Sajjada wrote:
Khilafah /Caliphate is the Ruling system, Social system, Judicial system, Economic system, Educational system and Foreign Policies.
Faiz wrote:
The "Khilafa" means the system that "came after" Prophet Muhammad's time--based on the Qur'an. I don't mind that Khilafa. Except in the beginning for a few decades, the 'khilafa" was killed by a coalition of the "Mullahcracy" and "Sultanate".
===============================
Dear Sajjad Sahab and Faiz Sahab,
A detail and indepth note on Khilafites I.E. HIZB UT-TAHREER AND AL MUHAJIROON.
"QUOTE"
THE HIZB UT-TAHREER
Founded by Taqi ud-Din an-Nabahani, a Mu'tazilee and Ash'aree in thought and belief, this group has made the restoration of the Khilafah the main focus of its call why we should expose the evil of this group and its offshoot because if you see the Aqeedah and manhaj of their founding leaders, who are looked upon as mujaddid and great scholars you will be shocked, AND PLUS THEY have led to the birth of destructive political movements, as well as promoting unIslamic revolutionary modes of thought. jamaa'at-e-islaami, sim ,sio, simi, Hizb ut-Tahreer, Ikhwaani, iy, icc, etc. they all have same methodology, means they all have same manhaj.
IN RESPONSE TO THE DEVIL'S DECEPTION OF HIZB-AT-TAHREER & AL-MUHAJIROUN
By Aboo Khadeejah Abdul-Waahid Source: University of Essex Islamic Society
All praise is for Allaah, lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, his family, his companions, and all those who follow in their footsteps until the last day. "Actions are but by their intentions and there is for every person only that which he intended." {Sahih Al-Bukhari, vol. 1 / p1 / no. 1. also refer to Sahih Muslim, vol. 3 / p 1056 / no. 4692.}. The following is a letter in response to a member of one the two groups mentioned in the title.
I am continuing this discussion for one reason and one reason only; that is that I am assuming that you seek only the truth, and when it comes to you, there will be no resistance in your submission to it. If you believe that you are upon the haq and nothing will change you then there is no need for you to read on as the truth only permeates those hearts as are free from Hizbiyah and Ta'asub (rigidity bigoted upon a track or way). If you feel free from these then please read on as then Allaah will open your heart if you are sincere. My intention within the bounds of this discourse is not to attack you personally, but it is solely to make you understand that the track which you are upon, leads to nothing except destruction ! - may Allaah protect us from this. I have deliberately tried to keep the subject matter free from any opinions that I may hold as an individual. Rather, it is more suitable that we gauge our views in the light of the Qur'ân and authentic Sunnah of the messenger of Allaah (SAW), as understood and practised by the best of generations, and those who followed them in belief and methodology. Indeed this the best course of action to take for as Allaah almighty says:
فَاسْأَلُواْ أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not! [AN-NAHL (THE BEE) Chapter 16 - Verse 43]
We know that Allaah, the most high sent 124,000 messengers and prophets {Sunan Abu Dawood} to mankind and as He, the most high, says:
"I sent a Messenger to every nation calling them to My worship" {Qur'ân). We also know that the one thing that was common amongst all of the prophets and messengers was their belief !. They may have come with different rulings, but their belief was one. For example Adam's (AS) children were allowed to marry each other; some prophets were allowed to be kings - e.g. Daawood (AS); and so on, culminating in that which our Prophet (saas).
However, inspite of this difference in rulings (Ahkam) etc., the belief of the prophets was the same and never differed. This is self evident, if one was to study the belief of each prophet, from Adam (AS) right down the chain to Muhammad (saas), to the return of Eesa ibn Maryam (AS), we would find that no difference in belief is to be found. Therefore, it is only reasonable that our discussion begins here - for the sake of argument, I will agree to accept that you have a case; even though your methodology (Manhaj) is away from the truth. One aspect we cannot differ upon is belief ('Aqeedah). If we differ in this, then there is no point in us continuing this discussion. To give you some examples of the importance of this fundamental issue in Islaam refer to 'Al-Ibaanah Magazine' in the English language which shows just a handful of these works from our Salaf.
The issue of Khilafah is one of major importance to the Muslims !. Further, this is not an empty statement on my part, rather pay heed to the statement of our Shaikh Saleem al-Hilalee (hafidhullah): We say: the one who denies the need to work for Khilafah is sinful; but the one who strives to bring Khilafah about through education (tarbiyah) upon and spreading the correct knowledge that he is the one striving to establish the Sharee'ah in Allaah's way, So, yes Khilafah is necessary. Also: "The position of the Salafees is clear - that we strive to re-establish the Islaamic life and to establish Allaah's laws upon the land by way of correction and education. We Strive and hope for good always; due to the hadeeth of the Messenger (saas): 'Prophethood will be amongst you for as long as Allaah wills, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be Khilafah upon the way of Prophethood, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be kingship, then oppressive kingship, then Khilafah upon the way of Prophethood';
so we wait for the Khilafah in the way of the Prophethood and we work to bring it about again. With regard to his (saas) saying 'Khilafah upon the way of the Prophethood', it is clear that the criterion for the successful establishment of the Khilafah is that it must adhere to the way of the Prophethood. This point is of prime importance, especially if we want Allaah to grant us this supreme victory. Further, upon analysis, a number of points are evident:
1.Those who will restore the rightly guided Khilafah are the Salafees, since they are the ones who carry upon the Prophetic Way.
2.The Khilafah which will come about will not be in the way of the Abbasids, the Umayads, nor the Uthmaanis; rather it is certain that it will be upon the way of the Rightly Guided Khulafa.
Thus, the men who will bring about the return of this Khilafah will be upon the way of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs and the way of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (saas). It is clear to me that the methodology you are upon and using is itself upon the way of the 'Hizb ut-Tahrir' and 'al-Muhajirun' parties. I do not say you are a member, but this much is clear, you are upon the same track that these groups are upon. Then I ask you the question, do you just take from their Politics (siyaasah) or do you take from them everything in your deen (belief etc..). If you take from them everything - then your 'Aqeedah is definitely deviated from the way of the Salaf us-Saaliheen (the first three generations within this Ummah) - and this puts both you and them amongst the Ahl ul-Bid'ah (people of innovation and division from the Salaf us-Saaliheen). If you take from them only politics - then from where do you get your belief (Aqeedah)?, if you get your belief from elsewhere, then do you not trust the same people with your politics !!. If, however, you claim to go back to the sources (Qur'ân, Sunnah, Ijma, Salaf etc.) then what ability do you have ? i.e. in Arabic language skills, knowledge of tafseer, ahadeeth, isnaad, nasikh wa mansukh, takhees wa taqyeed, usool ul-fiqh, al-aam wa khaas, al-mutlaq wal muqayyid etc. Then, whichever of the three above options you choose, you will be in ignorance and confusion - and Allaah knows best.
Before we continue, allow me to give an example of the belief that just one of the Salaf had, which he summarised into a small treatise. It is the 'Aqeedah of Imaam Muhmammad bin Isma'eel al-Bukhari (the author of many works including Sahih al-Bukhari), as reported by Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee in his "Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl us-Sunnah' (2 / 172) . In this classical work, Imaam al-Bukhari says: "I met more than a thousand scholars amongst the people of knowledge from the people of al-Hijaz, al-Makkah, al-Madina, al-Kufah, al-Busra, Wasit, Baghdad, Sham, and Misr (Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt). I met them many time, generation after generation, and again generation after generation. I met them while they were ample and widespread for over 46 years; (then he continues enumerating and naming them...For their biographies refer to Siyar A'laam An-Nubala of Imaam Adh-Dhahabi.), and not a single one amongst them differed with respect to the following matters:
1.That the religion consists of both speech and action. [Then the Imaam continues to give his proofs - in refutation of a sect called the Murji'ah].
2.The Qur'ân is the speech of Allaah, not being created. [The Imaam continues to give his proofs in refutation of the Jahmiyyah, the Mu'tazilah, and of latter times the Ash'aiyrah].
3. And that good and evil is by the preordainment (Qadr) of Allaah. [Proofs are given in refutation of the Qadariyyah and other misguided sect whom hold similar heretical beliefs].
4. And, none of them used to declare any one from among the people of the Qiblah a disbeliever on account of committing a sin, [in refutation of the Khawaarij and other sects - the Imaam cites his proofs].
5. And I never saw amongst them any one who would take something from the honour from the companions of Muhammad (saas), [further proofs are given in refutation of the Shia, Khawaarij etc.].
6. And they used to forbid and prevent people from the innovations (Bid'ah) that the Prophet (saas) and his Companions (raa) were not upon [in refutation of all the sects and Imaam al-Bukhari gives proofs to substantiate this statement].
7. And they used to urge people to follow what the Messenger (saas) and his Companions were upon [proofs are provided against the Murji'ah and others, whom are
soft, weak, or reject the Sunnah].
8. And that we do not contend with or attempt to take away the command from the Rulers. [Again Imaam al-Bukhari gives proofs to refute groups such as the Khawaarij, Mu'tazilah and all those who follow this Deviant path]. And then the Imaam continues with the sayings of those whom preceded him, to show that his position is concensus (Ijma') amongst the Ulema]."
And in this manner I could bring you volume after volume of the beliefs of the Salaf - but this is not the point here. The point here is that you have chosen a way other than the way of the believers, i.e. the first Generation of Muslims.
Now a little on Hizb-ut-Tahrir / Mahajiroon and how they have strayed upon belief. And when one deviates upon belief - then how can they be guided upon rules, regulations or politics: From the early sects which denied Eemaan (firm faith) in The Punishment of the Grave were the Khawaarij and other groups from the Mu'tazilah sect. This is because they innovated a rule that only the Mutawatir ahaadeeth amount to knowledge, whereas the Authentic Aahaad Ahaadeeth do not !!.
And this saying of theirs, that the aahaad Ahaadeeth do not amount to knowledge means that such Ahaadeeth - in their false opinion - are not free from the possibility of falsehood or error. The Punishment of the Grave (which is established by aahaad Ahaadeeth) is part of the Muslim Creed and therefore aahaad Ahaadeeth do make our 'Aqeedah (Belief):
From the Sunnah: Hadeeth related by 'Ai'sha (raa) regarding The Punishment of the Grave in Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1372. Hadeeth related by Ibn Abbaas regarding The Punishment of the Grave Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1378. Hadeeth related by Ibn Masood (raa) regarding The Punishment of the Grave in At-Tabaraanee, 3/78/21. Hadeeth of Hanee of Uthman regarding The Punishment of the Grave in At-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah. Hadeeth by Abu Hurayra (raa) regarding The Punishment of the Grave in Saheeh Muslim, 2/93, and Abu Daawood, no. 983. Hadeeth related by Umm Khaalid bint Khaalid regarding The Punishment of the Grave by At-Tabaraanee in Al-Kabeer.
The Salaf: Sufyan ibn Uyainah (d.197H), said: "The Sunnah is ten. Whosoever accepts them has completed the Sunnah, and whoever abandons anything from them has abandoned the Sunnah:
Affirming al-Qadr.
Giving precedence Abu Bakr and Umar.
The Pond in Paradise.
Shaf'aa (Intercession).
The Scales. The Bridge over Hellfire.
Eemaan is Statement and Action.
The Qu'ran is the Speech of Allaah.
The Punishment of the Grave.
The Resurrection on the Day of Judgement, and not testifying that any Muslim will definitely be in Paradise and Hell. {Sharh Usool I'tiqaad Ahl us-Sunnah, Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee, no. 312.}.
Imaam Shafi'ee (d.204H), said: "Indeed the Punishment of the Grave is a true fact, the Resurrection is a true fact ..." {Manhaj ash-Shafi'ee, of al-Bayhaqi, 1/415.}
Imaam Ahmad (d. 241H): "Eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave. {Refer to Usool us-Sunnah, no. 8 and Risalat us-Sunnah, p72. by Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.}.
Abu Daawood (d.275H): Chapter: Questioning in the Grave and The Punishment in the Grave {Kitab us-Sunnah, Abu Dawood, p900.}.
Ibn Qutaybah (d.278H): "Upon Eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave" {Taweel Mukhtalif ul-Hadeeth, Ibn Qutaybah, p8.}
Imaam at-Tahaawee (d.278H): "We have Eemaan ... in The Punishment of the Grave" {Aqeedah Tahaaweeyah, Imaam at-Tahawi, no. 79-80.}. And we can continue with Abul-Hasan al-Ashari (d.324H); Imaam Aajuree (d.360H); Ibn Abee Hastim (d.327H); Imaam Barbaharee (d.329H); al-Isma'eelee (d. 371H); Al-Qayrawani (d.386H); Ibn Abee Zamneen (d. 399H); Imaam al-Laalikaa'ee (d.418H); Imaam al-Bayhaqi (d.458H). In addition, there are countless others that we can bring in evidence of the issue at hand. We can quote from book after book, even to the extent of including actual chains of narrations; as we have them also!! So this shows without a shadow of a doubt that Aahaad Ahaadeeth were taken as part of our 'Aqeedah by the Salaf for without them we have no 'Aqeedah - except that of those who are under Allaah's punishment. Sufficient for us are our Salaf for explaining our religion !!
However, we now have the saying of the later corrupted generations, those of little knowledge coming after the Salaf, those in this century who ignore the teachings of the Salaf. Among these group of people is of Taqee-ud-deen an-Nabahani - the founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said in his book Ad-Dawsiyyah, p.6 "Indeed from them are those which require action, so they are acted upon (i.e. the Aahaad Ahaadeeth). So from Abu Hurayrah who said: When any of you finishes the last tashahud, he should seek refuge with Allaah from the four things: from The Punishment of the Hellfire, from Punishment of the Grave, from the trials of life and death, and from the evil trials of the Dajjal".
From A'isha: from the Prophet (saas): that he used to make supplication in prayer: "O Allaah, I seek refuge in You from The Punishment of the Grave, I seek refuge in You from the trials of the Maseehud-Dajjaal, I seek refuge in You from the trials of life and death. O Allaah, I seek refuge in You from debt and sin". So these two ahaadeeth are aahaad narrations and they contain requirement of an action, i.e. to carry out this supplication after tashahud, and it is permissible to attest (tasdeeq) to what is contained in them. However, what is haraam (forbidden) is to hold it with certainty - meaning: to have it as part as one's 'Aqeedah- as long as it has been reported in the aahaad hadeeth, a dhannee (non-mutawatir) proof.
However, if it occurs in mutawatir form, then it is obligatory to make it part of one's 'Aqeedah;. This statement clearly represents the innovated ways of the Qadariyyah and the Mu'tazilah. Differentiating between tasdeeq and 'Aqeedah is innovated speech and away from the Salaf.
And then we have a speech by Omar Bakri Muhammad - available on audio tape: "Punishment of the Grave", Regents Park Mosque, 22nd May 1992 CE. Within his speech he states:
"We trust it, and I encourage all of you to have tasdeeq (attest to) in The Punishment of the Grave. I encourage all of you to have tasdeeq in the coming of the Mahdee. I encourage you for that. But whoever believes in that, he is sinful".
Now, I hope you can see why our discussion should begin with belief - for if your belief 'Aqeedah is different from the Salaf - then your politics will be further away from them regardless of what you may think. For verily the Prophets had one belief !!. YES - of course we need Khilafah - I never denied this fact - and the Salafees and their Scholars have never denied this fact. But the Khilafah must be established using the Manhaj of the Prophethood - not the Shi'a, Khawaarij, Bralewiya, Sufiya etc., for this would not be blessed by Allaah for all these are opponents of the way of the Salaf and the way of the Companions!!
'So examine - may Allaah have mercy upon you - the speech of everyone you hear from, particularly in your time. Do not act in haste, nor enter into anything from it until you ask and see: Did any of the Companions of the Messenger (saas) speak about it, or any of the scholars. So if you find a narration from them about it, then cling to it. Do not go beyond it and do not give precedence to anything over it and thus fall into the fire' {Kitaab Sharh us-Sunnah, no. 5}. Qaadee Shareek (d.177H) said 'Ibaad ibn al-Awaam said: 'Shareek ibn Abdullah came to us more than fifty years ago, so we said to him: 'O Abu Abdullah! there are a group of the Mu'tazilah who deny the ahaadeeth about Allaah descending to the Lowest Heaven and that the people of Paradise see their Lord. So Shareek quoted about ten ahaadeeth like that, and then said: "As for us, we have taken our deen from the sons of the Sahaabah, from the Tabi'een. From whom did they take theirs ?".{Ibn Mandah in At-Tawheed, Q. 1/97.}
So we see from just a few of the statements of the Salaf (which can go into volumes -and can be provided upon request; for those who seek the truth) - that they affirmed their belief upon one way - and their belief was as the belief of the Prophets - and what do we expect, for indeed the Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets - not us!! In addition, this is not the time or place to go into the details of the Mustalah ul-Hadeeth (Science of Hadeeth) - as there is not need to go into this science unless we know the people / scholars of the Salaf who gave us this Science and their belief; and their way. For verily they accepted the khabar ul-aahaad in Belief - and Allaah is sufficient as a witness. For further reading in English see Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee's 'ar-Risaala' on the Chapter X on "Evidence to the necessaty of accepting the Aahaad Khabar" and in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, English translation, volume 9, "Chapter: What is said regarding the acceptance of the information given by one truthful person...".
Now covering some of your points regarding the narrations of the Prophet (saas) and the claim that he was 'after establishing authority'. The scholar, Shaikh Rabee' ibn Haadi al-Madkhali, said in his book Manhaj al-Anbiyah min ad-Dawah ill-Allaah: "They (the Prophets) thus establish the obligation upon them of fighting Jihaad to raise the Word of Allaah, and of following and applying the Sharee'ah and the prescribed punishment and other matters prescribed for them by Allaah. This is what happened with our Prophet Muhammad (saas) and his noble Companions. Allaah crowned their Eemaan, their righteous actions, and their exemplary perseverance when facing the harm and the oppression of the Mushriks, by aiding them and making their Deen uppermost, and by establishing them upon the earth, as Allaah - the Most High says:
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants. [AL-NOOR (THE LIGHT) Chapter 24 - Verse 55]
Then sovereignty was offered to Allaah's Messenger (saas) in Makkah but he refused, except that he should continue calling to Tawheed and in waging war against Shirk and the idols. So when Quraysh became troubled by the call of Allaah's Messenger (saas) they sent Utbah ibn Rabee'ah and he came to Allaah's Messenger (saas) and said: "O son of my brother, you know the excellence you hold amongst us with regard to your position in the tribe and your lineage, but you have a matter which is very serious for your people. Because of it you have split their united body, caused their youth to behave foolishly and abused their idols with it, and their religion. You have declared their forefathers infidels because of it. So listen to me and I will offer you something which you may consider, and hopefully some of them will be acceptable to you".
So Allaah's messenger (saas) said in reply "Speak, O Abul-Waleed, I will listen". He said "O, son of my brother, if what you desire by this matter which you have come with is wealth, then we will gather wealth for you from amongst our wealth until you are one of the richest of us. And if you wish by it high position, then we will give you such authority that we will not do anything without your approval, and if you wish by it sovereignty, then we will make you sovereign over us. But if it is the case that what comes to you is a demon which you see and can not get rid of, then we will seek after a medical cure for you and we will expend our money until we can get you cured of it. Since a demon may take hold of a person until he is cured and relieved of it". And Allaah's Messenger (saas) was listening to him, then he (saas) said "Have you finished O Abul Waleed ?", he said "Yes". He (saas) said "Then listen to me", he replied "I will do so". So he (SAW) said "In the name of Allaah, the Most Merciful, Bestower of Mercy.
حم
تَنزِيلٌ مِّنَ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
كِتَابٌ فُصِّلَتْ آيَاتُهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لِّقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ
بَشِيرًا وَنَذِيرًا فَأَعْرَضَ أَكْثَرُهُمْ فَهُمْ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ
Ha. Mim. A revelation from the Beneficent, the Merciful, A Scripture whereof the verses are expounded, a Lecture in Arabic for people who have knowledge, Good tidings and a warning. But most of them turn away so that they hear not. [FUSSILAT (EXPLAINED IN DETAIL) Chapter 41 - Verse 4]
Then Allaah's Messenger (saas)
continued reciting to him. So when Utbah heard it, he remained silent and sat with his hands behind his back, resting upon them and listening. So when Allaah's messenger (SAW) came to the ayah of prostration in it, he prostrated and then said: " You have heard what you have heard O Abul Waleed, so now it is upon you". So Utbah went back to Quraysh, and when he sat with them, they said : "What has happened to you, O Abul Waleed ?". He said "What happened is that I heard the like of which I have never heard by Allaah. By Allaah, it is not sorcery, nor poetry, nor divining. O Quraysh - obey me and let the decision be mine. Leave the man and let him continue in what he is upon. Keep away from him since, by Allaah, his saying which I have heard will come to have great importance. So if the other Arabs kill him, then you will be rid of him due to the action of others, and if he conquerors the Arabs, then his sovereignty is your sovereignty , his power is your power, and you will be the ones fortunate with regard to him". They said, "by Allaah, he has performed magic upon you with his tongue - O Abul Waleed". He said "This is my opinion with regard to him, you may do what ever you see fit" {Seerah Ibn Ishaq, as-Seerah ibn Hisham,1/293-294.
It also has a supporting witness in the hadeeth of Jabir which is reported by Ibn Humayd and Abu Ya'la.} And Ibn Ishaaq reports with his chain of narration to Ibn Abbaas (raa) that a group of Quraysh gathered and made an offer close to the offer made by Utbah. So he (saas) answered by saying: "I am not afflicted by what you say. I have not come with this seeking your wealth, nor seeking status above you, nor sovereignty over you, but rather Allaah has sent me as a Messenger to you, and has sent down a book to me, and has ordered me to be a bringer of good tidings and a warner to you. So I have conveyed to you the revealed messengers from my Lord, and I have sincerely advised you. So if you accept what I have brought to you then you will have your share in this world and the hereafter. But if you refuse to accept it from me then I will patiently wait Allaah's order, until Allaah judges between me and you".{As-Seerah of ibn Hisham, 1 / 295-296, and this one strengthens the previous narration, each of them supporting the other.}.
Likewise Allaah's Messenger (saas) rejected the request of one of the tribes that they should be in charge of the affairs after his death, if the report is authentic. Ibn Ishaq said: 'az-Zuhree narrated to me that Allaah's Messenger (saas) came to Banu 'Aamir ibn Sasa'ah and called them to Allaah - the Mighty and Majestic, and presented himself to them. So a man from them called Bayharah ibn Firas said: " By Allaah, if we were to take hold of this young man from Quraysh I would devour the Arabs with him". Then he said: "If we were to give you our pledge of allegiance upon your affair, then Allaah gives you victory over those who oppose you, then will we be in authority after you ?". He (saas) said: "The affair is for Allaah, he places authority where ever He wills". So he said to him: "Are we to risk our necks before the Arabs for you, then when Allaah grants you victory, authority will be for other than us. We have no need of your affair". So they rejected him. {Ibn Hisham, 1/424-425. Also refer to as-Seeratun-Nabayiyah of adh-Dhahabee, p189-190.}.
So Prophets (sas), did not come to bring about the downfall of one state and to replace it with another. They did not seek after sovereignty, nor did they organise parties for that. Rather they came for the guidance of mankind and to save them from misguidance and shirk, and to take mankind out of the darkness and into the light, and to remind them of the days when Allaah had sent favours upon them. If rule and sovereignty had been offered to them, they would have rejected it and continued upon their Dawah. Indeed Quraysh offered sovereignty to Allaah's Messenger (saas) and he refused it. It was also offered to him (by Allaah) that he should be a Prophet-King or Slave-Messenger. {Imaam Ahmad, 2 / 231}. So he had not used to take a pledge of allegiance from the Ansar or others except for Paradise, despite the fact that the pledge of the Ansar was given in the most severe and difficult circumstances, yet it contained no promise or position or authority, nor sovereignty, nor leadership, nor wealth, nor any other temporal gain. From Ubadah bin as-Samit (ra) who said: "I am one of those chiefs who gave the Aqabah pledge to Allaah"s Messenger (saas)". And he said: "We gave the pledge that we would not worship anything besides Allaah, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill a person whose killing Allaah had made unlawful - except rightfully, nor rob each other, nor disobey, and Paradise would be ours".{Sahih al-Bukhari, 9 / 6 no. 12. Also refer to Sahih Muslim 3 / 925 no. 4238} And,
By Allaah, we could continue with evidence after evidence, fully referenced with the quotes and understanding of the Salaf - the scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaah, from the earliest generations, and all of them with the certainty of them being authentic. So rather than prolonging this further, allow this to suffice for now. And my advise to you is to first correct your belief and come whole heartedly into the Dawah Salafiah, the Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaah, the Ahlul-Hadeeth, or whatever names the followers of the Prophet (saas) and the Companions used. Once you have done this then put your self upon a path of Tarbiyah (education and cultivation) and Tasfiyah (purifying ourselves from Bid'ah, innovations, that have been added to this religion) - and you will bear its fruits and Allaah will give us what we deserve, as He gave it to those before us. He will give us the opportunity to fight for His deen - if we are worthy of that. Find out about the Saved Sect - the Firqatun-Najiyah, and what the Salaf said about who they are, and how to distinguish them from the other 72 sects the Prophet (saas) said will be in the Fire. And know that the Saved Sect is recognised by its belief and methodology ('Aqeedah and Manhaj) - so it is not the belief of the Khawaarij, Shia, Sufiyah, Qadariyyah and their likes.
Let us finish here. May Allaah guide us, Praise be to Allaah, and peace and blessings upon his Messenger.
And by way of a note: There was no need for you in your response to write to me about the validity of the Khilafah or the importance of applying the Laws of Allaah -by Allaah, this is already established with us. What we are looking at is your belief and methodology with regard to this Deen. To correct this first and put it in line with that of the Salaf. I do not wish to debate with you further, however any questions you have - I am quite willing to research the answers for you with full references. Even if that means checking for you the references that you thought were from the scholars of the past and now you wish to re-check. Wassalam Alaykum. And Allaah is the Lord of the Worlds.
Campaign Against the Corrupt Hizb ut-Tahrir
Exposing Some of the Lies and Misguided Methodology of the Wandering Deviants Hizb-ut-Tahrir
Indeed All Praise is for Allaah, we Praise Him and we seek His Aid, and we seek His Forgiveness. And we seek refuge with Allaah from the evils of our own souls and from the evil consequences of our wicked deeds. He whom Allaah guides none can misguide and he whom Allaah misguides none can guide. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except for Allaah, Alone and without partners and I bear witness that Muhammad is his Slave and Messenger. To proceed, the best Speech is the Book of Allaah and the best Guidance is the Guidance of Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) and the worst of all affairs are the newly invented matters. Every newly invented matter is Innovation and every Innovation is Misguidance and every Misguidance is in the Fire.
This short article is written to expose to the Muslims who care for their faith and for the truth the lies of the group that calls itself Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).
Hizb ut-Tahrir organised a 'March Against Corrupt Muslim Rulers' on Saturday 22nd December 2001 in London. To advertise this march of theirs they have produced a leaflet on which, alongside a picture of a Muslim ruler shaking hands with the Kaafir President of the USA, it is written,
"The Islamic Ummah has endured almost 80 years under the yoke of rulers who care not for her interests or for Islam ... The cause of the humiliation of the Muslim Ummah and the courage of the Kuffar to repeatedly humiliate the Muslims and pillage her lands is the Muslims rulers.
"This march ... will not merely discharge the energy of the Muslims of Britain by shouting a few empty slogans - rather it will focus the Ummah on the true crime - that of the Muslim rulers - and the only true solution - the change of these corrupt rulers and their immediate replacement with the Islamic Khilafah Rashida. A delegation will be sent to all the Muslim embassies including the criminal states of ... (they go on to name three Muslim countries)... - to send a powerful message from the Muslims of Britain for an end to tyranny and oppression."
This statement of theirs is full of lies that we will bi-idhnillahi ta’aala expose for all to see. Before we begin let us make it clear however that our aim in exposing these lies is only to please Allaah by standing up for the truth and opposing lies - whoever they are from. A Muslim is not nationalist or racist and he/she speaks the truth even against him or herself. So let no one say we are trying to justify the acts of tyranny and oppression for as will become clear by the end of this article, we are the ones who are following the Prophetic Methodology in dealing
with it.
And we happily proclaim that we are opposing HT though they may be Muslims for it is Muslims like them who add to the problems of the Ummah as will become clear inshaaAllaah and because of their opposition to the Manhaj (Methodology) laid down by the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam).
We ask Allaah to accept this from us and to grant us a good reward in the Hereafter. We humbly beseech Allaah to allow us and all of the Muslims to see the good as good and the evil as evil. The Clear Path, www.theclearpath.com
Shawwal 1422 / December-January 2001.
HT's 1 st Lie
The first lie made by the HT shows how stupid and ignorant they are of the realities. They write in their flier, "The Islamic Ummah has endured almost 80 years under the yoke of rulers who care not for her interests or for Islam." This is an astonishingly foolish statement! Only 80 years O! HT? Have the Muslims been without khilaafah for only 80 years?! What a lie!
First of all by this statement of theirs, HT have contradicted the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu 'alaihi wasallam) himself. For the trustworthy Prophet said, "The Khilaafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be kingship after that."1 [1]
And he (SallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) also said, "The bonds of Islaam will collapse, one by one. Every time a bond collapses the people will hold rigorously to the one follows it. The first one to collapse is the rulership and the last one to collapse is the prayer."2[2] So it is clear that the problems of corrupt rulership is nothing new, rather it is one of the earliest problems.
And with this HT have also contradicted history. It is well known that Khilafah lasted in this Ummah for 30 years not more and then there was kingship. And maybe HT think that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was a rightly guided khalif. Or maybe the Moghul emperors were rightly guided khalifs?! And as for the Ottoman Empire, which was ‘dismantled’ in 1924, then it was hardly a Khalifate either.3[3] So as for HT’s statement about 80 years then it is out by 1300 years!
So how then have HT made this ignorant lie? And is this not a clear proof of their ignorance of the religion and of other matters? And is it not then clear to you O Muslim that HT have nothing to offer this Ummah other than their ignorant ranting?!
HT's 2 nd Lie
Continuing with their bad habit to speak without knowledge and rather to speak contrary to it HT then spew out the lie that, "The cause of the humiliation of the Muslims Ummah and the courage of the Kuffar to repeatedly humiliate the Muslims and pillage her lands is the Muslims rulers."
I would like to ask HT where they got this understanding from, was it from the Qur'aan or was it from Hadeeth or was it, as it seems more likely, from your own desires and deficient intellects?!
1 Reported by Ahmad, Tirmidhee, Aboo Ya’laa - Saheeh
2 Reported by Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Hibbaan. Ibn Hibbaan put it under the chapter heading, "A mention of the narrations that the first appearance of the breakdown of the bonds of Islaam will come from the corruption of the rule and the rulers."
3 Shaikh ul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH rahimahullaah) said, "So when the period of the Rightly Guided Khalifas had passed and the rule of kingship appeared, deficiencies appeared in the rulers … The kingship of Mu’aawiyah (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) was a kingship of mercy, so when it passed, the rule of Yazeed came and fitnah took place within it: the killing of al-Hussain (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) in Iraaq, the fitnah of the people of Hurrah in al-Madinah and the siege of Makkah when ‘Abdullaah ibn az-Zubayr made his stand. Then Yazeed passed away and the Ummah split up. Ibn az-Zubayr in the Hijaaz, Banu Hakam in ash-Shaam, and the jump to power of Mukhtaar ibn Abee ‘Ubayd and others in Iraaq. All of this took place at the end of the period of the Companions." Majmoo’ul Fataawaa 10/354-368..Are the corrupt rulers the cause of the humiliation or are they just a symptom themselves, a part of this humiliation?
Allaah (‘Azza wa Jall) says,
إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُواْ مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَإِذَا أَرَادَ اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ سُوءًا فَلاَ مَرَدَّ لَهُ وَمَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَالٍ
Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts; and if Allah willeth misfortune for a folk there is none that can repel it, nor have they a defender beside Him. [AL-RAD (THE THUNDER) Chapter 13 -Verse 11]
مَّا أَصَابَكَ مِنْ حَسَنَةٍ فَمِنَ اللّهِ وَمَا أَصَابَكَ مِن سَيِّئَةٍ فَمِن نَّفْسِكَ وَأَرْسَلْنَاكَ لِلنَّاسِ رَسُولاً وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ شَهِيدًا
Whatever of good befalleth thee (O man) it is from Allah, and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself. We have sent thee (Muhammad) as a messenger unto mankind and Allah is sufficient as Witness. [AN-NISA (WOMEN) Chapter 4 - Verse 79]
وَمَا أَصَابَكُم مِّن مُّصِيبَةٍ فَبِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِيكُمْ وَيَعْفُو عَن كَثِيرٍ
Whatever of misfortune striketh you, it is what your right hands have earned. And He forgiveth much. [ASH-SHURA (COUNCIL, CONSULTATION) Chapter 42 - Verse 30]
ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِي النَّاسِ لِيُذِيقَهُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي عَمِلُوا لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ
Corruption doth appear on land and sea because of (the evil) which men's hands have done, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return. [AL-ROOM (THE ROMANS, THE BYZANTINES) Chapter 30 - Verse 41]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu 'alaihi wasallam), who had more concern for the Ummah than the HT, informed us of the humiliation of the Ummah and he did not mention the corrupt Muslim rulers as the cause. Thawbaan (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) related that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "The nations are about to call each other and set upon you, just as the diners set upon food." It was said, ‘Will it be because of our small number that day?’ He said, "Rather, on that day you will be many, but you will be like foam, like the foam on the ocean. And Allaah will remove the fear of you from the hearts of your enemies and will throw Wahn (weakness) into your hearts." Someone said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! What is Wahn?’ He said, "Love of the world and hatred for death."4 [4]
Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) narrated that, "People used to ask the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ’alaihi wasallam) about the good and I used to ask him about the evil, for fear that it would reach me. So I asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, we were living in ignorance and evil, then Allaah brought this good to us. So will there be any evil after this good?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ I then asked, ‘Will there be any good after this evil?’ He replied, ‘Yes, but it will be tainted.’ So I asked, ‘What will be its taint?’ He replied, "A people who guide others to other than my way, you will approve of some of their actions and disapprove of others." I further inquired, ‘Then is there any evil after that good?’ He said, "Yes, callers at the gates of Hell – whosoever responds to their call, they will throw them into the Fire."5[5] I then said, ‘O 4 Aboo Daawood (no. 4297), Ibn ’Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (2/97/8) and others - Saheeh. Authenticated by Shaikh Naasir al-Albaani.
5 This is referring to those who call to Innovation. Ibn ‘Abbaas radhiAllaahu ‘anhumaa) said that, "One day the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) drew for us a long, straight line and then he said, "This is the Path of Allaah." And then he drew lines to its right and to its left and then said, "these are different paths, upon each of these ways is a devil calling to it." Then he recited the verse, "Indeed this is My Straight Path, so follow it, and do not follow other paths" meaning these. Messenger of Allaah, describe them to us.’ He said, "They will be from our people and speak our language." I asked, ‘So what do you order me to do if I reach that?’ he said, "Stick to the Jamaa’ah 6[6] of the Muslims and their leader." I further asked, ‘What if they have neither a Jamaa’ah, nor a leader?’ He said, ‘Then keep away from all of those sects; even if you have to bite upon the roots of a tree, until death reaches you whilst you are in that state.""7[7]
Ibn ‘Umar (radhiAllaahu ‘anhumaa) narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ’alaihi wasallam) "When you deal in ’eenah (a transaction involving usury), take hold of the tails of cows, become content with agriculture and abandon jihaad in the Path of Allaah, then Allaah will permit your humiliation and He will not remove it from you, until you return to your Religion."8[8]
’Abdullaah Ibn ’Umar said, ‘The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alaihi wasallam) said, ‘O Muhaajiroon (Companions who migrated)! You may be afflicted by five things. Allaah forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication and adultery become widespread, then you should realize that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forefathers never suffered. If people should begin to cheat in weighing out goods, you should realize that this has never happened without drought and famine befalling the people, and their rulers oppressing them. If people should withhold the zakaah, you should realize that this has never happened without the rain being stopped from falling; and were it not for the sake of the animals, it would never rain again. If people should break their covenant with Allaah and His Messenger, you should realize that this has never happened without Allaah sending an army against them to take some of their possessions by force. If the leaders do not rule according to the Book of Allaah, you should realize that this has never happened without Allaah making them into groups and making them fight one another."9[9]
So where then HT is the mention of the corrupt Muslim rulers as the main cause for the Ummah’s humiliation? Rather what is apparent from the clear, authentic evidences is that the fault lies within the Ummah as a whole, not just in its rulers. And when we look to the authentic evidences we have mentioned, we find sin, transgression and innovation feature, so it becomes clear that innovated groups and sects like HT are themselves a cause of that which they claim they are out to rectify!
So we see again that HT say one thing yet Allaah and His Messenger (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said another. So O noble Muslim brothers and sisters!
Can you see how the HT speaks contrary to the truth?! paths
وَأَنَّ هَـذَا صِرَاطِي مُسْتَقِيمًا فَاتَّبِعُوهُ وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ السُّبُلَ فَتَفَرَّقَ بِكُمْ عَن سَبِيلِهِ ذَلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُم بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ
And (He commandeth you, saying): This is My straight path, so follow it. Follow not other ways, lest ye be parted from His way. This hath He ordained for you, that ye may ward off (evil). [AL-ANAAM (CATTLE, LIVESTOCK) Chapter 6 - Verse 153]
Bikr bin ‘Alaa said, "He meant the devils amongst men and these are the Innovations and Allaah knows best." And Mujaahid said about the other paths, "The innovations and doubts". (Al-‘Itisaam(1/40-45) of ash-Shaatibee)
6 Ibn Mas’ood (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) said, "The Jamaa’ah is that which conforms to the truth even if you are alone." Reported by Ibn Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq with a Saheeh Isnaad as pointed out by Imaam Naasir al-Albaani in al-Mishkaat (1/61).
Ibn ‘Abbaas (radhiAllaahu ‘anhumaa) narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "Whoever sees something from his ruler which he dislikes let him be patient with him, for he who splits away from the Jamaa’ah by a handspan and then dies, dies a death of Jaahiliyyah." Reported by al-Bukhaaree (9/145), Muslim and Ahmad. 7 Bukhaaree (7084) and Muslim (1487) 8 Aboo Dawood (no. 3462) and Baihaqi in Sunan al Kubraa (3/316) – Saheeh. Authenticated by Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo’ al Fataawaa (29/30) 9 Ibn Maajah (no. 4019) and Aboo Nu’aym in Hilyatul-Awliyaa‘ (8/333-334) – Hasan. Authenticated by Imaam Naasir al-Albani in Silsilatul Hadeeth as Saheehah (106).
HT’s 3 rd Lie
"This march ... will not merely discharge the energy of the Muslims of Britain by shouting a few empty slogans"
Rather what we have seen from experience many times before is that this is all marches are good for – shouting empty slogans and venting juvenile frustrations. How many decades of demonstrations have we seen and what results have we seen? Aside from the fact that it is contrary to the methodology of the Prophets (‘alaihimus salaam), the marching methodology is useless and is only used by those bankrupt of trust in Allaah. As anyone can see, marching and demonstrating are the tools of the fallacy of democracy, encouraged by it so that the people are pacified and suffice with their demonstration. So what does a Muslim believe in and utilize, democracy or Islaam? And what a fallacy for those who claim to oppose democracy to use its tools themselves! Allaahu Musta’aan!
Another despicable aspect of these silly demonstrations and marches that we see at least once a year is the amount of sin and transgression that wantonly occurs during them. The recent demos departing from Central Mosque 10[10] that were shown on TV, demonstrated it clearly for all to see. Unrelated sisters and brothers travelling together, chitchatting in the coaches – it is not hidden from the TV cameras so how can it be hidden from Allaah? And how can you expect the Aid or Mercy of Allaah when you disobey Him?
HT’s 4th Lie
Carrying on in their flier HT go on to say that, "the true crime" is "that of the Muslim rulers". And this too is another strange statement of the HT. What do they mean by ‘the true crime’? And what do they mean that it is of the Muslim rulers?
So if they mean shirk which is, as Allaah says, the greatest crime 11[11] then are not the non-Muslim rulers more guilty? Are not all the non-Muslims guilty? And are not the grave-worshipping Soofis of this Ummah guilty? So what does this HT mean?
Maybe it means the bombing of Afghanistan? Then if that is what they mean how about the non-Muslims who are dropping the bombs are they not doing a ‘true crime’?
Maybe HT mean the general state of the Ummah at present? Then maybe HT should look at themselves, for groups such as theirs are red-handed in the demise of the honour of the Muslims. How about their own true crime against the ‘aqeedah of Islaam? How about their denial of belief in Punishment of the Grave? Is that not the ‘true crime’??
So it is a good reflection of HT’s real goal and their real call that despite all the crimes that are prevalent throughout the world of differing degrees the only crime which is apparent to them is that of the Muslim rulers!
HT’s 5 th and 6 th Lies
And finally in this flier or theirs HT have included two lies in one go. "the only true solution - the change of these corru pt rulers and their immediate replacement with the Islamic Khilafah Rashida."
10 Which were admittedly not organized by HT but similar and comparable nonetheless.
وَإِذْ قَالَ لُقْمَانُ لِابْنِهِ وَهُوَ يَعِظُهُ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّ الشِّرْكَ لَظُلْمٌ عَظِيمٌ
11 Soorat Luqmaan (31:13) "Verily Shirk is a great oppression indeed.".The first of these lies is that the ‘only true solution’ lies in the ‘change of these corrupt rulers’. This is a futile and baseless claim.
Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) said as we have seen that "Verily! Allaah will not change the good condition of a people as long as they do not change their state of goodness themselves" and the scholars of tafseer have explained that this verse applies both ways. So due to sin and transgression and innovation Allaah will change the good condition of a people to a bad condition, and vice versa due to their returning to Tawheed, Sunnah and Tazkiyah Allaah will change the bad condition of a people to a good condition. This understanding is further reinforced by Allaah’s
saying,
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants. [AL-NOOR (THE LIGHT) Chapter 24 - Verse 55]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) clearly stated that the humiliation of the Ummah would only be lifted when it returned to its deen, "then Allaah will permit your humiliation and He will not remove it from you, until you return to your Religion."7 He did not say ‘when you change your corrupt rulers’.
And looking to the Imaams of the Muslims from whom the HT are totally severed, we find the beautiful statement of Imaam Maalik (rahimahullaah), "Whosoever introduces into Islaam an innovation, and holds it to be something good, has indeed alleged that Muhammad (sallAllaahu ’alaihi wa sallam) has betrayed his message. Read the saying of Allaah the Most Blessed, the Most High:
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا
"This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed My favour upon you and I have chosen for you Islaam as your Religion." [AL-MAEDA (THE TABLE, THE TABLE SPREAD) Chapter 5 - Verse 3]
So that which was not part of the Religion at that time, cannot be part of the Religion today. And the last part of this Ummah cannot be rectified, except by that which rectified its first part."
So we can see that the statement of HT that the only solution is the replacement of the rulers is unanimously refuted by the authentic evidences from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Another blatant deception of HT lies exposed!
And then the second lie which they made within this statement, is that "immediate replacement with the Islamic Khilafah Rashida" is possible. Anyone with intellect can see that this is not how it works. Thinking that the Rightly Guided Khalifate can be established ‘immediately’ is nothing but a fanciful delusion...... HT’s Deviated Manhaj (Methodology) For All to See
Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu anhu) narrated in a longer hadeeth that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans." He (Hudhaifah) asked, "What should I do O Messenger of Allaah if I reach that?" He replied, "You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey."12[12]
The Imaam of Ahl us Sunnah of his time al-Barbahaaree 13[13] (d. 329H) said, "If you find a man making supplication against the ruler, know that he is a person of innovation. If you find a person making supplication for the ruler to be upright, know that he is a person of the Sunnah, if Allaah wills.
Fudayl Ibn ‘Iyaad 14[14] said, "If I had an invocation which was to be answered I would not make it except for the ruler.""15[15]
He also said, "Whoever rebels against a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims and has contradicted the narrations and dies a death of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic days of ignorance).
It is not permissible to fight the ruler nor to rebel against him even if he oppresses. This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) to Abu Dharr al-Ghifaaree, "Have patience even if he is an Abyssinian slave"16[16] and his saying to the Ansaar, "Have patience until you meet me at the pool."17[17] There is no fighting against the ruler in the Sunnah. It causes destruction of the religion and the wordly affairs."15
In a Saheeh Hadeeth reported by Imaam Ahmad, the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "The Khawaarij are the Dogs of the Hellfire." SO BE WARNED O MUSLIM WHO CARES FOR HIS RELIGION! BE WARNED FROM THE LYING HIZBUT TAHRIR!
12 Saheeh Muslim (no. 4554)
13 He was Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn ‘Alee ibn Khalf al-Barbahaaree. He acquired knowledge from the senior students of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal. 14 d. 187H
15 The Explanation of the Creed (Sharh us Sunnah) of Imaam al Barbahaaree. 16 Saheeh Muslim (nos. 4525, 4526) 17 Saheeh al Bukhaaree (5/136)
Hizb ut-tahreer- unveiled part 1
SOURCE: SALAFI PUBLICATIONS By Abdur-Rahman Dimashkiyah
There will always fight between truth and falsehood. Allaah has sent people who will spend lives/efforts to defend his Deen (the Qur'ân and Sunnah). There are others who claim that they are reformers.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِي الأَرْضِ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ
أَلا إِنَّهُمْ هُمُ الْمُفْسِدُونَ وَلَـكِن لاَّ يَشْعُرُونَ
And when it is said unto them: Make not mischief in the earth, they say: We are peacemakers only. Are not they indeed the mischief-makers? But they perceive not. [AL-BAQARA (THE COW) Chapter 2 - Verse 11 and 12]
They are the dangerous people since they think they are reforming but in reality they are destroying.
In the 20th century - end of Uthmaani empire - many groups/cults/organisations that considered that entering the political or taking the political way is the best way to retain the Islamic dignity. They ignored that the laxity of the ummah was the real reason of losing that dignity. These groups were based on emphasism and emotionalism - not on knowledge. They did not seek knowledge, their behaviour was chaotic and it resulted in chaos. The work of da'wah was put aside till the political situation improved - they say put it on the shelf till our political situation improves - but there are many millions of people waiting for the truth. So their priority was to return the Khilaafah. Until then they way, we should suspend everything - nothing can be done till it returns. As for the kuffar - let them go to hell - they say, why because we should get our lands back from them. Actuallly, many enemies of Islam became leaders of Islam - this should not be forgotten by us. The Kuffar realise this point hence they support the Christian missionaries - since they open ways/avenues in Muslim communities. Therefore we should do the same amongst them. They deserve to become Muslims and enter Paradise. However our politicians (i.e. the likes of Hizb-ut-tahreer ) do not give this a consideration.
These people talk about the conspiracy - the cultural invasion - how we are getting attacked by books, schools etc. However there was also an invasion that took place in this ummah many centuries before - Sufism and Ilm ul-Kalaam - these things hijacked the religion and had influenced the deviance and now people are getting taught these things in 'Islamic Schools' getting degrees etc! So the invasion they talk about is not the only one - but we should know about this one as well!
Another thing is we need to understand and look for the reasons for our downfall There must be a reason's As Allaah said: why did it happened. These people will say there is nothing wrong with you - it is the kuffar they are responsible for it - but they ignore the law of Allaah, if we disobey Allaah's law then he has a law also to punish us.
Among such groups is Hizb ut-Tahreer - have certain signs - always talk about issues of khilaafah, adhaabul-qabr and issue of Aahad ahaadeeth. This is how to recognise them - they are taught that these are priorities - they say that if you do not work for the khilaafah than you are a mushrik - don't they say this [yes] - because you are not working for the khilaafah! Then what about the lifetime of the Messenger in Makkah were they not Mushriks then?
So people do not know when they argue with Hizb-ut-tahreer that The establisher of Hizb-ut-tahreer was a maatureedee/ash'aree in aqeedah and he used to consider ash'arees maatureedees as People of Tawheed (ASJ) This is the issue we should pick with them. It is not just aahad ahaadeeth, adhaabul qabr and khilaafah, they have much more deviance than this - such as the use of Ilm ul-Kalaam - all the leaders of the ASJ have rejected Ilm ul-Kalaam (Abu Haneefah Ash-Shafi'ee they charged those who follow it with Ahl ul-Bid'ah they should be beaten, punished exiled put in jail etc..)
The establisher was Taqi ud-Deen an-Nabahaanee (may Allah forgive him). The issue here is to correct ourselves. We are calling for correction. Only those who look for correction will listen but the fanatics will not. This man established Hizb-ut-tahreer, he was the grandson of Yoosuf bin ismaeel an-Nabahaanee who was one of the most excessive people into Sufism he had many books one is Jaami Karaamaat al-Awliyaah includes many funny statements one is on Ali al Amali - if you read some stories that will make you laugh and cry.
They say about him - Mujtahid Mutlaq. Didn't you hear that? [Yes] and what do they say about the Messenger (s.a.w.s)? That he should not make ijtihaad Didn't you hear that? He should not make ijtihaad. So who is more perfect than the other, the one who is capable of ijtihaad or the one who is not?? What about the scholars of his time, did they consider him to be mujtahid mutlaq, or even mujtahid? He was unknown!! He was nobody. So how can a claim be made. Do you think you will not be found out? Allaah is preserving his religion and those who lie will be caught out and exposed. A thief - what about those who offer bid'ah to the people and say it is sunnah wont they get caught? Allaah will catch them out.
He had many books and was born in Ijzim in Palestine in 1909 and he went to al-Azhar university where he graduated then he went to Lebanon then Jordan and he worked in the Islamic college as a teacher until he finally dedicated himself to Hizb-ut-tahreer. He died in 1977 and had many books such as Risaalutul Arab - has tendencies of nationalism - shows his nationalist concepts etc. Whether he renounced that we don't know since he did not make this clear in his later books (this is one of the first books that he wrote). His aqeedah was Maatureedee (more so than Ash'aree) and used to call their leaders Ulamaa ut-Tawheed - that they were Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. One of the things that he wrote - in imitation of ar-Raazee (one of the people of Ilm ul-Kalaam) he said that we cannot accept the Qur'ân until it agrees with ten of our conditions - and he used the same phrase of ar-Raazee - one of which is that it should agree with our aql. He also says in his book ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islaamiyyah (3/132) - this is regarding being maatureedee and ash'aree since he made ta'weel of certain sifaat such as Hand = power but we find in Sharh of Fiqhul Akbar of Abu Haneefah (p. 33) - that it should not be said that hand means power and likewise we find in Tabyeen Khadhibul Muftaree (p.150) the saying of al-Ash'aree himself who says likewise that is should not be said that hand means power (i.e. metaphorically) because this is the saying of al-Mu'tazilah - who are the most deviant cult.
If we go go to the book Sharh Usool ul-Khamsah of the Mu'tazilah (p.228) we find that one of the big leaders al-Qaadee Abdul-Jabbaar who said that the way of Ahl us-Sunnah is to believe that the hand of Allaah means power. Regarding the imitation of what ar-Raazee said look at the book ash-Shakhsiyah al-Islaamiyyah (3/158) So the issue here is that we should not first talk about khilaafah, khabrul-ahad and adhaabul-qabr, let us talk about the ta'weel. Tahaawee said the best ta'weel is to abandon ta'weel and to submit to the texts and he said wa alaihi jamaa'atul-Muslimeen so how can they be ASJ when they oppose this saying of at-Tahaawee. So there are many other deviant things.
We know also that they say the Khilaafah should be re-established in minimum of 13 and maximum of 25 years. If they don't then they are failures. There is also a certain form of behaving of ASJ and you can know them by their behaviour and this is by the practice of the sunnah externally and internally. ASJ do not say when considering da'wah - This is not the time for that now! Must not forget the da'wah since this is why we have been created - since with that people worship Allaah. They make this big mistake when they say that the Khilafah collapsed in 1924 this century. This is wrong. In fact it finished a long time ago. And this Uthmaani kingship of empire was not a khilaafah. They themselves called themselves kings - sultans - sultaan Abdul Hameed, sultaan Abdul Majeed so this was not Khilaafah this was a kingship. So you do not see the traces of the Sunnah in them, even if you ask them why do we not see Sunnah upon you - most of them are clean shaven - they say the most important thing now is to work for the Khilaafah. They say it is qushoor (qishrah) that this is just a matter of skin. This is something we should throw away. So they consider these acts of Sunnah like the skin that can be thrown away.
So what is the Sunnah that they are calling us to. When they mention the texts they cast doubts and say 'definitive text' 'definitive meaning' etc... so they confuse the people with this. Likewise they talk about a lot of theories, political theories, they memorise many theories but they cannot memorise ten ahaadeeth or chapters from the Qur'ân. So they doubt the Sunnah.
And one of them said: "every single text in the Q&S is differed about amongst the scholars". Haven't you heard that? [yes] Every text!! And I heard myself by one of their leaders and Umar Bakree is one of them - but I heard one of them in a tape called Munaaqasha Afraaq ul-Mu'tazilah - when one of them faced Shaikh al-Albaanee - when he mentioned that statement to the Shaikh - the Shaikh, he quoted 'Afillaahi Shakk?' so when this verse was quoted he began to change the topic.
The hasty nature of this sect causes them to perish quickly because they have no patience or wisdom, they do not consider the stages of the Prophets mission from its beginning to its end. They take the last stage first!! What happens when you ask for the last stage to come first. What happens?? You sell out. You compromise and co-operate with those you are not allowed to - such as with Shi'ites for example etc. So it was better for them to start from the beginning - to be more wise - than to be more wise and to make treaties with those whom Allaah hates. So in the book 'al-Khilaafah' (p. 158) they say we should obtain the khilaafah in no less than 13 years. And then this Hizb - it was designed by Allaah of course - it came here to Britain and they caused much fitnah so they described Islam to people here and caused fitnah in the universities etc... So they gave Kuffar the chance to close mosques, cancel gatherings etc... So what are the demands of this group. They do not demand doctrinal requirements. So they say 'Wa maa halaqtul-jinna wal-insa illaa lil-Khilaafah' and 'Innallaah laa yaghfiry an tazool ul-Khilaafah'. It is as if Allaah is saying that but he actually said:
li ya'budoon we need to teach and call people before it is too late. If a kaafir comes what is better to gain him or to lose him? To those it is better to lose him. The priorities of the Messenger (s.a.w.s) was to gain even just one person, to save the people from Hellfire and more into Paradise. So da'wah for them is postponed until Khilaafah comes.
One of the greatest truths about the absence of the Aqeedah among these people is that they hasten themselves to Iran and they called who to be the khalifah? Do you know who? [Khomeini] They called Khomeini to be the khilaafah. Here it is in their newspaper - this is their newpaper al-khilaafah No. 18, Friday, 2nd of January 1410H in this magazine article we open the next page we find 'Hizbut-Tahree wal-Imaam Khomeini' and In this edition they admitted we went to Iran and we invited Khomeini to be the Khalifah of the Ummah. So is the Ummah that they want us to work for and if we do not we are mushrik? Who is the Khalifah - Khomeini. In this edition of their magazine al-Wa'ee the best political work that Khomeini has ever done is to write his book 'al-Hukoomut al-Islaamiyyah' The Islamic State - that is the best work al-Khomeini ever did because he called for the state and established the state so he did what he said - meant what he said - and he called not to the west nor to the east but to Islam and he shaped the whole world within 2 decades and he gave the light of hope to the Muslims who were about to despair and then they said and this does not mean that Khomeini has no mistakes but there is not time for that! But of course there is time for others!
To knock their heads and to call them Mushriks! They confess also in their book and they said that we went to Khomeini and we appealed him to accept to be the khalifah and he promised inshaa'allaah I will give you the response, in this book they say we have been waiting for his response but we had no response. That is why they are criticising the Iranian Law now. So they said that they called him to rule the Khilaafah with the Book and the Sunnah!!! Does Khomeini accept the Book and the Sunnah. Are they joking. Why don't they call Clinton and ask him the same.!!
They are praising his book 'Hukoomut al-islaamiyyah' In which he is cursing Abu Bakr Umar, Mu'aawiyyah etc.. .He curses the prophets brother in law, so this does not matter now? He also says that our imaams have reached the highest stage that no prophet nor angel can achieve. (p.52) so how can he establish a state with that claim, that those imaams are better than all prophets and angels? So that does not matter to them.....
Hizb ut-Tahreer do not work at those reasons which caused the downfall of the Ummah (as we mentioned before there are certain reasons). They are going against Allaah's law (Innallaaha laa yughayyiru). They want to change things but they do not want the people to change.! They do not tell people that we lost because of your disobedience. That you are not submissive any more you do not represent the meaning of the name on your shoulders any more it is you who caused the loss of the Ummah. Your sins, they don't say this they say the conspiracy of our enemies, they don't focus on the transgressions of the people of the Ummah it is always the enemies. But we have to ask the question why did Allaah who has promised us dignity, victory why did He allow them to destroy us? They will never answer this.
They want us to jump from the first stage (tarbiyah - nurtuting /educating upon proper knowledge/Aqeedah) to stage of Khilaafah but they will fail; since the first stage the companions went through tarbiyah - since to carry Islam on you shoulders requires a lot of patience etc... but the closest thing for them is to work for Khilaafah and do not talk about anything else, sin transgression etc...
Allaah said (in tasbiroo wa tattiqoo ...)
if you have patience and fear Allaah their plan can not cause you the least harm!! So why are we harmed then, what happened to the promise of Allaah then? (24:55) this promise of Allaah what happened to it then?
Ya'budoonanee al laa yushrikoona bi Shai'aa - two conditions here - so they were about to enable one mushrik - khomeini - to be the Khalifah!! The one who says:
Yaa Alee etc...are these people worshipping Allaah alone? But these things are not important to them, the most important thing to them is the Khilaafah etc... you don't apply Tawheed, any shirk it doesn't matter, Khilaafah is most important. Either they do not know the law or they are ignoring the law of Allaah. So we have to learn how to learn these hearts to the Creator. Ibn Abbas said: Allaahumma maa nazala balaa'an illaa bizanbin - and it was not ascended but by repentance - this saying of Ibn Abbaas represents the law of Allaah and Hizb ut-Tahreer's law does not represent the law of Allaah. They don't mind talking about Imperialism, America the greatest satan in the world, we are not saying don't say that but we say stop using these emotional things and start to teach the people what they need to know about first.
But if the Americans are the greatest satans then why did you say that we are allowed to seek help from these satans. Why did you say that talabatun-Nasrah is allowed it is one of our principles we ask the kuffar to help us to do what? Establish the Khilaafah, will shaytan help you with that??? You are the ones who say what about that one who allowed a peace treaty with those satans and this one and that one - yet you, you say your are free from all of that - why do you say: It is one of our principles to seek support from the kuffar to help us to establish the Khilaafah. So in 1978 they asked Qaddaafi - we want you to help us to establish Khilaafah.
The victory in support of this ummah is different to the victory the other nations achieved. French defeated Germans, Germans defeated the English, they have their own system but we have the Law of Allaah, victory is linked to submission, obedience, surrender to its Lord and these are the factors of victory, this is the promise of Allaah, Allaah will never break His promise but this promise has conditions. Not like these people one of them is showing his thigh and another he doesn't pray, he says it doesn't matter he says laa ilaaha illallaaha, OK we say you are with us, even if you don't pray. And we know some people from Hizb ut-Tahreer in Jordan and other countries, they do not pray, but they say since those people are shouting for Khilaafah its OK we can work with them and they claim that they know best about the political issues. One of their professions and knowledge of political issues is that they shouted for Saddam Hussain the one who massacred thousands of Muslims and who committed a lot of atrocities, they said Subhaanallaah, he is fighting the greatest Shaytaan so they were with him and so did other cults.
We now mention some of their fatwas. Qadaa wal-Qadr, they say these two were never mentioned in the QS (ad-Doosiyah p.18). However, The Messenger (s.a.w.s) said: Aktharoo man yamoot... Most of those who die of my nation after the book of Alaah and the qadaa wal-Qadr of Allaah is by al-anfus (death of the soul) - Al-Haythami Majmoo az-Zawaa'id (5/6) Ibn Hajr authenticated it in FB (10/167). Hizb ut-Tahreer put its initial Hizb ut-Tahreer Islam built its doctrine based upon aql - the intellect - they said the Aqeedah of Islam is a mental doctrine (aql) and a political doctrine (siyaasee) (al-Eemaan p.68 and Hizbut-Tahreer p.6) so the aql of these people is the basis of the religion so we know Allaah by our Aql. But in contradiction to that is what Umar al-Bakree said that separation amongst Muslims was when they used aql in matters of Aqeedah (Tafseer of al-Maidah 5/29) and they mention that nations do not arise by good morality but by doctrines and thoughts - and by the methodology that the carrie /practice (A-taqattul al-hizbeep.18) and it says that da'wah for good morality does not correct the society and does not arise the nation but the arising of the society takes place by the correction of thoughts and ideas not by calling to good morals (manhaj hizbut-tahreer fit-Taghyeer p.26 -27).
We say in both!! In morality and in thought (i.e. Aqeedah) and Islam calls for both.
Taqi ud-Deen denied that there are no emotional ties to the soul- no spiritual ties. He said - no ashwaaq roohiyyah fil-Islaam - that is why we see that Hizb ut-Tahreer does not have softness and good behaviour with the people - they say their are no spiritual effects in the soul. He said in Nidhaam al-Islaam p.61 and al-Fikr al-Islaamee al-Mu'aasir p.202, he said - look at the surprise - those who say that the woman as all is awrah this is a collapse, a destruction of morality - i.e. the need to cover all etc.. is a destruction - since it must be, he says, that the man and woman must meet together to have commercial exchange. - this is what he says - he says this in his book an-Nidhaam ul-Ijtimaa' fil-Islam p.10 and p.128 - to shake hands with women is not a destruction in morality - but to say a woman should be covered is destruction of morality.
They say that Hizb ut-Tahreer is a political gathering a political group - but it is not a group of works - the whole work of the group is political - this is what they say, its work is not educational, and nor is it admonition and guidance, it is only a political work (manhaj hizbut-tahree fit-taghyeer p.28 and 31 and also hizbut-tahreer p.25) Did you hear that - this is what they claim - they said we are allowed to establish our group by Allaah since Allaah said: Let their be an ummah arise from you enjoining good.... This is the proof that they use but they say that their work is totally political work!!! So this political work has become Aqeedah to them and this is why they bargain with Ahl-ul Bid'ah the Shi'ites and also the Jews. So when this issue became the doctrine (political) nothing was wrong with dealing with the Shi'ites. They said in al-Wa'ee (Magazine) no. 75 p.23 (1993) they said: There is no difference between Shaafi'ee and Hanafee - which is wrong in terms of variations in terms of rulings - any way .. and Ja'afaree (that means Shî'aîs) and Zaidee.. and they said And what is happening of arising or reviving between the Sunni and Shî'aîs that very mean individuals are behind this and we should fight this since there are no difference and those who do that they should be fought.
And these people (Hizb ut-Tahreer) know what these Shi'ites say about Aa'ishah and the companions etc.. they hear it in Hyde Park and still they say there is no difference between Shi'ite and Sunnee. The Shi'ites curse the companions saying they have changed the Qur'ân, abusing the wives of the Prophet (s.a.w.s) the Mother of the Believers, this to them is a small thing! Why? Compared to the greatest thing, what is the greatest thing? The issue of Khilaafah. To curse the Companions, the Prophets Wives, accuse the Companions of changing the Qur'ân all of these are small things when compared to the great issue, what is that? The issue of Khilaafah.
That is why when this issue became Aqeedah they said that the best book we have ever read is Hukoomatul-Islaamiyyah of Khomeini because it agrees with their Aqeedah, yes to establish a Shi'ite state to fight the sunnis is a matter of Aqeedah for them (the Shi'ites) but they (Hizb ut-Tahreer) do not know that, or choose to ignore it. So they found in Kum, where khomeini used to live, they found that in Kum the Khilaafah may be established.
So as we said, they say Allaah allowed us to establish a party. The verse they quote: You are the best nation.... But look at what they say: Innal-Amra bil Ma'roof wan-Nahi anil-Munkar laisa huwat-Tareeq ilaa iqaamatil-khilaafati wa I'aadatil-Islam !!! So if this is not the way, why then do you quote the verse then (they said this in manhaj Hizb ut-Tahreer fit-Taghyeer p.21) and what they say, (i.e. the verse) was also quoted by Bakri in his tafseer of Maa'idah volume 2/counter 233. They say our work is totally political not enjoining good and forbid evil. But we must ask did not the Salaf hear this verse before, so did they establish groups themselves, did they have this understanding. No this is destruction of the verse not understanding the verse. We also know in addition that Hizb ut-Tahreer is not the only group, their is Ikhwaan, they will say we are allowed to form a group and they will quote the same verse. We have to know that they are causing disunity between the Ummah, yesterday they create a group then they divide and form a new group and have dislike for the other group.
So was this understanding absent to the Salaf whereas you are making new groups with your understanding. The Prophet (s.a.w.s) said if two khalifahs were given bai'ah then the second should be killed. But they say that this is aahad ahaadeeth. But who told them that the companions did not used to take the aahad ahaadeeth. We have been saying this to them for years - give us one saying from the Prophet (s.a.w.s) the companions, taabi'een etc... that we should not take Aqeedah from aahad, They say it is haraam to take it in Aqeedah and haraam to leave it in ahkaam!!! Is this not a contradiction?? The important question that should arise - the verse they arise - waltakum ummatun.... What if it is said waltakum min Hizb ut-Tahreer - now we say did an Ummah exist before the existent of Taqi ud-Deen an-Nabahaanee? Of course it did from the time of the Messenger (s.a.w.s) so why the need for him and Hizb ut-Tahreer, Why is it OK to form a new party within Islam within the Ummah when it is not allowed to form a new party within Hizb ut-Tahreer??
And it is amazing that these people (hizbee people) who call for dispersal, they are the ones who cry for the unity - they are the ones who divide!!! They should not be allowed to do this - go and curse your hizbiyyah then you can call for unity. Another thing is that those who claim that they will apply the verse - you enjoin the good and forbid the evil - do they actually look like those who will do this - externally - No they are the ones who need it themselves!!! The one who does not have something cannot give it. If I don't have money I cant give it - if they don't have the SUNNAH they can't give it.
All the whole world to them is Daarul-Kufr. They say there is no place of Islam today. Because everything is a place of Kufr. Don't they say this?? Do you disagree? I have read this in their papers in their books - they said "the Muslim lands all of them are daarul-kufr - even if its people are Muslims" (Hizbut-Tahreer p.32 &103). So they did not exclude Makkah and Madînah! Do they say that to you - except Makkah and Madînah - I'll give you my personal experience - one of them said to me - all of them except Makkah and Madînah - they also say every single society all of it is non-Muslim society and the places of Islam they live in is not Darul-Islam (Ad-Dawlatul-Islaamiyyah p.55 - Meethaaqul- Ummah p.14 - Manhaj Hizb ut-Tahreer fit-Taghyeer p.10-11 & 34 and Meethaqul Ummah p.44) in all of these references that all places are daarul-kufr and all the societies are darul-kufr. That means that there is no Muslims!!! One of our brothers has been asking one of their leaders - is their any daarul-Islam today. He said No! He said but I want to do Hijrah!! He said it is not possible. So where is the place of hijrah then? Makkah and Madînah are not places of Islam? Do you go to London?
There is a fatwa they give (Jawaab wa Suaal 24 Rabee al-Awwal 1390 and also 8 Muharram 1390) they mention in these two places that it is allowed for the foreign women to be kissed. And I swear that they argued with one of the brothers who recently became Muslim that they allowed it to him. He said that they said to him it is allowed for him to see a picture of a naked woman, they said 'its only a paper'. They said its a picture its not a woman - so I told that brother to go and give them a picture of their sister - its only a picture its not your sister. So they say that a woman is allowed to shake hands with a woman - when it comes to giving the pledge of allegiance it is OK for the woman to shake hands for this purpose - there is difference in this between a man and a woman (al-Khilaafah p.32) - The references that I am mentioning to you I have seen them and I have them at my home. And regarding what Aa'ishah said - "No By Allaah - The Messenger of Allaah (s.a.w.s) never touched the hand of a woman." And they say no she is wrong? I heard this myself from Umar Bakree personally and I have this recording - he said Aa'ishah is wrong - she was wrong in saying that!! So who is right then - did you live with Prophet (s.a.w.s) - how can you say that. This ahaadeeth is in Bukhaaree!!
So they reject this by what has been narrated by Umm Atiyyah that the Messenger (s.a.w.s) was given a piece of cloth and a woman gave her her hand - but this is Mursal - that means it is da'eef - mentioned by an-Nawawi (1/30) and likewise Ibn Hajr (8/636) said - Aaishah said that as an answer to what had been narrated by Umm Atiyaah that the Messenger took a piece of cloth to shake hands. And it is not sufficient for them the saying of Allaah's Messenger - "I do not shake hands with women"? (Ibn Hibban, 14 Tirmidhee 1597 Nasaa'ee 7/149 Ibn Maajah 2874) so this is not enough for them (narrated by Umaimah). What I say to one woman is what I say to a hundred women and he said 'My shaking hands with you is my word (i.e. it is my covenant) - he also said: "It is better for a man to be hit with a needle in his head than giving his hand to a foreign woman" (Al-Bayhaqee - saheeh - silsilah of albaanee no.226)
In spite of all of that they say that it is allowed!! So we say to them what they always say to the Rulers - uhkimoo bimaa anzalallaahu - Judge/Rule by what Allaah has revealed. And we say the same thing to them: The law of Allaah is not to shake the hand of the foreign women, if you do not rule by this Allaah will not make you establish the rule of Allaah. And this means we have to be more submissive and obedient. If we ourselves do not submit to the law of Allaah how then how can call others to it. How can we gain superiority and leadership. An-Nawawi said: "When it is to look it is haraam to touch (Sharh il-Minjaaj 6/195)...
Tape ends here...
hizb ut-tahreer [a tape exposing their beliefs]
Tape of Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee
Regarding Hizb ut-tahreer- It is a party founded by Taqiyyud-deen an Nabhaanee. As for this party - then we have a number of observations to make about it:
1. That they do not accept "Khabarul-Aahaad" in 'Aqeedah and this has caused them to separate from Ahlus-Sunnah in 'Aqeedah since accepting the ahaadeeth is an important principle - so they do not accept the Messengers (s.a.w.s) sayings in points of 'Aqeedah. So they do not believe for example, in The Punishment in the grave, they do not believe in The Dajjaal and they do not believe in the descent of the Maseh - and they do not believe in many things which are mentioned in ahaadeeth. And this is of course, something futile since authentic aahaad Ahaadeeth which are those reported by good / reliable, precise narrators from the first to the last of them - not contradicting something more reliable - and not contain hidden weakness and the ahaadeeth which fulfill these five conditions amounts to knowledge whereas they say that it amounts only to conjecture (zann) - and the reply to them in detail is to be found in my book:
"al-adillah wash-Shawaahid fee wujoob al-Akhdh bikhabral-waahid fil Ahkaam wal 'Aqaaid", where I mention their evidences from their book "ad-Doosiyyah" and I have replied to them in detail, so he who wishes to go into depth then let him refer back to that book, which I ask Allaah to make of benefit to the Muslims.
2. This party accuses Ahlus-Sunnah of being Jabariyyah as they plainly state in their book "ad-Doosiyyah" so they say with regards to the matter of Qadaa and Qadr:
"...so if we look to Ahlus-Sunna - who think that they have come out in their view from between dung and blood then they are Jabariyyah."
Then this is ignorance of this important part of 'Aqeedah since Ahlus-Sunna wal-Jamaa'ah affirm what Allah has affirmed and deny what Allah has denied. they affirm that the servant has free-will - except that it is not but by the will of Allah - the most Perfect and free from defects, and the Most high, and there are great proofs of this - and we have mentioned some of them in out reply to them in out book:
So as we said, they say Allaah allowed us to establish a party. The verse they quote: You are the best nation.... But look at what they say: Innal-Amra bil Ma'roof wan-Nahi anil-Munkar laisa huwat-Tareeq ilaa iqaamatil-khilaafati wa I'aadatil-Islam !!! So if this is not the way, why then do you quote the verse then (they said this in manhaj Hizb ut-Tahreer fit-Taghyeer p.21) and what they say, (i.e. the verse) was also quoted by Bakri in his tafseer of Maa'idah volume 2/counter 233. They say our work is totally political not enjoining good and forbid evil. But we must ask did not the Salaf hear this verse before, so did they establish groups themselves, did they have this understanding. No this is destruction of the verse not understanding the verse. We also know in addition that Hizb ut-Tahreer is not the only group, their is Ikhwaan, they will say we are allowed to form a group and they will quote the same verse. We have to know that they are causing disunity between the Ummah, yesterday they create a group then they divide and form a new group and have dislike for the other group.
So was this understanding absent to the Salaf whereas you are making new groups with your understanding. The Prophet (s.a.w.s) said if two khalifahs were given bai'ah then the second should be killed. But they say that this is aahad ahaadeeth. But who told them that the companions did not used to take the aahad ahaadeeth. We have been saying this to them for years - give us one saying from the Prophet (s.a.w.s) the companions, taabi'een etc... that we should not take Aqeedah from aahad, They say it is haraam to take it in Aqeedah and haraam to leave it in ahkaam!!! Is this not a contradiction?? The important question that should arise - the verse they arise - waltakum ummatun.... What if it is said waltakum min Hizb ut-Tahreer - now we say did an Ummah exist before the existent of Taqi ud-Deen an-Nabahaanee? Of course it did from the time of the Messenger (s.a.w.s) so why the need for him and Hizb ut-Tahreer, Why is it OK to form a new party within Islam within the Ummah when it is not allowed to form a new party within Hizb ut-Tahreer??
And it is amazing that these people (hizbee people) who call for dispersal, they are the ones who cry for the unity - they are the ones who divide!!! They should not be allowed to do this - go and curse your hizbiyyah then you can call for unity. Another thing is that those who claim that they will apply the verse - you enjoin the good and forbid the evil - do they actually look like those who will do this - externally - No they are the ones who need it themselves!!! The one who does not have something cannot give it. If I don't have money I cant give it - if they don't have the SUNNAH they can't give it.
All the whole world to them is Daarul-Kufr. They say there is no place of Islam today. Because everything is a place of Kufr. Don't they say this?? Do you disagree? I have read this in their papers in their books - they said "the Muslim lands all of them are daarul-kufr - even if its people are Muslims" (Hizbut-Tahreer p.32 &103). So they did not exclude Makkah and Madînah! Do they say that to you - except Makkah and Madînah - I'll give you my personal experience - one of them said to me - all of them except Makkah and Madînah - they also say every single society all of it is non-Muslim society and the places of Islam they live in is not Darul-Islam (Ad-Dawlatul-Islaamiyyah p.55 - Meethaaqul- Ummah p.14 - Manhaj Hizb ut-Tahreer fit-Taghyeer p.10-11 & 34 and Meethaqul Ummah p.44) in all of these references that all places are daarul-kufr and all the societies are darul-kufr. That means that there is no Muslims!!! One of our brothers has been asking one of their leaders - is their any daarul-Islam today. He said No! He said but I want to do Hijrah!! He said it is not possible. So where is the place of hijrah then? Makkah and Madînah are not places of Islam? Do you go to London?
There is a fatwa they give (Jawaab wa Suaal 24 Rabee al-Awwal 1390 and also 8 Muharram 1390) they mention in these two places that it is allowed for the foreign women to be kissed. And I swear that they argued with one of the brothers who recently became Muslim that they allowed it to him. He said that they said to him it is allowed for him to see a picture of a naked woman, they said 'its only a paper'. They said its a picture its not a woman - so I told that brother to go and give them a picture of their sister - its only a picture its not your sister. So they say that a woman is allowed to shake hands with a woman - when it comes to giving the pledge of allegiance it is OK for the woman to shake hands for this purpose - there is difference in this between a man and a woman (al-Khilaafah p.32) - The references that I am mentioning to you I have seen them and I have them at my home. And regarding what Aa'ishah said - "No By Allaah - The Messenger of Allaah (s.a.w.s) never touched the hand of a woman." And they say no she is wrong? I heard this myself from Umar Bakree personally and I have this recording - he said Aa'ishah is wrong - she was wrong in saying that!! So who is right then - did you live with Prophet (s.a.w.s) - how can you say that. This ahaadeeth is in Bukhaaree!!
So they reject this by what has been narrated by Umm Atiyyah that the Messenger (s.a.w.s) was given a piece of cloth and a woman gave her her hand - but this is Mursal - that means it is da'eef - mentioned by an-Nawawi (1/30) and likewise Ibn Hajr (8/636) said - Aaishah said that as an answer to what had been narrated by Umm Atiyaah that the Messenger took a piece of cloth to shake hands. And it is not sufficient for them the saying of Allaah's Messenger - "I do not shake hands with women"? (Ibn Hibban, 14 Tirmidhee 1597 Nasaa'ee 7/149 Ibn Maajah 2874) so this is not enough for them (narrated by Umaimah). What I say to one woman is what I say to a hundred women and he said 'My shaking hands with you is my word (i.e. it is my covenant) - he also said: "It is better for a man to be hit with a needle in his head than giving his hand to a foreign woman" (Al-Bayhaqee - saheeh - silsilah of albaanee no.226)
In spite of all of that they say that it is allowed!! So we say to them what they always say to the Rulers - uhkimoo bimaa anzalallaahu - Judge/Rule by what Allaah has revealed. And we say the same thing to them: The law of Allaah is not to shake the hand of the foreign women, if you do not rule by this Allaah will not make you establish the rule of Allaah. And this means we have to be more submissive and obedient. If we ourselves do not submit to the law of Allaah how then how can call others to it. How can we gain superiority and leadership. An-Nawawi said: "When it is to look it is haraam to touch (Sharh il-Minjaaj 6/195)...
Tape ends here...
hizb ut-tahreer [a tape exposing their beliefs]
Tape of Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee
Regarding Hizb ut-tahreer- It is a party founded by Taqiyyud-deen an Nabhaanee. As for this party - then we have a number of observations to make about it:
1. That they do not accept "Khabarul-Aahaad" in 'Aqeedah and this has caused them to separate from Ahlus-Sunnah in 'Aqeedah since accepting the ahaadeeth is an important principle - so they do not accept the Messengers (s.a.w.s) sayings in points of 'Aqeedah. So they do not believe for example, in The Punishment in the grave, they do not believe in The Dajjaal and they do not believe in the descent of the Maseh - and they do not believe in many things which are mentioned in ahaadeeth. And this is of course, something futile since authentic aahaad Ahaadeeth which are those reported by good / reliable, precise narrators from the first to the last of them - not contradicting something more reliable - and not contain hidden weakness and the ahaadeeth which fulfill these five conditions amounts to knowledge whereas they say that it amounts only to conjecture (zann) - and the reply to them in detail is to be found in my book:
"al-adillah wash-Shawaahid fee wujoob al-Akhdh bikhabral-waahid fil Ahkaam wal 'Aqaaid", where I mention their evidences from their book "ad-Doosiyyah" and I have replied to them in detail, so he who wishes to go into depth then let him refer back to that book, which I ask Allaah to make of benefit to the Muslims.
2. This party accuses Ahlus-Sunnah of being Jabariyyah as they plainly state in their book "ad-Doosiyyah" so they say with regards to the matter of Qadaa and Qadr:
"...so if we look to Ahlus-Sunna - who think that they have come out in their view from between dung and blood then they are Jabariyyah."
Then this is ignorance of this important part of 'Aqeedah since Ahlus-Sunna wal-Jamaa'ah affirm what Allah has affirmed and deny what Allah has denied. they affirm that the servant has free-will - except that it is not but by the will of Allah - the most Perfect and free from defects, and the Most high, and there are great proofs of this - and we have mentioned some of them in out reply to them in out book:
"al-Jamaa'aatul-Islaamiyyah."
3. Also this party has various peculiar opinions - so for example they allow nude photographs, they allow one to look at photographs and this contains great danger due to a Sharee'ah point then it is the Prophet's (s.a.w.s) saying: "let not a woman describe another woman to her husband - as if he were looking at her." So his (s.a.w.s) saying: "...as if he were looking at her" - he is not actually looking at her, but a description of her is brought into his mind so the forbiddance is from this imaginary picture - so how is it then if the picture is physically in front of one looking at it?! - showing her attractions and her body - indeed revealing her 'awrah - is this not even more forbidden? Secondly, this picture even if it does not move or feel - yet it is a real picture - and nudity is something haraam - so how can we allow looking at this thing which is haraam?
Further, looking at this picture incites the animal instincts in a person and the 'shaytaanic tendencies' - so that which leads to haraam is itself haraam. Indeed the matter has gone beyond bounds with them - to the extent that they allow kissing a (strange) woman, and this is something dangerous.
4. What is more dangerous is that they have turned all their attention to accusing the rulers. 'this one is an American (stooge), this one is a British (stooge)' - as if there were no-one else in the worlds except America and Britain and as if it were America and Britain who were running the affairs of creation. And this causes people to turn away from the correct understanding of their Deen and away from Allah's way of changing the affairs. They think that if they change the ruler they will attain what they desire - and this is contrary to the natural way laid down by Allah with regard to changes which come bout amongst the creation:
إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّى يُغَيِّرُواْ مَا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَإِذَا أَرَادَ اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ سُوءًا فَلاَ مَرَدَّ لَهُ وَمَا لَهُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَالٍ
Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts; and if Allah willeth misfortune for a folk there is none that can repel it, nor have they a defender beside Him. [AL-RAD (THE THUNDER) Chapter 13 - Verse 11]
And is we imagine that the ruler would change - whilst the nation do not believe in this Deen - then what would happen is that these people will cause a revolution as had happened, for example lately in Russia - this state was established by force and through tyranny and through suppressing the voice of the people through killing - so we find that the people did not support it, but rather opposed it. And for Allah's laws to be enforced throughout throughout this earth - they have to be carried / defended by the Believers -
وَإِن يُرِيدُواْ أَن يَخْدَعُوكَ فَإِنَّ حَسْبَكَ اللّهُ هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَيَّدَكَ بِنَصْرِهِ وَبِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ
Allah is Sufficient for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and with the believers, [AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY) Chapter 8 - Verse 62]
So we don't wait for the east or the west to help the Deen, but its own people have to be its carriers - they are the ones to carry and defend the Deen.
This is a brief description of Hizb ut-tahreer - and of course they debate about Allah without knowledge, without Guidance, without Book and without Light - and we have sat with them often - and one we mentioned to one of them whilst discussing the 'Khabarul- Aahaad', we said: If it appears to you that the truth is that it is obligatory to accept the Khabarul-Aahaad - then will you do so? he said 'No, because I have to stick to the view of the party.' So they make it binding that if the view of the party contradicts your view - you have to hold the view of the party, not your own view. So we said: Then what is the point of discussing with you - if you will not give up the view of the party in favour of the clear proof. Since they have laid down a rule - that the person has to stick to the opinion of his imaam or his nation. Well what if that involves some sin, since that ruler, khaleefah or group may be right or wrong - so if a mistake is made then how can he still hold to that knowing that is is haraam.
Imagine, for example, that the ruler is a Hanafee who holds that drinking little alcohol - an amount nut sufficient to intoxicate is allowed but that which is forbidden is the final cup which intoxicates. Then does a person in this case have to hold to the opinion of his imaam? Or if his imaam, for example, holds the saying that the Qur'ân is created - as happened to Imaam Ahmad - then does he have to take on his view - and the practise of the salaf is contrary to this.
This is a brief account of Hizb ut-tahreer - and Hizb ut-tahreer do not follow Islaam but only support the idea of Islaam and they have weird (and incorrect) opinions - for example, they do not order their wives to dress Islamically, since they say that men do not have any authority over women until the Khilaafah has been established - and of course this is contrary to the laws of Allah - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - in that the man has to strive to save his family from the Fire:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا قُوا أَنفُسَكُمْ وَأَهْلِيكُمْ نَارًا وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ عَلَيْهَا مَلَائِكَةٌ غِلَاظٌ شِدَادٌ لَا يَعْصُونَ اللَّهَ مَا أَمَرَهُمْ وَيَفْعَلُونَ مَا يُؤْمَرُونَ
O ye who believe! Ward off from yourselves and your families a Fire whereof the fuel is men and stones, over which are set angels strong, severe, who resist not Allah in that which He commandeth them, but do that which they are commanded. [AT-TAHRIM (BANNING, PROHIBITION) Chapter 66 - Verse 6]
QUESTION.
They say: "I accept the ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree is Saheeh but I don't believe in it." What should be our response and attitude towards such people?
Answer.
The text of theirs saying as occurs in their book 'ad-Doosiyyah' is that these ahaadeeth - and an example of this is: "When one of you finishes the last tashahhud then let his say: 'O Allah I seek refuge in you from the punishment of the grave and the punishment of the Hell-fire and from the trials of life and death and the trials of Dajjal.'" - They say: 'I act in this as it is knowledge - that is: We say that saying: "....." however we do not believe in it?! This is a crazy contradiction - how can you affirm a saying and not believe in it? this is not rational / sensible. As if you are saying: I say it with my tongue and do not believe it in my heart. they do not believe that there is any punishment in the grave - they do not believe it but they say: We affirm it.
QUESTION.
There are other authentic ahaadeeth about the punishment of the grave - which are not aahaad.
Answer:
Of course they do not believe in the 'Mutawaatri al-Ma'nawee' (the ahaadeeth whose meaning is mutawaatir) - the mutawaatir in the science of ahaadeeth is of two categories:
(i) Mutawatirul-Lafzee (whose wording is mutawaatir) - such as the ahaadeeth: "Let he who lies against me intentionally take his seat in the Fire." and
(ii) Mutawatirul-Ma'nawee (i.e. they differ in wording but are the same in meaning) such as the ahaadeeth about the descent of 'Eesaa - 'alaihi salaam - many ahaadeeth but not with a single meaning - rather they agree on a single fact - the descent of 'Eesaa, the coming of Dajjaal, the coming of the Mahdee - 'alaihi salaam - all of these are to them aahaad - even if they agree in the sense and meaning as long as they are not reported with a single wording So they do not recognise the Mutawaatirul-Ma'nawee.
therefore all the Sunnah to them is aahaad except a small part - but is we ask the,: "What is mutawaatir from it?" - Then they cannot answer - so this saying:
"we affirm it but do not believe it" is a contradictory saying - not possible as the poet says: "The worst of impossible things is to bring two opposites at one time," such as to say "it is night and day" at one time - that is not possible. "This living and dead", "You affirm and you do not believe."
Whereas belief (I'tiqaad) is affirmation (tasdeeq) with certainty, as they say: "Belief (I'tiqaad) is affirmation with certainty which is according to the true state of affairs - upon proof and clear signs." So how can you say that you affirm - but then say you are not definite - so this is not affirmation rather it is doubt and uncertainty.
They try to use as evidence for this - that the Khabarul-Aahaad amounts only to conjecture (zann) and they quote
إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاء سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَاءهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَى
They are but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which Allah hath revealed no warrant. They follow but a guess and that which (they) themselves desire. And now the guidance from their Lord hath come unto them. [AN-NAJM (THE STAR) Chapter 53 - Verse 23]
and
وَمَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا
And they have no knowledge thereof. They follow but a guess, and lo! a guess can never take the place of the truth. [[AN-NAJM (THE STAR) Chapter 53 - Verse 28
- however the 'zann' mentioned here is 'zann' (speculation) which is incorrect / proven wrong - not that which is definite (ie. correct) - and this is shown by their saying that the Khabarul-Aahaad is a proof with regard to Sharee'ah ruling and if it were incorrect speculative zaan then they would not worship Allah with that since it is delusion and doubt - whereas this correct zaan is of the level of certainty (yaqeen) because Allah ta'aalaa has explained they certainty (yaqeen) has levels - as Allah says:
حَتَّى زُرْتُمُ الْمَقَابِرَ
كَلَّا سَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ
ثُمَّ كَلَّا سَوْفَ تَعْلَمُونَ
Until ye come to the graves. Nay, but ye will come to know! Nay, but ye will come to know! [AT-TAKATHUR (RIVALRY IN WORLD INCREASE, COMPETITION Chapter 102 - Verse 2, 3, 4]
The level of knowledge reached here being 'yaqeen'(certainty).
لَتَرَوُنَّ الْجَحِيمَ
ثُمَّ لَتَرَوُنَّهَا عَيْنَ الْيَقِينِ
ثُمَّ لَتُسْأَلُنَّ يَوْمَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعِيمِ
For ye will behold hell-fire. Aye, ye will behold it with sure vision. Then, on that day, ye will be asked concerning pleasure. [[AT-TAKATHUR (RIVALRY IN WORLD INCREASE, COMPETITION Chapter 102 - Verse 6, 7, 8]
So between 'certain knowledge' ('Ilmul Yaqeen) and 'Aynul-yaqeen (certainty itself) is a level which Allah mentions at the end of Soorat ul-Haaqah [AL-HAAQQA (THE REALITY) Chapter 69] 'Haqqul-Yaqeen' - so we have,
(i) 'Ilmul Yaqeen
(ii) Haqqul yaqeen
(iii) 'Aynul Yaqeen,
all of them are certainty (Yaqeen) - are they a single thing? No rather they are levels - so Yaqeen (certainty) has levels, but its root is one, i.e. it's being knowledge. So the narration from the Prophet (s.a.w.s) which fulfills the five conditions (of authenticity):
(i) the chain of narration be fully connected by
(ii) trustworthy
(iii) precise narrators
(iv) nor contradicting something more reliable and
(v) not having a hidden defect
-These conditions safeguard it from error and forgetfulness. We say - that a narrator may forget or make a mistake but we are sure in this case (i.e. after the fulfillment of the five conditions) and this narrator here did not forget since he is precise and trustworthy in his Deen and reliable and it is narrated from him by like of him - reliable and with precise memory not forgetting anything and it does no contradict the narrations of other narrators, and does not have a hidden defect - then we know that the narrator has not forgotten - not because we think he is infallible but because we have examined and checked - so this condition brings about knowledge with us: And even if we were to say: it only amounts to 'zann': then which zann would it be?, correct or certain zaan, or incorrect zann. then they will say correct zann! Then we say: it is a source for belief ('Aqeedah) as Allah ta'aalaa says:
الَّذِينَ يَظُنُّونَ أَنَّهُم مُّلاَقُو رَبِّهِمْ وَأَنَّهُمْ إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعُونَ
Who know that they will have to meet their Lord, and that unto Him they are returning. [AL-BAQARA (THE COW) Chapter 2 - Verse 46]
So the word 'zann' here is used with the meanings of belief in one of the principles of belief, i.e. belief in the Hereafter Allah ta'aalaa says:
إِنِّي ظَنَنتُ أَنِّي مُلَاقٍ حِسَابِيهْ
Surely I knew that I should have to meet my reckoning.[AL-HAAQQA (THE REALITY) Chapter 69 - Verse 20]
(Using the term 'zann') and this is quoted in praise of him, he is a Believer. [Also, the verse]:
وَظَنُّواْ أَن لاَّ مَلْجَأَ مِنَ اللّهِ إِلاَّ إِلَيْهِ
they bethought them that there is no refuge from Allah save toward Him. [AL-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION) Chapter 9 - Verse 118]
in the story of those who remained behind - so here (again) 'zann' occurs with the meaning of I'tiqaad (certain belief) - so it has meaning of belief.
To sum up they are mixed up and inconsistent and you see one of them, for example, clean shaven, no beard, wearing clothes of the kaafirs, not acting on the dictates of Islaam in his life. He supports the ideal of Islaam. Islaam to him is an ideal to call for. But what is required is the following of Islaam not merely calling for it:
كَبُرَ مَقْتًا عِندَ اللَّهِ أَن تَقُولُوا مَا لَا تَفْعَلُونَ
It is most hateful in the sight of Allah that ye say that which ye do not. [AS-SAFF (THE RANKS, BATTLE ARRAY) Chapter 61 - Verse 3]
QUESTION.
Their comment on Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab (rahimahullaah) that he was not proper because he combined the king and kingship is not allowed in the Deen - what should be the response?
Answer:
This is the saying of Hizb ut-tahreer.
Firstly:
Hizb ut-tahreer invent lies against Allah so they have distributed notes called notes of Hanz, it is said that this person was an agent of the British and that he links with the Shaikh - the Imaam (rahimahullaah) and that he was a product of the British, etc. And they claim that he was an agent of the British and it was the British who helped him, etc.
And this as we said to them - that he was an agent of the British..., is it something unseen or something opened or witnessed? -
They say: unseen.
Then we say: Is it a point for action?
They say: A point of belief.
Then we say: Then how do you accept the witness of a kaafir about a Muslim? -
whereas you do not accept the report of a Muslim man with regard to the ahaadeeth of Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s). And they have the principle that the Khabarul-Aahaad is not a proof in matters of Belief. So how do they depend upon the reports of non-Muslims in accusing Muslims? This is something strange.
Secondly:
this thing that they say - accusing the people - this one is an agent of the British, that one is the agent of so and so - as for this which is written about the Muslims by their enemies - then it is not permissible to give credence to it:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَأٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَى مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ
O ye who believe! If an evil-liver bring you tidings, verify it, lest ye smite some folk in ignorance and afterward repent of what ye did. [AL-HUJRAAT (THE PRIVATE APARTMENTS, THE INNER APARTMENTS) Chapter 49 - Verse 6]
Where is this proof and verification? There is no proof and no verification.
Further:
The treaty between the Shaikh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhaab (rahimahullaah) - and Aal Sa'ood was a treaty for further in the cause of Islaam. And as if known the Deen has to have someone to carry it - so Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) asked the Ansaar to carry and protect it just as they would their families and wealth. But here (i.e. the case of Aal Sa'ood) something wrong occurred in that they (i.e. Aal Sa'ood) made the condition that leadership would be theirs - and this is not permissible, however the agreement in principle is correct even though it is not permissible to make it a part of the agreement that you will take the leadership since the Messenger (s.a.w.s) refused the offer of Banoo 'Aamir to help him against the Kaafirs upon the condition that leadership would be theirs after him (s.a.w.s).
So we say that this matter was not for booty or worldly gain - but for aiding the Deen of Islaam and this is what happened in the beginning - they established Allah's Deen in the area and purified it from the shirk present, and that good does not cease to be present even today even if, of course, the latter generations have gone against the way of the predecessors.
QUESTION.
What do you say concerning their saying that Kingship is forbidden?
Answer:
I say this is, of course, something wrong - that rule belongs to a person whereas Kingship is in the Hand of Allah - He gives it to whomever He pleases. However the alliance in principle was allowed - since it was for aiding the Deen of Allah and establishment of the Sharee'ah. And of course they (Hizb ut-tahreer) allow this, indeed the start if the state with them comes about through seeking aid from sources of strength and heads of tribes, heads of state, etc. - in order to bring about revolution to remove the wicked.
QUESTION.
What about the saying that the office of Kingship itself is something that is not allowed - Is it not possible to rebut this with the fact, for example, that Daawood was.....
Answer:
No - that is a fact - it is not permissible to have inherited Kings in Islaam - rather the Khaleefah is chosen from those fitting for the position and he is given oath of allegiance - inherited Kingship is not allowed and Kingship is not Islamic.
QUESTION.
We say that hereditary Kingship is haraam?
Answer.
Yes.
QUESTION.
It is quoted, I think at the start of 'al 'Aqeedatul-Waasitiyyah' or 'Aqeedatul- Tahaawiyyah' , I am not sure - that Allah ta'aalaa - offered to the Prophet (s.a.w.s) that he be a Prophet, a king or a servant and Messenger - so if it is not correct to be king then....?
Answer:
This does not contain anything about it being hereditary Kingship but one of the things that go along with Kingship in practice in that it is inherited and then passed on. That is the essential thing present in any Kingship in the world is that the son inherits from the father.
QUESTION.
Then how or why did Allah - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - offer this to Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s)?
Answer:
He, Allah ta'aalaa offered that he be King - i.e. he himself - but not that Kingship would remain amongst his offspring - Do you understand? That was not a part of it, and of course he (s.a.w.s) said "I choose to be servant and Messenger", and the Khaleefahs came after Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) - being chosen by the responsible and righteous offspring - the people of the Shoorah - so this was the Prophetic Khaleefah.
QUESTION.
Some of Hizb ut-tahreer accuse Shaikh Naasirul-Deen al-Albaanee of not knowing the Arabic language well.
Answer:
This is a false slander without a doubt! Since Shaikh Naasir, may Allah protect him, gained Knowledge of Ahaadeeth and spent his whole life with Ahaadeeth - which is the essence of 'Arabic - and since we have lived with he Shaikh for many years and he is Arabic of tongue and they are non-Arabs - even if he is Albanian - since 'Arabic is due to language not race - and Alhumdolillaah (all praise is for Allah), he is an expert in that - indeed he is more competent in his language than they are!!!
QUESTION.
They say that Mu'aawiyyah (ra) is not a Companion and the evidence for their claim is that to gain the title of Companion he has to be found to have definitely fulfilled the conditions of companionship. Where are they getting this from? Then they give as an example from Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib that he said: "The word companion (sahaabee) is one who was with Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) for [at least] one year or two and fought Jihaad along with him in [at least] one or two battles - so one who did that was a companion"
Answer:
Firstly, Mu'aawiyyah is a Companion whether you apply their conditions or not and he is a Companion also as textually stated by the scholars who have written his biography.
First he lived with Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) for a year or two - indeed for more than two years, since he became a Muslim at the conquest of Makkah as is known that occured in the eighth year of Hijrah - (and) indeed he was one of those who wrote down the revelation for Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) - so even according to their conditions he is definitely a Companion.
Secondly, the correct definition for a Companion is: "One who saw Allaah' s Messenger (s.a.w.s) even if only once - and died as a Muslim", and this is agreed upon by the scholars of ahaadeeth. And Mu'aawiyyah (may Allaah be pleased with him and have mercy upon Him), even if he made a mistake - and who does not make a mistake? - even if he made a mistake in fighting Alee and making his son hereditor - yes he made a mistake - but this does not put an end to his being a Companion. And if you opened for example 'Asadul-Ghaabah' of Ibn al-Atheer, or 'al-Istee'aab'
of Ibn Abdil-Barr, or 'al-Isaabah fee Tamyeezis-Sahaabah' - these books tell us who are the Companions - do we find Mu'aawiyyah or not? The answer is we find him.
Some of them describe him as "the trustworthy writer of the Revelation and maternal-uncle of the Believers", since his sister Umm Habeebah was a Mother of the Believers, the Companion of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s). And Shaikh ul-Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] was asked: "Who is better Umar ibn Abdil-Azeez with his justice or Mu'aawiyyah?" So he answered: "Indeed a single day from the days of Mu'aawiyyah is better than the 'Umar and his family - his Companionship is enough for him - he is just without any need for enquiry, Allaah ta'aalaa has witnessed in their favour that they are just. Allaah subhaanahu wata'aalaa declared them good so they do not need the witness of anyone in their favour - but this is a branch departing from the Sunnah."
QUESTION.
About the Beard, they say: "A Muslim gets reward for growing it but does not get punished if he does not", and some people say: "that the four distinguished scholars, like Maalik, Aboo Haneefah have agreed that letting the beard grow is waajib - and that this view is not correct because they never said it. On the other hand an-Nawawee, Ibn Qudaamah, Ibn ul-Hammaam, ash-Shawkaanee, Qaadee Ayyaad and so on never said that it is waajib. So whoever claims that ash-Shaafi'ee, Ibn Hanbal or Maalik said that it is an obligation, then they are wrong" - and that they challenge them to prove it.
Answer:
What is correct from the sayings of the scholars of the four madhdhabs - on their books - in the old books of the Hanafees, in the books of the Shaafi'ees, the saying of Imaam Ahmad and Imaam Maalik is that it is waajib and that he who shaves is an open sinner (faasiq) who should be punished. Even to the extent that Imaam Maalik said about the one who shaves his moustache: "It is disfigurement which I think should be punished by beating" - so what do you think of the beard? It is worse.
Secondly, the Sharee'ah texts show that it is waajib.
The first ahaadeeth, the saying of the Messenger (s.a.w.s): "Leave the beard, shorten the moustache and act differently to the Mushriks". And the order here makes it obligatory. But to them - the Hizb ut-tahreer - an order does not make something obligatory and principle of theirs if futile, false. To them an order is only a request and does not amount to an obligation. So we say to them: "Where does the order (Amr) occur in the Arabic language - from whom to whom? Usually it is given by the master to the servant, from the husband to the wife, from the father to his son. And this request from the father, husband or master - does it mean merely a request and hope for its fulfillment or that something has to be done? It is something which has to be done. And the saying of the Messenger (s.a.w.s): "If it were not for causing hardship to my Ummah, I would have ordered them to use e Siwaak". This is a proof that the order amounts to an obligation. "I would have ordered them to use the Siwaak" and if he ordered them to use the siwaak it would have been waajib, but he did not order them, rather he recommended it for them. So the order means an obligation in the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) and in the Arabic language and in the Book of Allaah. For example, Allaah ta'aalaa says:
O you who believe! Establish the prayer
An order. (Or) is this merely a request? It is up to you - if you want to pray then do or if not then not?
So the order means an obligation in Ilm ul-Usool and if we apply this rule to the ahaadeeth we find that keeping a beard is an obligation. And the saying of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) to the two men who came from Kisraa - both of them having shaved their beards and let their moustache flow: "Who ordered you with this?" and he (s.a.w.s) turned his face away from them, they replied: "Our Lord - meaning Kisraa - ordered us", so he (s.a.w.s) said: "Rather my Lord ordered me to leave my beard and shorten my moustache."
QUESTION.
They explain the ahaadeeth by saying that was not an order that was a request.
Answer:
And this is of course ignorance of the ahaadeeth since he (s.a.w.s) said: "My Lord ordered me..." so of course they will twist words from their correct meanings.
QUESTION.
They say concerning Eemaan and using the intellect in affairs that: When a persons Aqeedah agrees to his understanding intellect then it is said of a such a person that 'he has Aqeedah' i.e. when all of his Aqeedah agrees to his intellect. Then the Muslim is sinful if he is not able to correct his Aqeedah with his intellect.
Answer:
This is as they explain in their books and we have heard it from them - that they make it essential to reach Aqeedah by means of the intellect and that he who takes on belief blindly then his Eemaan is not counted. Then what is correct is that reaching Aqeedah through the intellect is good - but that the one who takes his Eemaan blindly then his Eemaan is acceptable before.
QUESTION.
What do you mean by 'takes his Eemaan blindly'?
Answer:
He takes it from his parents, or following his ruler, or a wife taking it from her husband, or a people taking it from their chief - this is taking it blindly. They did not reflect and consider but believed due to others and such a ones belief is acceptable to Allaah ta'aalaa as is proven by the fact that Sa'd ibn Mu'aadh (ra) was the chief of Ibn Abdil-Ashhal - and he was from the Ansaar, from the Aws - when he believed he returned to them and said he would not speak to them until they believed in Allaah, so they said: "We believe in Allaah", so did they stop, reflect and consider, or accept faith blindly? Is their belief correct or not? Their belief is Islamically correct. The Messenger of Allaah (s.a.w.s) said - in the ahaadeeth which the brothers mentioned and asked about yesterday - "Allaah is amazed with a people who are taken in Paradise in chains", so the one who is taken in Paradise in chains: Is he a Believer or not? The Prophet (s.a.w.s) said: "No one will enter Paradise except a Believer". So he judged them to be Believers and they are in Paradise. And they didn't believe by means of reflection and consideration - rather they believed blindly, they lived amongst the Muslims, found Islaam and believed. So reflecting with the intellect is not a condition for the correctness of Eemaan but it is good for strengthening the Eemaan.
QUESTION.
So what is the difference between the belief of such a person and the saying of the Hypocrite in the grave: "I heard the people saying such and such, so I said the same?"
Answer:
This hypocrite who heard it and said it, said it but did not believe it and it did not settle in his heart, rather he was in doubt and uncertainty - whereas the other heard and believed and did not having any doubt remaining in his heart, since hearing
is also a way to certain belief.
QUESTION.
Then what is the difference between blind faith and arriving at faith using intelligence?
Answer:
For example, some people come to believe in Allaah due to reflecting on creation, the harmony and precise order of this creation and due to that know that there is a Lord and believe in Allaah. But they also have to worship that God. Many westerners believe in the Lord but do not worship Him, so they need someone to guide them in that - and he is the Messenger or one to call them to Islaam. So the origin of their faith is reflection and the furtherance of their faith is through attaining knowledge and following blindly and otherwise the Sharee'ah, not through reflection. So the one who believes blindly for example, a person born a Muslim, finding both his parents Muslim, he did not consider or reflect on creation. He said: "Ashhadu allaah ilaaha illallaaha wa ashhadu anna Muhammadur-Rasoolullaah (I testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah alone and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah)" (so his parents are the ones who would cause him to become a Jew, Christian or a Magian. So this person did not consider or reflect. Is his Eemaan correct (or not)? This is the difference (between the two).
QUESTION.
Now they are calling for Jihaad along with Shaikh Fadlullaah leader of the [so called] Hizbullaah - the Lebanese Shi'ite - and that the flag of Jihaad should be raised against the Americans in the Gulf. So what do you say about such a group of Muslims who call their followers to accept the saying of the Shee'ah in any matter?
Answer:
This party is, of course, weird, in that it accepts amongst its ranks the Shee'ah. And [indeed] the leaders of those who call to it in Lebanon are Shee'ah such as Samee' Aatif as-Zain, perhaps you have heard of his books. He is a writer who has written for example, "Islaam and Human Heritage' and other books. He was a Shee'ah, so they accept Shee'ahs amongst their ranks since they are rationalists. That is they give precedence to their intellect - and I do not say that they are not intellectual, but rather they give the intellect precedence over the text. The Shee'ah are like them and this is a sign of the people of false desires (i.e. innovations)
Secondly, They do not consider the Shee'ah to be in contradiction to Islaam and this is ignorance of Islaam from them. The Raafidee Shee'ah of course curse The Companions of Allaah's Messenger and believe that they changed the Qur'an and invent a lie against the Mother of the Believers. And they have deeds and sayings for which Allaah sent down no permit. And the saying of Khomainee in his book 'Al-Hukoomat ul-Islaamiyyah', on p. 52: "... and one of the essentials of our madhdhab is that our infallible imaams have power over the creation and all the atoms of creation submit to them, and that they have a station not reached by the nearest Angels nor any of the Messengers". So from the essential beliefs of their madhdhab is that this creation submits to their imaams and not to the Lord of Creation. This is clear Kufr. So those who do not know what is true Islaam and
what breaks this true Islaam - and I do not find and example for them except the example which Shaikh Naasir - may Allaah increase him in good - gave for a Kurdish person who was with us in Syria and he was keen to spread Islaam. He passed by a Jew and said: "Become Muslim or I will kill you". So the Jew became afraid and said: "I will become Muslim, but tell me how I become Muslim? " So the Kurd said: "By Allaah, I do not know!"
And these people say we want to establish the Khilaafah, and we want to establish Allaah's rule. And when we say to them: "What is Islaam", they say: "The Islaam of the Soofee, the Islaam of the Shee'ee, the Islaam of the Mu'tazilee" - a mixture! This is not Islaam. It is a corrupted form of Islaam.
QUESTION.
Supposing a person does not pray, should you talk to him about the Khilaafah or Eemaan. He (the Hizb ut-tahreer) the says: "Yes, you can talk to him about the Khilaafah, because talking about the Khilaafah system is talking about Eemaan, A 'Muslim' who doesn't even pray! Since Khilaafah is part of Eemaan.
Answer.
I seek refuge in Allaah from Shaytaan the Rejected. O my brother they are seekers of rule and politics and they are not seekers of Deen and Aqeedah. The Messenger of Allaah (s.a.w.s), did he teach the Companions that 'we will establish Allaah's rule on the earth' or that 'you should believe in Allaah'? He taught them to believe in Allaah and to obey Allaah's commands, to pray and give zakaah. All of that came before the Islamic nation. So how can we contradict Allaah's way and the way of His Messenger (s.a.w.s) in bringing about change and in teaching the people? This one who does not pray and does not worship Allaah subhaanahu wata'aalaa, what is the ruling about him in Islaam? He is a Kaafir. How can we ask a Kaafir to establish Allaah's order?
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن تَنصُرُوا اللَّهَ يَنصُرْكُمْ وَيُثَبِّتْ أَقْدَامَكُمْ
O ye who believe! If ye help Allah, He will help you and will make your foothold firm. [MUHAMMAD (MUHAMMAD) Chapter 47 - Verse 7
Is Allaah in need of an army like that. No. What He wants is that you should establish His Sharee'ah upon yourself, that is what is aiding Allaah's Deen as the Messenger (s.a.w.s) said to Ibn Abbaas: "Safeguard Allaah and He will safeguard you." Allaah has no need of anyone to protect him. And 'safeguard Allaah' means 'obey and safeguard the orders of Allaah'.
حَافِظُواْ عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ والصَّلاَةِ الْوُسْطَى وَقُومُواْ لِلّهِ قَانِتِينَ
Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with devotion to Allah. [AL-BAQARA (THE COW) Chapter 2 - Verse 238]
So what is meant is safeguarding the orders of Allaah. So before Allaah helps you by establishing the Islamic order and the Khilaafah and gives you authority in the earth, then you have to perform righteous deeds.
وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُم فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ وَلَيُمَكِّنَنَّ لَهُمْ دِينَهُمُ الَّذِي ارْتَضَى لَهُمْ وَلَيُبَدِّلَنَّهُم مِّن بَعْدِ خَوْفِهِمْ أَمْنًا يَعْبُدُونَنِي لَا يُشْرِكُونَ بِي شَيْئًا وَمَن كَفَرَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ
Allah hath promised such of you as believe and do good work that He will surely make them to succeed (the present rulers) in the earth even as He caused those who were before them to succeed (others); and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He hath approved for them, and will give them in exchange safety after their fear. They serve Me. They ascribe no thing as partner unto Me. Those who disbelieve henceforth, they are the miscreants. [AL-NOOR (THE LIGHT) Chapter 24 - Verse 55]
The first thing is that they believe (aamanoo), then they do righteous deeds and then He will place them in charge in the land. So how can we seek from people who do not pray, give zakaah, nor fast nor make Hajj - that they establish the Islamic order? Rather those people who do not fast and do not give zakaah - they will be the first people to stand in the way of Islamic rule.
QUESTION.
They say: "Whoever does not work for the establishment for the Khilaafah is sinful, and anyone who has not worked for it since the fall of the Khilaafah in 1924 CE are sinful, all of them since it is waajib to establish it.
Answer.
We say the one who denies the need to work for the Khilaafah is sinful, but the one who strives to bring Khilaafah about through education and spreading knowledge, then he strives to establish Allaah's Sharee'ah in His way and not in their (Hizb ut-tahreer's) way. And it is not correct that everyone who does not work in their way does not work to establish the Khilaafah is sinful - and this is pure misguidance, since many of the Muslims are educating preparing and teaching the people to put Allaah's Sharee'ah into practice - and they in their view are striving to establish Allaah's Sharee'ah. So is there anything wrong in what they are doing?
QUESTION.
What is the position of the Salafees with regard to the Khilaafah, since many of them as a counter-reaction call to the calls of the Ikhwaan and Hizb ut-tahreer say: "We give our attentions to the matters of worship, education and correction/purification - so what is the position of the Salafees?
Answer.
The position of the Salafees is clear - that we strive to re-establish Islamic life and to establish Allaah's laws upon the land by the way of correction and education. We strive and hope for good always, due to the ahaadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (s.a.w.s): "Prophethood will be amongst you for as long as Allaah wills, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be Khilaafah upon the way of Prophethood, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship, then oppressive Kingship, then Khilaafah upon the way of the Prophethood."
So we wait for the Khilaafah in the way of the Prophethood and we work to bring it about anew and (about) his saying: "Khilaafah upon the way of the Prophethood:
(i) That those who will restore this rightly guided Khilaafah are the Salafees, since they are the ones who carry upon the Prophetic way
and
(ii) That the Khilaafah which will come about will not be in the way of the Abbasids, nor the Umayyads nor the Othmaanis. Rather it will be on the way of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs.
So the men who will bring about the return of this Khilaafah will be upon the way of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs and the way of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s). So they have respect for and honour the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s).
But if we look to the state of Hizb ut-Tahreer we find that they have hatred for the Companions and at the head of them Mu'aawiyyah, as we have just said. 'Khilaafah on the way of the Prophethood' - who are on the way of the Prophet (s.a.w.s)? The Companions, whereas you speak ill of the Companions!
QUESTION.
Is the ahaadeeth mutawaatir or...?
Answer.
No, the ahaadeeth is 'Saheeh' - they use it often so it is said it is Khabarul- Aahaad - it is not Mutawaatir - so how can they use it. But it agrees with what they have in their minds. This ahaadeeth about the rightly guided Khilaafah is aahaad - and they use it often and I have spoken with their spokesman in Jordan, so we said to him: "This is Khabarul-Aahaad", so he said "Yes, but it agrees with the state of affairs as they are."
QUESTION.
What is the response to their accusation that our scholars, like 'Abul-'Azeez ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) and so on - are in the pockets of the governments - and why don't they give Fatwaa about what is happening with the Allies - but just talk about Bid'ah and shirk all the time - so they cast aspersions upon them.
Answer.
As regards the events in the Gulf - the view of Shaikh al-Albaanee and our view, is that we do not permit seeking the aid of the Mushriks, and the position of Shaikh Naasir - may Allah increase him in good - is clear and contains do ambiguity - not out of love for one side or from fear of other - but rather due to the fear of Allah - subhaanaahu wa ta'aalaa.
Secondly:
Those scholars, and we must have good thoughts about them - and it is Allah who takes account of them - then they are mild in their advising the rulers - so that hopefully Allah will correct them - that is the thought we hold about them. We do not agree about their Fatwaa about the war in the Gulf - they are not correct in our view - but they still receive reward for it - they performed ijtihaad and erred - and we have nothing to add to that - and that is our saying with regards to all the scholars - is they are incorrect they receive only one reward and if they are correct then they receive two rewards. And we have a different view about the affairs in the Gulf - about the presence of the American and the enemies of Allah - subhaanaahu wa ta'aalaa - in the Muslim land - we do not permit that.
"UNQUOTE"
No comments:
Post a Comment