Shaikh al-Albaani

Translations From His Works

Category: Hizbut-Tahrir

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 …”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 5


 

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.”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 4


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “Here we will stop for a short while [to consider the following]: who are the scholars? Are they the scholars of the disbelievers? No, we give them no weight, due to what we just mentioned that they are not intellectuals, the reality is that they are clever/smart because they have invented and innovated and so on, and have advanced in material civilisation well-known amongst all [but they are not intellectuals].

Likewise the intellect of the Muslims, this intellect [found] in each individual amongst them differs, so the intellect of the scholar is not the same as that of the ignorant one.

And I will say something else: the intellect of the scholar who acts upon his knowledge is not equal to the intellect of the scholar who does not. They will never be equal, ever.

For this [reason] the Mu’tazilah deviated in many of the fundamental principles which they laid down and by which they opposed the way of the Legislation: in relation to the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors. This is the first point: the reliance of Hizb at-Tahrir upon the intellect more than should be the case.

The second point, and it branches off from the first one in my view, is that they divided the texts of the Book and the Sunnah into two, as regards their chain of narration and the proof taken/derived from them. [Namely, regarding] the chain of narration they said, “[It is possible that] a narration can be unequivocally established and it may also be [the case] that it is hypothetically established. [And in the same way] the point proven by a narration can be unequivocal [but others] can be hypothetical.”

We’re not debating this terminology [now], since the situation is as is said, every nation can use the terminology they wish, but what we are discussing is what [happens] when other things are added to this terminology which oppose what the first Muslims were upon.

And from this the importance of the Path of the Believers will become clear to you. Because the Muslim scholar, let alone the ignorant Muslim, was restricted from turning away from the text of the Book and the Sunnah by using terminologies like these. And as a result of the terminology of ‘unequivocal’ and ‘hypothetic’, whether concerning the chain of narration of the meaning taken from the text, the following resulted:

They said: when a text comes in the Noble Quraan–and it, without doubt, according to the previous terminology would be regarded as ‘unequivocal in its [textual authenticity] being established–[they said] when a text comes in the Quraan which is not unequivocal in the point being established [or the meaning being conveyed] then it is not obligatory on the Muslim to take the meaning that it contains, because it is something which can only be established hypothetically, so it is not permissible for him to adopt a point of creed on a text which is unequivocally established [as being true and from Allaah, i.e., the Quraan] but is suppositional in whichever point it is that is trying to be proven.

And likewise the total opposite is also true with them: that when a proof comes which is unequivocal in the meaning it is conveying but is suppositional [according to them] in its being established [as a correct and true text] then in the same way they will not take a point of creed from it.

And so [it is based upon this that] they came with a creed not known to the Pious Predecessors. And they laid down for themselves a new set of terminology, and their books are well-known, and [when I say] their books, it is the old ones I am referring to, because they have made changes therein, and I am from the most well-acquainted of people with those changes, but in reality it is only [change] in form. And [even] if it is conceded [that changes were made] then it only proves that even in their creed they were confused, since they said, “Creed is not established except by way of a proof which is [1] unequivocally established, [2] unequivocal in the point being proven.”

And so it was upon this that they established their creed: that creed is not taken from a hadith unequivocal in the proof it is conveying [but only, according to them,] authentic in its chain of narration [i.e., they do not regard a saheeh/authentic hadith as being unequivocal even though the meaning that it may contain is absolutely clear].

So we said to them in the debates and arguments we had with them, “Where did you get this principle from? And it is a principle which includes issues of creed, so where did you get this creed from? What is the proof that it is not allowed for a Muslim to base his creed on an authentic [saheeh] hadith but which is not reported in mutawaatir form which [according to them is the only form which] qualifies absolute certainty in the proof it is establishing? Where did you get this from?”

So here they became confused in their answer. And the discussion on this topic is lengthy, very lengthy, and as proof they used [texts] such as His Saying, the Most High, “They follow nothing but assumption/a guess, and indeed, assumption avails not against the Truth at all.” [An-Najm 53:28].”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 3


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

“This is a reality which, very regrettably, all of the Islamic sects are ignorant of, especially Hizb at-Tahrir, which is unique among Islamic groups in giving the human intellect a station greater than that given to it by Islaam.

We know with certainty that when Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, addresses the people with His Speech He is only addressing the intellectuals, He is addressing the scholars, He is addressing those who think and reflect, but we [also] know that the human intellect differs. The intellect is of two types: the Muslim intellect and that of the disbeliever.

This intellect of the disbeliever is not intellect, it may be smartness/cleverness but it is not intellect. Because the [term] intellect in the Arabic language [refers to] that which shackles somebody, binds him and restricts him from going to the right or left. And it is not possible for the intellect not to [incorrectly] turn to the right or left except by following the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah صلى الله عليه وسلم.

For this reason Allaah, the Mighty and the Majestic, related that when the disbelievers and the polytheists acknowledge the reality of their situation … that when they are described as Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, said in the Noble Quraan, “They know what is apparent of the worldly life, but they, of the Hereafter, are unaware …” [Room 30:7] … they will acknowledge that although they were acquainted with worldly matters they were not intellectuals, [which is seen in] their saying which our Lord relates concerning them, “And they will say, ‘Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze.” [Al-Mulk 67:10]. Thus, there are two intellects: the true/real intellect and the figurative/metaphorical one.

The true intellect is that of the Muslim who believes in Allaah and His Messenger. As for the figurative one, then it is that of the disbeliever. For this reason, He, the Most High, said in the Quraan as you just heard, “And they will say, ‘Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the companions of the Blaze.” And He said about the disbelievers generally, “They have hearts wherewith they understand not.” [Al-A’raaf 7:179].

Thus, they do have hearts, but they do not understand [the Truth] through them, they do not comprehend the Truth with them.

When we have understood this reality, and it is a reality which I do not think any two will differ over, or any two rams will clash horns over, because it is explicitly in the Quraan and in the sayings of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم but I want to move from this reality to another which is the [actual] point I am trying to make at this time.

So when the intellect of the disbeliever is not [in fact] intellect, then [in the same way] the intellect of the Muslim is also of two types: that of the scholar and that of the ignorant person.

The intellect of the ignorant Muslim cannot be equal to the intellect and understanding of the scholar, they can never be equal when compared. That is why Allaah, the Most High, said, “… but none will understand them except those who have knowledge …” [Ankaboot 29:43].

Thus, it is not permissible for the true Muslim, the one who truly believes in Allah and His Messenger to invest his intellect with the authority to judge, but he should rather make his intellect submit to what Allaah and His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said.

It is from here that I make a point regarding Hizb at-Tahrir: that they were affected by the Mu’tazilah in their starting point in the path of faith, and the path of faith is a title they have given in some of the books written by their head, Tadiyud-Deen an-Nabahaani, may Allaah have mercy on him. I met him a number of times and am fully acquainted with him. And I am very well-versed and acquainted with what Hizb at-Tahrir are upon. For this, I speak with knowledge, inshaa Allaah, about that which their call stands upon. So this is the first point made against them: that they gave the intellect an excellence greater than it deserves.

I repeat to you what I just said earlier: I do not deny that the intellect has its importance as has preceded, but it is not for the intellect to judge the Book and the Sunnah, rather all that is upon it is to understand what has been reported in the Book and the Sunnah.

It is from here that the Mu’tazilah went astray in the past, they denied many, very many, legislated realities, due to the fact that they empowered their intellects over the texts of the Book and the Sunnah which, as a result, they distorted, altered and changed, and in the expression of the scholars of the Pious Predecessors, “They dispensed with the texts of the Book and the Sunnah.”

I want to draw your attention to this point, which is: that it is befitting that the Muslim intellect submit to the text of the Book and the Sunnah after having understood the Book and the Sunnah.

So the judge is [the saying of] Allaah and the Messenger of Allaah. It is not the human intellect due to [the reason] we have stated that the intellect of humans differs, the intellect of the Muslim and non-Muslim differs [from each other]; the intellect of the Muslim differs, that of the ignorant Muslim differs from that of the Muslim who understands, for the understanding of the Muslim scholar is not like that of the ignorant Muslim.

That is why He, the Most High, said, and there is no harm in repeating [what we said earlier], because I know that this topic is something which millions and millions of Muslims men, let alone the women, do not hear. For this reason I am obliged to repeat these points and these proofs, “… but none will understand them except those who have knowledge …””

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 2


“… As for the first discussion then by it I am referring to the Islamic callers whom it is assumed are not blind followers, from those who give precedence to the sayings of the Imaams who are not infallible over and above the sayings of Allaah and His Prophet who is infallible.

So when the affair, therefore, goes back to creed, and creed is taken from the Book and the Sunnah and what the Salaf were upon, because these Salaf are what is referred to in the first aayah, “And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the Believers …,” ‘and follows other than the way of the Believers,’ Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, did not mention this sentence in the middle of this aayah in mere jest or in vain, but rather to firmly establish a principle by it, and to lay down a foundation through it, which is: that in understanding the Book of our Lord and the Sunnah of our Prophet it is not permissible for us to rely on our intellects which are [intellects] that have come later in time [than the Salaf] and which differ in their understanding.

The Muslims will only be following the Book and the Sunnah, both in principle and [upon a firm] foundation, when they add to the Book and the Sunnah: “… and what the Pious Predecessors were upon.”  Because the text of this aayah includes [the fact that] it is obligatory upon us not to oppose the Messenger, not to contradict and oppose the Messenger, just as it includes [the fact that] we should not oppose and follow a path other than that of the Believers.

So both the first and second restrictions mentioned in this aayah mean that it is obligatory on us to follow the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and to abandon contradicting and opposing him, just as it is obligatory on us to follow the path of the Believers and not to oppose it.

Based upon this we say, based upon this firstly we say: it is upon every sect or Islamic group to correct the root of its starting point and [that is done by]: relying on the Book, and the Sunnah, and upon what the Pious Predecessors were upon. Hizb at-Tahrir do not adopt this condition/restriction as [part of their] thought nor do the Muslim Brotherhood and nor those like them from the many sects. And we only refer to the Islamic sects [when we say this], as for those that have openly declared war against Islaam like the Ba’athists or the Communists, then we are not talking about them now.

So the point [being established here] is this third principle: following the path of the Believers–Hizb at-Tahrir do not adopt it, nor do all the other sects.

When the affair is as such, then it befits every Muslim male or female to know that when a path is bent or crooked from the top then every time it moves forward it will increase in its deviation or digression and distance from the path that is straight and about which the Lord of all the worlds said in the Noble Quraan, And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path.” [Al-An’aan 6:153].

This aayah is explicit and unequivocal in its meaning as Hizb at-Tahrir, from amongst all of the other Islamic Islamic groups, constantly love to say in their call, their books, their lectures, ‘This is unequivocal in its meaning.’ That is because the aayah says that the path which leads to Allaah is one and that the other paths are the ones which will distance the Muslims from the Path of Allaah, “And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path.”

And the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) further explained and clarified this aayah, as is his way (صلى الله عليه وسلم) always and forever, as Allaah the Mighty and Majestic, mentioned in the Noble Quraan when he addressed His Messenger saying, “And We sent down unto you the Reminder [i.e., the Quraan] that you may explain clearly to the people what was sent down to them,” [Nahl 16:44]. So the Sunnah of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is the complete explanation of the Quraan.

The Quraan is the root/foundation, it is the constitution of Islaam, as for the Sunnah, then it is [that which] explains and consolidates it.  And without comparing and only by way of clarifying [what I mean]: the Quraan in relation to the system of the earth is like a constitution, and the Sunnah is like the Law which explains the constitution.

For this reason it was agreed upon by all of the Muslims without exception that it is not possible to understand the Quraan except with the explanation of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), this is something unanimous.

But the thing in which the Muslims differed, [the thing] in which their footsteps differed, is that all of the misguided groups of the past did not pay any heed to this third principle, which is, “… following the Pious Predecessors,” and by doing so they opposed the aayah which I just mentioned over and over again. Thereafter they opposed the Path of Allaah, because the Path of Allaah is one, and it is that which is mentioned in the previous aayah, And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path.”

I say: indeed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) made this aayah even clearer through that which one of his (صلى الله عليه وسلم) Companions reported from him who was well known for his understanding, Adbullaah ibn Mas’ood, may Allaah the Most High be pleased with him, where he said, “The Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) drew a straight line one day upon the earth, then he drew small lines around this straight oen, then he pointed his noble finger to the straight line and recited the aayah, And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path.” He (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, while passing his finger over the straight line, “This is the Path of Allaah.” Then he pointed to the short lines around it and said, “And these are [other] paths, at the head of each one is a devil calling the people to it.” So this hadith also explains another one [which I will mention now], and this other one along with the hadith of the straight line are regarded as those which explain the aayah about the Path of the Believers.

[And it is] that hadith which the companions of the Sunan reported, like Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi and their likes from the Imaams of Hadith by way of a number of people from a group of the Companions, may Allaah be pleased with all of them, like Abu Hurairah, Mu’aawiyah, Anas ibn Maalik and other than them, that the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “The Jews split into seventy one sects. And the Christians split into seventy two sects. And my nation will split into seventy three sects. All of them are in the Fire except for one.” They said, “Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “It is that which I and my Companions are upon.”

This hadith clarifies the aforementioned Path of the Believers in the ayah for us. Who are the Believers [being referred to] in it? They are those which the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) mentioned in the hadith of the sects when asked about the Saved Sect, its methodology, its characteristics, its starting point. So he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “It is that which I and my Companions are upon,” “It is that which I and my Companions are upon,” so I would like you to pay attention, because the answer of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) if it isn’t revelation from Allaah, then it is an explanation from the Prophet of Allaah regarding ‘the Path of the Believers’ mentioned in the Saying of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, which I quoted to you many times just now.

Whereby Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, mentioned the Messenger in the aayah and [also] mentioned the Path of the Believers. In the same way the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) made the [distinguishing] sign of the Saved Sect which is not from the seventy-two misguided ones, he made its sign: that it will be upon what the Prophet and his Companions were upon.

So we find in this hadith the same thing we found in the aayah. Just as the aayah did not restrict itself to making mention of the Prophet alone, then in the same way the hadith did not restrict itself to mentioning the Prophet alone–rather the aayah mentioned the Path of the Believers and likewise the hadith mentioned the Companions of the Noble Prophet, so the hadith came together [perfectly] with the Quraan. This is why he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “I have left two things among you. You will never go astray so long as you hold on to them: the Book of Allaah and my Sunnah. And they will never split until they return to me at the Lake.”

Many of the sects of the past and [also] modern day ones do not pay attention to the restriction mentioned in the aayah and in this hadith, the hadith about the seventy-three sects, where he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) made the characteristic of the Saved Sect, indeed the [distinguishing] sign of the Saved Sect, that it will be upon what the Messenger and his Companions were upon.

Similar to this hadith somewhat is the hadith of al-Irbaad ibn Saariyah, and he is from the Companions of the Prophet, from the People of the Saff, who were poor and would always stick to the mosque, always being present at the gatherings of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and he took knowledge from the Book of Allaah and the mouth of the Prophet fresh and new. Al-Irbaad said, “The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) gave us an admonition which caused the hearts to fear and the eyes to shed tears, so we said, “Advise us, O Messenger of Allaah.” So he said, “I advise you to fear Allaah, and to hear and obey, even if an Abyssinian slave is placed in authority over you. And whoever lives long from amongst you will see great controversy. So stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the orthodox, rightly-guided caliphs after me, cling to that with your molar teeth, and beware of the newly-invented matters, for every newly-invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance …”

The proof [taken from] this hadith is that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did not restrict [his answer] to encouraging the Muslims when they differ … he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “Indeed whoever lives from you will see great conflict.”

For this reason the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) answered in a wise manner, and who is wiser or more just than him after the Most Just of all judges? No one from mankind is wiser than the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) for this reason when he said, “Indeed whoever lives from you will see great conflict…” he answered the mandatory question [which follows such a statement] … [i.e.,] so what should we do, O Messenger of Allaah, he said, “So upon you is [to follow] my Sunnah …” but he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) did not suffice with ordering those who live in the time of differences like this era of ours, he did not suffice with his saying, “So upon you is [to follow] my Sunnah …” only, rather he increased upon that, saying, “And the Sunnah [way] of the Rightly Guided Caliphs.”

Thus, let the Muslim who is sincere to himself add this [condition] to his creed that it is obligatory to return to the Book, the Sunnah and to the Path of the Believers [this being based upon] the proof taken from the aayah, the hadith about the [seventy-three] sects and the hadith of al-Irbaad ibn Saariyah …”

On Hizbut-Tahrir | 1


The­­­ following is the translation of a lecture by the Shaikh.  I’ll be posting it in parts, and the PDF will follow at the end, inshaa Allaah.


Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab

باب كلمة حول مصادر الاستدلال عند أهل السنة، مع بيان التعرض لبيان موقع العقل من هذه المصادر، وبيان خطأ تقسيم الأحاديث إلى ظنية

ويقينية وما يترتب على ذلك

Chapter A Talk Concerning the Sources which the Ahlus-Sunnah Derive Proofs from, along with an Examination of the Position of the Intellect in Relation to these Sources, and an Explanation of the Incorrectness of Categorising the Sayings of the Prophet into Hypothetical and Absolute and what that Entails

The Imaam said, “All Praise is due to Allaah, we praise Him, and seek His help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allaah, the Most High, from the evils of our own selves and from our wicked deeds. Whomsoever has been guided by Allaah, none can misguide him, and whomsoever has been misguided by Allaah, none can guide him. I bear witness that there is no true god worthy of being worshipped except Allaah, Alone, without partner or associate. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His true slave and Messenger.

O you who believe! Fear Allaah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islaam (as Muslims with complete submission to Allaah). Aali Imraan 3:102

O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (Adam) and from him He created his wife, and from them both He created many men and women, and fear Allaah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights) and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship). Surely, Allaah is ever an All-Watcher over you. An-Nisaa 4:1

O you who believe! Keep your duty to Allaah and fear Him, and speak (always) the Truth, He will direct you to do righteous good deeds and will forgive you your sins. And whosoever obeys Allaah and His Messenger, he has indeed achieved a great success. Al-Ahzaab 33: 70-71

As for what follows:

Then the best of speech is the Speech of Allaah, and the best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم). The worst of affairs are the newly-invented matters, and every newly-invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is misguidance and all misguidance is in the Fire.

In front of me are two questions which both centre around one point, which is: a question about Hizb at-Tahrir.

The first question says: I have read a lot about Hizb at-Tahrir and many of their ideas appeal to me. So I would like that you explain or that you give us a synopsis of Hizb at-Tahrir.

The second question is talking about the same topic but he wants an explanation and says: We would like an extensive explanation from you about Hizb at-Tahrir, its goals, its ideas, their mistakes, and whether their mistakes have permeated and caused corruption in the matters of creed?

In answering these two questions, I say: any sect–and I do not only mean Hizb at-Tahrir to the exclusion of the other Islamic groups, or the [other] Islamic fronts, or the [other] Islamic factions–any one of these groups whose sect or group is not established on the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and in addition to the[se] two sources I say: the methodology of the Pious Predecessors … any group which is not established on the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors then without doubt the outcome of its affair will be loss.

And that no matter how sincere it is in its call … and my research and answer is only concerning these Islamic groups which it is assumed are sincere to the Religion of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, and [sincere] in their advice to the ummah, as occurs in the authentic hadith, which indeed is his saying (صلى الله عليه وسلم), “The religion is sincere advice. The religion is sincere advice. The religion is sincere advice.” They said, “To whom, O Prophet of Allaah?” He said, “To Allaah, His Book, and the leaders of the Muslims and their general masses.” [Muslim, no. 205].

So when the call of any one of these groups is not based upon the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors, then it will not reap anything except loss from its call. This is because the affair is as our Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, has said in the Noble Quran, “And those who strive for Us, We will surely guide them to Our Ways.” [Ankaboot 29:69].

So whoever’s striving is for Allaah, and is upon the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allaah, upon the methodology of the Pious Predecessors, then these are the ones to whom the saying of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, applies, “If you help [in the cause of] Allaah, He will help you.” [Muhammad 47:7]. I repeat this great principle to you which every Muslim group has to base its call upon: the Book, the Sunnah, upon the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.

So when the affair is as such, then I say based upon my acquaintance with all of the groups and sects established on the face of the Islamic earth today, that all of them, except for one group, and I do not say, ‘[except for] one ‘sect,’’ because this [one] group does not split into sects, and does not form a coalition, nor show partisanship or bigotry, except towards the previous principle we just mentioned, which is: the Book of Allaah, the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allaah, and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors …

I know very well that no one apart from this group calls to this principle which we have just clarified and which I have repeated many times, over and over again, to you. Rather they recourse back to the Book and the Sunnah only, and do not join our previous saying, i.e., ‘… on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors,’ to the Book and the Sunnah.

At that moment the importance of this third principle, ‘… on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors,’ will become clear to you, it will become clear to you through the reality of the [situation of the] Islamic groups, rather the Islamic sects, from the day they first raised their heads, or showed their horns, amongst the first Islamic groups: i.e., from the day the Khawaarij revolted against Ali ibn Abi Taalib, and from the day of Ja’d who called with the call of the Mu’tazilah, and those who came after him, following him in his I’tizaal, to other than those groups whose names were well-known in the past, and which are reviving their ideas in recent times using new names.

These groups, all of them, the old and the new, no group can be found among them that says and [openly] declares, “We are not on the Book and the Sunnah.” All of these sects, bearing in mind the differences between them, whether these differences are in creed, fundamentals, or whether in [matters of] rulings or subsidiary issues, all of these who are split in their religion say, as we do, “The Book and the Sunnah,” but they split away from us for they do not utter our saying, which is the completion of our call, ‘… on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.’

So, what is it that judges between these groups when all of them, at least verbally and in their call, affiliate themselves to the Book and the Sunnah? What is the determining judge between [all of] these who say the same thing?

The answer is, ‘… on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors.’

Here, as they say nowadays, a question presents itself with regard to some people, and it is: where did we get this addition from, i.e., ‘… on the methodology of the Pious Predecessors?’

We got it from the Book of Allaah and from the hadith of the Prophet of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and what the Imaams of the Pious Predecessors and the masses of the Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah, as they say nowadays, traversed upon.

The first of that is His Saying, the Blessed and Most High, “And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the Believers we shall keep him in the path he has chosen and burn him in Hell–and evil it is as a destination.” [Nisaa 4:115].

So you hear His Saying, the Mighty and Majestic, in this aayah, “And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger…” so if Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, had not mentioned, “…and follows other than the way of the Believers …,” if the aayah had been: “And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, we shall keep him in the path he has chosen and burn him in Hell–and evil it is as a destination,” [then] according to the call of those groups of the past and the modern ones … they would not have lost out on anything if this good sentence was not part of the aayah, i.e., His Saying, the Most High, “…and follows other than the way of the Believers …,” because they say, “We are on the Book and the Sunnah.” It is obligatory, firstly, to implement this saying by following the Book and the Sunnah completely and secondly by implementing it practically.

For example, His Saying, the Mighty and Majestic, which is well-known amongst the scholars, “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allaah and the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.” [An-Nisaa 4:59]. The blind followers from all of the Islamic world when called to Allaah and His Messenger, [when called] to the Book of Allaah and the hadith of His Prophet, they say, “No, we follow our madhhab,” this one says, “My madhhab is Hanafi,” and this one, “My madhhab is Shaafi’ee,” and so on.

So have these [people] who have established their blind-following of the Imaams in place of following the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم) implemented this noble aayah which I mentioned lastly, “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger …?”

The answer is that they have not done anything from that, [and] thus their saying, “We are on the Book and the Sunnah,” did not benefit them because they do not practically implement the Book and the Sunnah. This is an example by which I wanted to make clear the topic [at hand] firstly, because I am referring to the blind followers through this example …”

Mawsoo’atul-Allaamah, al-Imaam, Mujaddidil-Asr, Muhammad Naasirid-Deen al-Albaani, of Shaikh Shady Noaman, vol. 1, pp. 230-234.

%d bloggers like this: