On Hizbut-Tahrir | 5
by The Albaani Blog
Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “Here the discussion will now take us away from what we were in the middle of explaining concerning what we know about Hizb at-Tahrir, because discussing this rule and clarifying the objections to it [shows us] that it is established on proof which is like a mirage in the desert, the thirsty one thinks it to be water [until he comes up to it and finds it to be nothing].
For this reason we will now suffice in clarifying this rule [of theirs], i.e., that it is not permissible for a Muslim to adopt a [point of] creed from an authentic hadith–but one which [still has not reached the level of being] ‘unequivocally established’ [according to their] philosophising [which is that it is only a single authentic narration and not mutawaatir]–even though the hadith is unequivocal in the point it is proving. So where did they get this from?
There is no proof for it. Not from the Book, neither from the Sunnah and nor from that which the Salaf were upon. Rather, that which the Salaf were upon contradicts that which some of these who came later have adopted, from the Mu’tazilah of old, and their followers today in this creed, Hizb at-Tahrir.
I will say something now and perhaps we will make a quick mention of it so that we can carry on with our topic. All of us know that when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic sent the Messenger as a giver of glad-tidings and a warner and said, “O Messenger! Proclaim that which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message,” [Maa’idah 5:67] [all of us know that] his صلى الله عليه وسلم proclamation of the Message to the people at times was through himself, whereby he would go to their council meetings and gatherings, speaking to them directly. At other times he would send a messenger from his side calling the polytheists to follow his call, at other times he would send a letter, as was known from his biographical account, to Heraclius, the King of Rome, and to Khosroe the King of Persia and to … and so on, to the chiefs of the Arabs as has been explained in the books of his biography.
From these [messengers] that he sent [was] Mu’aadh ibn Jabal, Abu Moosaa al-Ash’ari and Alee ibn Abee Taalib to Yemen, and to Rome he sent Dihya al-Kalbi and … etc. These were all individuals who, or whose reports did not represent an unequivocally established report [according to Hizbut-Tahrir’s rule] because they were all individuals, so Mu’aadh was in a certain place, Abu Moosaa in another, and Alee in another place [i.e., this is not mutawaatir], and the time also differed, just as the place did.
And there is a hadith in the two Sahihs with an authentic chain of narration from Anas ibn Maalik, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, that when the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم sent Mu’aadh to Yemen he said to him, “Let the first thing you call them to be the testification that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah.” So who from the Muslims doubts that this testification is the first pillar of Islaam? i.e. that it is the first [point of] creed upon which faith in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers is built, so when Mu’aadh, may Allaah be pleased with him, went alone delivering and calling the Muslims, sorry, the polytheists to believe in the religion of Islaam … what do you think? Was the proof established against them when Mu’aadh ibn Jabal called them to Islaam, and said to them that the Prophet orders you to pray the five daily prayers, and that this prayer is [made up of] two rak’ahs, and that one three, and the remaining ones four, to the last of the details well-known to us know, and all praise is for Allaah? And when he ordered them with zakaah,mentioning to them the details of the rulings concerning zakaah, what is connected to silver, gold, what is connected to fruit, vegetables, what is connected to cows, camels and so on?
Was the proof of Islaam established against these polytheists through Mu’aadh alone? According to Hizb at-Tahrir, unfortunately, the proof was not established against them–because he was an individual who it was possible, as they say, may lie; and we say that no, lying is far removed from them [i.e., the Companions]. Then [they say] the least that can be said is that it is possible that they make mistakes and forget.
So they came with this philosophizing: that we cannot take the correct Islamic creed from authentic hadiths.
Thus when Mu’aadh called the Yemenis to Islaam, and without doubt the first thing that he called them to was creed [aqidah], thus [according to them] the proof of Allaah was not established against the Yemenis amongst whom were the idol worshippers, Christians, the Magians–the proof of Allaah was not established against them in [the affairs of] creed.
[But] as for rulings [ahkaam] Hizb at-Tahrir say as the generality of Muslims do, that yes, legislated rulings are established through the aahaad hadith, but as for [the affairs of] creed then they are not established by the aahaad hadith. This is Mu’aadh representing the ‘creed of aahaad’ in all of Islaam [i.e., that he was alone in calling to all of the issues of Islaam in Yemen], in its fundamentals, subsidiary issues, creed and rulings, so where did they get this particularisation [i.e., their aforementioned division] from? “They are but [mere] names which you have named them [with], you and your forefathers, for which Allaah has sent down no authority.” [Najm 53:23].
And I will end what is being said in connection to the [principle which they made up concerning] aahaad hadith, [and] which they used to disregard tens of authentic sayings of the Prophet based upon [their saying] that a point of proof in creed is not established through the aahaad hadith.
Someone mentioned the following quip, they allege that one of the callers from Hizb at-Tahrir went to Japan and gave them some lessons one of which was [on], ‘The Path of Faith,’ and [mentioned] in this path was that creed is not established through an aahaad hadith.
So there was an intelligent, astute and sharp youth there who said to him, “O teacher, you came to us as a caller here in Japan, a country of disbelief and polytheism as you say, calling them to Islaam, and you say, “Creed cannot be established through aahaad hadith.” And you say, “It is from [the correct] creed that you do not take creed from a single individual.” Now [here you are] calling us to Islaam now and you are alone [a single individual]. So you should, based upon this your own philosophy, retrace your steps to your country and come back with tens of people like you from the Muslims who say the same thing as you do, and then your narrations will have become unanimous [mutawaatir, and so we will be able to accept creed form you then!].”
So he was at a total loss.
So this is an example from one of the many which show the evil ending of opposing the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.”