The following is reproduced with the permission of the Jamestown Foundation.
Jamestown Special Correspondent from London Mahan Abedin speaks with Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed. Founder of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in the United Kingdom, Bakri Mohammed later started the Al-Muhajiroun organization, which he now heads. He also acts as Supreme Judge of the Sharia Court of the United Kingdom and the Principal of the London School of Sharia. Mahan Abedin conducted this interview on March 10, 2004 at Bakri Mohammed’s private residence in northeast London.
Q: I would like to start with your personal history. When did you join the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] in Syria?
A: I studied Islam from the age of 5 in the Al-Kutaab Islamic Boarding School. In the following 10 years I came across many Islamic teachers, ranging from Sufis, Usuli’s, Ahl-ul-Hadith and Muslim Brotherhood. But my relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood really took off from the age of 15.
Q: Which year was that?
A: I was born in 1958, so it was around 1972-3. I pursued my Islamic studies alongside my association with the Muslim Brotherhood until the age of 17, and then I joined Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT).
Q: In Syria?
A: I joined MB in Syria, whereas I joined Hizb ut-Tahrir in Lebanon.
Q: The MB’s challenge to the Syrian regime started in earnest from the mid-1970’s onwards, and it climaxed in 1982 in Hama. Were you in any way involved in that struggle?
A: No, I was not. At that time the MB was an underground movement. They studied the works of Hasan al-Banna and Sayyed Qutb in private study circles. I was a seeker of Islamic knowledge in that sense, but was never involved in any type of military struggle. You should also note, that the main driving force behind the Syrian Jihad was al-Talaai’ Al-Islamiyah, a group that was in alliance with the MB, but in later years distanced itself from the Brotherhood.
Q: These were the people who formed the al-Talai’ah al-Muqatalah lil Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Combat Vanguard of Fighters of the Muslim Brotherhood), which constituted the military divisions of the Muslim Brotherhood, right?
A: Exactly.
Q: What caused the schism between Al-Talaai’ and the mainstream MB?
A: Al-Talaai’ promoted a Jihadi method, whereas the Muslim Brotherhood was largely inactive and underground.
Q: Did you ever come across the core of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria? I am referring to people like Adnan Saad al-Din and Issam al-Attar.
A: No, I heard about them, but I did not meet them. I use to know Sheikh Sa’eed Hawa (ra), Sheikh Marwaan Hadeed (ra), Sheikh Omar Jawad, and Sheikh Adnan Uqlah.
Q: How would you assess the Islamist challenge to the Baathist regime in Syria today? I say this in light of the fact that many exiled Brotherhood leaders have now gone back to Syria and seem to have made their peace with the Baathist regime.
A: There is still some opposition, but the Brotherhood itself can no longer be regarded as a true opposition force.
Q: Because they have extensive surreptitious links to the regime?
A: Yes, they have now entered into dialogue and discussion with the regime. They are becoming a state party. I was proud of my affiliation to the old Muslim Brotherhood, but the Muslim Brotherhood today really disgusts me. They are becoming co-opted into the political systems of the countries in which they operate. In Egypt, the Brotherhood even wants to change its name to receive greater recognition.
Q: How active is the armed Islamic opposition in Syria?
A: The Jihadists in Syria have now become proper Salafis and are basically linked to al-Qaeda.
Q: How come we don’t hear about them, there has not been a dramatic attack on the Baathist regime for many years?
A: That is because they are busy elsewhere, particularly in Iraq.
Q: When did you leave Syria?
A: I left in 1977.
Q: You went to Beirut, right?
A: Yes. I was wanted in Syria as a member of the MB.
Q: When did you leave Lebanon?
A: I left in 1979. I made my way to Egypt and went to Al-Azhar to complete my Islamic education in Cairo.
Q: That was the main purpose of your trip?
A: Yes, in fact I spent 6 months studying in Al-Azhar, but I was not able to complete my studies since conflicts arose between the tutors and me. Therefore I went to Saudi Arabia in December 1979. I re-started my education in Mecca in an establishment called The Islamic School of al-Saltiyah.
Q: You must have been in Saudi Arabia when Juhaiman al-Utaiba started his uprising in December 1979.
A: That is right, I was there.
Q: Did you take part in the uprising?
A: No, I witnessed it. But Juhaiman al-Utaiba was a great man. He led a serious uprising against the House of al-Saud. In the end the Saudi authorities could not defeat Juhaiman and his men; therefore they brought in the Jordanians and the French. The French forces used gas and that was the decisive factor.
Q: Did you establish the Al-Muhajiroun in Jeddah?
A: It was established in Mecca, but we launched it in Jeddah. Al-Muhajiroun first came on the scene on March 3, 1983. I had joined Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) in Beirut and maintained contacts with it in Cairo. But in Saudi Arabia, there was virtually nobody affiliated to HT. I started forming HT cells in Saudi Arabia, and by 1983 I had built a team of 38 brothers. Some of these people were previously affiliated to Juhaiman al-Utaiba and some were Salafis. However, HT was banned in Saudi Arabia; at the same time HT leaders in Kuwait were reluctant to form or organize any activities in Saudi Arabia, and this was a huge shock to me. A serious dispute broke out between me and HT organizers in Kuwait who subsequently suspended my membership in the party. Therefore on March 3, 1983 — the 59th anniversary of the destruction of the Ottoman Caliphate — I launched a separate organization with the help of these 38 brothers and called it Al-Muhajiroun.
Q: In a way, you formed this new organization by default?
A: Yes, in fact I had worked hard for three years to build a platform for HT in Saudi Arabia, and the upper echelons of the party did not appreciate these efforts. From an Islamic perspective, I had no choice but to organize the dedicated cadres I had built up under the aegis of Jamaat al-Muhajiroun.
Q: Did you choose ‘Jamaat’ (Community) because it is a benign term as opposed to ‘Hizb’ (Party), which has obvious political connotations? Were there any political calculations behind the selection of this name?
A: Yes. If I had chosen the prefix ‘Hizb’, i.e. ‘Party’, my organisation would have fallen foul of the Saudi authorities. I chose ‘Al-Muhajiroun’, as this means ‘Emigrants’ and refers to the early followers of the Prophet Muhammad (saw).
Q: I want to speed up the chronology, so you set up al-Muhajiroun in 1983, when did you leave Saudi Arabia?
A: I came here to Britain on January 14, 1986.
Q: Were you expelled from Saudi Arabia?
A: Yes. When I became independent of HT, I got bolder. We started a stickers and leaflets campaign in the major cities, attacking all Kufr systems (i.e. man-made regimes), including the al-Saud Regime.
Q: You seem to have been openly challenging the Saudi regime with these activities.
A: Not openly. We pasted and distributed stickers and leaflets in an underground manner. The regime was not able to trace the massive sticker campaign to Al-Muhajiroun as we worked furtively and were skilled in these activities. We built up dedicated cells. Our people studied Islam during the day and engaged in distributions and other activities during the night.
Q: You seem to have never been under any illusions about the nature of the Saudi regime. I say this in light of the fact that many of the Islamic activists that eventually ended up in Afghanistan and formed Jihadi-Salafi groups, were initially sponsored by the Saudi regime.
A: I always believed the Saudi regime was Kufr. This is because I subscribed to the HT ideology which condemned all regimes in the Muslim world as Kufr.
Q: Was your expulsion from Saudi Arabia conducted in a civilized manner?
A: No. I was first arrested in Jedda in 1984 and we were subsequently released on bail. They found nothing on us apart from some glue and leaflets, which were going to be distributed around Mecca. They were not able to link us to any recognizable organization like HT. We simply presented ourselves as Muhajiroun (emigrants) who had left their countries in the hope of securing sanctuary in Saudi Arabia. The next time they arrested me was in December in 1985 in Riyadh. They raided one of our houses at a time when I was teaching from the subversive book, “The Money Circulation under the Khilafa System”, which had been written by Abdul Qadeem Zalluom, one of the early leaders of HT. This destroyed our alibi, as they made a direct connection to HT.
Q: Were you badly treated during your time in detention?
A: Honestly we spent seven days in hell in the Al-Malaz detention center. There were tough interrogations and some beatings.
Q: Which security outfit was responsible for your detention and interrogation, the Mabahess? [1]
A: Yes, they were from Al-Mabahess.
Q: Had they done their homework properly? Did they have lots of intelligence on your clandestine activities?
A: Not really. They tried to elicit information through beatings and torture.
Q: How did you end up in Britain?
A: The reason I came to Britain was because I had a multiple-visa. I had visited Britain briefly in 1984 for few weeks.
Q: Were you questioned by police when you arrived here?
A: No.
Q: Were the British authorities not aware that you had been expelled from Saudi Arabia?
A: No. Anyway I never planned to stay in Britain. I had wanted to go to Pakistan or Malaysia.
Q: Why Pakistan?
A: Pakistan is the ideal place for Islamic activities, it has nearly 150 million Muslims, and it gives you access to hundreds of millions of Muslims in India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. People in the Indian Subcontinent believe in Islamic nationalism and hence it is easier for them to digest the Khilafah message.
Q: And why Malaysia?
A: It has a dedicated Muslim population. There are links to Muslims in Indonesia, Central Asia and China. Anyway I could not go anywhere else. I was wanted in Syria, and the Syrian security services in Lebanon had raided my house and killed one of my brothers. [2]
Q: Before we discuss the development of the Muhajiroun organization in the UK and elsewhere, could you provide a brief insight into the history of HT since its inception in Palestine in 1951?
A: It was obviously founded by Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen Al-Nabahani in Palestine in 1951, who believed firmly that the malaise of the Muslim Ummah was rooted in the destruction of the Khilafah (Caliphate) in 1924. In the beginning the group founded by Nabahani was known as al-Hay’at al-Tahrir al-Islami [3] and spread to Lebanon and Syria in the period 1951-53. Its early leaders were Ibrahim Hamdan, Shuqeiri and, of course, Sheikh Taqi Nabahani. They tried to establish themselves legally in al-Quds (Jerusalem) but the authorities refused to recognize them. Consequently the core group became more confrontational and began to tout itself as Hizb-ut-Tahrir (The Liberation Party). The authorities then began to arrest the active membership and the party subsequently went underground.
Q: When exactly did Hay’at al-Tahrir become Hizb-ut-Tahrir?
A: In 1953.
Q: So initially, the core membership was based in Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, basically the Levant area and its periphery?
A: Yes.
Q: How did HT spread beyond this region and into virtually every country in the Muslim world?
A: Sheikh Nabahani married in Lebanon and his wife’s family happened to be wealthy. They lent him considerable financial support and he used the inflow of funds to develop robust units in Lebanon, Jordan and that area in general. Then it spread to Iraq and Egypt, and in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, it spread to all corners of the Muslim world.
Q: Okay, so by the 1960’s and 1970’s HT had become a universal phenomenon?
A: Yes, they were everywhere.
Q: But not in Iran?
A: Actually HT sent some teams to Iran. They did not believe, like I do now, that Shias in general and Khomeini in particular, are Mushrik (Polytheists). They saw Khomeini as a Muslim, but viewed his regime as Kufr (non-Islamic).
Q: So what happened?
A: They sent some teams to Iran after Khomeini came to power and offered to make him the Khalifah (Caliph) of all the Muslims.
Q: I had read something about this, so were those guys from HT?
A: Yes.
Q: And of course Khomeini rejected their offer?
A: Khomeini rejected their offer despite the fact he was a champion of the Velayat al-Faqih system.
Q: But Velayat al-Faqih is another form of caliphate, would you not agree?
A: Yes. But the mainstream Shias reject Velayat al-Faqih.
Q: But do you accept Velayat al-Faqih as legitimate Islamic discourse?
A: Before I became a Salafi I believed that Velayat al-Faqih as a principle can facilitate the unity of the Shias and the Sunnis. However at that time most senior Shia leaders, people like Ayatollah Al-Kho’ee, rejected the principle and this undermined its potential.
Q: Okay, going back to HT, they have never had any serious organization in Iran, have they?
A: They don’t have any membership in Iran.
Q: Is this rooted in the Shia-Sunni split?
A: Yes. Also the HT insists on ‘adoption’, basically you have to adopt their principles and of course the principles of HT diverge significantly from the beliefs of Jaafari Shias.[4]
Q: Okay, let us put all this into perspective. Are you saying that HT looks at itself as some kind of mother organization or holding company and in order to become part of it you have to accept certain rigid pre-conditions — and once these have been accepted you are co-opted as some kind of franchise?
A: Actually they don’t believe that. They believe they are a distinct theological and juridical school. They have developed sophisticated principles and ideas regarding economic systems, social systems and legal systems that need to be adopted. This is why Shias could not really join HT, because they believe in 12 infallible Imams and hence have multiple sources of reference as far as the practice of Islam is concerned.
Q: Why is it that HT has such a strong presence here in the UK?
A: Because I established it (smiles). When I first came to Britain, half of me was Ikhwani-Jihadi and the other half was Salafi-Tahriri, in short, I was a combination of different modes of knowledge and I channelled all this energy into developing networks here in the UK.
Q: Did you operate under the name of HT?
A: Not initially. At that time, the Amir of HT in Germany visited me and said that he had heard about my departure from the party in 1983 and expressed his regrets about that. He offered me the chance to operate as a ‘member’ of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT). This effectively divorced my organization from the Party’s leadership and allowed us to operate autonomously.
Q: Was there no HT structure here in the UK before your arrival?
A: There were two brothers only. Together, we set upon developing the party here in the UK. We built basic units and in time these units multiplied. Of course we could not call ourselves HT proper. The leeway offered to me by the Amir of HT in Germany allowed us to operate independently from the party’s global leadership as members of HT in the UK.
Q: How did the Al-Muhajiroun fit into all this?
A: I kept this as a separate platform. I contacted my brothers in Saudi Arabia and instructed them to pursue their underground activities as part of the global HT network.
Q: Basically you are saying that Muhajiroun was kept on life-support under the aegis of HT.
A: Yes, something to that effect.
Q: What made you leave the HT umbrella entirely in 1996?
A: I had built the teams from nothing in this country and had been their leader in the UK for 10 years before finally resigning on 16 January 1996 in response to a violation of Islamic rules by the worldwide Amir of Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Q: What had brought this about? Was it due to lax organization and the penetration of undesirable elements?
A: My activities in the UK (from 1987-1996) awakened all the sleeping cells of HT around the world. After Sheikh Nabahani’s death in 1977, the party experienced severe persecution by all Arab regimes, and this led to retreat and stagnation. It also sparked internal disputes between various members of HT in Jordan and the leadership committee. However, after my departure from HT in 1996, the old internal disputes arose again and this time around caused an official split in the party. I am not saying that the official split of 1997 was caused by my activities; in fact it could not have been as I had left a year earlier to re-launch Al-Muhajiroun independently from HT.
Q: Did the split have global ramifications?
A: Yes. A man called Abu Rami and his followers dismissed the Amir of HT, Abdul Qadeem Zalloum, who at that time led HT from a secret location, and established a separate organisation. The Zalloumis became HT Camp 1 and the followers of Abu Rami, the so-called Nakithoun (renegades), became known as HT Camp 2.
Q: Which one is stronger?
A: HT Camp 1.
Q: Because they are the original HT?
A: Yes.
Q: How significant is HT Camp 2?
A: They are big in Jordan.
Q: And this original split manifested itself in all HT organizations around the world?
A: Yes, the split was everywhere. But the splits multiplied. HT Camp 1 split again, and the new faction became known as Hizb Waed (Party of Promise) and is led by Mr. Muhammad Showeiki. There was yet another split, and HT Camp 4 are known as the Reformers of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and are led by Iyad Hilal in America and Dr. Tawfiq Mustafa in Germany.
Q: How do you assess the individual strengths of these four camps?
A: HT Camp 1 remains the strongest. The next strongest is HT Camp 2. The third one, Hizb Waed, is only present in Jerusalem. As for the reformists (HT Camp 4), they merely constitute a few individuals who aspire to re-unite Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
Q: How are camps 1 & 2 represented geographically, especially in places like Central Asia?
A: In Central Asia they are all HT Camp 1. There are very few HT Camp 2 people in Central Asia.
Q: You cited violations of Islamic laws as the main reason behind your departure, briefly explain these violations.
A: It related to the methods involved in establishing the Khilafah system and many other Aqeedah (ideological) and Fiqh (Jurisprudence) issues.
Q: Please elaborate on this.
A: Muhajiroun and HT disagreed on three points.
1- Muhajiroun engage in the divine method to establish the Khilafah wherever they have members, whereas HT works to establish the Khilafah only in a specific Muslim country (they called it Majal—i.e. geographical area in any part of the Muslim world) and restricted their members’ activities outside the Majal.
2- Muhajiroun follow the Aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ahv (ASWJ) and the path of Al-Salaf Al-Saalih (companions and family of the Prophet), whereas HT subscribe to a different Aqeedah.
3- Muhajiroun believe in twinning Da’wa (the call to Islam) and Jihad, whereas HT does not believe that Jihad can be waged by agents not affiliated to the Islamic state.
Q: Please elaborate on the Aqeedah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah (ASWJ).
A: The followers of ASWJ, in summary, follow only the Quran and the Sunnah in accordance to the understandings of the Companions and the Family of the Prophet Muhammad. We follow the Nahj-ul-Salaf (the path of the pious predecessors). The central theme is Al-Talazum (Correlation), which forbids divorcing Shari’ah from Aqeedah. In the Salafi worldview there can be no separation between Aqeedah and Shariah; they have to be moulded together. Moreover Iman (faith) is no longer an issue of the heart, Iman must automatically entail action. It goes further than this, insofar as there must be a union between Koran and the Sunna as core constituents of Wahy (revelation).
Q: What you are outlining here is, in its simplest form, a merger between theory and praxis.
A: Indeed, thought determines action.
Q: The idea of combining theory and praxis has Marxist overtones, would you not agree?
A: This is the Salafi approach, and the difference is that Marxist theories are man-made whereas Islamic ideology is divine insofar as it is derived from the Quran and Sunnah.
Q: The worldview that you are outlining has broad implications, particularly insofar as it makes the agency of the Ulama (religious scholars/clerics) superfluous.
A: We want Ulama as long as they promote the pure concept of Islam with complete Talazom between Al-Baatin (the inner) and Al-Zaaher (the outer). There is no scope in Islam for divergent schools of thought or sects. Who can understand Islam better than the Prophet and his companions? Who aided the Prophet in the major battles of early Islam like Badr and Khandaq? The Hanafis, Shafi’is, Tahriris? Of course not! The Prophet fought alongside the Sahaba (companions & family).
Q: Presumably this elaborate Salafi ideology that you are describing is firmly established in your organization.
A: Anybody who does not follow the path of the Salaf cannot join al-Muhajiroun.
Q: Apart from these theological and ideological disputes, did the fact that you were maintaining a parallel organization in the form of al-Muhajiroun cause any friction between you and HT?
A: The real dispute was over the methodology to establish the Khilafah, they did not like me attacking man-made laws here in the UK, and they did not like the fact that I was condemning the policy of John Major and the British government.
__________________________
Notes
[1] The Mabahess is the main internal security/intelligence service in Saudi Arabia.
[2] Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad is referring to an “ideological” rather than “biological” brother.
[3] This roughly translates into “Islamic Liberation Society”.
[4] Jaafari (or “twelver”) Shiaism is, by far, the most predominant sect in Shia Islam.