia court for Ibrahima's alleged fornication and renunciation of Islam. (Ibrahima had been raised Christian and married a Christian but her absent father was a Muslim so the court ruled her marriage was an act of fornication and apostacy.)

After several Western governments, condemned sentence, Hizb ut-Tahrir issued a statement affirming that ‘the ruling of the Legislator, Allah the Almighty, for apostasy is death’ and that a Muslim should not ‘seek the satisfaction of the hostile Kaffir West upon the descent of the Shar’i provision.’


 * Criticism

Critics (Sardar, Kadri, Ahmed & Stuart) complain that the "particular sharia" advocated by HT would contravene the standards and values of "universal human rights", and "was formulated in the ninth century and is frozen in history. Inherently violent towards women, minorities and criminals, it has never been willingly accepted by Muslims but always had to be forcibly imposed by authoritarian regimes". (While support for sharia is strong in the Muslim world, agreement over what constitutes sharia is less so. )

Women
The HT draft constitution states "the primary role of a woman is that of a mother and wife. She is an honour ('ird) that must be protected." It declares that "Women have the same rights and obligations as men, except for those specified by the shar’i evidences to be for him or her." These limitations include not being able to hold ruling positions such as caliph, Chief Justice, provincial governor, or mayor; being required to cover their body (except face and hands) in public; not being able travel without a male mahram disobey her husband, or marry a non-Muslim. According to HT founder an-Nabhani, "the husband performs all work undertaken outside of the house. The woman performs actions normally undertaken inside the house to the best of her ability." "Segregation" of the genders is "fundamental" in the HT constitution, and men and women should not meet together in private at all, or in public except in special shariah-approved activities such as trading or making Hajj pilgrimage. HT supports the right of men to marry (what the West considers) underaged females, although not vice versa.

Hizb ut-Tahrir forthrightly advocates women's (i.e. Muslim women's) suffrage or right to vote, the right of Muslim women to choose a (Muslim) partner freely, right to seek employment, serve in the military, have custody of children after divorce even if she is not Muslim, and run in elections (for positions that do not involve ruling over men).

While opponents may consider this unequal status, Hizb ut-Tahrir maintains:

"Women in the Khilafah are not regarded as inferior or second class citizens. Islam gave women the right to wealth, property rights, rights over marriage and divorce as well as a place in society. Very recently Islamists established a public dress code for women – the Khimar and Jilbab which promotes women to cover themselves up as 'part of the well known attire of the dress code for Muslim women' based on 'widely recognised Sunni sources'."

In Australia, HT generated attention in it defense of the right of a 26-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl in a ‘Islamic ceremony’ outside of Australian law (but with the girl's father's blessing), declaring that Australian law, "is not a basis for moral judgments. Something being illegal according to western law does not make it immoral".

HT sources differ over whether dress for women is not a matter of choice. At HTB’s 2003 annual conference, an HTB member warned the audience: "Inevitably western attitudes are beginning to affect Muslim thinking. Sometimes Muslim women will say that they wear a headscarf as a matter of choice. ... A truly Islamic woman would say she wore her headscarf in obedience to the Creator whether the Creator gave reasons or not.'" However, three years later, HT Britain signed a statement in support of "a woman’s right to wear the veil" as a "human and religious right".)

In the organization itself, women are thought to comprise 10% of HT’s membership, playing an "active role" in "intellectual and political work" such as conferences held by the UK women’s section of HT, and following a dress code of jilbab (a loose dress), Khimar (headscarf) and socks, so similar it has been compared to a "uniform-like style".

Capitalism, Democracy, Freedoms, Compromise
"Capitalism" is defined by HT as a political system of democracy and freedom, not just as an economic system based on private ownership, and is frequently condemned by the party. Freedom of ownership is one of capitalism's freedoms, along with freedom of belief and opinion and "personal freedom". Capitalism is based on the idea of "the separation of religion from life", and supported by the "pillars" of democracy, "pluralism" (the recognition and affirmation of diversity and peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles), "human rights and free market policies". Another facet of "Capitalism" opposed by the party is the Western concept of "compromise"  -- an example of its unIslamic nature is the proposed compromise solution of allowing both Jews and Muslims to have a state in Palestine. Critics complain HT has invoked "freedom of speech, tolerance, ... human rights and democracy" when it was under threat of proscription in 2005. (Like other Islamist groups, HT texts describe Islam as an alternative economic system to both capitalism and communism and superior to both. )
 * Capitalism

Hizb ut-Tahrir draws a distinction between giving authority to the people in government (which is Islamic) and giving sovereignty to the people (the essence of democracy and unIslamic). Because Western democracy gives not just authority but sovereignty to the people, it is "deeply flawed" -- a "Kufr system" that violates sharia, is "controlled by large corporations and largely indifferent to the needs of ordinary citizens". Democracy may also lead to "moral laxity and sexual deviancy ... such abnormal and strange sexual practices" as homosexuality and bestality.
 * Democracy

Since "whoever does not rule whatever Allah has revealed, denying Allah’s right to legislate" is a kafir (unbeliever), self-identified Muslims who believe in democracy are actually unbelievers -- including Turkish Prime Minister  Necmettin Erbakan, who will be "thrown in hell fire for his apostasy and deviation from the deen of Allah" (according to one HT pamphlet). One revivalist Muslim opponent of the HT position on boycotting elections in Western democracies, (Mir Amir Ali) argued that numerous Muslim revivalist organizations had “decided that it was in the best interests of Muslims in America and Muslims worldwide to participate in politics without creating a political party", after seeking “guidance from renowned Islamic scholars from all over the world”.

Regarding other aspects of "Capitalism" condemned by HT -- "Pluralism", "Human Rights", and the Freedoms of Belief, Expression, Ownership, and Personal Freedom -- the 1996 HT work, The American Campaign to Suppress Islam, argues that while "many Muslims are attracted" to the slogan of "human rights ... because of the oppression, torture, and persecution they suffer from their rulers", these rights are based on the Capitalist ideology's view of the nature of man as "inherently good", when in fact man is good when he obeys God's law and bad when he does not.
 * Rights or freedoms

Muslims who claim that the freedom of belief does not contradict Islam are among the "trumpets of the Kuffar" (unbelievers). It warns that a Muslim who calls for human rights is either a sinner [fajir] (if they do not realise the contradiction between "human rights" and Islam), or a Kafir [unbeliever]" (if they believe in human rights "as an idea emanating from the detachment of deen from life." (Muslims who "have by themselves renounced Islam... are guilty of apostasy (ridda) from Islam are to be executed" according to Article 7 of the HT Draft Constitution. )

Reassuringly, American-based academic David Commins writes that, "within well-recognized bounds, the Muslim enjoys much freedom" under HT's hypothetical caliphate. The HT constitution also include rights such as assumption of innocence until proven guilty, due process, a ban on torture. Should the caliphate violate its citizens' rights, however, critics note that those citizens would have no right to rebel, because shariah law (according to HT text The Ummah’s Charter) "has urged obedience to those who assume authority over the Muslims, whatever injustice they committed and however much they violated the people’s rights."

Also opposed is pluralism, and the idea of "multiple overlapping identities" (such as someone being a `British Muslim’), which are an example of kufr (unbelief). In all its political actions HT works to "purify" the Islamic community from "the effect of the kufr thoughts and opinions". HT has distributed pamphlets at Mosques in Britain urging Muslims not to vote in elections for example (to the disapproval of other British Muslim organizations). In a pamphlet titled ‘An Open Letter to the Muslims in Britain regarding the Dangerous Call of Integration’, it warns that Integration into Western society and secularism are a way to "keep Islam completely away from their lives such that nothing remains of it but spiritualistic rituals conducted in the places of worship and a few pages in books of history".
 * Pluralism

Non-Muslims and the West
Regarding non-Muslims living under Islam, the British HT media Information Pack describes its position as a "matter of public record", and will follow the teachings of Muslims scholars who call for Muslims to "take care of their [non-Muslim] weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely" and even "tolerate their harm" to Muslims. It also states that non-Muslims under Muslim rule for thirteen centuries "enjoyed equal rights, prosperity, happiness, tranquillity and security."
 * Non-Muslims

According to Media Spokesperson for Hizb ut-Tahrir UK and member of its executive committee, Taji Mustafa, "rights of Jews and other non-Muslims are enshrined within statuary Islamic Law (Sharia). These were laid down by the Prophet Muhammad when he established the first Islamic State in Medina in the 7th century. He said, 'Whoever harms a dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen who has agreed to pay the Jizya tax and submit themselves as a second-class citizen) has harmed me.'"

However, the Hizb ut-Tahrir draft constitution for its unified Islamic state, forbids any non-Muslims living in the state to serve in any of the ruling offices, such as the position of caliph, or to vote for these officials. Muslims have "the right to participate in the election of the Khaleefah [head of state] and in giving him the pledge (ba’iah). Non-Muslims have no right in this regard." However non-Muslims may voice "complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of Islam upon them."

Non-Muslim would be subject to the same laws and in addition would be subject to special taxes -- the poll tax of jizya and the land tax of Kharaj. HT founder an-Nabhani explains that the taxes on Non-Muslims in the caliphate are a "right that Allah enabled the Muslims to take from the Kuffar [disbelievers] as a submission from their part to the rule of Islam." "'The Jizya is taken from the Kuffar as long as they remain in Kufr [unbelief]; if they embrace Islam it will be waived from them.' ... The Kharaj ... is a right imposed on the neck of the land that has been conquered from the Kuffar by way of war or by way of peaceful agreement, provided that the peace agreement stipulates that the land is ours (i.e. belonging to the Muslims) ... Each land conquered from the Kuffar after declaring war against them is considered Kharaji [land subject to Kharaj] land, and even if they embraced Islam after the conquest, the land remains Kharaji.'"

In regards to foreign policy, the draft constitution states that while "it is permitted to conclude good neighbouring, economic, commercial, financial, cultural and armistice treaties," "the State is forbidden to belong to any organisation that is based on something other than Islam or which applies non-Islamic rules." (It goes on to specify "the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and regional organisations like the Arab League.")

Concerning relations with non-Muslim states following the establishment of the caliphate, one source (HT representatives talking to Forum 18 News Service) stated that "all non-Muslim states" would be given "a choice between either joining the Caliphate under Sharia law, or paying a tax", but "failure to pay the tax would be punished by military attacks."

However two other HT sources are less leniency, requiring submission to Islamic rule. One, (known as Muqadimmat ul-Dustur aw asbab ul-Muwajjabbat lah or "The Introduction to the Constitution or the Causes of its Obligation", )  noted those in the Dar al-Harb ("House of War", i.e. outside of the HT Islamic State/Caliphate) are "considered belligerent in government (muharibeen hukman)", even if "we have a treaty with them" or there are "no actual hostilities (qital)" with them. Those who Dar al-Islam has a treaty with "are considered belligerent (muharibeen, lit. warring people) because they "are infidels (kuffar) and they do not submit to the authority of Islam” -- a position the Quilliam Foundations questions in a title "Islamism is peace or we declare war on you". Another work (The Islamic Personality, Vol. 2,) says concerning non-Muslim states, "…[I]f they accepted to pay the jizyah but refused to be ruled by Islam, it is not allowed to accept this from them because the cause of fighting – which is that they are disbelievers who have refused to accept the da’wah – remains standing so fighting them remains obligatory… "

In the "About Us" section of the English language section of its "Official Website" (as of 9 February 2016), HT lists "Exposing the plans and the conspiracies of the Kuffar [unbelievers]", as one of the four "actions" it "undertakes". Some researchers (such as David Zeidan) have noted how HT founder Nabhani emphasised (what he believed) was the hatred of the west towards Islam, where European colonialism was (he believed) simply a continuation of the Crusades: "Sheikh Nabhani considered Western animosity to Islam as a constant ever since the Crusades. [This animosity] is fueled by a wish for revenge and manifests itself in ‘oppression, humiliation, colonization and exploitation. ...’ Modern Europe is engaged in a cultural Crusade against Islam. . . . Orientalists and Christian clergy continue to support all anti-Islamic activities in the world, conspiring against Islam, slandering its history, and degrading Muhammad and his Companions."


 * The West

Western capitalistic states, led by the United States, are the “most vicious enemies” of Islam according to HT. Hizb ut-Tahrir sees Western influence as the cause of stagnation in the Muslim world, the reason for its failure to re-establish the caliphate thus far, and something in need of being attacked and uprooted. The Australian HT Media Pack describes Western governments as "the major obstacle to positive change in the Muslim World". Founder Nabhani has been described (by David Commins) as preaching that "British plots in particular and western imperialist conspiracies in general pervade the modern history of the Muslim world and ultimately explain its main lines of political evolution." In his book, The System of Islam, which is studied by all Hizb ut-Tahrir members, Nabhani states: "If not for the influence of the deceptive Western culture and the oppression of its agents that will soon vanish, then the return to the domain of Islam in its ideology and system would be quicker than the blink of an eye."

According to the same book, the Muslim world fell behind the West, (or other non-Muslim societies) not because it has failed to borrow some political, cultural or social concepts these civilizations had to offer, but because it did:

"Muslim stagnation commenced the day they abandoned this adherence to Islam and ... allowed the foreign culture to enter their lands and the Western concepts to occupy their minds."

Western intellectual and cultural influence as well as its political and economic influence must be "uprooted" from the Muslim community. According to late HT global emir Abdul Qadeem Zallum, "The fierce struggle between the Islamic thoughts and the Kufr thoughts, ... will continue ... – a bloody struggle alongside the intellectual struggle – until the Hour comes and Allah (swt) inherits the Earth and those on it. This is why Kufr is an enemy of Islam, and this is why the Kuffar will be the enemies of the Muslims as long as there is Islam and Kufr in this world,..."

According to the HT work Dangerous Concepts, among the tools used by Kufr nations to "finish off Islam by destroying its Aqeedah (creed) as a political Aqeedah" are such activities as "inter-faith and intercultural dialogues, and the viewpoint that both the Arab and Jewish races are the sons of Abraham."

Regarding the activity of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Western countries, HT texts emphasize the necessity of Muslims choosing between an Islamic identity and a Western one. A British HT media Information Pack states that it opposes assimilation in Western countries by Muslims but also "isolation". The party claims it "works to cultivate a Muslim community that ... adher[s] to the rules of Islam and preserv[es] a strong Islamic identity"; to "project a positive image of Islam" and "engages in dialogue with Western thinkers, policymakers and academics", but "does not work ... to change the system of government". However, HT founder An-Nabhani writing in his book The Islamic Personality, Vol. 2, stresses that the need to fight kufr extends to Muslims living outside the land of Islam (Dar al-Islam). In a land "ruled by kufr" where disbelievers "reside", the Muslim "is obliged ... to fight its people until they become Muslims or pay the jizyah and be ruled by Islam." In fact, unless he is not "able to manifest his deen [i.e. his religion] and perform the requested Shar’a rules", the Muslim is forbidden to leave Dar al-Kufr (land of unbelief) and return to Dar al-Islam, as this would be "fleeing from the jihad." Critics (Ahmed & Stuart) complain that this amounts to a call for Western Muslims to “fight” their country’s (non-Muslim) “people”, and demonstrates "the internal contradiction" between HT’s avowed “nonviolent” political ideology and its plans for subversion and violent jihad to eventually expand its proposed caliphate into non-Muslim lands.

Although in public pronouncements the party has criticised the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks, it has declared the "war on terrorism" to be not just overreach or arrogant disregard for Muslim lives, but a "disguise" for a "ruthless campaign against Islam and Muslims". the real motive for waging “War Against Terrorism” is not to counter terrorism. The real motive is clearly to establish and strengthen US hegemony and influence over the Islamic lands, their people, and their resources in order to repress any semblance of Islamic political resurgence.

The "head of Kufr (unbelief)" is the United States and its international domination "a danger to the world" which "only the Khilafah can save” it from, according to HT statements.
 * United States

Attacks on Muslims, whether they be arrest and torture in Uzbekistan, executions in China, or attacks by Hindu mobs in India, are actually "orchestrated and sanctioned by the head of Kufr, America". Although it has its "agents" in power throughout the Muslim world, the US is using capitalism (i.e. "Democracy, pluralism, human rights and free market policies"), to suppress Islam", as it fears the revival of Islam and "the return" of "the Khilafah State", which will "destroy" US influence and interests not only over the Muslim world but "over the whole globe." More recently a religious leader of HT, Imam Ismat Al-Hammouri, called for the destruction of America, France, Britain, and Rome, in a 2013 sermon.

One observer (Zeyno Baran) has argued that statements by US President George W. Bush (the war on terrorism is a "crusade", “you are either with us or against us”) ) and at least one US military leader (U.S. Army Lt. General Jerry Boykin: “I knew my God is bigger than [Osama bin Laden’s]), ) and actions such as civilian deaths in the War in Iraq, have alarmed many Muslims and played into the HT message.

Zionism
Hizb ut-Tahrir (which was founded in Palestine by Palestinians) strongly opposes Zionism and existance of the state of Israel, or any compromise or peaceful relations with that state. According to scholar David Commins, the "liberation of Palestine" from Israel was the original "primary concern" of Hizb ut-Tahrir, with the project of setting up a unitary "Islamic state that would revive the "true" Islamic order throughout the Muslim world coming later. According to scholar Suha Taji-Farouki, "while in theory the issue of Israel and the Jews remains peripheral to [HT's] main efforts, the party has consistently addressed it throughout its career".

In 1990s, Ata Abu Rashta, (HT’s current global leader and former spokesman), proclaimed that "peaceful relations with the Jews" or settling "for only part of Palestine" (such as the post 1967 territory of the West Bank and Gaza) is "prohibited by Islamic Law". "None of the Jews in Palestine who arrived after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire have the right to remain there. The Islamic legal rule requires that those of whom are capable of fighting be killed until none survive". Later statements by HT spokespersons also emphasize the importance of Islamic control of every bit of Palestine (Taji Mustafa in 2008 ) and rejecting negotiation in favor of military Jihad (Imran Wahid, January 2009 )

Another source describes HT as supporting the "destruction of Israel", but seeing this as the job of the Caliphate, which must be founded first for this to take place.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has used the term "one state solution" for the Israel/Palestine dispute ("Palestine – why only a one state solution will work"). This refers not to a Binational solution (usually thought of in that context), where the "one state" is a united Palestinian state with no official/state religion and equal rights for all religions, but rather to the proposed HT Islamic state/caliphate which would include Palestine and where everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, would follow statutory shariah Islamic law.

Charges of anti-semitism
Among the more high profile charges of antisemitism against HT include the 1994 call by a British MP for it to be prosecuted for anti-semitism (among other charges); the guilty verdict of the HT spokesman in Denmark for distributing "racist propaganda" (which included a quote from the Quran: "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out," followed by a passage stating: "the Jews are a people of slander... a treacherous people"); its banning from public activity in Germany in 2003 by a German Interior Minister Otto Schily for what he called spreading violence and hate and calling for the killing of Jews; a "No Platform" order against the group by the British National Union of Students in 2004 for (what the NUS called) spreading antisemitic propaganda; and the dismissal of an HT member and trainee journalist by The Guardian,  in part because of statements discovered on the party's website (which stated among other things that "the Jews are a people of slander ... a treacherous people ... they fabricate lies and twist words from their right places").

HT in return states that it reject "decisively" the charge which arises from opposition to HT's anti-zionism, and it rejects it "decisively". and which is "ludicrous" since "there is a blood relation between Jews and Arabs".

Accusers cite a number of HT statements about the innate (negative) characteristics of Jews and the need and duty of Muslims to eradicate them. In a 2000 article entitled "The Muslim Ummah will never submit to the Jews", Hizb ut-Tahrir lamented what it saw as the innate behavior of Jews:

"... In origin, no one likes the Jews except the Jews. Even they themselves rarely like each other.... The American people do not like the Jews nor do the Europeans, because the Jews by their very nature do not like anyone else. Rather they look at other people as wild animals that have to be tamed to serve them. So, how can we imagine it being possible for any Arab or Muslim to like the Jews whose character is such?... Know that the Jews and their usurping state in Palestine will, by the Help and Mercy of Allah, be destroyed 'until the stones and trees will say: O Muslim, O Slave of Allah. Here is a Jew behind me, so come and kill him.'" (This or part of this statement was also found on a 2001 statement later removed from the Hizb ut-Tahrir website. )

A 2001 leaflet posted on HT website Khilafa.com and since removed condemns Arab and Muslim rulers for "obstructing" Muslims from their "obligation" of  "eradication of the Jews". "O Muslims: Your brothers in Palestine are calling you, and you feel the pain to help them. But the treacherous rulers stand in the way of your help. They obstruct you from undertaking the obligation Allah has obliged upon you, the Jihaad and the eradication of the Jews."

Party members have been accused of publicly denying the Holocaust, calling it a “tool used by Jews to justify their own hegemony over Muslims in Palestine”. In a 2003 interview with Forum 18 News Service, an Uzbekistani HT member “expressed his regret that Hitler had not succeeded in eliminating all Jews.” At the Hizb ut-Tahrir August 2007 annual conference in Jakarta, Indonesia, global head of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Ata Abu-Rishta is reported to have "whipped the 100,000-strong crowd ... into a frenzy by calling for a war on Jews."

According to HT critics, labelling Muslims who "do not adhere" to HT positions, "Jews" is "not uncommon" in HT. Self-intentified Muslims alleged to be Jews by the party include Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, (the founder of the modern Turkish state who disbanded the Ottoman caliphate), and Islam Karimov, (the authoritarian ruler of Uzbekistan who has reportedly detained HT members without charge or trial for lengthy periods, tortured and subject them to unfair trials).

Violence
Hizb ut-Tahrir has been described as "radical" or "revolutionary" but "non-violent". The party shares "the same political objectives" as radical Islamist groups like al-Qaeda (according to Zeyno Baran ), and agrees with such groups that non-Muslims are waging war on Islam and Muslims, that leaders of Muslim countries are apostates from Islam who serve as agents of Western or other non-Muslim powers, and must be overthrown.

However, numerous sources describe HT in terms such as never having "been overtly involved in any violent actions", and having "long claimed it wants to achieve its objectives through nonviolent means" -- the words of one unsympathetic source, Globalsecurity.org. According to Global Security the U.S. government "has found no clear ties" between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activity, no "involvement in or direct links to any recent acts of violence or terrorism", and no proof of "financial support to other groups engaged in terrorism."

Among the sources agreeing with Globalsecurity.org that HT has never been overtly involved in any violent actions, are Hazel Blears, then UK Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who stated in February 2009 that HT ‘falls short of openly advocating violence or terrorism.’ In support of its claim to being a non-violent group, (and against the British government's proposed proscription of it), HT quotes from Oxford Analytica, a government ministers (Bill Rammell), two Home Office documents, an ex-ambassadors (Craig Murray), International Crisis Group, Pakistani journalist (Ahmed Rashid), academic (John Schoeberlein), a High Court in Pakistan (Multan Bench), UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and "senior officers".

In public statements -- such as its Information Pack for the British media -- the party states that it "has no history of violence or militancy anywhere in the world. ... Unlike Western notions of political expediency, we do not believe that the ‘ends justify the means’"; that proof of their commitment is the number of members who "have been imprisoned, tortured and even killed for their beliefs," but resisted resorting to violence; and that the party helps channel Muslim "anger and frustration over events in the Muslim world towards positive political work".

On the other hand, opponents of the party have suggested that its opposition to violence is conditional, "superficial", and far from complete. Critics argue:
 * that Hizb ut-Tahrir teaches that using violence against (what it declares) enemies of Islam is righteous and justified, but must follow a declaration of jihad by legitimate Islamic authority (such as the caliphate);
 * that it has urged and supported the use of violence against some non-Muslims in some circumstances (against Israel, against the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, against Hindus in Kashmir);
 * and/or that its positions justifying violence have lead to violence and terrorism by young Muslims impatient for the return of the caliphate.

According to two scholars (Emmanuel Karagiannis and Clark McCauley), HT's position on violence can be describe as either being “committed to non-violence for fifty years", or "waiting fifty years for the right moment to begin violent struggle.” (Critics casting aspersions on HT's putative nonviolence include Sadakat Kadri, ex-party member Hadiya Masieh the British National Union of Students, Zeyno Baran, |group=Note}} and the Daily Telegraph of Australia. )


 * Scriptural/Doctrinal basis of non-violence

The British website of Hizb ut-Tahrir states that the party uses the methods "employed by the Prophet Muhammad [who] limited his struggle for the establishment of the Islamic State to intellectual and political work. He established this Islamic state without resorting to violence."

Political scientist Emmanuel Karagiannis notes that after the establishment of an Islamic state in Medina, violence was resorted to. Jihad can lawfully be declared and violence and military force used (according to the party) once a true Islamic state is established. Karagiannis quotes HT: `when the Messenger of Allah waged wars, they were not fought by individual ... rather they were fought by individuals who belonged to a state. Therefore, the army was an army that belonged to a state.' Globalsecurity.org, describes Hizb ut-Tahrir's position as not being "against violence as such ... just against the use of violence now."

Researchers Houriya Ahmed and Hannah Stuart quote another HT critic (and former member of HTB’s national executive committee Maajid Nawaz), as saying that HT differs from some other Islamist jihadist groups in that rather than creating its own army for jihad, HT plans to "use pre-existing militaries". An August 2008 HT conference in London ended its presentation with the statistic that the Islamic world has, "4.7 million armed personnel -- more than the USA, Europe and India combined." (Some (Zeyno Baran) have expressed skepticism of the HT doctrine that Muslim governments would be overthrown non-violently to create a new caliphate, given government officials natural desire to stay in power and out of prison (or a firing squad), and the force of arms at their disposal to fight coup attempts. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, several unsuccessful military coups by pro-HT factions were attempted in countries in the Middle East,

But a 1988 HT pamphlet stated that "if the plane belongs to a country at war with the Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it", and a June 2001 article in a online Arabic-language journal of the party argued in some detail that suicide bombings are justified in Islamic law -- at least against Israelis -- "as long as the enemy unbeliever is killed". (HT sources have disagreed over whether the fight against non-Muslims perceived as attackers/occupiers in Muslim majority lands should wait for a caliphate, or is "defensive jihad" and so need not. )

There are also instances of the party calling for violence against specific targets: Karagiannis quotes an HT pamphlet as saying `the martyrdom operations that are taking place against [the Jews] are legitimate. The whole of Palestine is a battlefield whether it is the parts usurped by the Jews in 1948, or afterwards.`

In an August 2006 speech Ata Abu-Rishta, the global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, called for the "destruction" of Hindus living in Kashmir, Russians in Chechnya and Jews in Israel.

In the wake of 9/11 attacks when the US invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, HT issued a communique calling on the armies in the "Islamic Ummah" to wage war against the US and UK in retaliation for its "waging war on Afghanistan". And a 2008 HT press release called the reluctance of Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to "fight a war with America" "shameful", citing Pakistan's possession of "nuclear weapons, missiles technology and half a million brave soldiers who are ready to attain martyrdom for Islam".

Hizb ut-Tahrir states that it "has been on the public record on several occasions stating that in our Islamic opinion the killing of innocent civilians such as in the London bombings of 7th July 2005 and the attacks of September 11th 2001 are forbidden and prohibited." The British branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir was among the many Muslim groups in Britain that condemned the 7 July 2005 London bombings.

Its spokesman did not initially condemn the attacks however, and the Terrorism Research Centre complained that the initial response to the London 7/7 bombings was "to urge British Muslims to be strong in the face of an anticipated backlash" and to attack G-8 world leaders for taking advantage of the London attacks "to justify their ‘war on terror.'" Later statements asserted that “American tyranny and arrogance has reached a level that led many to believe that the only way to dent her pride is to rub her nose in the sand”, and that the “U.S. and Great Britain declare war against Islam and Muslims”.

The possibility of re-establishing an Islamic superstate notwithstanding, critic James Brandon has called the "real significance" of the party "likely" to be its increasingly important role in "radicalizing and Islamizing" the Middle East, such as spreading ideas such as that the conflict between Western democracies and Islamists is an irresolvable and "inevitable clash of civilizations, cultures and religions". Other critics warn that (they believe) the party is and/or will provide "justification for the instigation of terrorism" (Ahmed & Stuart); "paving the way for other, more militant groups to take advantage of the opening it has made" (Zeyno Baran). spreading radical Islamist ideas to "millions of Muslims" through "cyberspace, the distribution of leaflets, and secret teaching centres" (Ariel Cohen); and in each country’s native language (Zeyno Baran).
 * Justifying terrorism and the "conveyor belt"

Scholar Taji-Farouki writes that according to HT teachings Jews and Christians are disbelievers who have formed a ‘united front against Muslims, and are engaged in a permanent effort to destroy Islam'. Critics Ahmed and Stuart quote HT as describing the bombing of the Taliban by the US and UK as "a brutal war against ... the defenceless Muslims", and the placing of the groups "like" Islamic Jihad, Hamas, al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya in Egypt (whose acts of resistance have killed numerous civilians) ) "on the list of terrorist organisations". as an example of the anti-Muslim wrong doing by Westerners.

Others describe HT as "entry level" Islamism, or the first part of a "conveyor belt" (Zeyno Baran) for young Muslims that initiates a process leading to "graduation" (Shiv Malik) to violence. Zeyno Baran argues that Hizb ut-Tahrir safeguards its mission as "an ideological and political training ground for Islamists" by avoiding violence, and acting within "the legal system of the countries in which it operates". Other organizations handle the planning and execution of terrorist attacks.

Baran argues that as members become "impatience with the lack of success HT has had so far in overthrowing governments", they leave the party to create/join "splinter groups" less wedded to the idea that attacks on "enemies of Islam" must wait for a caliph. Baran lists four groups involving former HT members, the most noted being Omar Bakri Muhammad's group Al-Muhajiroun. Bakri, Muhajiroun and/or it front groups desire to turn the UK into an Islamist state, have praised the 9/11 hijackers as "magnificent", and bin Laden as "a hero who stands for divine justice and freedom from oppression", and claim to have recruited many young British Muslims for ‘military service’ jihad in Afghanistan. HT "reject(s) the charge" of "incit[ing] others to commit violent acts", maintaining that there are "many academics that reject the allegation". HT points out that the British government, in a classified report, discounted the conveyor belt theory, stating "We do not believe that it is accurate to regard radicalisation in this country as a linear 'conveyor belt' moving from grievance, through radicalisation, to violence … This thesis seems to both misread the radicalisation process and to give undue weight to ideological factors." (In reply conservative columnist Andrew Giligan writes: "In fact, at least 19 terrorists convicted in Britain have had links with al-Muhajiroun, including Omar Khayam, sentenced to life imprisonment as leader of the “fertiliser bomb” plot, and Abdullah Ahmed Ali, the ringleader of the airliner “liquid bomb” plot, who is also serving life." )

According to Michael Whine, a "partial list" of terrorists or accused terrorists "who were also HT members and/or influenced by its teachings" includes:
 * In Britain: Faisal Moustafa, Shafihur Rehman and Iftikar Sattar, who in 1995 were arrested and charged with conspiring to assassinate the Israeli ambassador, were reported to have been in possession of HT literature and to have helped organize HT meetings in Manchester. Omar Khan Sharif and Asif Hanif, the Mike’s Place suicide bombers, had contact with HT before moving on to more extreme organisations. Mohammad Babar, who is linked to the seven men currently on trial in London on charges of planning terrorist attacks between January 2003 and April 2004, has stated that he was a member of HT while in college. Imam Ramee, an American, spoke on behalf of HT while living in Manchester, and was the featured speaker at the HT organized Muslim Unity Action March against the war in Iraq on March 15, 2003. He was reportedly an associate of Abu Hamza al-Masri, and is said to have preached to “shoe bomber” Richard Reid, along with Hanif and Sharif, at the North London Mosque in Finsbury Park.
 * In Germany, HT leader Shaker Assem lectured to the 9/11 terrorists after one of the plot leaders, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, facilitated his introduction.
 * In Russia, HT leaders Alisher Musayev and Akram Dzahalolov were among 55 party members arrested in June 2003 for possession of plastic explosives, grenades, TNT, and detonators. In August 2005, 9 members were convicted of these offences and of incitement to racial hatred.
 * In Syria, the assassins of Syrian cleric Muhammed Amin Yakan, who after being reported to be mediating between the government and the banned Muslim Brotherhood was gunned down in Aleppo in December 1999, were said to have been HT members.
 * In Egypt, Salih Sirriya—a Palestinian HT member—led a coup attempt in April 1974 along with approximately 100 other members. Together, they stormed the Technical Military Academy in Heliopolis, where they attacked the armory. They seized weapons and planned to assassinate President Sadat, but were apprehended after an ensuing firefight that killed eleven HT members and injured many others. Sirriya was tried, convicted and executed in November 1976.
 * In Denmark, HT members compiled a “hit list” of Danish Jewish community leaders, for which they were convicted and imprisoned in August 2002. In particular, HT leader Fadi Ahmad Abdel Latif was convicted of incitement to racial hatred.

Journalist Shiv Malik notes
 * Among al-Qaeda leaders, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, (former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq), and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (architect of the 9/11 attacks), were both former members of Hizb ut-Tahrir according to intelligence sources.

Political spectrum
HT has been compared to both the political left and to fascism. Its "methodology and linguistic foundations", some "organizational principles" are said to have resulted from heavy "borrowing from socialist concepts" or to have "Marxist-Leninist undertones" (utopian ultimate goal -- communism or Caliphate, dislike of liberal democracy, a well-organized centralized vanguard party made up of secretive cells, high importance placed on spread of its ideas/ideology,  worldwide ambitions for revolutionary  transformation of the social/political system), or resemble a "Socialist student movement", with lots of pamphlets and "fiery speeches delivered by a small cadre of speakers from within their party structure".

It is known for "borrowing expressions" of the Western political left -- such as ‘Sexism, like racism, is the product of the power structure’ -- in "seek[ing] social justice" and "serv[ing] the poor" rather than foreign powers, while denouncing "capitalism" and the inequality it produces, "imperialism", governments made up of the economic elite, ruling "on behalf of the economic elite". Like leftwing groups, many of its critics and enemies in politics and media are conservative or right wing -- as the party itself has noted.

On the other hand, its ideology has also been called "reactionary", "escapist fascism" and "Islamic fascism". HT texts specifically denounce the concepts "democracy", "human rights", freedom of speech, religion, etc. Its constitution's provision for financial "revenue gained via occupation" and a subordinate legal status of and special taxes on non-Muslims has been attacked as revealing a "colonialist mindset", by critics Ahmed and Stuart. Along with the belief in the supremacy -- moral, legal, political -- of its (religious) communal group over all others, the party's belief in revealed truth as the basis of doctrine, anti-semitism,  a return to the gold standard, and restoring slavery as a category of citizenship,  are also at odds with leftist tenets.

Australian writer and journalist Ramon Glazov describes HT's marketing of its ideology (though not its substance) as "similar to pushing libertarianism as a ‘neither Right nor Left’ cure-all ideology."