Shaikh al-Albaani

Translations From His Works

Category: Sects and Groups

Is It Okay to Go Out for Da’wah [Khuruj] with the Tablighi Jamaa’ah?


Questioner: If I have turned to [wanting to practise] the religion and have no knowledge and an Islamic group asks me to go out with them for da’wah and some brothers at the mosque warn me stating that this jamaa’ah is called the Tableeghi Jamaa’ah and it is not right for me to go out with them because they have corrupt beliefs, what should I do?

Al-Albaani: Seek knowledge, what’s the problem, seek knowledge.

Questioner: Ya’ni, is it permissible for me to go out with them now?

Al-Albaani: Their going out is not from the Sunnah. Their sitting in the mosques and seeking knowledge and studying the Book of Allaah as occurs in the authentic hadith, that is what is legislated. As for their going out like this in groups, and most of them only know very little about Islaam, this is something which they have opposed the Muslims from the time of the Prophet to this day in.

Before this time, thirty or forty years ago, there was no Jamaa’ah that would go out like this with tens or hundreds of people without even a single scholar found amongst them.

The people of knowledge are widespread in Jordan and Syria and we advise these people to sit in the gatherings of knowledge and to learn, and this is what we advise you with too. We say to you: attend the gatherings of knowledge, the sittings of knowledge and learn.

As for this going out [khuruj]–it has no basis in the Sunnah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 81.

Are the Ash’aris from Ahlus-Sunnah?


Questioner: The next question is, “Are the Ash’aris from Ahlus-Sunnah? And what is out stance towards the modern-day Ash’aris?”

Al-Albaani: I do not share [the view of] some of the noble scholars of the past and present that we say about a group from the [many] Islamic groups that it is not from Ahlus-Sunnah due to its deviation in one issue or another from what we hold to be religion before Allaah تبارك وتعالى, and thus, the exact same answer as was given to the previous question applies to this one, i.e., about an Islamic Jama’ah or Jamaa’aat when its manhaj is clinging to the Book and the Sunnah upon the manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih but who deviated in some issues in thought or writing and thus left the manhaj which they [i.e., the Salaf] were pleased with as their religion and aqidah, if it is like that then we say they are from Ahlus-Sunnah.

As for those amongst them who proclaim, as we hear from some of the later Ash’aris, that, ‘‘The madhhab of the Salaf is safer, but the madhhab of the Khalaf is more informed and is more precise.’’ At that time we say: they have left the fold of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 305.

Questioner: … the issue of the Ash’aris, can we say that the Ash’aris are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah?

Al-Albaani: The just answer is that they are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in many things and not from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in a few things.

Questioner: Jazaakallaahu khair.

Al-Albaani: Wa iyyaak.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 327.

Questioner: Our Shaikh, in this time the Ash’aris and other deviant groups have surfaced and some of our brothers are asking: are the Ash’aris from Ahlus-Sunnah? And some of our brothers, whose hearts have absorbed love of them, speak to other individuals amongst them [i.e., the Ash’aris], so we find these brothers rush to declare these youth to be disbelievers, those who hold this belief, so what is your advice in this?

Al-Albaani: Yaa akhi, I think [in previous discussions] we [already] finished the topic of declaring Muslims to be disbelievers [takfeer], inshaa Allaah, [and we said] that it is a dangerous, a very dangerous issue, and that it is not allowed to rush into it except after questioning the aqidah of this person who it is intended to declare to be a disbeliever. In the previous sitting we mentioned that the proof must be established even if he shows or expresses it about himself on his own tongue, we have to establish against him the proof that this is disbelief is in opposition to the Book and the Sunnah.

So it is dangerous and severe, rather an imitation of the Khawaarij of the past, that we rush to declare to be disbelievers our Muslim brothers who share with us the testimony that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and who pray our prayer, fast our fast, and face our Qiblah, these positive things which they share with us, it is not right that we squander that and give it no weight just because we see some deviance in them.

For a surety it is obligatory on us to help them away from their misinterpretation, from their deviation. As for us straight away just saying that these people are disbelievers or have apostatised from their religion, then this is not the condition of a righteous Muslim who is acquainted with the Book and the Sunnah [questioner starts saying something] … be patient …

[Now] as for whether the Ash’aris or the Maaturidis are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. I say that they are from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in many things related to aqidah but in other aqidah issues they have deviated away from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, either towards the Jabariyyah or towards the Mu’tazilah and so on. So as long as they do not adopt the methodology we call to in following the Book and the Sunnah upon the manhaj of the Salaf as-Saalih then without doubt they will leave, in many [issues] or a few, the Straight Path which the Salaf as-Saalih and those who followed them in goodness were upon.

I don’t hold that we should say that they are not from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah whatsoever, because they in reality are as Allaah said even though it was concerning another occasion, “They had mixed [i.e., polluted] a righteous deed with another that was bad. Perhaps Allaah will turn to them in forgiveness.” [Tawbah 9:102]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 673.

The Shaikh’s Advice to Learn the Correct Aqidah


Questioner: We hear a lot about the Ash’aris but we don’t know about them or their actions except that they misinterpret the Attributes [of Allaah], so could you tell us more about them?

Al-Albaani: The Ash’ari madhhab is a madhhab in aqidah, likewise is the Maaturidi madhhab. They share with the People of Hadith the fact that they believe in some of the Attributes in opposition to the Mu’tazilah, so they are with the [Ahlus]-Sunnah in some things and with the Mu’tazilah in others.

And I advise the students of knowledge not to busy themselves with becoming acquainted with opinions that oppose the Sunnah, on the contrary, I advise them to learn the Sunnah and the correct aqidah. After that, if the opportunity arises and they are able to become acquainted with the madhhabs that oppose that of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Hadith and are able to refute them and defend the madhhab of Ahlus-Sunnah, then they do so, and if not, then it is enough for them to know the madhhab of the truth and it is not upon them, after that, to become acquainted with what opposes this madhhab.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 384.

Striving to Come to the Truth


Questioner: There’s a very big issue relating to aqidah, namely the Ash’aris, we find that a lot of universities in Arab countries study the Ash’ari aqidah, and we ask Allaah for safety, we find that the aqidah is not in agreement with Ahlus-Sunnah, and this is something that is hidden from many, and many students of knowledge argue about this issue without knowledge even though the scholars, major scholars have differed so it is obligatory that the students of knowledge …

Al-Albaani: This, unfortunately, is the case today, but, “… whoever Allaah wants to guide–He expands his breast to [contain] Islaam,” [An’aam 6:125], and the poet said, ‘And whoever wants loftiness, spends his nights awake,’ i.e., a person who wants to know the truth concerning those things the people have differed in has to strive, and he has to study, if he is a person of knowledge he can study himself, and if he is not then it is as He, the Most High, said, “So ask the people of the message if you do not know.” [Nahl 16:43]

This is enough for now, my son. As-salaamu alaikum.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 258.

Propagating the Books of the Misguided Sects


Questioner: What is the ruling concerning propagating/spreading the books of the Ash’aris and other deviated sects?

Al-Albaani: The answer to this question must be clarified: if the person printing these books [is doing so in order] that the people learn what is in them, the general people, so that the people are educated according to what is in them, indeed the theological rhetoric that is in them–then of course, the second part of Allaah’s عز وجل Saying in the Noble Quran applies to them, “And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” [Maaidah 5:2]

For in circulating [such books] there is cooperation in sin and aggression.

As for if the circulation …

[Tape cuts off]

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 793.

Studying with the People of Innovation


Questioner: Okay, O Shaikh, there are some students who study with Ash’ari Shaikhs who misguide [people], but they don’t study aqidah … only other sciences like grammar, syntax, the Quraan, is this allowed? Or do you advise …

Al-Albaani: This doesn’t help at all, “… and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames,” [Hujuraat 49:11] that which benefits is, firstly, correct knowledge and secondly that it is coupled with advice, and the religion is sincere advice as you all know, thereafter this is an Ash’ari and this is a Maaturidi and this one is so and so … this divides the Jamaa’ah of the Muslims and kindles rancour …

Questioner: Ya’ni, what I mean O Shaikh, is that he studies sciences other than aqidah or theological rhetoric with him and so on … is it correct? Or do you advise …. he studies for example …

[Someone comes in and gives salaam]

Al-Albaani: Wa alaikum salaam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu. Welcome, may Allaah bless you. Welcome, welcome, how are you? Welcome.

[Someone else comes in and gives salaam]

Al-Albaani: Wa alaikum salaam wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu. How are you? Okay, how’s your father?

Person who Entered: We praise Allaah …

Al-Albaani: Okay?

Person who Entered: We praise Allaah …

Al-Albaani: Alhamdulillaah. [Addressing the original questioner] I don’t understand what you mean?

Questioner: Ya’ni, a student of knowledge meets an Ash’ari Shaikh … and he is a beginner and wants to try for some grammar or syntax, so is this permissible for him … is it correct for him to do that or should he leave it?

Al-Albaani: Ya’ni, he wants to study grammar or syntax with this other Shaikh?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: And he [i.e.,] the Shaikh is an Ash’ari, for example?

Questioner: Yes.

Al-Albaani: If he [i.e., the student] is well-versed in aqidah then it is permissible, and if not, then no.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 79.

The People of Hadith Mention What is For or Against Them


The Imaam said, “That which the People of Hadith are upon is to mention the facts whether they are in their favour or against them, as opposed to the people of desires, as Ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned many times in his refutations of them.”

Ad-Da’eefah, Vol. 12/p. 551.

The People of Desires Mention What is for Them and Hide What is Against Them


The Imaam said, “The people of desires … from their signs is that they mention what is for them and hide what is against them.”

As-Saheehah, Vol. 6/2nd Part/p. 1200.

The People of Desires and Scholarly Research


The Imaam said, “That is the state of the people of desires–they are not sincere in scholarly research, indeed they only follow whatever agrees with their desires in it! And Allaah’s Aid is sought.”

As-Saheehah, Vol. 7/2nd Volume/p. 1101.

Al-Albaani asked about al-Banna | 18 | A Mention of Some Important Principles


Questioner: In the past we read in some hadiths that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم uncovered his thigh and that when the Companions came to see him, Abu Bakr, then Umar [he didn’t do anything, but] when Uthmaan entered he covered it, can’t it be understood from this that uncovering the thigh is permissible?

Al-Albaani: This incident cannot be used to establish a stance to be adopted as part of one’s life, may Allaah bless you, it is limited to this occurrence, we’re talking about social life in general, which the Muslim youth has to live by.

Questioner: I’m with you on that.

Al-Albaani: Be patient. When the Messenger عليه السلام would sit with his Companions and travel with them, pray with them, were his thighs uncovered? Obviously, the answer is no.

These people are uncovered and they pray like that especially when, during games, prayer time comes by and they want to pray.

[And the point I’m going to mention now] is knowledge which we must revive: that the common approach the Messenger عليه السلام took in his life is what we take, as for something he would do whose occurrence was rare, then it is possible that in most cases such a thing has a reason or situation which required the Messenger عليه السلام to leave the norm, and what we are talking about now is an example of that.

So far be it for the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to be among his Companions and to enter the mosque or to sit somewhere whether while travelling or resident with his thighs uncovered. Yes, there is no doubt that this incident [which you mentioned] did occur, but from a fiqh perspective does this show that it is permissible for a Muslim to leave his thighs uncovered during his life in general? This may or may not prove that in specific circumstances it is permissible, like the situation [which I am about to mention and] which is not regarded as being the Messenger’s صلى الله عليه وسلم norm, do you know it?

That he was sitting with his legs hanging over the side of a well, and the weather in Medinah was hot, so he was cooling himself down, and in order to do wudoo part of his thigh was uncovered , this incident does not represent the Prophet’s عليه السلام life, it represents that particular situation he was in.

Yet having said that, there is a knowledge-based point here [which we need to understand]. When the Prophet عليه السلام performed an action and he explained that Allaah’s Legislation for the Ummah is different to that, and in the words of the scholars of fiqh: if his statements oppose his actions then which of them are given precedence?

His statements are given precedence over his actions. Because a statement is universal legislation, it may be possible that an action was carried out due to a particular excuse or due to it being a characteristic exclusive to him, and it is [also] possible that it occurred before a legislative ruling about it was revealed.

For example, we have a hadith in which it is mentioned that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم gave a sermon to the people while he was wearing a ring made out of gold, are we now going to say, ‘It is permissible to wear a ring made out of gold,’ because the Prophet wore it? No, he wore it at a time when it was permissible.

You know that the major Companions used to drink wine, and there is a very unusual story which is not well-known amongst the people, it is reported in Sahih Bukhari. The Companions were in a house, drunk, when Ali came and knelt his camels down by the house. His uncle Hamzah came out and cut open their stomachs, when Ali saw that he was extremely upset and went to the Prophet عليه السلام and told him what had happened. The Prophet عليه السلام came to his uncle and reprimanded him for what he had done.

What was Hamzah’s stance? He said a statement which was such that had he said it after alcohol was made forbidden it would have caused him to have committed disbelief and would have caused him to have left the religion, he said, ‘Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?’ Hamzah is saying to his cousin and his Prophet, ‘Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?’ Why? He didn’t understand, he was drunk.

[Here is the full text of the hadith from Bukhari: “Narrated Ali, ‘I got a she-camel in my share of the war booty on the day (of the battle) of Badr, and the Prophet had given me a she-camel from the Khumus. When I intended to marry Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle, I had an appointment with a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qainuqa’ to go with me to bring Idhkhir (i.e. grass of pleasant smell) and sell it to the goldsmiths and spend its price on my wedding party. I was collecting for my she-camels equipment of saddles, sacks and ropes while my two she-camels were kneeling down beside the room of an Ansari man.

I returned after collecting whatever I collected, to see the humps of my two she-camels cut off and their flanks cut open and some portion of their livers was taken out. When I saw that state of my two she-camels, I could not help weeping. I asked, “Who has done this?” The people replied, “Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib who is staying with some Ansari drunks in this house.” I went away till I reached the Prophet and Zaid bin Haritha was with him. The Prophet noticed on my face the effect of what I had suffered, so the Prophet asked. “What is wrong with you?” I replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have never seen such a day as today. Hamza attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps, and ripped open their flanks, and he is sitting there in a house in the company of some drunks.”

The Prophet then asked for his covering sheet, put it on, and set out walking followed by me and Zaid bin Haritha till he came to the house where Hamza was. He asked permission to enter, and they allowed him, and they were drunk. Allah’s Apostle started rebuking Hamza for what he had done, but Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red.

Hamza looked at Allah’s Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes look in at his face. Hamza then said, “Aren’t you but the slaves of my father?” Allah’s Apostle realized that he was drunk, so Allah’s Apostle retreated, and we went out with him.”]

Questioner: He was drunk, yes.

Al-Albaani: Yes. This was at a time in Islamic history when the legislation was still being prescribed.

For this reason, when a statement comes from the Prophet عليه السلام which opposes his action then his statement is what is relied upon because it is in the legislation, as for his actions then it is left to him عليه السلام [he may either do something] out of an excuse/specific reason, or because it is something particular to him alone, or it may have been before he made a statement about it, before something was legislated, as in the story of the alcohol and things like it.

From this type of incident is the fact that the Prophet عليه السلام was sitting at the edge of a well, with his legs hanging over the side, when Abu Bakr entered and Umar but he didn’t change the way he was, until when Uthmaan came he did so.  So Sayyidah Aa’ishah said that so and so and so and so entered and you did not change the way you were but when Uthmaan entered you covered yourself? So he replied, ‘Should I not feel shy in front of someone who the Angels feel shy of?’

So it is possible that [1] this was before the Prophet عليه السلام said, ‘The thigh is awrah,’ and it is possible that [2] it was after he said it but that he had an excuse and it is possible that [3] there was no [specific] excuse and that it was just something exclusive to him.

Whatever the case, I was talking about some of the Islamic jamaa’ahs, how can they live with no connection between themselves and Islaam, what is the reason? It is because they have not studied Islaam.

I do not mean that it is upon every individual Muslim to become a scholar and to taken it upon himself to carry out the duty of purification [tasfiyyah], no, this must be done by the people specialising in it. So where are the specialists in these groups such that they can be nurtured upon this foundation of purification?

Take Hizb at-Tahrir for example which wants to establish an Islamic state … look at Hasan al-Banna he made a [particular] statement which is as though it is revelation from the sky but along with that his group do not implement it. That statement was, ‘Establish the state of Islaam in your hearts and it will be established for you in your lands.’

Hizb at-Tahrir do not go by this piece of wisdom at all, [instead] they say, ‘We will establish the state first and then afterwards the state will rectify the populace.’  Subhaanallaah!  This is in opposition to logic and the Sunnah of the Prophet who spent long years nurturing a few individuals until a core and the foundation of the Muslim jamaa’ah was formed.

Likewise that which comes under this topic, “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allaah an excellent example …” [Ahzaab 33:21] … you will find members of Hizb al-Tahrir … in all groups you will find people who are good and sincere and so on, but as a group they are extremely far from implementing the Islaam which is known as Islaam [i.e., the basics]; as for implementing that pure Islaam, then how far they are from it.

[The founder of Hizb al-Tahrir] Taqiyud-Deen’s books, may Allaah have mercy on him, are full of weak hadiths which have no basis, and upon them he built his ideology and established his group, such that when explaining the hadith that, ‘There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience of the Creator,’ he said it means: there is no obedience to the creation if that person who is ordering the disobedience believes that what he is ordering is actually disobedience, but if he is ordering it as a result of his own ijtihaad [and does not hold it to be disobedience] then it is not disobedience and it is obligatory to obey him.

And based upon this he made it obligatory on every individual in his group to obey their Amir and to submit to him, and not to place knowledge, i.e., the Book and the Sunnah, as a judge over him, since, ‘It is the Amir’s opinion.’

Questioner: By way of ijtihaad.

Al-Albaani: By way of ijtihaad, yes. And a debate took place between me and them, many, many debates, one of them was when we were brought together in the Al-Haskaa Prison in Syria, about fifteen of them, and so I gave them the following example.

Interjector: Should I record this, O Shaikh? [i.e., the person recording the sitting is asking whether the Shaikh wants this part where he mentioned the prison to be recorded, since it is something personal].

Al-Albaani: Yes.

One of them, very zealous, came and so I said to him, ‘What do you say about his saying عليه السلام, ‘Everything which intoxicates is alcohol and all alcohol is haram,’ and ‘Whatever intoxicates in large amounts, then a small quantity of it is haram?’ He said, ‘Of course, these are authentic hadiths and I believe in them.’

I said to him, ‘What do you say, aren’t there some Imaams of the Muslims from the past who performed ijtihaad and said, ‘The alcohol whose [consumption in] small quantities is forbidden is only that which is derived from grapes, as for the alcohol which is made from other things then only the amount which intoxicates is forbidden,’ namely, if a person were to drink two bottles, three, and stayed sober then this is halaal but if he took a sip and got drunk then it is forbidden.’ I said to him, ‘What is your opinion about the scholars who say that?’ He said, ‘Yes.’

The point is I said to him, ‘If our Lord tested the Muslims with an Amir ruling over them who held this opinion, what would you do?’ He said, ‘I would obey him.’

He would obey him even though he believes this is haram, why? Because the hizb told him that, ‘If the Amir believes that it is haram he will not order you to commit a sin.’ Thus, they twisted the hadith which states that, ‘There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience of the Creator,’ [to mean that] there is no obedience to someone who orders one to commit an act of disobedience if he holds it to be a sin, as for if he does not hold it to be a sin then you have to obey him.

This has all been attributed to Islaam in the name of Islaam, and in the name of setting up an Islamic state.

And Allaah’s Aid is sought.

Al-Hudaa wan-Noor, 200.

Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb and a Mention of Hizb at-Tahrir | 6


The Meccan Man: Before maghrib prayer, it is fitting that we … and maybe in this, inshaa Allaah, there will be guidance for all … Sayyid Qutb says: that the belief in One God isn’t just a matter of faith limited to our conscience, it’s a complete way of life. The limits of creed/faith are much more encompassing than just “static belief”–it’s as if he is referring to the Murji’ah without even knowing it, those whose belief doesn’t extend beyond the limits of their hearts; that the limits of creed expand and spread until they include all aspects of life, and likewise in Islaam the issue of Haakimiyyah and its branches are [issues of] creed, just like manners generally are an issue of creed, for it is from creed that a methodology for life emanates which includes manners and values just as it includes social/cultural traditions and legislated matters alike.

Al-Albaani: Correct.

The Meccan Man: These statements are correct?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

The Meccan Man: Our brother commenting on these statements says that there is truth and confusion in them, as for [the statements that] creed is the basis for a way of life, then it is comprehensive and accepted.

Al-Albaani: Alhamdulillaah, okay.

The Meccan Man: and he [i.e., the brother whose comments on Qutb’s quotes the Meccan Man is reading out] acknowledged all his [i.e., Qutb’s] statements, but [said], ‘as for the statement that the limits of creed stretch and expand until they include all aspects of life then nothing from the Book or the Sunnah proves this and no scholars of Islaam have said this.’

Al-Albaani: This is a superficial man.

The Meccan Man: This [commentary on Sayyid Qutb’s words] is incorrect?

Al-Albaani: Yes. Is it possible for us to know who it is [who has made this commentary on Qutb’s statements]?

The Meccan Man: I’d prefer not to [mention his name], “… so these are the aberrant/bizarre statements of Sayyid Qutb so that he can expand the scope of declaring others to be disbelievers …” Don’t you see that this necessitates what’s not necessarily true? [i.e., isn’t it false to assume from these statements of Sayyid Qutb’s that he is expanding the scope of declaring people to be disbelievers?]

Al-Albaani: Yes, without doubt.

The Meccan Man: [Don’t you see that this necessitates what’s not necessarily true] concerning those who oppose his manhaj, he doesn’t declare others to be disbelievers … just because someone opposes his methodology Sayyid doesn’t declare him to be a disbeliever …

Al-Albaani: We do not know him to be like that. I believe the man was not a scholar.

The Meccan Man: No doubt, yes.

Al-Albaani: But he does have statements he made whilst in prison, which, in reality, are from inspiration [ilhaam].

The Meccan Man: Yet along with that he strays from mentioning grave-worship.

I’ve found some statements of Ibn al-Qayyim’s mentioned in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een which are exactly the same as those [of Sayyid Qutb]. He says that tawhid includes such and such and such and such and emanates from the heart to the limbs to other than that, it resembles these statements [of Qutb].

So the reality is that [the mistaken understanding they have] stems from the fact that they [incorrectly] interpret the statements of others even though their brothers in creed and minhaaj, especially those like you and like his eminence Shaikh Abdul-Aziz [Ibn Baaz] and others like him hold that this issue does not have the meaning given to it by those people.

Al-Albaani: This is correct.

Relating to this … when I would debate with Hizb at-Tahrir regarding their belief and misguidance that aqidah cannot be established through ahaad hadith, I would say to them that this statement of yours is a matter of creed, and in matters of creed you make it a condition that the proof must be unequivocal in its being established and in the point that it is proving, and [then] I would establish for them that they have not been upon any aqidah since the day their group was set up.

Because in this issue they went through three stages.

The first one was written in the first edition of a book of theirs, I don’t remember what its name is right now, but it had a chapter entitled, ‘The Path of Faith.’ In it they said that it was ‘not permissible’ to accept aahaad hadith in aqidah–just like that, ‘not permissible.’

Then the second edition of the book came out and they changed, ‘not permissible,’ to ‘not obligatory,’ they removed the word, ‘not permissible,’ and put, ‘not obligatory,’ in its place, so now it became permissible to use aahaad hadith in aqidah. Before they used to say it was not permissible, they changed that to not obligatory. ‘Not obligatory,’ i.e., you’re free to choose as you like, if you want you can take it, if not, leave it. Whereas before they had said it was not permissible. So this was the second stage of advancement.

The third stage, and I don’t know if they are still on it, was that they said, ‘You must accept aahaad hadith,’ i.e., endorse them but not believe them as aqidah. They played with words, ‘Affirm but not believe.’

And this is a discussion that occurred between me and some people from your country specifically where Al-Hasfah Prison brought us together. I found fifteen followers of Hizb at-Tahrir there who had one Aleppan leader over them, his name was Mustafaa Bakri. Do you know Mustafaa Bakri?

Those Present: No.

Al-Albaani: You don’t know him.

And al-Hamawi who was their main debater, was tall, stout, blond, having a good appearance but in no way daunting.

The point is I told him, ‘My brother, you get enthusiastic over the aqidah of Hizb [at-Tahrir] and you don’t even know it.’

He said, ‘How so?’

I said, ‘Don’t you believe that Hizb [at-Tahrir] previously used to hold that it is not permissible to take matters of aqidah from aahaad hadith?’

He said, ‘Yes. And that is our aqidah.’

I said, ‘No, they progressed beyond this and said, ‘It is not obligatory.’

He said, ‘Where?’

I said, ‘The second edition. And the last thing they said was that it is permissible, but only to affirm and not to [actually] have faith in it or to believe it as [a matter of] aqidah.’

Allaahu Akbar! They play with words so that their retraction will not become apparent to the members of their group. The point is that this was the introduction, and I had challenged them with issues which they had no way of answering.

I said to them, ‘Brothers …’–and here is the crux of the matter in relation to the statements [about the discussion of Sayyid Qutb] which we heard just now–‘Everything that has come in Islaam must be [related to] aqidah. When you perform an obligatory duty but divest it from aqidah, then you have done nothing [i.e., it is as though you have done nothing even though you may have physically performed an obligatory duty], when you distance yourself from something forbidden not because Allaah has forbidden it then you have not worshipped Allaah by distancing yourself from that thing …’ and so on and so on.

And from what I said was that, ‘If there was a distinction between aqidah and rulings, the opposite would have been closer to the truth–because every ruling includes aqidah, and so when such a ruling is stripped of any aqidah related to it, it becomes null and void–whereas not every [point of] aqidah includes action. So it is possible for you to believe [in something] and it is not necessary that you will have to perform any action in relation to that point of aqidah. For example, faith in the punishment of the grave,’ which is something they doubt and they say that it is not established because there is no proof unequivocal in its being established and unequivocal in proving it, and of course we are not now in the middle of refuting this claim of theirs, the point is that, ‘your belief of whether or not there is punishment in the grave, does not change anything in your progress in life or your actions,’ of course in the end there will be an effect, but I want to distinguish between legislated rulings … so every ruling includes aqidah–you say that this is haraam, i.e., you have believed that it is haraam, you say this is obligatory, i.e., you have believed that it is obligatory, and likewise are the five rulings as they say.

So Islaam, all of it, is aqidah, this is a reality. And thus aqidah must prepare the one who holds it to comply with it: if it is something related to just believing in something from the Unseen, he believes in [that thing of] the Unseen, if it is related to a legislated ruling then he acts upon it in light of the legislated ruling that it contains.

And I gave you an example … from that which I was tried with in Damascus was a debate I had with the Qaadiyanis, so from the beliefs of the misguided Qadiyaanis is that they believe that the two sunnah rak’ahs [prayed before] the morning prayer [fajr] are obligatory.

So I will take this as an example: after the call to prayer for fajr, two men get up and pray the two rak’ahs. One of them with the intention that he is praying [two] sunnah [rak’ahs] and this is correct, and the other is praying with the intention that they are obligatory, and this is incorrect. So the action is one, but the intention differs, one intention nullified the action of worship and the other intention made the action correct.

Thus, the pivot for all the rulings of Islaam is aqidah, so it is not permissible at all to separate aqidah from some parts of Islaam and to leave others. And this is a point of understanding which I wanted to make you aware of.

The Meccan Man: Here, for example, they …

PDF of Al-Albaani’s lecture on Hizbut-Tahrir


Here is the PDF version of all the separate posts in one place.  If you want to save it, right click on the link and go to ‘Save Link/Target As’:

Al-Albaani on Hizb al-Tahrir

And here is the video a brother made of all the posts, jazaahullaahu khairaa:

On Hizbut-Tahrir | End


 

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “And I will finish my talk by mentioning a discussion that took place between one of the Salafees and another person who would call to the Book and the Sunnah but was not mindful of this addition, i.e., ‘following the path of the believers.’  And the call of the Islamic groups will not become correct except by adopting it as [their] ideology firstly, and secondly, by implementing it through action.

I said to him: This is a deficient answer.

He said: Why?

I said: Because every Muslim no matter how deviated he is or how upright says, ‘I am a Muslim.’ For example, we’ll start with the easiest first. When a hanafi is asked what his madhhab is and he doesn’t want to get himself into a debate, he will say, ‘My madhhab is Islaam,’ and the shaafi’ee will say the same, ‘I am a Muslim …’ and so on.

But the Hanafis say that faith [eemaan] does not increase or decrease, and the Shaafi’ees says that faith [eemaan] increases but does not decrease and so on. So your answer that you are a Muslim and that [person’s] answer that he is a Muslim does not specify your madhhab fully. So he understood and said, ‘Then I say that I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah.”

So I said to him: Likewise, all of the Muslims [say the same] even [the people mentioned] in the examples I just showed you, is there a Hanafi who says, ‘I am a Muslim [but] not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ Is there a Shaafi’ee who says, ‘I am not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ [Indeed] I say to you is there an Ibaadee from the Khawaarij present today in the land of the Muslims who says, ‘I am not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ Rather, is there a Shi’ite, is there a Raafidee who says, ‘I am not on the Book and the Sunnah?’ This is what was just explained.

All of the Muslims no matter how severe and numerous the differences between them, all of them say, “Upon the Book and the Sunnah.” But none of them say, “And upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih,” except those who affiliate themselves to the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih. And we say when we are asked, “I am a Salafi,” end of matter. Because the meaning of Salafi is: upon the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.

When I explained this to him I said to him that it is not enough for you to say that I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah, because all of the groups and Jamaa’ahs say: upon the Book and the Sunnah.

He said, “Then I say, ‘I am upon the Book and the Sunnah …’ because after this lecture, or lectures he believed along with me … [so] he said, ‘I am upon the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih.”

So I said to him knowing that he was a writer and author, ‘Do you not find in your Arabic language that you have learnt, spoken with and authored in, words that will summarise this answer of yours: ‘I am a Muslim upon the Book and the Sunnah and upon the methodology of the Salaf as-Saalih?’

So he became silent. I said to him that when we say, ‘I am a Salafi,’ doesn’t this convey [the same meaning as] your long definition, ‘I am upon the Book and the Sunnah and ….?’

So he replied in the affirmative.

This is the reality of the Salafi call, and those are the mistakes of Hizb al-Tahrir, and all of the other groups … and it is only our circle that is wider than that of any such adopted by any group on the face of the earth.

I know that the system of Hizb al-Tahrir is that when an individual from their members adopts an opinion that opposes its opinion, i.e., opposes the stance taken by Hizb [al-Tahrir as a group] then he will be expelled and it will be said to him, ‘You are not from us.’

We do not say this.

I know for example, that from Hizb al-Tahrir’s ideology is that a woman has the right to vote and be voted for, so you will not find a Tahriri from their writers saying that it a woman’s field is not to enter into such affairs, which today are called politics, [but that] she has the right to learn that which befits her femininity, that which befits her delicacy, gentleness and so on.

As for her voting and being voted for, if a person from Hizb al-Tahrir adopted an opinion in which he opposed Hizb al-Tahrir then he will be expelled. As for us, then we accept Hizb al-Tahrir, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Tablighi Jamaa’ah, but upon the basis of: Say, “O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): Come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides Allah.” [Aali-Imraan 3:64].

So we call every Muslim to adopt this foundation, and there are many subdivions which branch off from it, many indeed. [And if they do so] then they will be with us, maybe they will differ with us in its implementation, because the implementation requires knowledge.

We say that very regrettably the Islamic groups do not give importance to the knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah yet along with that they want to establish an Islamic state while being ignorant of Islaam.

So we say, “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.” [Al-Ahzaab 33:21].

The Messenger of Allaah started by teaching the people, by calling them to aqidah [creed] first, then to [the matters of] worship and improving their manners secondly, and this is how it is befitting that history repeats itself.

And in this much there is sufficiency, and all praise is due to Allaah, the Lord of all worlds.”

Mawsoo’atul-Allaamah, al-Imaam, Mujaddidil-Asr, Muhammad Naasirid-Deen al-Albaani, of Shaikh Shady Noaman, vol. 1, pp. 230-254.

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 7


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “A question has come to me now and I wanted to delay it for later since it might cut off my train of thought yet even so I will not forestall the questioner, and will answer the question which is: there is a narration which says that when the Prophet was asked about the Saved Sect he replied by saying it was the Jamaa’ah.

Yes, this narration is authentic and we believe in it, but this narration [with the wording] “Jamaa’ah” is explained by the one we mentioned, because if we mention the word, “Jamaa’ah,” i.e., [as occurs in] this narration the question is about, then we must explain it with the explanation that has just passed.

So we will end this sitting by answering the last question. And I say: there are two narrations, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was asked about the Saved Sect, he answered with two narrations.

The first is the one I mentioned just now, “That which I and my Companions are upon.” The other is the one the question is about, “It is the Jamaa’ah.”

But I feel as though the questioner thinks that based upon what she has read from the writings of Hizb at-Tahrir that this narration, i.e., that which mentions the Jamaa’ah goes against the narration which I spoke about.

So I say to her and to bring this answer which is in the negative closer to home: there is no disparity between the two narrations. Suppose now that the first narration, i.e., “That which I and my Companions are upon,” has no basis whatsoever and that the narration is, “The Jamaa’ah.” So we will say, “Who is the Jamaa’ah? Who is the Jamaa’ah today? Is it Hizb at-Tahrir? The Muslim Brotherhood? The Tableeghee Jamaa’ah?”

The answer is:

And everyone claims the love of Laylaa but Laylaa does not acknowledge it for them

The Jamaa’ah is, as has authentically been reported from Ibn Mas’ood, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, “Whoever is upon the Truth even if it is only one person.”

When Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, sent the Messengers and the Prophets as givers of good tidings and warners, they were individuals, [but] they were the Jamaa’ah. 

Ibrahim was an Ummah on his own.

So whoever follows this Ummah, i.e., the Jamaa’ah, and in reality he was only one person in and of himself but he was the Jamaa’ah in his call, and whoever follows his way, traversing upon his path, then he is the Jamaa’ah even if he is only a single individual.

So now, [for argument’s sake and] upon the supposition that the first narration which described the Saved Sect did not exist at all, this Jamaa’ah is the path of the believers, the Jamaa’ah is the Jamaa’ah of the rightly-guided Caliphs.

So the hadith of al-Irbaad ibn Saariyah is not two narrations [as is the case here] such that it can be said or there can be doubt about it, as it is possible someone might want to doubt/distrust the narration, “That which I and my Companions are upon.” The Jamaa’ah is the Path of the Believers which I have just explained from the Book and the hadiths. So how does it harm us to explain the Jamaa’ah here with the first narration, “That which I and my Companions are upon?”

Because his Companions, his Companions (صلى الله عليه وسلم) are the believers whose opposers have been threatened with Hell in the aayah which I first cited as a proof [where I mentioned] that it is not enough to rely solely on the Book and the Sunnah, but that the path of the believers mentioned in the noble aayah must be added to that.

So whoever explains the Jamaa’ah mentioned in the hadith about the Saved Sect to mean that it is his group only without bringing any proof from the Book and the Sunnah for that: [proving] that he is upon what the first believers were upon, then he would have given it an interpretation other than the correct one, and would thus have explained this hadith incorrectly.”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 6


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “From which is that the Muslims know–and I am referring here to the students of knowledge, and I hope that those [sisters] listening to this lecture are from them–that in Sahih al-Bukhaari in the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “When one of you sits for the final tashhahud then let him seek refuge with Allaah from four: …”

This is an aahaad hadith, but it is from those wonderful and strange hadiths in relation to the philosophising of Hizb at-Tahrir–because on one hand it includes a legislated ruling [i.e., the legislated ruling being the Prophet’s actual order to say this supplication in the last tashhahud in the prayer, and this order is not something connected to creed], and in the eyes of Hizb at-Tahrir, legislated rulings can be taken from aahaad hadith.  So when looking at this hadith from that angle, [they hold] that it is obligatory to act upon it, because it is [like we just said] a legislated ruling, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “Then let him seek refuge from four things in the final tashhahud.”

And from another angle it includes [a point of] creed which is that in the grave there is punishment and that there is the trial of Dajjaal, but they [i.e., Hizb at-Tahrir] do not believe in the punishment of the grave and they do not believe in the trial of the greatest Dajjaal which the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) spoke about in many hadiths, from them is his saying (صلى الله عليه وسلم), “There is no fitnah from [the time of] the creation of Aadam until the Hour more harmful to my Ummah than the fitnah of the Maseeh ad-Dajjaal.”

They do not believe in this Dajjaal, because according to them the hadith [about him] is not mutawaatir.

So we now say to them: what will you do with the hadith of Abu Hurairah [about saying that supplication in the last tashahhud]? [Since] from one angle it includes a legislated ruling [which is that] at the end of the prayer you have to say, “And I seek refuge with You from the punishment of the grave,” but will you seek refuge from the punishment in the grave when you don’t believe in it?

Two opposites that cannot come together.

So they came to us with a way out, a trick from the tricks that Allaah has forbidden the Muslims from.

How so?

They said, “We hold that the punishment in the grave is true, but we do not believe in it.  We hold that the punishment of the grave is true, but we do not believe in it.”

A strange and unusual philosophising.  What is it that made them do this?  They came with [that] first philosophising and it led them to many other types, such that it took them away from the sound path which the Companions of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) were upon.

Now I will continue and this topic, as you said, is a long one … to explain that the call of Hizb at-Tahrir which they always talk about is that they want to establish the rule of Allaah on the earth. I firstly point out that they are not the only ones with this call, all of the Islamic groups and sects end with this purpose, i.e., they want to establish the rule of Allaah on earth, so they are not the only ones …”

%d bloggers like this: