Muhammad Ali Hee grew up in Copenhagen and as an adult decided to convert to Islam. From 1998 - 2004, he became an active member of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a radical political entity that seeks to actualize dramatic social reform by using theological and scriptural justifications in order to implement the caliphate, a type of Islamic governance developed after the death of the prophet Muhammad.
First established in 1953 by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the organization has grown with an international body of nearly one million members. Although the United States, United Kingdom and Australia do not view Hizb ut-Tahrir as having any direct threat to national security, countries like Turkey, Russia and Germany have banned the organization for their aggressive aim to establish a global Islam with Shari'a jurisprudence.
The Danish government has twice rejected calls to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, yet the vocal and often extremist literature has raised doubts in the political arena, keeping the possibility of a temporary ban on the agenda. Muhammad Hee’s first published novel Afhopperen describes his experience as an active member in the radical organization and his eventual departure in 2004. This opportunity to understand the social and political dynamics of Hizb ut-Tahrir is a unique glance into the mechanics of radicalization.
Global Politics: Your book, Afhopperen (Defector) is an autobiographical account of your conversion to Islam and your active membership in the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark. Let me begin by asking what Hizb ut-Tahrir is and how you came to be interested in this organization?
Muhammad Ali Hee: Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamist organization which was established in order to re-establish the caliphate. They promote their cause by recruiting, primarily Muslims, but also - while living in countries where the majority are non-Muslim - aim to convert and then affiliate non-Muslims within the organization. Hizb ut-Tahrir works very systematically; they are out in the schools, in different work places and in community centres. They are ordinary citizens, but with the rather extreme ideology compared to normal citizens. I think it is fair to say that they are political radicals. Basically, what they do is persuade people into believing in their creed and political ideology, and they do this by arranging a lot of meetings and discussing in study circles different topics and different agendas, but always within the frame of the caliphate being the solution. They are always speaking of Muslims as a block, even if they perceive Muslims to be different, claiming it is because of westernization and influences from outside that have made Muslims different. The normal circumstances should be that Muslims are one unity and should aspire for the same system.
Before I met them, I was just an ordinary Muslim, minding my own life, though of course very interested in Islam. But, it was an Islam which concerned itself with my own behaviour and my relationship with other people. I was interesting in reading the Qu’ran and studying the prophetic narrations (Hadith). I later met different Muslims in different mosques, though none of them were Islamists but were ordinary Muslims like myself who just wanted to practice their religion and to try and do their best as individuals. I was acquainted with a Turkish guy and he was also studying the Qur'an and he was not at that moment radicalized or into Islamist thinking. One day, he invited me to an if-tar dinner during the month of Ramadan, and this was the first time that I met people from Hizb ut-Tahrir.
What interested me back then was that they were not only acquainted with my kind of Islam, the moral Islam or the personal Islam that focuses on spiritual issues, but also added something to it, something very novel to me and I think very novel to most Muslims who are not anchored in a religious family. The Islam which I knew of was only 50% and the other 50% was missing, and that was the Islam which they dealt with, the caliphate, the different rulers, the domination of society through penal codes and the organized economy and politics. Basically, what they perceive of Islam is not a religion per se, but an ideology or a political, economic and social system. Islam is not something that you should believe in, but it should be something you should be convinced of by proofs, systematic proofs, and it is not enough to say that you believe in the creator, but you have to corroborate that this creator does exist with evidence. They have taken over the positivist approach and that everything has to be scientific, even though it is not possible. They do not accept the discrepancy between science and belief.
You have to understand that at that time I was 23 years old and my education level was very low, so I did not have the argumentation at hand to counter argue, and of course I was very prone to believe that my religion was the best. They confirmed that it was the best and they could apparently prove it by giving me evidence with strong argumentative techniques that was very powerful and absorbing, and empowering not only to me but to most of these young people.
GP: In 2002, while you were an active member, the leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark, Fadi Abdelatif, was arrested for the distribution of racist leaflets. Anti-Semitic and anti-Democratic rhetoric – in particular against the United States – is often used when discussing the need for the revival of the caliphate. Can you speak in detail about why these views play a major role with their aim to actualise such climactic social reform?
MAH: I think this is very clear that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organization thrives on pointing out or emphasizing antagonisms and the favourite is the United States, because they are perceived as the head of unbelief. Therefore, unbelief has a body and the head is America - the brain and the leader - but of course you also have Britain and France and others. It is a big conspiracy against Islam and Muslims and they corroborate this with the intervention by the British and the French during the imperialist period, and use examples of history where they draw a line from that period up until now with the United States and make comparisons. So, the United States is doing the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, are mingling in the business of Sudan, and are always in opposition to Muslim interests.
Anti-Semitism, I think, this has nothing to do with Islam as such, but has something to do with Palestine and the establishment of Israel in 1948. Hizb ut-Tahrir, from the beginning of Taqiuddin al-Nabhani in 1953 up until now have Palestinian groups, even though they live in Lebanon, Jordan, or Syria, and Fadi Abdelatif was also a Lebanese with a Palestinian background. Therefore, most of the leaders I was acquainted with when they came as emissaries from Germany or other places were also of Palestinian origin.
What we see in Gaza today was Jenin back in 2002, and that leaflet responded to what happened in Jenin that killed thousands of Palestinians and demolished their houses and so on. So, it was within this context that this leaflet was published and what Hizb ut-Tahrir and Fadi Abdelatif claimed was that they (Israel) are the criminals; they kill innocent people and civilians in the street with their tanks and their bombs, which are provided by the United States. Saudi Arabia is also part of the conspirators against Islam, but the Saudi regime and not the Saudi people.
GP: You left the organization in 2004, and it is widely known that leaving such an organization as Hizb ut-Tahrir is not an easy endeavour. What brought about this change in your decision and how did members of Hizb ut-Tahrir react?
MAH: First and foremost, this process is very gradual. It is not something which happens in one month, but I think the process began nearly eight months into my studies at university. Before attempting university, I was told to be very careful of the orientalist discourse and be very careful with their theories, since they only do this in order to undermine and create doubt in your mind about Islam. I should only concentrate on the language and the grammar. Within those eight months, I was many times provoked to reconsider and renew some of my views that were formed when I was within the sphere of Hizb ut-Tahrir. When I came to university, I found out that there were other perspectives, other ways of looking at things and that there were other ways to discuss and debate.
Unlike Hizb ut-Tahrir, I never had a teacher telling me to shut up and that they are right and that I am wrong, never. That was a new experience for me and made me feel comfortable. I said to myself that I should give them a chance, and so I opened up my perspective to their arguments and very gradually began to move away from being a firm believer to doubting believer. I was not, at that point, ready to say that perhaps I am wrong about Hizb ut-Tahrir and have to leave everything, as I was still attached to the people; I am still attached to these people today because I love them as human beings and as good friends. But, unfortunately they do not view me in the same way anymore, because I have been categorised or stigmatised as an apostate, only because I have a critical approach to the Qur'an and I think it is discussable everywhere.
During 2004, I began to realise the agenda of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the way they portray Islam was not the same as what I thought when I first began, because at the onset when I attended the meetings, it was to belong to something and we had a tight community and people with shared viewpoints. Later on, it led to a greater attachment to the ideology, because at the beginning it is not the ideology and the thoughts alone, it is also the many different people from different nations that you meet and get attached to. But, somehow along the way it becomes very conformed, people begin to say the same thing, use the same phrases, and even begin to dress alike! I did not have friends anymore who belonged to different belief systems, because it was not an option. The world was black and white.
Even Muslims with different ideas were looked upon with scepticism, because they want dialogue and are "puppets of the regime". Muslims working for religious dialogue, working for integration, working for education of the young or the mutual understanding between the community, respecting minorities and so on, we just looked at them like, "What are you doing? You are doing the work for the government, the government who does not want Muslims". We viewed other Muslims as Lax Muslims, people who did not go to mosques or fast during Ramadan. There was this antagonism and this shocks me now when I ponder my existence with Hizb ut-Tahrir, at how far we went.
I think it is something psychological, a root process. You begin as an individual, you want to join this group because these people are your equals, at least on the surface, but before you realise that there is more behind the surface, you are immersed in it. What you once thought as incomprehensible at the beginning becomes natural, like cutting the hand of the thief or killing a man and woman who have committed adultery. These are things you did not believe at the beginning, but through inculcation, through the study circles, through discussions where such incomprehensible actions are seen as normal, they become normalized and then internalized. As an individual in such a group, you must adapt if you want to be a part of it, you have to think like that. I have to say these things in order to be included in the group, because if I don't, then I am excluded from this community. So, there are very strong group mechanisms here.
GP: Islamic radicalism is currently a heated political and social issue in the West, particularly regarding the rights of women. What do you think about the current paradox between cultural relativism and human rights, and how do you think these issues could be resolved? This could include simple issues such as not shaking a woman's hand or women not being allowed to drive a car, to the more problematical female circumcision.
MAH: Well, these are definitely hot issues. As a liberal, I am very much against meddling in peoples' private life and their beliefs and creeds, but I have a problem with female circumcision. I do not think the child has a choice denying the circumcision. However, I am against people who are also trying to prevent male circumcision, because the same argument which applies to females are used against males also, and this is a paradox; while I can understand that male circumcision is something which is incorporated in most Muslim cultures, women are somewhat incapacitated by it. Female circumcision is not something which is widespread, however, and I do not know it in Turkish or Pakistani or even in Arab culture.
I have heard some Hadith in arguments that many religious people use to justify female circumcision. The Hadith - the way I remember it - said the prophet Muhammad went through a city or a residence where they were circumcising women, and he exclaimed "do not cut too deep" and according to Islamic jurists means that you cannot take the clitoris off. So, female circumcision is a legal action, yet whether it is a real Hadith or a fabricated one is hotly discussed, and the text is not saying you should do it to your daughter.
GP: Finally, do you have any comments for those who would like or have joined a radical organisation such as Hizb ut-Tahrir?
MAH: Oh yes, I have a lot of things to say to them, but where should I start? Well, I think they should to imagine how it is to be an outsider of the group, to imagine that the so-called opponent or antagonist is a human being of flesh and blood like himself, that he has his convictions and beliefs, that he has children and a wife he loves and a family. As human beings, there are so many commonalities, but we only tend to stress the differences. Instead of focusing or emphasising differences in order to promote an agenda stressing an "us against them", it is healthy to interact with other people and in other environments, or to be by yourself if you are unable to interact. If you do not want to communicate with them, if you only want to fight or clash with them, how can you make the world a better place?
Many of the people who join these groups are idealists, who want to make the world a better place. I think that 80-90% enter these groups from an altruistic perspective, and yet somehow along the way they became intolerant, bigoted and verging on racism. But, before that they were not and so there is somewhat of a metamorphosis. I know I am being idealistic now, but if there is any doubt in their mind pertaining to the organization and the way the organization is portraying other human beings, than they should be true to themselves and examine this doubt, try to break out from the close circle and instead communicate and interact with other people, especially their perceived enemies.
It is really important that they communicate and debate with who they consider to be their enemy; try to debate with Israelis, Jews, Americans, Danes or whoever you think hates you or is conspiring against you, and you will meet some people who may confirm your prejudices, but you will also meet - and this is the blessing - people who will shatter your prejudices. When you break out of that circle, the circle where you just talk about people without ever meeting them, this is where change is possible. This is the problem with radical groups, the dehumanization of an opponent or antagonist, like how Edward Said spoke of the representation of the Other in his famous book Orientalism. Only when I began to discuss did I realize that the opposition against Islam is not as powerful as it was made out in the inner circle.
This also goes for the people on the other side of the fence, the right-wing groups, because Muslims are diverse and not culturally backward.
comments