Article on HT (Split from "The Western Beauty Myth" thread)

angelo_dundee · August 18, 2003, 12:59am

Article on HT:

The founder of the modernist Hizb-ut-Tahreer, like the 'Mutazilah before, also denied 'Aqeedah in the Punishment of the Grave-explaining his position by saying:

"Indeed ,from them (the aahaad ahaadeeth) are those which require and action, so it is acted upon. So from Abu Hurairah who said: The Messenger of Allaah (saw) said: “When any of you finishes the last tashahhud, he should seek refuge with Allaah from the four things: from the punishment of the Hellfire, from the punishment of the Grave, from the trials of life and death from the evil trials of the Dajjal” And from 'Aaishah: from the Prophet (saw), that he used to make supplication in the prayer: “O Allaah! I seek refuge in You from the punishment of the Grave, I seek refuge in You from the trials of the Maseehud-Dajjal, I seek refuge in You from the trials of life and death.O Allaah! I seek refuge in You from debt and sin” So these two ahaadeeth are 'Aahaad narrations and they contain the requirement of an action, ir to carry out this supplication after finishing the ‘tashahhud’. So it is recommended to make this supplication after finishing 'tashahhud and it is permissible to make 'tasdeeq (attest) what is contained in them. However, “what is ‘haraam (forbidden)’ is to hold it with certainty-meaning to have it as part of ones 'aqeedah-as long as it only been reported in the aahaad hadeeth,adhannee (non- mutawaatir) proof.However ,if it occurs in 'mutawaatir form,then it is obligatory to make it part of one 'aqeedah”(Ad-Dawsiyyah (p.6) of Taqeedu-Deen an-Nabahaanee-the founder of Hizbut-Tahrir -may Allaah forgive him )

This saying contains a number of 'shortcomings:

1)Differentiating between the 'aahaad and ‘mutawaatir’ ahadeeth in matters of ‘aqeedah’ is an innovation of the ‘Qadariyyah’ and the ‘Mutazilah’-as has already been explained.

2)Making ‘tasdeeq’ of the Punishment in the Grave, whilst forbidding a person to have ‘aqeedah’(belief) in it,is a contradiction in terms. Since-as has preceded in the words of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr-‘tasdeeq’ is attesting the truth of something in the heart, which is the same as ‘aqeedah’ and which thereby necessitates ‘eemaan’. However, differentiating between ‘tasdeeq’ and ‘aqeedah’ is innovated speech; opposing the way of our Salaf. Unfortunately,the likes of this innovation has been clearly stated by the present leader of 'Hizbut-Tahrir in Britain, when he said: "We trust it; and I encourage all of you 'an tasaddiqoo bi 'adhaabil-Qabr(to have 'tasdeeq in the Punishment of the Grave). I encourage all of you 'antasaddiqoo bi awdatil-Mahdee (to have ‘tasdeeq’ in the coming of the Mahdee). I encourage you for that. “But whoever believes in that, he is sinful” (From an available taped lecture entitled: 'Punishment of the Grave (Regents Park Mosque,2nd May 1992 CE] by Omar Bakri Muhammad.)

3)How is it possible to affirm Punishment of the Grave with the tongue, whilst forbid ‘aqeedah’ (belief) of it in the heart-is this not but ‘nifaaq’ (hypocrisy)?! Rather, eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave necessitates-as a foundation -'aqeedah in the heart!! May Allaah have mercy upon Imaam Ahmad when he said: “You should beware of speaking about an issue in which you are not preceded by a scholar” (Quoted by Ibn al-Qayyimin A’laamul-Muqieen(4/266))

4)Along with all this it must be remembered that: “It is not permissible to invent an interpretation about an ‘Aayah or about a Sunnah, which was not there in the time of ‘Salaf’; nor did they have any knowledge about it; nor explain it to the Ummah. Since this would imply that the ’ Salaf’ were ignorant of the truth in this matter and failed to reach it ,whereas the late coming opponent is somehow guided to the truth!” (As-Saarimul- Munkee (p.247) of al-Haafidh Ibn 'Abdul-Haadee.)

Imaam al-Awzaee(d.157H)(rh)-said: “Hold fast to the narrations of the ‘Salaf’, even if people were to abandon you. Beware of the opinions of the people ,no matter how much they beautify it with their speech” (Related by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadee in his excellent book Sharafu Ashaabul-Hadeeth(p.7)

Abu Haneefah(d.159H)(rh)-said: “Stick to the ‘athar’ (narration) and the way of the ‘Salaf’ and beware of newly invented matters, for all of it is innovation” (Related by as-Suyootee in Sawnul-Mantaq wal-Kalaam(p.32)

So denying ‘Aqeedah’ in the Punishment of the Grave, declaring this to be something sinful and forbidden, declaring also that it is not matter which will definitely occur, but it is a matter which may possibly occur-is speech in opposition to that of the Salaf-us-Saalih -the like of which was previously uttered by only the 'Khawaarij and a group from the ‘Mutazilah’ and there is no doubt in its being a deviation from the straight path.

Likewise outwardly affirming ‘tasdeeq’ and apparently] affirming eemaan in the punishment of the Grave, whilst denying ‘Aqeedah’ in it, is a contradiction in terms-since tasdeeq, eemaan and Aqeedah in the opinion of the ‘Salaf’, all imply certainty and being definite-even if modernists dislike this!

Imaam Ahmad(d.241H)(rh) said: “Punishment of the Grave is a true fact; and no one denies it except who is misguided and misguiding others” (Tabaqqatul-Hanaabilah (1/174) of Ibn Abee Yalaa.)

An-Naasiree(d.652H) said in ‘An-Noorul-Laami(no.110): "We have "eemaan’ in the Punishment in the grave and its bliss…this is the madhabs of Ahlus-Sunnah wal- Jamaah. So it is obligatory to have ‘Aqeedah’ in this"

An-Nawawee(d.676H) said in Sharh Saheeh Muslim(5/85): “This chapter shows the excellence of seeking refuge-between the Tashahhudd and the Tasleem -from these (four) matters; and in it is an affirmation of the punishment of the Grave, and it is the position of the people of the truth-as opposed to the Mutazilah”

Imaam al-Qurtubee(d.671H)(rh) said: “To have eemaan in the Punishment in the Grave and its trials is obligatory, due to what the most truthful (the Prophet (saw) has mentioned. This is he belief of 'Ahlus-Sunnah wal_jamaah” (At-Tadhkirah bi Ahwaalil-Mawtee wa Ahwaalil-Aakhirah(p.137) of Imaam al-Qurtubee (d.671H)

THE SAYINGS OF THE SALAF OF THIS UMMAH
1)Sufyan ibn 'Uyainah(d.197H)(rh) said: “The Sunnah is ten.Whosoever accepts them has completed the Sunnah and whoever abandons anything from them has abandoned the Sunnah; affirming al-Qadr (predestination ),giving precedence to AbuBakr and Umar, the Pond in Paradise, Shafaa (Intercession), the Scales, the Bridge over Hellfire, Emaan is statement and action, the Qur’ân is the speech of Allaah, Punishment in the Grave, being raised up on the day of Judgement and not testifying that any Muslim will definitely be in Paradise or Hell” (Sharh Usool Itiqaah Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah(no.312) of al-Laalikaee.)

2)Imaaam ash-Shafiee(d.204H)(rh) said: “Indeed al-Qadr (predestination): both the good and evil consequences are from Allaah -the Mighty and Majestic. Indeed Punishment of the Grave is a true fact, the questioning of those in the graves is a true fact, the Resurrection is a true fact, the Accountability is a true fact, Paradise and Hellfire are true facts. Whatever else is related in the Sunnah and so mentioned by the scholars and their followers throughout the lands of the Muslims is also true” (Manaaqibush-Shafiee(1/415) of al-Bayhaqee)

3)Imaaam Ahmad (d.241H)(rh) said: “From the essential Sunnah ,which if a person leaves anyone of its points-not accepting it and not having eemaan in it-then he will not be from its people are: (he then mentions ) eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave”(Usoolus-Sunnah(no.8) of Imaam Ahmad.) He also said: “Punishment of the Grave is a true fact. The servant will be questioned about his Religion and his Lord. Munkir and Nakeer and Paradise and Hellfire are also true facts” (Risaalatus-Sunnah(p.72) of Imaam Ahmad.)

4)Abu Dawood (d.275H)(rh) said: “Chapter: Questioning in the Grave and the Punishment of the Grave”(Kitaabus-Sunnah(p.900) part of Sunan Abee Dawood.)

5)Ibn Qutaybah(d.278H)(rh) said: “Ashaabul-Hadeeth are united upon the fact that whatever Allaah wills happens and whatever He does not will does not happen ;that He is the creator of good and evil; that the Quraan is the speech of Allaah, uncreated, that Allaah will be seen on the Day of Judgement, giving precedence to Abu Bakr and 'Umar, upon eemaan in the punishment of the Grave. They do not differ in these fundamentals. Whosoever opposes them in any of these matters then they reject, hate and declare such a one an innovator and cut themselves off from him” (Taweel Mukhtaaliful-Hadeeth(p.18)

6)Imaam at-Tahaawee(d.321H)(rh) said: "This is an explanation of the ‘Aqeedah’ of Ahlus-Sunnaj wal-Jamaah upon the way of scholars of this religion; Abu Haneefah an-Nauman ibn Thaabit al-Kofee, Abu Yousuf Yaqoob ibn Ibraheem al-Ansaree and Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn al-Hasanash ash-Shaybanee-may Allaah be pleased with them all-and the beliefs they held concerning the fundamentals of of the deen and their Aqeedah in the Lord of the worlds. "Up until when he said: "We have eemaan in the Angel of Death who is charged with taking the souls of all the worlds; and in the 'Punishment of the Grave for those who deserve it "('Aqeedatut-Taahaawiyah(nos 79-80)

From al-Ibaanah Magazine

HT are really wasted.

Thats 1/2 of it.

angelo_dundee · August 18, 2003, 1:02am

Q & A with HT exposes them:

hizb ut-tahreer
[a tape exposing their beliefs]

Tape of Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee
Regarding Hizb ut-tahreer- It is a party founded by Taqiyyud-deen an Nabhaanee. As for this party - then we have a number of observations to make about it:

That they do not accept "Khabarul-Aahaad" in 'Aqeedah and this has caused them to separate from Ahlus-Sunnah in 'Aqeedah since accepting the ahaadeeth is an important principle - so they do not accept the Messengers (s.a.w.s) sayings in points of 'Aqeedah. So they do not believe for example, in The Punishment in the grave, they do not believe in The Dajjaal and they do not believe in the descent of the Maseh - and they do not believe in many things which are mentioned in ahaadeeth. And this is of course, something futile since authentic aahaad Ahaadeeth which are those reported by good / reliable, precise narrators from the first to the last of them - not contradicting something more reliable - and not contain hidden weakness and the ahaadeeth which fulfill these five conditions amounts to knowledge whereas they say that it amounts only to conjecture (zann) - and the reply to them in detail is to be found in my book: "al-adillah wash-Shawaahid fee wujoob al-Akhdh bikhabral-waahid fil Ahkaam wal 'Aqaaid", where I mention their evidences from their book "ad-Doosiyyah" and I have replied to them in detail, so he who wishes to go into depth then let him refer back to that book, which I ask Allaah to make of benefit to the Muslims.
This party accuses Ahlus-Sunnah of being Jabariyyah as they plainly state in their book "ad-Doosiyyah" so they say with regards to the matter of Qadaa and Qadr:

"...so if we look to Ahlus-Sunna - who think that they have come out in their view from between dung and blood then they are Jabariyyah."

Then this is ignorance of this important part of 'Aqeedah since Ahlus-Sunna wal-Jamaa'ah affirm what Allah has affirmed and deny what Allah has denied. they affirm that the servant has free-will - except that it is not but by the will of Allah - the most Perfect and free from defects, and the Most high, and there are great proofs of this - and we have mentioned some of them in out reply to them in out book: "al-Jamaa'aatul-Islaamiyyah."

Also this party has various peculiar opinions - so for example they allow nude photographs, they allow one to look at photographs and this contains great danger due to a Sharee'ah point then it is the Prophet's (s.a.w.s) saying: "let not a woman describe another woman to her husband - as if he were looking at her." So his (s.a.w.s) saying: "...as if he were looking at her" - he is not actually looking at her, but a description of her is brought into his mind so the forbiddance is from this imaginary picture - so how is it then if the picture is physically in front of one looking at it?! - showing her attractions and her body - indeed revealing her 'awrah - is this not even more forbidden? Secondly, this picture even if it does not move or feel - yet it is a real picture - and nudity is something haraam - so how can we allow looking at this thing which is haraam?

Further, looking at this picture incites the animal instincts in a person and the 'shaytaanic tendencies' - so that which leads to haraam is itself haraam. Indeed the matter has gone beyond bounds with them - to the extent that they allow kissing a (strange) woman, and this is something dangerous.

What is more dangerous is that they have turned all their attention to accusing the rulers. 'this one is an American (stooge), this one is a British (stooge)' - as if there were no-one else in the worlds except America and Britain and as if it were America and Britain who were running the affairs of creation. And this causes people to turn away from the correct understanding of their Deen and away from Allah's way of changing the affairs. They think that if they change the ruler they will attain what they desire - and this is contrary to the natural way laid down by Allah with regard to changes which come bout amongst the creation:

Verily never will Allah change a condition of a people until they change what is within their souls [Ra'd 13:11]

And is we imagine that the ruler would change - whilst the nation do not believe in this Deen - then what would happen is that these people will cause a revolution as had happened, for example lately in Russia - this state was established by force and through tyranny and through suppressing the voice of the people through killing - so we find that the people did not support it, but rather opposed it. And for Allah's laws to be enforced throughout throughout this earth - they have to be carried / defended by the Believers -

He it is that has strengthened you with His aid and with the Believers. [Anfaal 8:62]

So we don't wait for the east or the west to help the Deen, but its own people have to be its carriers - they are the ones to carry and defend the Deen.

This is a brief description of Hizb ut-tahreer - and of course they debate about Allah without knowledge, without Guidance, without Book and without Light - and we have sat with them often - and one we mentioned to one of them whilst discussing the 'Khabarul- Aahaad', we said: If it appears to you that the truth is that it is obligatory to accept the Khabarul-Aahaad - then will you do so? he said 'No, because I have to stick to the view of the party.' So they make it binding that if the view of the party contradicts your view - you have to hold the view of the party, not your own view. So we said: Then what is the point of discussing with you - if you will not give up the view of the party in favour of the clear proof. Since they have laid down a rule - that the person has to stick to the opinion of his imaam or his nation. Well what if that involves some sin, since that ruler, khaleefah or group may be right or wrong - so if a mistake is made then how can he still hold to that knowing that is is haraam.

Imagine, for example, that the ruler is a Hanafee who holds that drinking little alcohol - an amount nut sufficient to intoxicate is allowed but that which is forbidden is the final cup which intoxicates. Then does a person in this case have to hold to the opinion of his imaam? Or if his imaam, for example, holds the saying that the Qur'ân is created - as happened to Imaam Ahmad - then does he have to take on his view - and the practise of the salaf is contrary to this.

This is a brief account of Hizb ut-tahreer - and Hizb ut-tahreer do not follow Islaam but only support the idea of Islaam and they have weird (and incorrect) opinions - for example, they do not order their wives to dress Islamically, since they say that men do not have any authority over women until the Khilaafah has been established - and of course this is contrary to the laws of Allah - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - in that the man has to strive to save his family from the Fire:

O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones. [Tahreem 66:6]

QUESTION. They say: "I accept the ahaadeeth in Bukhaaree is Saheeh but I don't believe in it." What should be our response and attitude towards such people?

Answer. The text of theirs saying as occurs in their book 'ad-Doosiyyah' is that these ahaadeeth - and an example of this is: "When one of you finishes the last tashahhud then let his say: 'O Allah I seek refuge in you from the punishment of the grave and the punishment of the Hell-fire and from the trials of life and death and the trials of Dajjal.'" - They say: 'I act in this as it is knowledge - that is: We say that saying: "....." however we do not believe in it?! This is a crazy contradiction - how can you affirm a saying and not believe in it? this is not rational / sensible. As if you are saying: I say it with my tongue and do not believe it in my heart. they do not believe that there is any punishment in the grave - they do not believe it but they say: We affirm it.

QUESTION. There are other authentic ahaadeeth about the punishment of the grave - which are not aahaad.

Answer: Of course they do not believe in the 'Mutawaatri al-Ma'nawee' (the ahaadeeth whose meaning is mutawaatir) - the mutawaatir in the science of ahaadeeth is of two categories:

(i) Mutawatirul-Lafzee (whose wording is mutawaatir) - such as the ahaadeeth: "Let he who lies against me intentionally take his seat in the Fire." and
(ii) Mutawatirul-Ma'nawee (i.e. they differ in wording but are the same in meaning) such as the ahaadeeth about the descent of 'Eesaa - 'alaihi salaam - many ahaadeeth but not with a single meaning - rather they agree on a single fact - the descent of 'Eesaa, the coming of Dajjaal, the coming of the Mahdee - 'alaihi salaam - all of these are to them aahaad - even if they agree in the sense and meaning as long as they are not reported with a single wording

So they do not recognise the Mutawaatirul-Ma'nawee. therefore all the Sunnah to them is aahaad except a small part - but is we ask the,: "What is mutawaatir from it?" - Then they cannot answer - so this saying: "we affirm it but do not believe it" is a contradictory saying - not possible as the poet says: "The worst of impossible things is to bring two opposites at one time," such as to say "it is night and day" at one time - that is not possible. "This living and dead", "You affirm and you do not believe." Whereas belief (I'tiqaad) is affirmation (tasdeeq) with certainty, as they say: "Belief (I'tiqaad) is affirmation with certainty which is according to the true state of affairs - upon proof and clear signs." So how can you say that you affirm - but then say you are not definite - so this is not affirmation rather it is doubt and uncertainty.

angelo_dundee · August 18, 2003, 1:03am

They try to use as evidence for this - that the Khabarul-Aahaad amounts only to conjecture (zann) and they quote

They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, even though there has already come to them guidance from their Lord [Najm 53:23] and

They follow noting but conjecture and conjecture avails them nothing against truth [Najm 53:28]

however the ‘zann’ mentioned here is ‘zann’ (speculation) which is incorrect / proven wrong - not that which is definite (ie. correct) - and this is shown by their saying that the Khabarul-Aahaad is a proof with regard to Sharee’ah ruling and if it were incorrect speculative zaan then they would not worship Allah with that since it is delusion and doubt - whereas this correct zaan is of the level of certainty (yaqeen) because Allah ta’aalaa has explained they certainty (yaqeen) has levels - as Allah says:

But nay, you shall soon know (the reality). Again you shall know! Nay, were you to know with certainty of mind (you would beware) [Takaathur 2-4]

The level of knowledge reached here being ‘yaqeen’ (certainty).

And you shall certainly see Hellfire. Again, you shall see it with certainty of sight. Then, shall you be questioned that day about the joy (you indulged in). [Takaathur 2-8]

So between ‘certain knowledge’ ('Ilmul Yaqeen) and 'Aynul-yaqeen (certainty itself) is a level which Allah mentions at the end of Soorat ul-Haaqah: ‘Haqqul-Yaqeen’ - so we have,

(i) 'Ilmul Yaqeen (ii) Haqqul yaqeen (iii) 'Aynul Yaqeen,

all of them are certainty (Yaqeen) - are they a single thing? No rather they are levels - so Yaqeen (certainty) has levels, but its root is one, i.e. it’s being knowledge. So the narration from the Prophet (s.a.w.s) which fulfills the five conditions (of authenticity):

(i) the chain of narration be fully connected by
(ii) trustworthy
(iii) precise narrators
(iv) nor contradicting something more reliable and
(v) not having a hidden defect

-These conditions safeguard it from error and forgetfulness. We say - that a narrator may forget or make a mistake but we are sure in this case (i.e. after the fulfillment of the five conditions) and this narrator here did not forget since he is precise and trustworthy in his Deen and reliable and it is narrated from him by like of him - reliable and with precise memory not forgetting anything and it does no contradict the narrations of other narrators, and does not have a hidden defect - then we know that the narrator has not forgotten - not because we think he is infallible but because we have examined and checked - so this condition brings about knowledge with us: And even if we were to say: it only amounts to ‘zann’: then which zann would it be?, correct or certain zaan, or incorrect zann. then they will say correct zann! Then we say: it is a source for belief ('Aqeedah) as Allah ta’aalaa says:

Who bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord [Baqarah 2:46]

So the word ‘zann’ here is used with the meanings of belief in one of the principles of belief, i.e. belief in the Hereafter Allah ta’aalaa says:

I did really understand that my account would reach me [Haaqqah 69:20]

(Using the term ‘zann’) and this is quoted in praise of him, he is a Believer. [Also, the verse]:

And they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah but to Himself [Tawbah 9:118]

in the story of those who remained behind - so here (again) ‘zann’ occurs with the meaning of I’tiqaad (certain belief) - so it has meaning of belief.

To sum up they are mixed up and inconsistent and you see one of them, for example, clean shaven, no beard, wearing clothes of the kaafirs, not acting on the dictates of Islaam in his life. He supports the ideal of Islaam. Islaam to him is an ideal to call for. But what is required is the following of Islaam not merely calling for it:

Grievously odious it is for the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not (do) [Saff 61:3]

QUESTION. Their comment on Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab (rahimahullaah) that he was not proper because he combined the king and kingship is not allowed in the Deen - what should be the response?

Answer: This is the saying of Hizb ut-tahreer.

Firstly: Hizb ut-tahreer invent lies against Allah so they have distributed notes called notes of Hanz, it is said that this person was an agent of the British and that he links with the Shaikh - the Imaam (rahimahullaah) and that he was a product of the British, etc. And they claim that he was an agent of the British and it was the British who helped him, etc. And this as we said to them - that he was an agent of the British…, is it something unseen or something opened or witnessed? - They say: unseen. Then we say: Is it a point for action? They say: A point of belief. Then we say: Then how do you accept the witness of a kaafir about a Muslim? - whereas you do not accept the report of a Muslim man with regard to the ahaadeeth of Allah’s Messenger (s.a.w.s). And they have the principle that the Khabarul-Aahaad is not a proof in matters of Belief. So how do they depend upon the reports of non-Muslims in accusing Muslims? This is something strange.

Secondly: this thing that they say - accusing the people - this one is an agent of the British, that one is the agent of so and so - as for this which is written about the Muslims by their enemies - then it is not permissible to give credence to it:

Link:

angelo_dundee · August 18, 2003, 1:04am

I dont agree with a lot of that site-but this article I found interesting.