http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/ Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:41:01 GMT BirdBlog http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=36 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:41:01 GMT Hizbiyah http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=36 HT AQZ adopted "mutawatir ma'nawi" as daleel qati'e thabout in the mid-nineties. Here is what Nabhani classified as tawatur ahadith: "And the mutawatur ahadith (is) qati'e thabout from Nabi (Sallahu 'alayhi was-sallam), therefore it will be bnding to act upon it in everything including the sunnah which is verbal, physical or silence (meaning the silence of Rasul(saw)). And from the verbal mutawatir ahadith is His (sallahu 'alayhi was-sallam's) statement: He who lies about me intentionally shall have his seat in the hell-fire! And from the physical sunnah al-mutawatir (is) the 5 prayers, (wa 'adad), and their (number of) rakat/units, and that is relating the manner in how the prayer is performed and fasting and hajj." (Nabhani, Taqi-ud-deen, Ash-Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 3, page 76, 3rd edition) And here is what HT say about tawatur ma'nawi: "Thus, the two Rakats of the Fajr (dawn) prayer is a Shar’ai rule in terms of praying them. And the belief that they are from Allah constitutes the 'Aqeeda. So praying the two Rakats Sunnah of the Fajr is Sunnah. If one does not pray it he is not blamed. If he prays it he will get the reward like the two Rakats of the Maghrib (evening) prayer, both of which are the same in terms of the Shar’ai rule. Regarding the terms of the 'Aqeeda, belief in the two Rakats of Fajr is a definite matter, so rejecting them is disbelief (Kufr), as they have been proven by way of Mutawatir (recurrent lines of transmission)." (Nabhani, Taqi-ud-deen, Zalloum, Abdul-Qadeem, Ash-Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 1, page 192 (arabic) Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Ummah,5th edition (1997/1318). official translation of the Hizb taken from : <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nizamulislam/files/>) And we also find the following: "The mutawatir report is divided into two categories: verbal (lafzan) mutawatir like the hadith :'Whosoever intentionally lies about me, let him reserve his place in the Hellfire.' And the hadith of wiping on the leather socks, hadith of hawd (river in paradise), hadith of intercession (shafa'a) and the hadith of raising the hands (raf' al-yadayn) in prayer. And the mutawatir by meaning (ma'na) such as when the transmitters concur on a matter occurring in difference incidents such as the sunnah of the morning prayer being two rakats. It does exist. Numerous mutawatir hadiths have been reported even though the 'Ulama differ on what constitutes mutawatir according to their different views about the mutawatir report." (Nabhani, Taqi-ud-deen, Zalloum, Abdul-Qadeem, Ash-Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 1, page 337 (arabic) Beirut, Lebanon: Dar al-Ummah,5th edition (1997/1318). official translation of the Hizb taken from : <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nizamulislam/files/>) Now we also find similar point following in the book by the present amir Abu 'ata Rishta called 'tayseer al-wusool ila-l-'usul' page 74, first edition, (1990/1410) that mutawatir lafdhee and ma'nawi are good enough for establishing 'aqaa'id and ahkam! According to the latest 2 leaders, rejecting masa'il (issues) from mutawatir ma'nawi is kufr! So what about if you reject it as a source altogether? What do they say about Nabhani? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=36 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=35 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:37:16 GMT Encounters with HT http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=35 I swear by Allah my mushraf said to me that they were going to do a coup in Iraq- but the army general fell asleep!!!! I also heard of one brother from HT saying they were going to do a military coup but the army general was wearing a suit not an army uniform!! (?) Any brothers come up with any more hilarious HT stories? Its interesting to note, that in one of their supposed military coups that failed (.. again) Mr.Nabahani himself said it's because they didn't do enough sunnah- my mushraf was saying how Mr.Nabahani was also flipped out when he learned some of his shabab weren't carrying the Quran with them when giving dawah. [b]IF ONLY NABAHANI WAS ALIVE TO SEE THE STATE OF HIS PARTY NOW![/b] http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=35 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=34 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:35:43 GMT Encounters with HT http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=34 A former HT brother sent me this and wanted me to post this on his behalf. The brother said: "FAMOUS QUOTES BY A NUMBER OF HIZBIS THAT I MYSELF HEARD FROM THE MOUTH. (THERE WERE OTHERS PRESENT THERE AS WELL AND IF NEEDED, THIS CAN BE VERIFIED BY THEM) +Regarding the mujahideen in Afghanistan who were fighting against the Crusaders (Americans, and it's "allies"): BROTHER, THE MUJAHIDEEN ARE SINCERE BUT THEY ARE NOT SERIOUS. IF THEY WERE SERIOUS THEY WOULD BE WITH THE HIZB, WORKING FOR THE KHILAFAH!!!!! After this was said, there was a 2 hour discussion on WHAT IS SERIOUSNESS? ++ Regarding the existence of god and while asking a youth if he can prove God exists: BROTHER, IS THE GRASS REALLY GREEN???? BROTHER, IS THE SKY REALLY BLUE???? +++ Regarding the coming back of Isa (PBUH) and Imam Mehdi WE CANNOT SAY FOR SURE IF ISA (PBUH) WILL BE COMING BACK!!!! ++++ Regarding Hizb as a group working to bring khilafah: BROTHER, WE ARE THE ONLY GROUP IN THE WHOLE WORLD THAT IS WORKING TO BRING THE KHILAFAH. +++++ Regarding cancelling their weekly "sessions" once, they gave this excuse to a "Shab": WE HAD TO TAKE OUR WIVES TO GREAT AMERICA BECAUSE THEY WERE BORED IN THE HOUSE ALL THE TIME. ++++++ Regarding the Pakistani army and the Hizb: MORE THAN HALF OF THE PAKISTANI GENERALS ARE TAKING "SECRET SESSIONS" WITH THE HIZB!" http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=34 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=33 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:34:28 GMT Encounters with HT http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=33 As-salamu alaykum. When I was with HT, Salim Fredericks (one of the original UK members, now with HT for about 20 years) told me that he used to live with some Tahriris who used to chew Khat (an amphetamine-like drug "okayed" by the Party). They used to get intoxicated all the time and would miss their salah especially fajr because they were high on Khat all night! They probably ended up being slung out of the party...not for using Khat or missing salah...but because they probably missed their weekly private halaqah with an HT member (compulsory for all Hizbis)! http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=33 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=32 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:31:39 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=32 (32kb pdf) http://www.inside-ht.com/backup/ht_articles/errors/HIZB.pdf http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=32 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=31 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:31:00 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=31 (74kb pdf) http://www.inside-ht.com/backup/ht_articles/errors/HTdrug_scandal.pdf http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=31 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=30 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:30:19 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=30 "…We also unequivocally condemn those who are urging violent protests or inciting hatred against others." Dr Imran Waheed, Hizb ut-Tahrir Despite being physically and verbally attacked by the enemies of Allah, the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) remained vigilant, stood firm upon his belief and was never willing to compromise the message of Islam in order to please the Kuffaar. What the Prophet (SAW) was offered by the disbelievers from the Quraysh cannot be compared to that which the moderate 'Muslims' in this day and age have been given in order to compromise their religion and not speak against the atrocities committed against the true followers of Islam. The Prophet (SAW) was offered authority, women and immense wealth – things which the moderate 'Muslims' would dream of having – yet he rejected these proposals since the disbelievers wanted him to abandon his call and stop exposing their way of life and system of governance. In comparison, it is incredibly surprising to see many moderate groups in the UK, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, MPAC, MCB, ISB, MAB, IFE and so forth, selling-out their religion and condemning their fellow Muslim brethren in hope of receiving praise and gratitude from the non-Muslims. It has been narrated in the books of Seerah (biographies of the Prophet) that a delegation from the tribe of Quraysh went to visit Abu Taalib, the uncle of the Prophet (SAW), and said to him, “Oh Abu Taalib! Your nephew curses our idols. He insults our gods. He ridicules our deen [ideology] and our aspirations. He also claims that our fathers and mothers were misguided. Either stop him [yourself] or cease your protection of him so that we can deal with him ourselves. You are on the same deen [ideology, religion and way of life] as us and you disagree with him the same way we differ with him. If you want us to deal with him, we can deal with him.” Abu Taalib then went to the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and said: “Oh my nephew! My people have come to see me. They are greatly hurt by the ridicule you level at their idols and religion and they asked me to speak with you. If you stop doing these insults, but stay with what you believe [i.e. remain a Muslim but do not attack the way of life of the Quraysh] there will be no problem.” The Prophet (SAW) replied in full confidence, “Oh my uncle! If they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand in order to leave what I am calling them to, I will never do so until Allah’s Deen [i.e. Islam] becomes prevalent or I die for it.” So the Messenger Muhammad (SAW), unlike the two-faced moderates, rejected all offers from the disbelievers and continued to criticise and wage war against the customs, values and standards of the disbelievers. Consequently, he was labelled as an extremist, lunatic, fanatic, preacher of hate and advocator of violence. What would secular hypocritical groups make of such a man if he were alive today? How would they describe a man who used to say, 'Kill the one who insults a Prophet', 'Oh people of Quraysh I have come to slaughter you' and 'Kill the one who changes his religion'? Beyond doubt, they would condemn him and his Companions, distance themselves from their 'provocative' sayings (or placards) and say, "We unequivocally condemn those who are urging violent protests or inciting hatred against others." Did the Prophet (SAW) ever say, 'Demand an apology from the one who insults a Prophet'? Certainly not. So why are there so many ignorant individuals asking for an official apology from the Danish cartoonists? Is the moderate group Hizb ut-Tahrir willing to say anything and condemn their Muslim brothers in order to prove to the Kuffaar that they are not extremists? Do they love their group more than Allah (SWT) and His Prophet (SAW)? How would they, and their ignoramus representatives Taji Mustafa and Dr Imran Waheed, have reacted if their founder Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani was insulted and depicting similarly to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? Indeed, they showed more support when Farhad Usmanov was killed – this was probably due to him being a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, whereas the Messenger Muhammad (SAW) was not and would not have been, had such a moderate group existed in his time. Unfortunately, we have 'children' in this Ummah (Muslim nation) who do not know how to make wudoo' (ablution) properly yet they come out publicly and defame other Muslims. Instead of giving their walaa' (allegiance and support) to the Muslims, they choose to vilify them more than the disbelievers and those who satirised the Prophet of God (SAW). And for what reason do they betray Allah, His Messenger and the Believers – so that they do not become a proscribed group in the UK? So that they are not given the same titles as the Prophet and labelled as extremists, fanatics, lunatics, terrorists and fundamentalists? It is about time that the Moderates learn that no matter how much they compromise their religion the disbelievers will never be pleased with them until they become Kaafir like them. A prime example of this would be the case of Omar Khayam, a protestor who dressed as a 'suicide bomber' on last Saturday's demonstration organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir. After apologising for his actions of defending the honour of Rasoolullah (SAW) and declaring them to be more severe than reviling a Prophet of God, the disbelievers began to character assassinate him and scrutinise his past. After all his apologies he was still arrested and put behind bars. (May Allah release him from captivity, for he is still a Muslim). The greatest of men, Companions, Prophets and Messengers were attacked, vilified, ridiculed, imprisoned, killed, tortured, banished and criticised. It is only the scholars of truth and sincere Muslims who will face the same consequences since they, like the Prophets of God, are reluctant to merge haq (truth) with baatil (falsehood) and compromise their belief and way of life. Where are the deviant Barelwis who march in their thousands in order to celebrate Milad un-Nabi (the birth of the Prophet)? They claim to love Rasoolullah yet they were not seen defending his honour and the sanctity of Muslims. If they really loved him (SAW) we would have seen them condemning the enemies of Allah and supporting those who defend the honour of our Prophet Muhammad (SAW). The whole world has seen who truly follows and aspires to be like the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions. It is certainly not the moderate hypocrites. [i]From http://www.thesavedsect.com/articles/CurrentAffairs/HTFearAllah.htm (accessed 27/2/06)[/i] http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=30 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=29 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:28:47 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=29 There will always fight between truth and falsehood. Allaah has sent people who will spend lives/efforts to defend his Deen (the Quran and Sunnah). There are others who claim that they are reformers. And when it is said to them do not do mischief upon the earth they say: But we are reformers. But verily they are the mischief makers yet they do not realise (Baqarah) They are the dangerous people since they think they are reforming but in reality they are destroying. In the 20th century - end of Uthmaani empire - many groups/cults/organisations that considered that entering the political or taking the political way is the best way to retain the Islamic dignity. They ignored that the laxity of the ummah was the real reason of losing that dignity. These groups were based on emphasism and emotionalism - not on knowledge. They did not seek knowledge, their behaviour was chaotic and it resulted in chaos. The work of da'wah was put aside till the political situation improved - they say put it on the shelf till our political situation improves - but there are many millions of people waiting for the truth. So their priority was to return the khilaafah. Until then they way, we should suspend everything - nothing can be done till it returns. As for the kuffar - let them go to hell - they say, why because we should get our lands back from them. Actuallly, many enemies of Islam became leaders of Islam - this should not be forgotten by us. The Kuffar realise this point hence they support the Christian missionaries - since they open ways/avenues in Muslim communities. Therefore we should do the same amongst them. They deserve to become Muslims and enter Paradise. However our politicians (i.e. the likes of HT) do not give this a consideration. These people talk about the conspiracy - the cultural invasion - how we are getting attacked by books, schools etc. However there was also an invasion that took place in this ummah many centuries before - Sufism and Ilm ul-Kalaam - these things hijacked the religion and had influenced the deviance and now people are getting taught these things in 'Islamic Schools' getting degrees etc! So the invasion they talk about is not the only one - but we should know about this one as well! Another thing is we need to understand and look for the reasons for our downfall There must be a reason(s) As Allaah said: why did it happened. These people will say there is nothing wrong with you - it is the kuffar they are responsible for it - but they ignore the law of Allaah, if we disobey Allaah's law then he has a law also to punish us. Among such groups is Hizb ut-Tahrir - have certain signs - always talk about issues of khilaafah, adhaabul-qabr and issue of Ahad hadeeth. This is how to recognise them - they are taught that these are priorities - they say that if you do not work for the khilaafah that you are a mushrik - don't they say this [yes] - because you are not working for the khilaafah! Then what about the lifetime of the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) in Makkah were they not Mushriks then? So people do not know when they argue with HT that the establisher of HT was a maatureedee/ash'aree in aqeedah and he used to consider ash'arees maatureedees as People of Tawheed (ASJ) This is the issue we should pick with them. It is not just ahad hadeeth, adhaabul qabr and khilaafah, they have much more deviance than this - such as the use of Ilm ul-Kalaam - all the leaders of the ASJ have rejected Ilm ul-Kalaam (Abu Haneefah Ash-Shafi'ee they charged those who follow it with Ahl ul-Bid'ah they should be beaten, punished exiled put in jail etc..) The establisher was Taqi ud-Deen an-Nabahaanee (may Allah forgive him). The issue here is to correct ourselves. We are calling for correction. Only those who look for correction will listen but the fanatics will not. This man established HT, he was the grandson of Yoosuf bin ismaeel an-Nabahaanee who was one of the most excessive people into Sufism he had many books one is Jaami Karaamaat al-Awliyaah includes many funny statements one is on Ali al Amali - if you read some stories that will make you laugh and cry. They say about him - Mujtahid Mutlaq. Didn't you hear that? [Yes] and what do they say about the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) (may Peace Be Upon Him)? That he should not make ijtihaad Didn't you hear that? He should not make ijtihaad. So who is more perfect than the other, the one who is capable of ijtihaad or the one who is not?? What about the scholars of his time, did they consider him to be mujtahid mutlaq, or even mujtahid? He was unknown!! He was nobody. So how can a claim be made. Do you think you will not be found out? Allaah is preserving his religion and those who lie will be caught out and exposed. A thief - what about those who offer bid'ah to the people and say it is sunnah wont they get caught? Allaah will catch them out. He had many books and was born in Ijzim in Palestine in 1909 and he went to al-Azhar university where he graduated then he went to Lebanon then Jordan and he worked in the Islamic college as a teacher until he finally dedicated himself to HT. He died in 1977 and had many books such as Risaalutul Arab - has tendencies of nationalism - shows his nationalist concepts etc. Whether he renounced that we don't know since he did not make this clear in his later books (this is one of the first books that he wrote). His aqeedah was Maatureedee (more so than Ash'aree) and used to call their leaders Ulamaa ut-Tawheed - that they were Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah. One of the things that he wrote - in imitation of ar-Raazee (one of the people of Ilm ul-Kalaam) he said that we cannot accept the Quran until it agrees with ten of our conditions - and he used the same phrase of ar-Raazee - one of which is that it should agree with our aql. He also says in his book ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islaamiyyah (3/132) - this is regarding being maatureedee and ash'aree since he made ta'weel of certain sifaat such as Hand = power but we find in Sharh of Fiqhul Akbar of Abu Haneefah (p. 33) - that it should not be said that hand means power and likewise we find in Tabyeen Khadhibul Muftaree (p.150) the saying of al-Ash'aree himself who says likewise that is should not be said that hand means power (i.e. metaphorically) because this is the saying of al-Mu'tazilah - who are the most deviant cult. If we go go to the book Sharh Usool ul-Khamsah of the Mu'tazilah (p.228) we find that one of the big leaders al-Qaadee Abdul-Jabbaar who said that the way of Ahl us-Sunnah is to believe that the hand of Allaah means power. Regarding the imitation of what ar-Raazee said look at the book ash-Shakhsiyah al-Islaamiyyah (3/158) So the issue here is that we should not first talk about khilaafah, khabrul-ahad and adhaabul-qabr, let us talk about the ta'weel. Tahaawee said the best ta'weel is to abandon ta'weel and to submit to the texts and he said wa alaihi jamaa'atul-Muslimeen so how can they be ASJ when they oppose this saying of at-Tahaaweee. So there are many other deviant things. We know also that they say the khilaafah should be re-established in minimum of 13 and maximum of 25 years. If they don't then they are failures. There is also a certain form of behaving of ASJ and you can know them by their behaviour and this is by the practice of the sunnah externally and internally. ASJ do not say when considering da'wah - This is not the time for that now! Must not forget the da'wah since this is why we have been created - since with that people worship Allaah. They make this big mistake when they say that the Khilafah collapsed in 1924 this century. This is wrong. In fact it finished a long time ago. And this Uthmaani kingship of empire was not a khilaafah. They themselves called themselves kings - sultans - sultaan Abdul Hameed sultan Abdul Majeed so this was not khilaafah this was a kingship. So you do not see the traces of the Sunnah in them, even if you ask them why do we not see sunnah upon you - most of them are clean shaven - they say the most important thing now is to work for the khilaafah. They say it is qushoor (qishrah) that this is just a matter of skin. This is something we should throw away. So they consider these acts of sunnah like the skin that can be thrown away. So what is the Sunnah that they are calling us to. When they mention the texts they cast doubts and say 'definitive text' 'definitive meaning' etc... so they confuse the people with this. Likewise they talk about a lot of theories, political theories, they memorise many theories but they cannot memorise ten hadeeth or chapters from the Quran. So they doubt the sunnah. And one of them said: "every single text in the Q&S is differed about amongst the scholars". Haven't you heard that? [yes] Every text!! And I heard myself by one of their leaders and Umar Bakree is one of them - but I heard one of them in a tape called Munaaqasha Afraaq ul-Mu'tazilah - when one of them faced Shaikh al-Albaanee - when he mentioned that statement to the Shaikh - the Shaikh, he quoted 'Afillaahi Shakk?' so when this verse was quoted he began to change the topic. The hasty nature of this sect causes them to perish quickly because they have no patience or wisdom, they do not consider the stages of the Prophets mission from its beginning to its end. They take the last stage first!! What happens when you ask for the last stage to come first. What happens?? You sell out. You compromise and co-operate with those you are not allowed to - such as with Shites for example etc. So it was better for them to start from the beginning - to be more wise - than to be more wise and to make treaties with those whom Allaah hates. So in the book 'al-Khilaafah' (p. 158) they say we should obtain the khilaafah in no less than 13 years. And then this Hizb - it was designed by Allaah of course - it came here to Britain and they caused much fitnah so they described Islam to people here and caused fitnah in the universities etc... So they gave Kuffar the chance to close mosques, cancel gatherings etc... So what are the demands of this group. They do not demand doctrinal requirements. So they say 'Wa maa halaqtul-jinna wal-insa illaa lil-Khilaafah' and 'Innallaah laa yaghfiry an tazool ul-Khilaafah). It is as if Allaah is saying that but he actually said: li ya'budoon we need to teach and call people before it is too late. If a kaafir comes what is better to gain him or to lose him? To those it is better to lose him. The priorities of the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) (may Peace Be Upon Him) was to gain even just one person, to save the people from Hellfire and more into Paradise. So da'wah for them is postponed until khilaafah comes. One of the greatest truths about the absence of the aqeedah among these people is that they hasten themselves to Iran and they called who to be the khalifah? Do you know who? [khomeini] They called Khomeini to be the khilaafah. Here it is in their newspaper - this is their newpaper al-khilaafah No. 18, Friday, 2nd of January 1410H in this magazine article we open the next page we find 'Hizbut-Tahree wal-Imaam Khomeini' and in this edition they admitted we went to Iran and we invited Khomeini to be the khalifah of the ummah. So is the ummah that they want us to work for and if we do not we are mushrik? Who is the khalifah - khomeini. In this edition of their magazine al-Wa'ee the best political work that khomeini has ever done is to write his book 'al-Hukoomut al-Islaamiyyah' The Islamic State - that is the best work al-Khomeini ever did because he called for the state and established the state so he did what he said - meant what he said - and he called not to the west nor to the east but to Islam and he shaped the whole world within 2 decades and he gave the light of hope to the Muslims who were about to despair and then they said and this does not mean that khomeini has no mistakes but there is not time for that! But of course there is time for others! To knok their heads and to call them Mushriks! They confess also in their book and they said that we went to Khomeini and we appealed him to accept to be the khalifah and he promised inshaa'allaah I will give you the response, in this book they say we have been waiting for his response but we had no response. That is why they are criticising the Iranian Law now. So they said that they called him to rule the khilaafah with the Book and the Sunnah!!! Does khomeini accept the Book and the Sunnah. Are they joking. Why don't they call Clinton and ask him the same.!! They are praising his book 'Hukoomut al-islaamiyyah' he is cursing Abu Bakr Umar, Mu'aawiyyah etc.. .He curses the prophets brother in law, so this does not matter now? He also says that our imaams have reached the highest stage that no prophet nor angel can achieve. (p.52) so how can he establish a state with that claim, that those imaams are better than all prophets and angels? So that does not matter to them. HT do not work at those reasons which caused the downfall of the Ummah (as we mentioned before there are certain reasons). They are going against Allaah's law (Innallaaha laa yughayyiru). They want to change things but they do not want the people to change.! They do not tell people that we lost because of your disobedience. That you are not submissive any more you do not represent the meaning of the name on your shoulders any more it is you who caused the loss of the ummah. Your sins, they don't say this they say the conspiracy of our enemies, they don't focus on the transgressions of the people of the Ummah it is always the enemies. But we have to ask the question why did Allaah who has promised us dignity, victory why did He allow them to destroy us? They will never answer this. They want us to jump from the first stage (tarbiyah - nurtuting/educating upon proper knowledge/aqeedah) to stage of khilafah but they will fail; since the first stage the companions went through tarbiyah - since to carry Islam on you shoulders requires a lot of patience etc... but the closest thing for them is to work for khilaafah and do not talk about anything else, sin transgression etc... Allaah said (in tasbiroo wa tattiqoo ...) if you have patience and fear Allaah their plan can not cause you the least harm!! So why are we harmed then, what happened to the promise of Allaah then? (24:55) this promise of Allaah what happened to it then? Ya'budoonanee al laa yushrikoona bi Shai'aa - two conditions here - so they were about to enable one mushrik - khomeini - to be the khalifah!! The one who says: Yaa Alee etc...are these peopl worshipping Allaah alone? But these things are not important to them, the most important thing to them is the khilaafah etc... you don't apply Tawheed, any shirk it doesn't matter, khilaafah is most important. Either they do not know the law or they are ignoring the law of Allaah. So we have to learn how to learn these hearts to the Creator. Ibn Abbas said: Allaahumma maa nazala balaa'an illaa bizanbin - and it was not ascended but by repentance - this saying of Ibn Abaas represents the law of Allaah and HT's law does not represent the law of Allaah. They don't mind talking about Imperialism, America the greatest satan in the world, we are not saying don't say that but we say stop using these emotional things and start to teach the people what they need to know about first. But if the Americans are the greatest satans then why did you say that we are allowed to seek help from these satans. Why did you say that talabatun-Nasrah is allowed it is one of our principles we ask the kuffar to help us to do what? Establish the khilaafah, will shaytan help you with that??? You are the ones who say what about that one who allowed a peace treaty with those satans and this one and that one - yet you, you say your are free from all of that - why do you say: It is one of our principles to seek support from thekuffar to help us to establish the khilaafah. So in 1978 they asked Qaddaafi - we want you to help us to establish khilaafah. The victory in support of this ummah is different to the victory the other nations achieved. French defeated Germans, Germans defeated the English, they have their own system but we have the Law of Allaah, victory is linked to submission, obedience, surrender to its Lord and these are the factors of victory, this is the promise of Allaah, Allaah will never break His promise but this promise has conditions. Not like these people one of them is showing his thigh and another he doesn't pray, he says it doesn't matter he says laa ilaaha illallaaha, OK we say you are with us, even if you don't pray. And we know some people from HT in Jordan and other countries, they do not pray, but they say since those people are shouting for khilaafah its OK we can work with them and they claim that they know best about the political issues. One of their professions and knowledge of political issues is that they shouted for Saddam Hussain the one who massacred thousands of Muslims and who committed a lot of atrocities, they said Subhaanallaah, he is fighting the greatest Shaytaan so they were with him and so did other cults. We now mention some of their fatwas. Qadaa wal-Qadr, they say these two were never mentioned in the QS (ad-Doosiyah p.18). However, the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) (may Peace Be Upon Him) said: Aktharoo man yamoot... Most of those who die of my nation after the book of Alaah and the qadaa wal-Qadr of Alaah is by al-anfus (death of the soul) - Al-Haythami Majmoo az-Zawaa'id (5/6) Ibn Hajr authenticated it in FB (10/167). HT put its initial HT Islam built its doctrine based upon aql - the intellect - they said the aqeedah of islam is a mental doctrine (aql) and a political doctrine (siyaasee) (al-Eemaan p.68 and Hizbut-Tahreer p.6) so the aql of these people is the basis of the religion so we know Allaah by our Aql. But in contradiction to that is what Umar al-Bakree said that separation amongst Muslims was when they used aql in matters of aqeedah (Tafseer of al-Maidah 5/29) and they mention that nations do not arise by good morality but by doctrines and thoughts - and by the methodology that the carrie/practice (A-taqattul al-hizbeep.18) and it says that da'wah for good morality does not correct tehsociety and does not arise the nation but the arising of the soceity takes place by the correction of thoughts and ideas not by calling to good morals (manhaj hizbut-tahreer fit-Taghyeer p.26-27). We say in both!! In morality and in thought (i.e. aqeedah) and Islam calls for both. Taqi ud-Deen denied that there are no emotional ties to the soul- no spiritual ties. He said - no ashwaaq roohiyyah fil-Islaam - that is why we see that HT does not have softness and good behaviour with the people - they say their are no spiritual effects in the soul. He said in Nidhaam al-Islaam p.61 and al-Fikr al-Islaamee al-Mu'aasir p.202, he said - look at the surprise - those who say that the woman as all is awrah this is a collapse, a destruction of morality - i.e the need to cover all etc.. is a destruction - since it must be, he says, that the man and woman must meet together to have commercial exchange. - this is what he says - he says this in his book an-Nidhaam ul-Ijtimaa' fil-Islam p.10 and p.128 - to shake hands with women is not a destruction in morality - but to say a woman should be covered is destruction of morality. They say that HT is a political gathering a political group - but it is not a group of works - the whole workof the group is political - this is what they say, its work is not educational, and nor is it admonition and guidance, it is only a political work (manhaj hizbut-tahree fit-taghyeer p.28 and 31 and also hizbut-tahreer p.25) Did you hear that - this is what they claim - they said we are allowed to establish our group by Allaah since Allaah said: Let their be an ummah arise from you enjoining good.... This is the proof that they use but they say that their work is totally political work!!! So this political work has become aqeedah to them and this is why they bargain with Ahl -ul Bid'ah the Shites and also the Jews. So when this issue became the doctrine (political) nothing was wrong with dealing with the shites. They said in al-Wa'ee (Magazine) no. 75 p.23 (1993) they said: There is no difference between Shaafi'ee and Hanafee - which is wrong in terms of variations in terms of rulings - any way .. and Ja'afaree (that means Shi'ee) and Zaidee.. and they said And what is happening of arising or reviving between the Sunni and Shi'ee that very mean individuals are behind this and we should fight this since there are no difference and those who do that they should be fought. And these people (HT) know what these shites say about Aa'ishah and the companions etc.. they hear it in Hyde Park and still they say there is no difference between Shi'ee and Sunnee. The Shites curse the companions saying they have changed the quran, abusing the wives of the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) the Mother of the Believers, this to them is a small thing! Why? Compared to the greatest thing, what is the greatest thing? The issue of khilaafah. To curse the Companions, the Prophets Wives, accuse the Companions of changing the Quran all of these are small things when compared to the great issue, what is that? The issue of khilaafah. That is why when this issue became aqeedah they said that the best book we have ever read is Hukoomatul-Islaamiyyah of khomeini because it agrees with their aqeedah, yes to establish a shi'ee state to fight the sunnis is a matter of aqeedah for them (the Shites) but they (HT) do not know that, or choose to ignore it. So they found in Kum, where khomeini used to live, they found that in Kum the khilaafah may be established. So as we said, they say Allaah allowed us to establish a party. The verse they quote: You are the best nation.... But look at what they say: Innal-Amra bil Ma'roof wan-Nahi anil-Munkar laisa huwat-Tareeq ilaa iqaamatil-khilaafati wa I'aadatil-Islam !!! So if this is not the way, why then do you quote the verse then (they said this in manhaj HT fit-Taghyeer p.21) and what they say, (i.e. the verse) was also quoted by Bakri in his tafseer of Maa'idah volume 2/counter 233. They say our work is totally political notenjoining good and forbid evil. But we must ask did not the Salaf hear this verse before, so did they establish groups themselves, did they have this understanding. No this is destruction of the verse not understanding the verse. We also know in addition that HT is not the only group, their is Ikhwaan, they will say we are allowed to form a group and they will quote the same verse. We have to know that they are causing disunity between the Ummah, yesterday they create a group then they divide and form a new group and have dislike for the other group. So was this understanding absent to the salaf whereas you are making new groups with your understanding. The Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) said if two khalifahs were given bai'ah then the second should be killed. But they say that this is ahad hadeeth. But who told them that the companions did not used to take the ahad hadeeth. We have been saying this to them for years - give us one saying from the Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him), the companions, taabi'een etc... that we should not take aqeedah from ahad, they say it is haram to take it in aqeedah and haram to leave it in ahkaam!!! Is this not a contradiction?? The important question that should arise - the verse they arise - waltakum ummatun.... What if it is said waltakum min Hizbut-Tahreer - now we say did an ummah exist before the existent of Taqi ud-Deen an-Nabahaanee? Of course it did from the time of the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) (may Peace Be Upon Him) so why the need for him and HT, Why is it OK to form a new party within Islam within the Ummah when it is not allowed to form a new party within HT?? And it is amazing that these people (hizbee people) who call for dispersal, they are the ones who cry for the unity - they are the ones who divide!!! They should notbe allowed to do this - go and curse your hizbiyyah then you can call for unity. Another thing is that those who claim that they will apply the verse - you enjoin the good and forbid the evil - do they actually look like those who will do this - externally - No they are the ones who need it themselves!!! The one who does not have something cannot give it. If I dont have money I cant give it - if they don't have the sunnah they can't give it. All the whole world to them is Daarul-Kufr. They say there is no place of Islam today. Because everything is a place of Kufr. Don't they say this?? Do you disagree? I have read this in their papers in their books - they said "the Muslim lands all of them are daarul-kufr - even if its people are Muslims" (Hizbut-Tahreer p.32 &103). So they did not exclude Makkah and Medinah! Do they say that to you - except Makkah and Medinah - I'll give you my personal experience - one of them said to me - all of them except Makkah and Madinah - they also say every single society all of it is non-Muslim society and the places of Islam they live in is not Darul-Islam (Ad-Dawlatul-Islaamiyyah p.55 - Meethaaqul-Ummah p.14 - Manhaj HT fit-Taghyeer p.10-11 & 34 and Meethaqul Ummah p.44) in all of these references that all places are daarul-kufr and all the societies are darul-kufr. That means that there is no Muslims!!! One of our brothers has been asking one of their leaders - is their any daarul-Islam today. He said No! He said but I want to do Hijrah!! He said it is not possible. So where is the place of hijrah then? Makkah and Medinah are not places of Islam? Do you go to London? There is a fatwa they give (Jawaab wa Suaal 24 Rabee al-Awwal 1390 and also 8 Muharram 1390) they mention in these two places that it is allowed for the foreign women to be kissed. And I swear that they argued with one of the brothers who recently became Muslim that they allowed it to him. He said that they said to him it is allowed for him to see a picture of a naked woman, they said 'its only a paper'. They said its a picture its not a woman - so I told that brother to go and give them a picture of their sister - its only a picture its not your sister. So they say that a woman is allowed to shake hands with a woman - when it comes to giving the pledge of allegiance it is OK for the woman to shake hands for this purpose - there is difference in this between a man and a woman (al-Khilaafah p.32) - The references that I am mentioning to you I have seen them and I have them at my home. And regarding what Aa'ishah said - "No By Allaah - The Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) of Allaah (may Peace Be Upon Him) never touched the hand of a woman." And they say no she is wrong? I heard this myself from Umar Bakree personally and I have this recording - he said Aa'ishah is wrong - she was wrong in saying that!! So who is right then - did you live with Prophet (may Peace Be Upon Him) - how can you say that. This hadeeth is in Bukhaaree!! So they reject this by what has been narrated by Umm Atiyyah that the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) (may Peace Be Upon Him) was given a piece of cloth and a woman gave her her hand - but this is Mursal - that means it is da'eef - mentioned by an-Nawawi (1/30) and likewise Ibn Hajr (8/636) said - Aishah said that as an answer to what had been narrated by Umm Atiyaah that the Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) took a piece of cloth to shake hands. And it is not sufficient for them the saying of Allaah's Messenger (may Peace Be Upon Him) - "I do not shake hands with women"? (Ibn Hibban, 14 Tirmidhee 1597 Nasaa'ee 7/149 Ibn Maajah 2874) so this is not enough for them (narrated by Umaimah). What I say to one woman is what I say to a hundred women and he said 'My shaking hands with you is my word (i.e. it is my covenant) - he also said: "It is better for a man to be hit with a needle in his head than giving his hand to a foreign woman" (Al-Bayhaqee - saheeh - silsilah of albaanee no.226) In spite of all of that they say that it is allowed!! So we say to them what they always say to the Rulers - uhkimoo bimaa anzalallaahu - Judge/Rule by what Allaah has revealed. And we say the same thing to them: The law of Allaah is not to shake the hand of the foreign women, if you do not rule by this Allaah will not make you establish the rule of Allaah. And this means we have to be more submissive and obedient. If we ourselves do not submit to the law of Allaah how then how can call others to it. How can we gain superiority and leadership. An-Nawawi said: "When it is to look it is haram to touch (Sharh il-Minjaaj 6/195)... The first tape ends here... From http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/misguided/Hizbut-Tahrir.htm (accessed 27/2/06) http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=29 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=28 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:27:16 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=28 Regarding HT - It is a party founded by Taqiyyud-deen an-Nabhaanee. As for this party - then we have a number of observation s to make about it: 1. That they do not accept "Khabarul-Aahaad" in 'Aqeedah and this has caused them to separate from Ahlus-Sunnah in 'Aqeedah since accepting the ahaadeeth is an important principle - so they do not accept the Messengers (sas) sayings in points of 'Aqeedah. So they do not believe for example, in the punishment in the grave, they do not believe in the Dajjal and they do not believe in the descent of the Messiah - and they do not believe in many things which are mentioned in Hadeeth. And this is of course, something futile since authentic ahad 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 Hadeeth which fulfil 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 Allah to make of benefit to the Muslims. 2. This party accuses Ahlus-Sunnah of being Jabariyyah as they plainly state in their book "ad-Doosiyyah" so they say with regards to the matter of Qadaa and Qadr: "...so if we look to Ahlus-Sunnah - 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-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah affirm what Allah has affirmed and deny what Allah has denied. they affirm that the servant has free-will - except that it is not but by the will of Allah - the most Perfect and free from defects, and the Most high, and there are great proofs of this - and we have mentioned some of them in out reply to them in out book: "al-Jamaa'aatul-Islaamiyyah." 3. Also this party has various peculiar opinions - so for example they allow nude photographs, they allow one to look at photographs and this contains great danger due to a Sharee'ah point then it is the Prophet's (sas) saying: "let not a woman describe another woman to her husband - as if he were looking at her." So his (sas) saying: "...as if he were looking at her" - he is not actually looking at her, but a description of her is brought into his mind so the forbiddance is from this imaginary picture - so how is it then if the picture is physically in front of one looking at it?! - Showing her attractions and her body - indeed revealing her 'awrah - is this not even more forbidden? Secondly, this picture even if it does not move or feel - yet it is a real picture - and nudity is something haraam - so how can we allow looking at this thing which is haraam? Further, looking at this picture incites the animal instincts in a person and the 'shaytaanic tendencies' - so that which leads to haraam is itself haraam. Indeed the matter has gone beyond bounds with them - to the extent that they allow kissing a (strange) woman, and this is something dangerous. 4. What is more dangerous is that they have turned all their attention to accusing the rulers. 'this one is an American (stooge), this one is a British (stooge)' - as if there were no-one else in the worlds except America and Britain and as if it were America and Britain who were running the affairs of creation. And this causes people to turn away from the correct understanding of their Deen and away from Allah's way of changing the affairs. They think that if they change the ruler they will attain what they desire - and this is contrary to the natural way laid down by Allah with regard to changes which come bout amongst the creation: 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 he people did not support it, but rather opposed it. And for Allah's laws to be enforced 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 HT - 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 - which the person has to stick to the opinion of his Imam 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 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 Imam? Or if his Imam, for example, holds the saying that the Qur’aan is created - as happened to Imam 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 HT - and HT do not follow Islam but only support the idea of Islam 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 Khaleefah has been established - and of course this is contrary to the laws of Allah - Subahana wa ta’ala - 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 Hadeeth 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 ahad. ANSWER: Of course they do not believe in the 'Mutawaatri al-Ma'nawee' (the Hadeeth whose meaning is mutawaatir) - the mutawaatir in the science of Hadeeth is of two categories: (i) Mutawatirul-Lafzee (whose wording is mutawaatir) - such as the Hadeeth: "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 Hadeeth about the descent of 'Eesaa - 'alayhi salaam - many Hadeeth but not with a single meaning - rather they agree on a single fact - the descent of 'Eesaa, the coming of Dajjal, the coming of the Mahdee - 'alayhi salaam - all of these are to them ahad - 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 Mutawatirul-Ma'nawee. therefore all the Sunnah to them is ahad except a small part - but is we ask the: "What is mutawaatir from it?" - Then they cannot answer - so this saying: "we affirm it but do not believe it" is a contradictory saying - not possible as the poet says: "The worst of impossible things is to bring two opposites at one time," such as to say "it is night and day" at one time - that is not possible. "This living and dead", "You affirm and you do not believe." Whereas belief (I'tiqaad) is affirmation (tasdeeq) with certainty, as they say: "Belief (I'tiqaad) is affirmation with certainty which is according to the true state of affairs - upon proof and clear signs." So how can you say that you affirm - but then say you are not definite - so this is not affirmation rather it is doubt and uncertainty. They try to use as evidence for this - which 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 (i.e. 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’ala 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 (sas) which fulfils 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 fulfilment 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’ala 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’ala 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 Islam in his life. He supports the ideal of Islam. Islam to him is an ideal to call for. But what is required is the following of Islam 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 HT. Firstly: HT invent lies against Allah so that 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 Shaykh - the Imam (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 (sas). And they have the principle that he 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: If a wicked person comes to you with any news ascertain the truth. [Hujurat 49:6] Where is this proof and verification? There is no proof and no verification. Further: The treaty between the Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab (rahimahullaah) - and Aal Sa'ood was a treaty for furthering the cause of Islam. And as if known the Deen has to have someone to carry it - so Allah's Messenger (sas) asked the Ansaar to carry and protect it just as they would their families and wealth. But here (i.e. the case of Aal Sa'ood) something wrong occurred in that they (i.e. Aal Sa'ood) made the condition that leadership would be theirs - and this is not permissible, however the agreement in principle is correct even though it is not permissible to make it a part of the agreement that you will take the leadership since the Messenger (sas) refused the offer of Banoo 'Aamir to help him against the Kaafirs upon the condition that leadership would be theirs after him (sas). So we say that this matter was not for booty or worldly gain - but for aiding the Deen of Islam and this is what happened in the beginning - they established Allah's Deen in the area and purified it from the shirk present, and that good does not cease to be present even today even if, of course, the latter generations have gone against the way of the predecessors. QUESTION: What do you say concerning their saying that Kingship is forbidden? ANSWER: I say this is, of course, something wrong - that rule belongs to a person whereas Kingship is in the Hand of Allah - He gives it to whomever He pleases. However the alliance in principle was allowed - since it was for aiding the Deen of Allah and establishment of the Sharee'ah. And of course they (HT) allow this, indeed the start if the state with them comes about through seeking aid from sources of strength and heads of tribes, heads of state, etc. - in order to bring about revolution to remove the wicked. QUESTION: What about the saying that the office of Kingship itself is something that is not allowed - Is it not possible to rebut this with the fact, for example, that Daawood was... ANSWER: No - that is a fact - it is not permissible to have inherited Kings in Islam - rather the Khaleefah is chosen from those fitting for the position and he is given oath of allegiance - inherited Kingship is not allowed and Kingship is not Islamic. QUESTION: We say that hereditary Kingship is haraam? ANSWER: Yes QUESTION: It is quoted, I think at the start of 'al 'Aqeedatul-Waasitiyyah' or 'Aqeedatul-Tahaawiyyah' , I am not sure - that Allah ta’ala - offered to the Prophet (sas) that he be a Prophet, a king or a servant and Messenger - so if tit is not correct to be king then....? ANSWER: This does not contain anything about it being hereditary Kingship but one of the things that go along with Kingship in practice in that it is inherited and then passed on. That is the essential thing present in any Kingship in the world is that the son inherits from the father. QUESTION: Then how or why did Allah - Subahana wa ta’ala - offer this to Allah's Messenger (sas)? ANSWER: He, ta’ala offered that he be King - i.e. he himself - but not that Kingship would remain amongst his offspring - Do you understand? That was not a part of it, and of course he (sas) said "I choose to be servant and Messenger", and the Khaleefah's came after Allah's Messenger (sas) - being chosen by the responsible and righteous offspring - the people of the Soorah - so this was the Prophetic Khaleefah. QUESTION: Some of HT accuse Shaykh Naasirul-Deen al-Albaanee of not knowing the Arabic language well. ANSWER: This is a false slander without a doubt! Since Shaykh Naasir, may Allah protect him, gained Knowledge of Hadeeth and spent his whole life with Hadeeth - which is the essence of 'Arabic - and since we have lived with the Shaykh for many years and he is Arabic of tongue and they are non-Arabs - even if he is Albanian - since 'Arabic is due to language not race - and Alhamdulillaah (all praise is for Allah), he is an expert in that - indeed he is more competent in his language than they are!!! QUESTION: They say that Mu'aawiyyah (ra) is not a Companion and the evidence for their claim is that to gain the title of Companion he has to be found to have definitely fulfilled the conditions of companionship. Where are they getting this from? Then they give as an example from Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib that he said: "The word companion (sahaabee) is one who was with Allah’s Messenger (sas) for [at least] one year or two and fought Jihad along with him in [at least] one or two battles - so one who did that was a companion" ANSWER: Firstly, Mu'aawiyyah is a Companion whether you apply their conditions or not and he is a Companion also as textually stated by the scholars who have written his biography. First he lived with Allah’s Messenger (sas) for a year or two - indeed for more than two years, since he became a Muslim at the conquest of Makkah as is known that occurred in the eighth year of Hijrah - (and) indeed he was one of those who wrote down the revelation for Allah’s Messenger (sas) - so even according to their conditions he is definitely a Companion. Secondly, the correct definition for a Companion is: "One who saw Allah’s Messenger (sas) even if only once - and died as a Muslim", and this is agreed upon by the scholars of Hadeeth. And Mu'aawiyyah (may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy upon Him), even if he made a mistake - and who does not make a mistake? - even if he made a mistake in fighting Alee and making his son hereditor - yes he made a mistake - but this does not put an end to his being a Companion. And if you opened for example 'Asadul-Ghaabah' of Ibn al-Atheer, or 'al-Istee'aab' of Ibn Abdil-Barr, or 'al-Isaabah fee Tamyeezis-Sahaabah' - these books tell us who are the Companions - do we find Mu'aawiyyah or not? The answer is we find him. Some of them describe him as "the trustworthy writer of the Revelation and maternal-uncle of the Believers", since his sister Umm Habeebah was a Mother of the Believers, the Companion of Allah’s Messenger (sas). And Shaykh ul-Islaam [Ibn Taymiyyah] was asked: "Who is better Umar ibn Abdil-Azeez with his justice or Mu'aawiyyah?" So he answered: "Indeed a single day from the days of Mu'aawiyyah is better than the 'Umar and his family - his Companionship is enough for him - he is just without any need for enquiry, Allah ta’ala has witnessed in their favour that they are just. Allah Subahana wa ta’ala declared them good so they do not need the witness of anyone in their favour - but this is a branch departing from the Sunnah." QUESTION: About the Beard, they say: "A Muslim gets reward for growing it but does not get punished if he does not", and some people say: "that the four distinguished scholars, like Malik, Aboo Haneefah have agreed that letting the beard grow is wajib - and that this view is not correct because they never said it. On the other hand an-Nawawee, Ibn Qudaamah, Ibn ul-Hammaam, ash-Shawkaanee, Qaadee Ayyaad and so on never said that it is wajib. So whoever claims that ash-Shaafi'ee, Ibn Hanbal or Malik said that it is an obligation, then they are wrong" - and that they challenge them to prove it. ANSWER: What is correct from the sayings of the scholars of the four madhhab’s - on their books - in the old books of the Hanafee's, in the books of the Shaafi'ee's, the saying of Imam Ahmad and Imam Malik is that it is wajib and that he who shaves is an open sinner (faasiq) who should be punished. Even to the extent that Imam Malik said about the one who shaves his moustache: "It is disfigurement which I think should be punished by beating" - so what do you think of the beard? It is worse. Secondly, the Sharee'ah texts show that it is wajib. The first Hadeeth, the saying of the Messenger (sas): "Leave the beard, shorten the moustache and act differently to the Mushriks". And the order here makes it obligatory. But to them - the HT - an order does not make something obligatory and principle of theirs if futile, false. To them an order is only a request and does not amount to an obligation. So we say to them: "Where does the order (amr) occur in the Arabic language - from whom to whom? Usually it is given by the master to the servant, from the husband to the wife, from the father to his son. And this request from the father, husband or master - does it mean merely a request and hope for its fulfilment or that something has to be done? It is something which has to be done. And the saying of the Messenger (sas): "If it were not for causing hardship to my Ummah, I would have ordered them to use the Siwaak". This is a proof that the order amounts to an obligation. "I would have ordered them to use the Siwaak" and if he ordered them to use the Siwaak it would have been wajib, but he did not order them, rather he recommended it for them. So the order means an obligation in the Sunnah of Allah’s Messenger (sas) and in the Arabic language and in the Book of Allah. For example, Allah ta’ala says: "O you who believe! Establish the prayer" An order. (Or) is this merely a request? It is up to you - if you want to pray then do or if not then not? So the order means an obligation in Ilm ul-Usool and if we apply this rule to the Hadeeth we find that keeping a beard is an obligation. And the saying of Allah’s Messenger (sas) to the two men who came from Kisraa - both of them having shaved their beards and let their moustache flow: "Who ordered you with this?" and he (sas) turned his face away from them, they replied: "Our Lord - meaning Kisraa - ordered us", so he (sas) said: "Rather my Lord ordered me to leave my beard and shorten my moustache." http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=28 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=27 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:23:07 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=27 HT members in Jordan participated in democratic elections several times in the past. By doing so, they fully accepted the terms of the 'political game' as set by what is by their standards a 'non-Islamic' regime. In 1951, HT's founder himself, Taqiyy-ud-Din An-Nabahani nominated himself but lost to his opponent Abdullah Na`was from the Ba`th party. In 1954, HT participated in the elections with five candidates in the West Bank, which was then under Jordanian jurisdiction. Dawud Hamdan was nominated in the city of Al-Quds; Abdul-Qadim Zallum, As`ad Tamimi and Abdulqadir Al-Khatib in Al-Khalil; and Ahmad Ad-Da`ur in Tolkarm. Only Ad-Da`ur was elected because he entered into an arrangement with the Muslim Brotherhood. Like e very other candidate Ad-Da`ur took the constitutional oath of allegiance to the King and the Homeland but added the phrase 'and to God'. In 1956, HT once more participated in the elections and contested for seats in Al-Quds, Al-Khalil, Jenin and Tolkarm, and this time too only Ad-Da`ur won.7 It is not clear whether HT in the fifties was still not opposed to democracy or whether its participation in the Jordanian elections was a violation of its own doctrine. What is without doubt, however, is that the party is now among the most hostile Islamic factions to democracy. Little wonder that a scathing attack was launched against Ghannouchi's al -hurriyat al-`ammah fi'l-dawlah al-islamiyah (Public Liberties in the Islamic State) by HT ideologue Mahmud Abdulkarim Hasan.8 http://www.ii-pt.com/web/papers/religious.htm (17/11/03) Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HT) (Liberation Party) argues that democracy is nizam-u-kufr (a system of blasphemy) that was ‘marketed’ in the Muslim countries by the blasphemous West. Not only does democracy in this since has nothing what-so-ever to do with Islam, but it completely contradicts the rules of Islam, in both major and minor issues as well as in its source, the ideology it emanates from, the foundations it is based on and the ideas and systems it has come up with. Therefore, it is strictly haram for the Muslims to adopt it, or implement it, or call for it.[1][3] Such claims are made nowadays in spite of the fact that HT members in Jordan participated in the elections several times. In 1951, HT founder himself, Taqiyy-ud-Din An-Nabahani nominated himself but lost (2300 votes) to his opponent Abdullah Na’was from the Ba’th party (5000) votes. In 1954 HT participated in the elections with five candidates: Dawud Hamdan (the city of Al-Quds), Abdul-Qadim Zallum, As’ad Tamimi and Abdulqadir Al-Khatib (the city of Al-Khalil), and Ahmad Ad-Da’ur (the city of Tolkarm). Only Ad-Da’ur won because he entered into an arrangement with the Muslim Brotherhood. Like every other candidate Ad-Da’ur gave the constitutional oath of allegiance to the King and the Homeland but added the phrase “and to God”. In 1956 HT once more participated in the elections and contested for seats in Al-Quds, Al-Khalil, Jenin and Tolkarm, and here too only Ad-Da’ur won. This only shows real well how hypocritical is HT’s slogan “democracy is hypocrisy”. http://www.ii-pt.com/web/papers/oppose.htm (17/11/03) http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=27 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=26 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:19:43 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=26 (102kb pdf) http://www.inside-ht.com/backup/ht_articles/errors/10thingsHT.pdf http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=26 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=25 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:15:05 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=25 1. Mutawaatir vs. Aahaad - Definitions 2. Establishing Beliefs with aahaad? 3. Items of Belief Founded on Aahaad 4. Conclusion Mutawaatir vs. Aahaad - Definitions Mutawaatir refers to a hadith whose narrators in each level of its chain of transmission are so numerous that it is not possible for all of them to have conspired in falsehood - whether intentionally or mistakenly. The aahaad is a hadith that does not meet the requirement for the mutawaatir hadith. The scholars of hadith differ over the number of narrators (from three to more than twenty) that are essential to declare a hadith to be mutawaatir. Establishing Beliefs with aahaad? In the past, some latecomers in knowledge (as compared to the salaf of the Sahaabah and the great scholars of Islaam) have alleged that, the hadith aahaad cannot be used to establish matters of `aqidah (beliefs) . Listed below are some replies from the scholars of hadith for all who carry such a claim. 1) This is an innovated statement (bid`ah) which has no basis in the Shari`ah (Islaamic Law). 2) This statement is itself a matter of `aqidah (belief). Based on this very principle, one would need a mutawaatir proof to establish it. However, there is no proof for it in the Qur'aan, or the authentic Sunnah - not even from among the aahaad hadiths! 3) If there were any such proof for this claim, it would have been known to the Companions who would have implemented it. The righteous scholars who followed them would have also known and implemented it. 4) This statement is in direct opposition to the method of seeking the knowledge adopted by the Companions of the Messenger (S). We find that if one of them narrates something from the Messenger (S), the other who heard it would accept it from him. Allaah (T) said (what means): And it is not proper that all of the believers should go out to fight. From each party [taa'ifah] of them, only a division should go forth, so that they (who are left behind) may receive instructions in religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may be aware. [9:122] This address by Allaah (T) is fardh kifaayah, i.e. binding on the entire community and must be performed by at least a few of its members. Thus, someone must stay behind to teach others the religion. There is no doubt that the term religion in the above aayah includes both matters of legislation as well as creed. In this aayah Allaah uses the word taa'ifah which means one or more than one, as Ibn ul-Athir stated in an-Nihaayah. Al- Bukhaari said (in his Sahih), One man is called taa'ifah in Allaah's saying (that means): If two parties [ta'ifataan] among the believers fight (each other)... [49:9] So if two men fight, the meaning of this aayah applies to their situation as well. Ibn Hajar said in Fath ul- Baari, The word taa'fah means one or more than one, and is not a specific number; this is what is reported from Ibn `Abbaas and others like an-Nakh`i and Mujaahid. Items of Belief Founded on Aahaad Primarily, all hadiths are divided into two categories: authentic and unauthentic. So when a scholar declares, If there is an authentic hadith, it is my madthab (way and belief), he is not distinguishing between mutawaatir and ahaad hadiths. The following are examples of matters of creed which are accepted by the righteous salaf and the great scholars of this Ummah as being part of the Creed of Ahl us-Sunnati wal-Jamaa`ah even though they are founded on aahaad hadiths. 1) The statement that aadam (S) is a Prophet, as well as others besides him who are not mentioned in the Qur'aan. 2) The fact that our Prophet Muhammad (S) is favored by Allaah (T) above all the other Prophets and Messengers. 3) The Great Intercession of the Messenger (S) on the Day of Judgement. 4) His (S) intercession for the people of this Ummah who committed major sins. 5) All the miracles of the Messenger (S) other than the Qur'aan. 6) Matters relating to the beginning of the creation. 7) The description of the angels, the jinn, the Jannah, and Janaham (the Fire). 8) The belief that both the Jannah and the Fire are presently existing. 9) The belief that the Black Stone is a stone from the Jannah. 10) The belief that the Prophet (S) looked into al-Jannah and saw all that Allaah has prepared for the pious believers. 11) The belief that ten (10) companions of the Messenger (S) were specifically promised the Jannah. 12) The belief that everyone will be questioned in his grave by two angels. 13) The belief in the punishment in the grave. 14) The belief that the Scale (al- Meezaan) which weighs the deeds on the Day of Judgement has two pans. 15) The belief in the Bridge (as-Siraat) which stretches over Jahanam. 16) The belief in the Fountain (al-Kawthar) of the Messenger (S), and that whoever drinks once from it on the Day of Judgement will never thirst after that. 17) The belief that seventy thousand (70,000) members of the Ummah of Muhammad (S) would enter the Jannah without reckoning. 18) The belief in the good and evil consequences of al-Qadar. 19) The belief that Allaah has written for everyone his happiness, his sadness, his provision, and the time of his death. 20) The belief that a Muslim who commits a major sin will not abide in Jahanam forever. 21) The belief in the Pen that was created by Allaah, and that He commanded it to write everything that will occur. 22) The belief that Allaah (T) has prohibited the earth from eating the bodies of the Messengers. Conclusion After reading this important discussion, we hope that it leaves us much surer of: 1) The meaning of the term hadith aahaad. 2) The danger of not using the aahaad to establish matters of belief, as is the claim of some deviant groups. There are many groups who claim that they represent Islaam. However, when their teachings are investigated one finds that they are far from the straight path which was so clearly defined for us by the Messenger (S). This should not come to us as a surprise because the Messenger of Allaah (S) predicted that his Ummah would divide into many sects. He (S) said: The Jews divided into seventy-one sects, and the Christians divided into seventy-two sects. My Ummah will divide into seventy-three different sects, all of which will be in the Fire except one: Those who are on the like of what I and my companions are on at this time. [at-Tirmidthi; hasan] This hadith should raise our guard and make us ponder. It should also prove for us that the deviant groups and their followers will outnumber those who are on the correct way. It is every person's duty to investigate and find the true Islaam. We advise all those who are trapped into the belief of not using hadith aahaad for substantiation in matters of creed to make a concerted effort to refer to the beliefs of the best generation, i.e., the Companions of the Prophet (S) and those who followed them. After this investigation they should compare their findings with their beliefs. There is no doubt that they would find that the beliefs of the companions and those who followed them are totally different from those who adhere to such innovative principles. May Allaah guide us all to the truth, help us to see it clearly, and to follow it. aameen. http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=25 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=24 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:12:08 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=24 The founder of the modernist Hizbut-Tahrir, 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 Hurayrah who said:The Mesenger 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 'Aishah: 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 ahadeeth are 'aahaad narrations and they contain the requirement of an action, ie 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,a dhannee(non-mutawaatir) proof.However, if it occurs in'mutawaatir form,then it is obligatory to make it part of one 'aqeedah"(*34) 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 alredy 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 a s'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"(*35) 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'(hypoccrisy)?!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"(*36) 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!"(*37) 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"(*38) 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"(*39) So denying 'aqeedah' in the Punishment of the Grave, declaring this to be somwthing sinful and forbidden, declaring also that it is not matter which will definitely occur, but it is a matter which may possibley occur-is speech in oppostion to that of the Salafus-Saalih -the like of which was previously uttered by only the 'Khawaarijj and a gorup from the 'Mutazilah'and there is no doubt in its being a deviation from the straight path. Likewise, outwardly affirming 'tasdeeq' and [apparently] affirning emaan in the puinshment 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"(*40) 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 madhab 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"(41) References (*34)Ad-Dawsiyyah(p.6) of Taqeedu-Deen an-Nabahaanee-the founder of Hizbut-Tahrir-may Allaah forgive him. e Gracve (*35)From an available taped lecture entitled:'Punishment of the Grave(Regents Park Mosque,2nd May 1992 CE] by Omar Bakri Muhammad. (*36)Quoted by Ibn al-Qayyimin A'laamul-Muqieen(4/266) (*37)As-Saarimul-Munkee(p.247) of al-Haafidh Ibn 'Abdul-Haadee. (*38)Related by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadee in his excellent book Sharafu Ashaabul-Hadeeth(p.7) (*39)Related by as-Suyootee in Sawnul-Mantaq wal-Kalaam(p.32) (*40)Tabaqqatul-Hanaabilah (1/174) of Ibn Abee Yalaa. (*41)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 Quraan 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"(*15) 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 atrue 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"(*16) 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"(*17)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"(*18) 4 - Abu Dawood(d.275H)(rh) said: "Chapter:Questioning in the Grave and the Punishment of the Grave"(*19) 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. Whosover opposes them in any of these matters then they reject, hate and declare such a one an innovator and cut themselves off from him"(*20) 6 - Imaam at-Tahaawee(d.321H)(rh) said: "This is an eplxnation 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 beiliefs 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"(*21) 7 - Abdul-Hasan al-Asharee(d.324H)(rh) -said: "The Mutazilah denied Punishment in the grave.It has been related from the Prophet(saw) by many ways and by his Companions(rta).Nothing has been related from a single one of them denying or negating this,to the point when there is ijmaa(comcensus) from the Companions of the Prophet(saw)"(*22)He also said:"There is consensus that the Punishment of the grave is a true fact,and that people will be tested and questoined in their graves.So may Allaah,establish us with what He loves'(*23) 8 - Imaam al-Aajuree(d.360H)(rh) said: "Chapter:tasdeeq(affirmation) and eemaan in the punishment of the Grave"In which he brings many of the ahadeeth related by al-Bukhareee and Muslim and ends the chapter by saying:"So what is the condition of those who deny these ahadeeth except that they have deviated very far and are in a huge loss"(*24) 9 - Ibn Abee Haatim (d.327H)(rh)said: "Our chosen way is to follow the Messenger of Allah(saw),the sahaabah,the Tabieen and all those who folowed them in goodness,along with abandoning looking into the innovated matters,to hold fast to the way of the Ahlul-Athar(People of narrations), such as Abu 'Abdullah Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaaq ibn Ibraheem,Abu 'Abdullah Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaaq ibn Ibraheem , Abu 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Salaam and ash-Shafiee, to hold fast to the Book,the Sunnah and the way of the Imaams who folow the narrations of the Salaf, adopting what was adopted by Ahlussunnah from the various cities"Up until his saying: "Faith increases and decreases and we have eemaan in the Punishment of the grave"(*25) 10 - Imaam al-Barbaharee(d.329H)(rh)-said:"Eemaan in the punishment of the grave and Munkir and Nakeer"(*26) 11 - Al-Ismaeelee(d.371H)(rh)said: "Know -may Allaah have mercy upon us and you-that the way of Ahlul-Hadeeth ,Ahlus-sunnah wal-Jamaah is to affirm belief in Allaah,His angels, His messengers and to accept whatever is recorded in the Book of Allaah-the Most high-and what is authentically related from the Messenger of Allaah(saw) until he said:"Punishment in the Grave is a true fact"(*27) 12 - Al-Qayrawaanee(d.386H) (rh) said: Under the chapter:"What is related in the Sunnah about the aqeedah of the heart from the obligatory matters of the Deen.From this is:Eemaan in the heart and pronuncing with the tongue that Allaah is the only deity worthy of worship,none has the right to be worshipped except Him"Up until his saying:"And punishment in the Grave is a true fact and the Believers will be tested in their graves"(*28) 13 - Ibn Abee Aamneen(d.399H)(rh) said: "Ahlus-Sunnah have eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave,may Allaah protect us and you from this"(*29) 14 - Imaam al-Laalikaaee(d.418H)-(rh) said:"Chapter: a report of what is related from the Prophet(saw) with regards to the fact that when the Muslims are lowered into their graves, they will be questioned by Munkar and Nakeer,and that Punishment in the grave is a true fact and eemaan in it is obligatory"(*30) 15 - Imaam al-Bayhaqee(d.458H)(rh) said:"Chapter:eemaan in the punishment of the Grave"(*31) References (*15)Sharh Usool Itiqaah Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah(no.312) of al-Laalikaee. (*16)Manaaqibush-Shafiee(1/415) of al-Bayhaqee. (*17)Usoolus-Sunnah(no.8) of Imaam Ahmad. (*18)Risaalatus-Sunnah(p.72) of Imaam Ahmad. (*19)Kitaabus-Sunnah(p.900) part of Sunan Abee Dawood. (*20)Taweel Mukhtaaliful-Hadeeth(p.18) (*21)'Aqeedatut-Taahaawiyah(nos 79-80) (*22)Al-Ibaanah'an Usoolid-Diyaamah(p.201) (*23)Risaalah ilaa Ahlith-Thaghr(p.279) of Abul -hasan al-Asharee. (*24)Ash-Shareaah(pp.358-364) of al-Aajuree. (*25)Ahlus-Sunnah waI'tiqaadud-Deen (no.14) (*26)Sharhus-Sunnah(no.18) (*27)Itiqaad A'immatul-Hadeeth(no.22) (*28)Related by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijtimaa 'ul-Juyooshil-Islmaayihah(p.152). (*29)Usoolus-Sunnah(Q.7) (*30)Sharh Usool Itiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah (6/1127) of al-Laaliaaee. (*31)Al-Itiqaad(p.107) of al-Bayhaqee. http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=24 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=23 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:10:15 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=23 The following is my recent response to certain statements brought forward to me concerning some of the classical scholars supposedly, supporting the stance of HT regarding Ahad narrations, which results in their rejection of most of the articles of faith, from them, the Punishment of the Grave. Was-Salaamu 'Alaikum Abuz-Zubair As-Salaamu 'Alaikum wa-raHmatullahi wa-barakaatuh Jazaakillahu Khaira for responding to my questions concerning Ahad narrations and their relation with Aqeedah. AlHamdulillah, it is good to see that you are not blindly accepting anything from anyone, but you are Inshaa`Allah searching for the truth with an open mind, and are prepared to accept the truth from wherever you find it. The following is going to be my reply to your email Inshaa`Allah, read it yourself and share it with others, may Allah guide us all to the truth and unite us upon that. POINT 1 We all know that the aqeedah should be tasdeeq jazim, should not have a sahdow of doubt, so we only take into our aqeedah what is definate and decisive...hence the Quran and Mutawatir Hadith... REPLY I think we should rather stick to the Shara'ee terminologies while discussing these issues, so we don't use the word "doubt" rather we use the word "Dhan", as this is the word that has been used by all the scholars you have quoted below. By simply rendering the word "Dhan" into English as "doubt" is not possible as the word "Dhan" carries two possible meanings, blameworthy as well as praiseworthy as you will see later on. Then comes a question: How do you exactly define a Mutawaatir Hadeeth? As you should know that there are various types of Mutawaatir Ahadeeth and the scholars have various classification of what is a Mutawaatir Hadeeth in the first place! So you have: 1) Mutawaatir Lafdhee (Mutawaatir in words): A Hadeeth with the same wording that has many chains, by various companions, who heard it from a singular gathering. Like the Hadeeth, "Whoever lies upon me intentionally, then let him take his seat in the Fire". The scholars say that the Hadeeth has been narrated by 60-200 Sahaabah. The Hadeeth about the spring of the Prophet SAW when some people will be prevented from drinking from it. This has been narrated by fifty companions of the Prophet SAW. 2) Mutawaatir Ma'nawee (Mutawaatir in meaning): Various Ahadeeth with different wordings, but pointing to the same issue, narrated by various Sahaaba at different times. Such as the Ahadeeth of intercession of the Prophet SAW, or the Ahadeeth regarding seeing Allah in the hereafter, or the Ahadeeth regarding water coming out from between the two fingers of the Prophet SAW, which was a miracle, or the Ahadeeth regarding raising the hands in Du'aa and so on. Ahmad Shaakir says regarding this type of Mutawaatir Ahadeeth: From the Mutawaatir Ma'nawee with me, are [what are known as] Mutawaatir 'Amali (Mutawaatir in actions), which is [what is know as] known from the Deen by necessity. It is Mutawaatir amongst the Muslims that the Prophet SAW did such-and-such or ordered with such-and-such and so on and so forth. And this is where the definition of Ijmaa' is implemented, with correct implementation. For example: The times of Salawaat and the numbers of their units, the Salaatul-Janaazah, the two 'Eids, the Hijaab of the women in front of non-Mahram people to them, the amount of Zakah to be paid on wealth, until [the issues] which cannot be numbered and accounted from the legislations of Islaam. (Sharh al-Alfiya lis-Suyuti p.47) Therefore, if the articles of faith like the punishment of the grave or other matters (that are listed later on) are not Mutawaatir Lafdhee, then indeed they are Mutawaatir Ma'nawee without dispute, as none of the Muslims have ever rejected faith in them. Speaking from common sense, if the Sahaabah narrate Ahadeeth with different wordings at different times, but pointing to one and the same thing, how is it possible that all them happen to have mistaken, in at least conveying us the truth of about existence of the matter? Then comes the issue of the definition of Mutawaatir. How many narrators are required to make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir? Some scholars actually set a number of narrators that are required for a Hadeeth to be Mutawaatir, and some didn't restrict it to any number at all! And from those who restricted the Tawaatur of Ahadeeth by the number of narrators vary so vastly that it's amazing! So some say five narrators are enough to make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir, some say six, some say 12, some say 20, some say 40, some say 70, some say 313 and some say 1700! So where do the HTs draw the line and say "this is the number of narrators that are required to make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir", for if they don't then how would we know which Ahadeeth are Mutawaatir and which are classified to be Ahad, so that we know what to believe in and what not to believe in. So for example, if the HTs say: 20 narrators make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir. So we ask: So if a Hadeeth is narrated by 19 is it Mutawaatir? If they say: No, then we would like to see some evidence for both of these figures (20 and 19), and if they say: Yes, then they have contradicted their own principle. Nevertheless, this principle is based on "doubt" itself (due to no fixed number of narrators), so here are HTs refusing to accept small articles of faith because they are "doubtful" and yet basing their entire Aqeeda on a principle which itself is doubtful! POINT 2 Here is what some classical scholars have said regarding ahad hadith... that it has doubt it in..... so therefore we cant it part of our aqeedah... REPLY The scholars never use the word "doubt", rather they used the word "Dhan" which has two opposite meanings. "Dhan" is sometimes condemned in the Qur`aan and sometimes praised. From the examples of praiseworthy "Dhan" is when Allah said: "Indeed, I believed (Dhanantu)that I shall meet my Account! So he shall be in a life, well-pleasing." (al-Haaqqah 20-21) Here Allah uses the word "Dhan" as a synonym for belief in the day of reckoning, which is indeed a decisive belief. "...and they perceived (wa Dhannoo) that there is no fleeing from Allah, and no refuge but with Him." (at-Tawbah 118). Again, Allah praises the "Dhan" of the three Sahaaba who were abandoned by the Prophet SAW and his companions, as a punishment for not responding to the call of Jihaad. "(They are those) who are certain (Yadhunnoona) that they are going to meet their Lord, and that unto Him they are going to return." (al-Baqarah 46) Again, Allah uses the word "Dhan" is a replacement for our decisive belief in the day of judgement. " But those who knew with certainty (Yadhunnoona) that they were to meet their Lord, said: "How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allah's Leave?"(al-Baqarah 249) Yet again, Allah uses the word "Dhan" for certainty and not doubt. So the question is, what is the understanding of this word "Dhan" for which the Mushrikeen are condemned for following, and the Muslims are praised for believing in? The word "Dhan" , when it is blameworthy, then it is only a doubt, uncertainty and so it's condemned in all aspects of Sharee'ah whether belief or actions. But when it is praiseworthy, it is decisive belief with certainty. This is why the scholars of the Arabic language stated "Adh-Dhan - Shakkun wa Yaqeen" (meaning: adh-Dhan is doubt and certainty, see Lisaan al-Arab 13/272 and an-Nihaaya 3/163). So the "Dhan" used in the Qur`aan in praise for the believers is known as "Dhan ar-Raajih" (the beneficial Dhan) which amounts to certainty, where as the "Dhan" that is condemned is know as "Dhan al-Marjooh" which amounts to doubt and uncertainty. Therefore the "Dhan" mentioned by the scholars regarding Ahadeeth al-Ahad is Dhan ar-Raajih (beneficial Dhan), and this is why all of the scholars you mentioned below, accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, in spite of stating that Ahad narrations are Dhanni, as will be shown later on. Al-Haafidh Ibn Abdil-Bir said: "And what we say is: That it necessitates actions but not knowledge, like the witness of two witnesses or four is the same. And upon this are most of the people of Fiqh and Athar, and all of them adhere to the just Khabr al-Waahid in al-I'tiqaadaat (belief) and show enmity to and befriend upon it, and make it a path and a Deen in their beliefs, and upon this is the Jamaa'ah of Ahlus-Sunnah" (at-Tamheed 1/8) Secondly, lets say for the sake of argument, that the Dhan regarding Ahad narrations is of the doubtful type, and Allah said in the Qur`an, "And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is All-Aware of what they do." (Yunus 36), then from where did HT get the evidence to restrict this verse to only the doubts in belief and not actions? What proof do they have to restrict this verse to beliefs only and say, "it is condemned to follow doubts in belief, but one may follow doubts in actions"? Because the verse is 'Aam (general) without any Qaid (restriction) and if one wishes to make Taqyeed should come forward with another Shara'ee text in his support, as it is know from the rules of Usool al-Fiqh. POINT 3 Imam Ibn Taymiyyah: In his book Al Fatawa [vol. 7. pg. 117-127], he addressed the subject of the Iman and says that Iman is yaqeen (detailed and clarified conviction), and not just tasdiq (belief). He said that this is the Shari' meaning of Iman. REPLY I really hope that it's an error on part of the one who wrote/compiled this article, because Imaam Ibn Taymiya Raheemahullah, wrote a whole book about the matter of Imaan, called "Kitaabul-Imaan" (which is now available in English), in which he clarified the mathhab of the Salaf regarding the definition of Imaan and affirmed that Imaan is statement and actions, of the heart and the limbs, which increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience to Allah. In this book he refutes the Ashaa'irah, who say that Imaan is just Tasdeeq al-Jaazim (firm conviction in the heart) only, and actions and statements are not part of Imaan. This definition for Imaan given by the Ashaa'irah is very close (if not the same!) to the definition given by Jahm bin Safwaan who said that Imaan is merely acknowledgement of Allah's existence in the heart. So according to Jahm ibn Safwaan, and those who were influenced by him from the Ashaairah and HTS, Iblees is a Mu`min complete in his Imaan since he recognises Allah's existence, more over he makes Du'aa to Him alone, and his Imaan is the same as Imaan of Jibreel, as Imaan does not increase nor does it decrease according to the Ashaa'irah and the Jahmiyah. Jahm bin Safwaan was an apostate Zindeeq who was executed by the ruler of his time for corrupting the beliefs of the Muslims with atheism. Therefore he could not have said that this is the Shara'ee meaning of Imaan. I would challenge anyone to actually read out for him/herself what the Imaam said, translate it word-by-word show us where Ibn Taymiyah defines Iman to be Yaqeen only and calls it a Shara'ee definition of Imaan. Then you say: POINT 4 Furthermore, he said in Al Fatawa vol. 18. pg. 16-22, that the mutawatir hadeeth imply the 'ilm (certainty) and that one can absolutely confirm that this is true because it is mutawatir. Regarding the authentic ahaad hadeeth, he attached certain details to it before it would be able to imply the 'ilm, unlike the case of mutawatir for which he gave only one rule. Regarding the sahih (authentic) hadeeth, which could imply certainty, Ibn Taymiyyah placed two conditions, where if either one existed then it would point up 'Ilm only. These two conditions are Ijma' al 'Ulema (Consensus of the Scholars). Therefore, for those who do not take any Ijma' besides that of the Sahabah, the ahaad hadeeth will not be considered as definitive. REPLY You said that he mentions TWO conditions, but you only mentioned ONE, which is Ijmaa' al-Ulama`. Secondly your statement that you only take Ijmaa' as-Sahaabah and not the Ijmaa of Ulama is a bogus statement, and shows that a person knows very little (if any) of Usoolul-Fiqh. The definition of Ijmaa' is: The unanimous agreement of the Mujtahideen/Fuqahaa` of the Muslim community of any period following the demise of the Prophet SAW on any matter. (See Ihkaam by al-Aamidi 1/196 and Irshaad by ash-Shawkaani p.71, and al-Waraqaat by Ibn al-Jawzi). The Prophet SAW said,"My Ummah will not unite upon misguidance", thus rendering Ijmaa to be an evidence in itself which cannot contain error. Ijmaa' of the Sahaabah is in fact included in the Ijmaa' of the Salaf (as the Sahaaba are the first of the three generations) and Ijmaa' as-Salaf is included in Ijmaa' of the 'Ulama, which in effect is Ijmaa' of the entire Ummah! Even if you say, for the sake of argument, that you only take Ijmaa' as-Sahaaba, then what do you say about Ijmaa' as-Sukooti (silent Ijmaa) of the Sahaaba concerning accepting Ahad narrations whole heartedly without differentiating between Aqeeda and Ahkaam? What do you say about Mu'aadh bin Jabal being sent to Yemen to teach people Islaam, and Tawheed to start with!? What do you say about the Prophet SAW sending a messenger (just one) to the kings? What do you say, when Ibn Abbas was told that someone denied that the Musa who accompanied al-Khidr was the same Musa of Bani Israa`il, which he refuted, by narrating the Ahad Hadeeth from Ubay bin Ka'ab confirming that the Musa of al-Khidr is the same Musa of Bani Israa`il and called the initiator of this statement an "enemy of Allah". Musa and al-Khidr have nothing to do with Ahkaam, rather it's a matter of Aqeeda, and yet Ibn Abbaas refutes another person's deviant belief using an Ahad narration and then calling him an enemy of Allah! And the examples are many in this regard, which show that the Sahaab would accept Ahad narrations, without differentiating between 'Aqeeda and Ahkaam. As for Imaam Ibn Taymiyah, then he affirms that al-Bukhaari and Muslim are both agreed upon by the Ummah as a whole to be authentic and the entire Ummah has accepted them with certainty. So he says, "And from the Saheeh Hadeeth that the Muslims met with acceptance and acted upon it, then it benefits knowledge and it is definitely the truth. And from the Saheeh what the Ummah has met with acceptance and testification of the people of knowledge in Hadeeth, like all of the Ahadeeth in al-Bukhaari and Muslim, because all of the people of knowledge in Hadeeth are very definite about the authenticity of the Ahadeeth of the two books... So the Ijmaa' of the people of knowledge in Hadeeth, that the Khabr is true, is like the Ijmaa' of the Fuqahaa` that such-and-such is Halaal or Haraam or Waajib, and when the people of knowledge agree upon something, then the entire Ummah follows them in that, so their Ijmaa' is Ma'soom (infallible) as it is not possible for them to agree upon an error" (Majmoo' al-Fataawa 18/16-17) This was regarding the collection of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Muslim, and as for Ahadeeth in other collections he states: "Khabr al-Waahid that has been met with acceptance, necessitates knowledge.According to the majority of the scholars from the companions of Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad, and it is also the statement of most of the companions of Ash'ari such as as-Safarini and Ibn Fuwarrak. Even if it [Ahad narration] on its own does not benefit except Dhan, but when it is accompanied with Ijmaa' of the people of the knowledge of Hadeeth upon accepting it with testification of it, it reaches the level of Ijmaa' of the people of the knowledge of Fiqh over a ruling, as they base it on either the Dhaahir, or Qiyaas or Khabr Waahid, then this ruling becomes Qata'ee (definite) with the majority, and if it is without Ijmaa', it will be non-definite as Ijmaa' is Ma'soom (infallible)". (Majmoo' al-Fataawa 18/48 & 70) Then you say: POINT 5 Imam Nawawi: In his book Sharh Sahih Muslim, vol. 1 pg. 20, Imam Nawawi discusses the statement of Shaykh Ibn al-Salah who claimed that the ahadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim imply certainty. Imam Nawawi writes, "What Shaykh (ibn al-Salah) said in this issue is against what the Scholars said. Most of them said that the non-Mutawatir Hadeeth of Bukhari and Muslim, imply thunn since it is Ahaad, and the Ahaad implies nothing but the thunn. This is based on what was already known and agreed upon. This rule applies without distinguishing between Bukhari, Muslim or others. However, their Hadeeth are enough to be taken in the ahkam (rules)." REPLY I did not find such statement of Imaam an-Nawawi to start with. Some of what is said above are his statements, but some statements are twisted and some are even forgery. Imaam an-Nawawi states in Sharh Saheeh Muslim volume 1 page 20: "This is what the Sheikh has mentioned in these places, oppose what the most of the researchers said, for they said that the Ahadeeth as-Saheehain, al-Bukhaari and Muslim, those that are not Mutawaatir, only benefit Dhan because they are Ahad, and Ahad only benefit Dhan as it has been agreed. And there is no difference between al-Bukhaari and Muslim and other [collections] than them in this regard. And the Ummah has met them with acceptance, because they benefit the necessity of acting upon them, and this is agreed upon, for the Ahad narrations that exist in other than them [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] necessitate acting upon them if their chain of narration is authentic, but they do not benefit except Dhan and likewise the Saheehain. Rather, the Saheehain differ from other books than them because of the fact that what is contained within them [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] is all Saheeh and is not in need of looking into them [with a doubtful eye], rather it is waajib to act upon them in absolute terms. But what is contained in books other than them, they are not acted upon until they are researched and the conditions of authenticity are met. And the Ijmaa' of the Ummah upon acting upon them [Ahad narrations in al-Bukhaari and Muslim] does not necessitate the Ijmaa' of the Ummah that they are all definitely the statements of the Prophet SAW. And Ibn Burhaan al-Imaam severely criticised the one who says what the Sheikh (Ibn as-Salaah) has said..." As you notice how different is the statement of Imaam an-Nawawi from what has been quoted from his supposed statement from his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim. Please also note the forgery where the paragraph above quotes Imaam an-Nawawi saying, "However, their Hadeeth are enough to be taken in the ahkam (rules)." Imaam an-Nawawi never used the word "Ahkaam" (as opposed to Aqeedah), but he used the word "Amal" (action) (as opposed to 'Ilm) and as we know, 'Ilm is defined differently than Aqeeda (see al-Waraqaat of Ibn al-Jawzi). This was a result of HTs - out of their love for their party - playing around, adding, subtracting and twisting the words of this great Imaam! Regarding Imaam an-Nawawi's criticism of Ibn as-Salaah, then a lot can be said, and I will only mention whatever little is available to me. We acknowledge that Imaam an-Nawawi was indeed from the greatest of scholars of this Ummah, but that did not prevent him from falling into errors, as no one is Ma'soom after the Messenger of Allah SAW. So when Imaam an-Nawawi states that the saying of Ibn as-Salah is against the majority of researchers, then this statement contradicts what as-Sakhaawi said about Ibn as-Salaah that: "He (Ibn Salaah) has been preceded in this statement about the meeting of the narrations with acceptance by the majority of the Muhadditheen, the Usooliyeen and the Salaf in general" (Qawaa'id at-Tahdeeth 85, Fath al-Mugheeth 1/51) It is also interesting to note is that many of those who came after Imaam an-Nawawi in fact sided with Ibn as-Salaah, and from them, al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer, Siraajud-Deen al-Balqini, Ibn Hajr, Abu Ishaaq ash-Sheerazi (Imaam of the Shaafi'ees). So much so that Imaam al-Balqeeni said, "And what was said by Ibn Abdis-Salaam and an-Nawawi and whoever followed them is prohibited. . For some of the latter Huffaadh [then he mentioned their names] narrated that they accept the Ahadeeth that have been met by the Ummah with acceptance, as definite [proofs]" (Mahaasin al-Istilaah 101, Tadreeb ar-Raawi 1/133 by as-Suyooti). Regarding this, Ibn Hajr states, "... it is as if he meant by that [latter Huffaadh], ash-Sheikh Taqiyud-Deen Ibn Taymiyah, narrating from some of his trustworthy companions". Then Ibn Hajr refutes an-Nawawi from various angles. Al-Haafidh al-Iraaqi states, "What he (Ibn as-Salaah) claimed that whatever has been extracted by ash-Shaikhain (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) is definite with its authenticity, he was preceded by al-Haafidh Abul-Fadhl Muhammad bin Taahir al-Maqdisi, and Abu Nasr Abdur-Raheem bin Abdul-Khaaliq bin Yusuf. So they said: they are [Ahad Ahadeeth in Bukhaari and Muslim] definite proofs with their authenticity" As-Suyooti adds to these two, Abu Haamid al-Asfaraaini, al-Qaadhi Abut-Tayyib, ash-Sheerazi, as-Sarkhasi, al-Qaadhi Abdul-Wahhaab from the Maalikis and Abu Ya'la and Abul-Khattaab, az-Zaaghuni from the Hanbalis, Ibn Fuwarrak and most of the people of Kalaam from the Ashaa'irah. (Tadreeb ar-Raawi 1/132). Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer says, "...and I am with Ibn as-Salaah in what he relies upon and guides towards..." (Mukhtasar 'Uloom al-Hadeeth 35) As-Suyooti says: "And this is what I choose and I do not believe anything besides it" (Tadreeb ar-Raawi 1/134) However, in spite Imaam an-Nawawi criticising Ibn as-Salaah, he states: "The Khulafaa` ar-Raashidoon, the rest of the Sahaabah and those who came after them from the Salaf and the Khalaf did not cease to act upon Khabr al-Waahid" (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 1/130). In spite of his stance, that Khabr al-Waahid is not Qata'i (definite) but Dhanni, regardless of whether it's in al-Bukhaari and Muslim or other collections, he still accepts Ahad narrations without differentiating between 'Aqeeda and Ahkaam, just like all the other scholars who did not consider Ahad to be amounting to 'Ilm but accepted them in their Aqeedah. He makes some commentary on the long Hadeeth regarding the beast where some Sahaaba saw the Dajjaal, and then he said, "And in it there is [proof] for acceptance of Khabr al-Waahid" (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 8/80). If someone might say, that an-Nawawi meant, acceptance in Ahkaam only and not Aqeedah, then we ask: Where are the Ahkaam in the narration of the Sahaabi meeting the beast and the Dajjaal? Rather the entire Hadeeth is about Aqeeda, so how can an-Nawawi accept it in Ahkaam only but not Aqeeda? Indeed Imaam an-Nawawi spoke the truth when he said that the Salaf did not cease to act upon Khabr al-Waahid, and an-Nawawi did not differentiate between Aqeeda and Ahkaam, just as the Salaf themselves never did! So here we have 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar asking his father - 'Umar - about Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqqaas's narration about wiping over the socks, so 'Umar - Ra - replied: "If Sa'ad narrates something to you from the Prophet SAW, then do not ask anyone else about it!" (al-Bukhaari #202). So where did 'Umar differentiate between Ahkaam and Aqeeda in accepting Khabr al-Waahid? Then Imaam an-Nawawi states in explicit terms that he believes in (have I'tiqaad in) the beneficial Ahadeeth narrated in Saheeh Muslim, so he says while commenting on the Hadeeth of Dhamaam bin Tha'lubah, which comprises of various aspects of Aqeedah: "And in this Hadeeth [there is proof for] acting upon Khabr al-Waahid". And he says, "And it is great in its place, and it is from the most collective of Ahadeeth, which comprises of 'Aqaa`id (beliefs), for he [the Prophet] SAW collected in it what comes from all of the nations of Kufr regarding the differences between their 'Aqaa`id (beliefs)." (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 1/171, 227). In Kitaabul-Adhkaar, an-Nawawi mentions the Hadeeth, "O My Slaves, indeed I have forbidden oppression upon myself..." then he comments on it saying, "This Hadeeth gathers a number of benefits... and from it, is what comprises of explanation to great principles in Usool ad-Deen (the definite principles of Deen including beliefs)" (al-Adhkaar p. 368) An-Nawawi also refutes those who deny the Ahad narration about the Prophet SAW being affected by magic and says, "Some of the innovators rejected this Hadeeth, and claimed that it reduces the dignity of Prophethood and casts doubts in it... And what the innovators claim is falsehood!" (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 14/425 #2189). So an-Nawawi, yet again, refutes the people of bid'ah who reject this Ahad narration in Aqeedah. So Imaam an-Nawawi Raheemahullah, just like other scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah is a proof against HT and not for them, since he accepts Ahad narrations without differentiating between 'Aqeeda and Ahkaam, and further more he explicitly comments upon Ahadeeth that are related to Aqeeda only and demonstrate his whole-hearted acceptance of them. Then you go on to say: POINT 6 Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: In his book 'Usul Madhab Imam Ahmad, Dr. 'Abdullah al Turki summarized the issue of khabr ahaad in the 'Aqeedah, carefully discussing all reports mentioned in various Hanbali books. The following are some of his findings: There are two reports on behalf of Imam Ahmad: a report that indicates that Imam Ahmed says that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty and another report, which claims that it does imply certainty. Some Hanbali scholars tried to reconcile between these two contradictory statements by saying that what Imam Ahmed means is that khabr ahaad implies certainty only if it is supported by other indications. The majority of the Hanbali jurists, however, say that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty, and this is obvious in reviewing many Hanbali books in 'Usul ul-Fiqh [see 'Usulu Madhab Imam Ahmad, pg. 250] REPLY This is a deception by cutting and pasting from the book of Sheikh Abdullah at-Turki and presenting the information in a way, which makes people think, Dr. Abdullah at-Turki says Khabr al-Ahad are Dhanni! Further more, the paragraph above lies upon the Sheikh when it states, "The majority of the Hanbali jurists, however, say that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty", as the Sheikh explicitly stated the contrary to it! Dr. Abdullah at-Turki states in his book Usool Madh-hab al-Imaam Ahmad, page 7: Imaam Ahmad, two narrations have been reported concerning him: One of them that it [Khabr al-Waahid] benefits 'Ilm, and the other, that it does not benefit 'Ilm. And the companions [of Ahmad] differed over the two statements, in accordance with what had been narrated from Ahmad: So, from amongst them who said: It benefits 'Ilm, and amongst them who say, it does not benefit 'Ilm." Then comes the lie upon Dr Abdullah at-Turki where he supposedly stated, "The majority of the Hanbali jurists, however, say that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty" which can sufficiently be dealt with Dr. Abdullah at-Turki's following statement: "And that which I incline towards at the end, is the opinion of the majority of the Hanbalis, which is that when Khabr al-Waahid benfits 'Ilm if it has been confirmed to be authentic, and an evidence is indicative upon the truth of the one who said it, meaning, when it is combined with related [evidence]". Regarding one of the two narrations attributed to Imaam Ahmad, which is reported by al-Athram, where he supposedly considers Khabr al-Waahid not to be definite, has been criticised by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyah when he said: "As for the narration of al-Athram regarding Ahmad, that he does not testify to [attributing] a narration to the Messenger of Allah SAW, but he will act upon it, then this narration has been singled out by al-Athram, and it is not found in the matters [related to this issue] nor in Kitaab as-Sunnah, rather, al-Qaadhi narrated that he found it in the book Ma'aani al-Hadeeth, and al-Athram does not mention that he heard it from him [Ahmad Ibn Hanbal], but perhaps it reached him through someone's speculation, and in its words, then none of his [Ahmad's] companions narrated it from him, rather what is authentically narrated from him is that he decisively testifies for the ten [companions] with paradise, and the report concerning that is Khabr al-Waahid." (Mukhtasar as-Sawaa'iq 2/370) Not surprisingly, the compiler/translator of this article, shamelessly hid away the statement of Abdullah at-Turki when he agrees with Ibn Taymiya regarding fallacy of the report of al-Athram regarding Ahmad Ibn Hanbal that he supposedly did not consider Ahad narrations to be definite! Furthermore at-Turki states: "And, when Khabr al-Waahid is combined with what strengthens it, benefits 'Ilm, is not the statement of Ahmad Raheemahullah alone, rather scholars other than him also share in this [opinion]." (Usool Madh-hab al-Imaam Ahmad p. 253-55) And then you say: POINT 7 Imam Shaf'i considers the Hujjah (proof) as one of the two types: The first is the type where no one will be excused for discarding it. It is established by a clear text from the Qur'an, or an unanimously agreed upon Sunnah. This kind has no doubt in it, and anyone who refuses to accept it, then he would be asked (by the Qadi) to repent [see Ar Risalah, Arabic edition pg. 460, English edition pg. 278]. This means that rejecting this type of Hujjah or Daleel is tantamount to Kufr. The second type of proof is that which was narrated by a few reporters, and where the text is open to varying interpretations. It originally emanated from a single source. In this case, it is binding upon only those who are informed about it and accepted it, for they cannot reject any thing mentioned in the text, in the same way that they should accept the testimony of the trustworthy. However, this acceptance should not be taken in the sense of the first category. That is, if a person were to cast doubt upon it (the second type), we would not ask him to repent, while in the case of the first type of proof the person would be asked, according to Shaf'i, to repent. [See Ar-Risalah, Arabic edition pg. 460-461, English edition 278] It is obvious from this that Imam Shaf'i distinguished between the two kinds of reports, the first being khabr al aamah (a synonym, based on his definition, for mutawatir) and the other being khabr al khaasah (which is called khabr al ahaad). By saying that he who denies the second type will not be asked to repent, means that Imam Shaf'i did not take it in the Aqeedah, otherwise the person would be asked to repent. The book of Imam Shaf'i was edited and printed under the supervision of a great contemporary muhaddith, Ahmad Shakir. Based on what was quoted from Imam Shaf'i's Ar Risalah, we now know that he did not accept khabr al ahaad in the 'Aqeedah. REPLY I did not find any of such statements of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee, and I would urge you or someone else to quote to me exactly what ash-Shaaf'iee says and where, and not paraphrase! What the actual paragraph in ar-Risaalah (p.478) is referring to is ash-Shaafi'ee's discussion on 'Ilm 'Aam and 'Ilm Khaas and that it is binding upon everyone to know 'Ilm 'Aam, but not 'Ilm Khaas because such knowledge is not available to the public. So in this case, it is Waajib upon the people of knowledge to hold on to it! The Imaam was certainly not talking about the matters of 'Aqeeda and Ahkam! It is the compiler/translator deception, by twisting the words of the Imaam implying that Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee does not take Ahad narrations into 'Aqeedah, which is a far fetched assumption. As a matter of fact, Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee in his work ar-Risaalah (p. 401-458), titled a chapter with the heading "The evidence for affirming Ahad narrations, with many evidences that affirm the [fact that] Khabr al-Waahid is an evidence [in itself], and the refutation of those who criticised it as an evidence". It is known that the people of Kalaam in his time from the Jahmiyah intended to rejected the evidences of Khabr al-Waahid that are related to the Names and Attributes of Allah. Therefore, he wrote this chapter, affirming the fact that he accepts Ahad narrations in his Aqeeda, by refuting the Jahmiyah who rejected Ahad narrations to do with the names and attributes. No where does Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee make a distinction between accepting Ahad narrations in Aqeeda and Ahkam. And from what confirms that, by accepting Khabr al-Waahid, ash-Shaafi'ee meant the entire Deen in its totality and not just Ahkaam without Aqeeda, is the fact that he mentions in ar-Risaala (p. 242) the story of Sa'eed bin Jubair regarding Ibn 'Abbaas belying a person who claimed that the Musa of al-Khidr was different than Musa of Bani Israa`il, by using Ahad narration, narrated by Ubay Ibn Ka'ab. It is obvious that this Hadeeth has no relation with Ahkaam, and it is only related to 'Aqeeda, yet Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee uses this incident to prove the fact that Ahlus-sunnah accept Ahad narrations whole heartedly whether in Ahkaam or Aqeeda so he says, "So Ibn 'Abbaas, due to his understanding and his piety, affirms the report of Ubay bin Ka'b from the Messenger of Allah SAW, so much so that he belies a man from the Muslims, when Ubay Ibn Ka'b reports from the Messenger of Allah SAW, in which there is proof that the Musa of Bani Israa`il is the companion of al-Khidr" This statement of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee is an evidence that he does not differentiate between Aqeeda and Ahkaam in accepting Ahad narrations, because Musa being the same Musa to accompany al-Khidr is a matter of Aqeeda and not Ahkaam, as it is obvious! Then you say: POINT 8 Al Khateeb al Baghdadi, a well known faqih and muhaddith, said in his book, Al Kifayyah Fi 'Ilm Al Riwayah, pg. 605: "Khabr al ahaad cannot be taken in any issue where conclusive belief ('ilm) is required. The reason is because it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that this is what the Prophet (saaw) said. However, khabr al ahaad should be accepted in the ahkam, such as hudood, moonsighting, hajj, zakat, inheritance, salah, and prohibiting the prohibited things, etc." Imam Al Ghazali says in Al Mustasfa, pg. 145: "Khabr al ahaad does not imply certainty. This is a basic fact of its definition." He goes on to say in Al Mankhool, edited by Dr. Muhammad Hassan Hito, pg. 252: "Some claim that khabr al ahaad imply certainty. This is impossible." Imam Ash Shatibee says in Al Muwaafaqaat, vol. 1, pg. 29-31, "Anything related to 'Usul ud Deen ('Aqeedah) must be conclusive." He also says, "The daleel could be either ahaad or mutawatir. If it is ahaad, then it obvious that it doesn't imply certainty." He continues making distinctions between mutawatir and ahaad in the 'Aqeedah and 'Usul ul Fiqh [vol. 1, pg. 35-36]. In vol. 2, pg. 15, he says: "If any conclusive daleel conflicts with a thanni daleel, the conclusive daleel is binding." Imam as Shawkanee: He says in his book Irshad ul Fuhool: "The other category is ahaad (whether it does not imply al 'ilm at all or implies 'ilm with additional supports). This category does not imply certainty by itself, and this is the opinion of the majority [of Scholars]." After this explanation, as Shawkanee moves to another point, saying: "The majority [of Scholars] agree that it is a must to utilize khabr ul ahaad in the actions." [Irshad ul Fuhool, pg. 48] Syed Qutb: He writes in Fi Dhilaal al Qur'an (In the Shade of the Qur'an), vol. 8 pg. 710, 7th edition: "Ahaadeeth al ahaad cannot be taken in the 'Aqeedah. The reference is the Qur'an and the hadeeth mutwatir, in the 'Aqeedah." REPLY Again, the word "'Ilm" has been translated as "conclusive belief" where as the definition of 'Ilm is different to the definition of 'Aqeedah as far as Ahlus-Sunnah and most of the Ashaa'irah are concerned. But the Mu'tazilah have one and the same definition for 'Ilm and 'Aqeeda, this explains why each time the word "'Ilm" is being translated as "conclusive belief" and not "knowledge". And as it has been explained before that even the scholars who said Khabr al-Ahad does not benefit knowledge, accepted Khabr al-Ahad in Aqeeda! So, do the HTs have any explanation to this? Imaam al-Ghazzaali states: "Its has become Mutawaatir and well-known from the companions, acting upon Khabr al-Waahid, in various instances that cannot be counted. And even if it [Ahad narration] on its own is not sufficient, 'Ilm is still conceived by its gathering" (al-Mustasfaa p.173). Was the compiler/translator too shy to quote this statement? And as it has been established before, even the scholars who stated that Khabr al-Waahid does not amount to 'Ilm, accepted them in their Aqeeda. The quotes from the rest of the scholars is referring has been answered previously as they all accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, and none of them have denied faith in any of the articles of faith that are estbliashed through Ahad narrations. In the passage above, the compiler/translator implies that Imaam ash-Shaatibi did not accept Ahad narrations in Usool ad-Deen (principles of Deen including belief), which is just another example of twisting the words of this scholar just like the ones before him and after him, which has been made very clear. As-Safaarini states: "And Khabr al-Waahid is acted upon in Usool ad-Deen" (Lawaami' al-Anwaar al-Bahyah 1/19), and no one differs from this except the Mu'tazila and some of the Ashaa'irah. I do not consider Sayyid Qutb to be from the people of knowledge, rather he was merely an Islaamic thinker, and a Mujaahid and I make Du'aa to Allah that He accepts him as Shaheed, but his statements in the arena of the principle of Deen carry no weight. Moreover, it has been heard from his own brother, Muhammad Qutub, that he left this thinking and joined the camp of Ahlus-Sunnah in this issue, and Allah knows best. And the proof for this is the fact that Ahlus-Sunnah and the Ashaa'irah/Maaturidiyah accepted many articles of faith in Aqeeda that are baed on Ahad narrations. Punishment of the Grave is just ONE of the many examples where the Salaf and the Khalaf accepted these narrations whole-heartedly in Aqeeda! Even the Ash'ari/Maaturidi scholars refuted those who rejected the Punishment of the grave in Aqeeda due to the Ahadeeth being Ahad. Al-Hakeem as-Samarqandee says: "Whoever rejects the punishment of the grave, then he is a misguided innovator!" and he supported this creed by the verse of Allah in His Book, "The Fire; they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon" (Ghaafir 46) (Salaam al-Ahkam p.67) Al-Imaam an-Nasfi said: "the punishment of the grave for the disbelievers, and some of the sinful ones from amongst the Muslims, and the bliss for the people of obedience in the grave with what Allah knows and wishes, and the questioning of Munkar and Nakeer is affirmed by the aural evidences. The Most High has said: "The Fire; they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon"" (Sharh al-'Aqaa`id an-Nasfiyah p.126, al-'Aqaa`id 'Adhadiyah 2/273) An-Naasiry said: "The reports have become Mutawaatir from the Prophet SAW confirming the punishment of the grave and its bliss, for the one who is from its people, and this is the Madh-hab of Ahlus-Sunnah al-Jamaa'ah (meaning al-Maatureediyah), so it is an obligation to believe in its affirmation (fa yajibu al-'I'tiqaad bi Thuboot Dhaalik)" (an-Noor al-Laami' 110) Abdul-Qaahir al-Baghdaadi al-Ash'ari says: "The Muslims have agreed that the punishment of the grave is true, and whoever denies it, will be punished in the grave, this is because he is isolating [himself] from the gathering of the Muslims, and whoever isolates himself, isolates himself for the Fire". And he also said: "And they affirmed the resurrection from the grave, along with affirmation of questioning in the grave" (al-Farq bain al-Firaq) This is also a refutation of OBM when he claims that the Salaf differed amongst themselves about the punishment of the grave! These were the statements of Asha'ri/Maatureedi scholars about affirmation of the punishment of the grave in Aqeeda, which they HTs vehemently reject claiming that the Ahadeeth regarding punishment of the grave are all Ahad! Even if we say, for the sake of argument that Ahad Ahadeeth cannot be taken into 'Aqeeda, then the scholars have also stated that the narrations related to the punishment of the grave have reached the level of Tawaatur! (i.e. they are Mutawaatir!). Al-Haafidh Ibn Rajb says: "The Ahadeeth from the Prophet SAW have become Mutawaatir, regarding [punishment in] the grave and seeking refuge from it" (Min Ahwaal al-Quboor 43, 50 & 58) Al-Katani says in Nadhm al-Mutanaathir page 84: "32 companions have narrated the punishment of the grave" Al-Juwaini said: "The Ahadeeth have become Mutawaatir, about the Messenger of Allah SAW seeking refuge in His Lord from the punishment of the grave", and he gave the verse as his proof: "The Fire; they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon", and said, "this text affirms the punishment of the grave" (al-Irshaad by al-Juwaini 374-5) As-Suyooti wrote a book called "Sharh as-Sudoor bi Sharh Haal al-Mawta wal-Quboor", and he mentioned there in Mutawaatir Ahadeeth regarding the punishment of the grave. Al-Qurtubi said, "al-Imaan in the punishment of the grave and the trial is Waajib, and to testify to it is necessary, for the most truthful one (i.e. the Prophet SAW) has informed [us] about it. And this is the Madh-hab of Ahlus-Sunnah and what this is what the people of [this] nation are upon" (at-Tadhkirah Fee Ahwaal al-Mawta wa Umoor al-Ukhrah p.137). Furthermore he says, "the Atheists denied it, and them adhering to the Madh-hab of the philosophers regarding the punishment of the grave is that it has no reality to it" (at-Tadhkirah 139) In fact, the ones to deny the punishment of the grave were the Mu'tazilah, as their leader al-Qaadhi Abdul-Jabbaar said, "Our teachers denied the punishment of the grave and its bliss in all cases" (Sharh Usool al-Khamsah 733, Kitaab Fadhl al-I'tizaal 202). This was opposed by the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, and from them, Imaam at-Tahaawi when he said "And we have Imaan in the punishment of the grave, and its bliss..." (Aqeeda at-Tahaawiyah p.25) Note, that he did not say "Tasdeeq", but he said "Imaan" contrary to HT. What is ironic that after reading all of this, you will hear HT saying, "We believe in it, but do not take it into 'Aqeeda", which is a bogus statement. Isn't ironic that only couple of years back, they would say "We do not believe in the punishment of the grave, but we trust it", and now they have change their statement to, "We believe in the punishment of the grave but do not take it into 'Aqeeda". Playing around with words to deceive the masses, as the most important issue for them is Khilaafah, so when they feel they have been cornered they will try to cut corners to somehow get the opponent to agree with them in Aqeeda so that they may speak about "more important issues". Sufficient it is for me to say that there is no difference between "Tasdeeq" or "Aqeeda" or "belief", and this is understood from the language without any need of any evidence. So whoever says, "I believe in something, but I do not take it into my Aqeeda", is like saying, "I believe in it in English, but reject it in Arabic!", which will only cause the public to laugh at this poor individuals intellect. By looking at it from another perspective, there is no such thing is half-belief. A person either believes in something, or disbelieves, as doubt amounts to disbelief. For example, if a person says, "I believe in Allah 99.9%" this is regarded to be Kufr and not Tasdeeq. Similarly, if a person says "I believe in the punishment of the grave 99.9%, and only if it was 100% certain I would take it into Aqeeda", then this person is in effect is disbelieving in the punishment of the grave and it cannot be called Tasdeeq. Unless they have one criterion for belief in Allah and another for the Punishment of the grave. But let us not focus our attention on just the punishment of the grave, because HTs have denied a lot more than that. They in fact state in al-Wa'ee magazine that they do not have I'tiqaad in the decsent of 'Isaa the son of Mary rather they only have Tasdeeq in it (meaning they do not believe in it, but act upon its rulings, if any), as usual, playing around with words. Even though the Ash'ari Imaam of our time, al-Kawthari wrote a whole book called, "Nadhratun 'Aabirah" in which he refuted those who deny the decsent of 'Isaa AS by claiming Ahad Hadeeth cannot be accepted in 'Aqeeda. Because most of the Islaamic 'Aqeeda is in fact based on Ahad narrations, let us now list some of the articles of faith that are based on Ahad narrations in order to realise how much of the Islaamic creed HTs are denying. 1) The Prophethood of Aadam AS and other prophets who have not been mentioned in the Qur`aan. 2) The virtue of our Prophet Muhammad SAW over rest of the Prophets and the Messengers. 3) The great intercession of the Prophet SAW on the day of resurrection. 4) Miracles of the Prophet SAW, such as splitting of the moon. Even though it is mentioned in the Qur`aan, they give it their own explanation different to its original meaning, and declare the supporting Ahadeeth to be Ahad, thus nullifying the belief that this miracle ever happened. 5) Some of the bodily characteristics of the Prophet SAW and some attributes related to his personality. 6) Some of the specialities of the Prophet SAW which as-Suyooti gathered in "al-Khasaa`is al-Kubraa", such as the prophet SAW entering Paradise (before his death) and seeing its people etc. 7) Belief in the questioning of Munkar and Nakeer in the grave. 8) Belief in the punishment of the grave. 9) Belief in the (Meezan) scales on the day of Judgement. 10) Belief in the bridge called Siraat. 11) Belief in the spring of the Prophet SAW, and that whoever drinks from it will never be thirsty again. 12) The questioning of the Prophets on the Day of Judgement about them proclaiming their message. 13) Imaan in all that has been authentically reported regarding the attributes of the Day of Resurrection. 14) Belief that Allah has written for every human being, his happiness and his sorrow, his provision and his lifespan. 15) Belief that the Qur`aan is the speech of Allah in reality and not metaphorical. 16) Belief that the Throne and the Footstool of Allah are a reality and not metaphorical. 17) Belief that the people of major sins will not last in the Fire forever. 18) Belief that the souls of martyrs are in the hearts of green birds. 19) Belief that Allah has made forbidden for the earth to consume of the bodies of the Prophets. 20) Belief that Allah has appointed angels to deliver the Salaam of the Ummah upon the Prophet SAW to him. 21) Belief in all the signs before the Day of Judgement, such as the appearance of Mahdi, the decsent of 'Isa AS, the emergence of the Dajjal, and the beast of the earth, and other narrations that have been authentically reported from the prophet SAW. 22) Belief that the Muslims will be divided in 73 sects, all of them in the Fire except one. 23) Belief in most the beautiful Names and the magnificent Attributes of Allah that the authentic narrations are very explicit about. 24) Belief in the Prophet SAW ascending up to the Heavens and seeing some of the great signs of His Lord. And the list can go on and on, of various articles of faith, that are based on Ahad narrations. So those who refuse to take Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, effectively reject belief in all of the above I have mentioned. Note: After reading this, if HTs say, "We believe in it 100% but do not take it into 'Aqeeda", then this cannot be accepted, as they have quoted statements from the scholars to imply that Ahad Ahadeeth cannot be believed in, but only acted upon, and they have repeated themselves time after time, that Ahad Ahadeeth are NOT taking into 'Aqeeda but are taken into Ahkaam. So they cannot now deceive the Muslims by playing around with words. And then you say: POINT 9 From the opinions of all these scholars and the proofs given above, it is obvious that khabr ahaad cannot be taken in the 'Aqeedah, and that it is neither a new invention nor an outdated one. Rather, it is the correct and strongest opinion in this issue REPLY I have just proven to you from all angles possible the fallacy in the claim of this article (I am not saying YOUR claim, because I know you did not write this nor compile it, but you just trusted whatever was given to you), I have shown to you mistranslations, lies, additions, subtractions from the text of the scholars and hiding the truth. I have clearly shown to you the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah as well as the Ashaa'irah/Maasturidiah regarding Ahad narrations and some of the articles of faith, such as the punishment of the grave, that they all accept them in 'Aqeeda. I showed to you that the people who refuse to accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda are the Mu'tazilah. I also proved to you that even those scholars who say that Ahad narrations are "Dhanni" whole-heartedly accept Ahad narrations in their Aqeeda. This is just ONE of the issues where HT differ in with the main body of the Muslims, and this issue itself has taken up 15 pages, in spite of my struggle to keep it as short as possible! Yet there are so many other issues to be mentioned regarding HTs that will blow one's mind! For example: 1) Upon contradiction of text with intellect, they give priority to the intellect over the text, following Fakhr ar-Raazi, which is exactly what caused them to reject so many of the Ahad narrations in the fist place! 2) They are hardly seen learning or preaching Tawheed al-Uloohiyah (Oneness of Allah in worship) to people, which resulted in these people going to al-Khomaini - The Mushrik - and asking him to be the Imaam of Muslims. (Note: Khomaini said in Hukoomah al-Islaamiyah that form their beliefs is that their Imaams have power over every single atom of the universe) 3) Their belief that Imaan is just belief in the heart and actions and statements are not part of it, which in effect tells us that Iblees is also a Muslim because he believes in Allah in his heart! These people even beat the Murji'ah in their Irjaa` because at least the Murji`ah take statements into Imaan, but these people went a step further and ejected even statements from Imaan! So these people are worse than the Murji`ah, who are worse than the Khawaarij, and Khawaarij are the dogs of the Hellfire as the Prophet SAW stated. 4) Their denial of the fact that Qur`aan is the speech of Allah, word-by-word, letter-by-letter, as they say Allah's speech is without voice, letters, accent etc. This belief of theirs is inherited from the Ashaa'irah, who say that since Allah speaks without voice, then he couldn't have spoken the Qur`aan. So they say that the Qur`aan is only the intended meaning of Allah, where as the words are either from Jibreel or Muhammad SAW! Al-Baaqillani believed in the former and al-Juwaini followed him in that! 5) Twisting, changing the meaning of, and negating some of the Names and Attributes of Allah. They did not limit their misguidance to Aqeeda only, but even in Fiqh they followed the trends of the modernists by saying: 1) It is allowed to smoke 2) It is allowed to shave the beard 3) It is allowed to listen to music 4) It is prohibited to give Zakah to contemporary Zakah organisations, as according to their claim only the Khaleefah is responsible for collecting Zakaah money. They quote statements of scholars in their evidence that talk about the responsibility of collecting the Zakah when the Khaleefah is present. But they never quote to you what the scholars said in cases where there is no Khaleefah to collect the Zakaah! 5) It is allowed to look at a nude picture, as it is only a reflection and not reality. No matter how vehemently they try to deny it but it has already appeared in their publications, in the questions answers section, dated: 24 of Rabee' al-Awwal, year 1390 AH (29/05/1970 CE): "... So a nude picture is not Haraam, rather it is from the Mubaahaat (permissible acts), but the government prohibits its circulation..." When I posted it on the message board, a brother even replied back defending this view, when he said: >>By Abu Maghrib on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 11:06 pm: Asalaam Alaikum these are the final points I will make in relation to this discussion. *Yes brother I do believe a picture itself is not haram. But I never said pornography is halaal. But since you believe a picture is reality, than you should start praying fajr salaat if you see a photograph of dawn. Sheikh Taqi didn't perform the ijtihaad about tasaweer, it was originally discussed by Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafie (I'll bring more information on those discussion later). This post was sent in mid-June, and now we are in mid-August, so that's 2 months gone by, and I still haven't seen the statements of Imaam Abu Haneefa and ash-Shaafi'ee regarding this. Furthermore, Anjum Choudary wrote in an article freeing Omar Bakri from this perversion, so he says: >>By Anonymous on Wednesday, June 21, 2000 - 12:24 pm: As far as watching pornography is concerned I set out below Sheikh Omar's answer in this respect: '...Watching pornography is Haram i.e. prohibited and the origin of nude pictures is from Haram actions i.e. a person(s) displaying his/her Aworah which is haram. Therefore to take the pictures, print them, develop them, trade with them, buy them, sell them, look at them or to promote them is HARAM...Allah (swt) says: " order the believers to lower their gaze and to protect and cover their private parts i.e. Aworah.." [Chapter of An-Noor] This verse is general (A'am)and it includes the real Aworah or its Image and to restrict the verse requires evidence. After having studied the topic of reality and its image deeply I am now prepared to give fatwa on the subject. I found that Sheikh Taqi (ra) or HT were wrong here because neither he nor HT brought any evidence except to say that 'the image is not reality' however this is not evidence to permit looking at the images of nude pictures! Rather Allah (SWT) ordered us to cover our aworah and not to look at the aworah of others except those who Allah (SWT) has permitted for us to look at. And He (SWT ) says: "Order the believers to lower their gaze and to protect and cover their private parts i.e. Aworah.." This verse is general (A'am) the generality of which is the act of lowering the gaze...etc therefore in order to exclude images or Aworah from the reality you need another evidence to restrict it. There are also other evidences related to the subject matter of images which support this verdict...'<< So let us not make flimsy excuses to deny that HT even holds this stance! I hope I have done my duty towards you, and the rest of the confused Muslims for that matter, and I really pray to Allah that He guides us all to our correct Fitrah (Natural inclinations) which is no different than what the Salaf of this Ummah were upon. I have said, what I have said, and I seek forgive for myself and you. Was-Salaamu 'Alaikum wa-raHmatullahu wa-barakaatuh Abuz-Zubair http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=23 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=22 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:08:43 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=22 In this western world in which we live, the battle that goes on between the Muslims and the disbeleivers is, in the main, an intellectual one. The Muslims are constantly bombarded with attacks regarding Islaam's stance on women, about its legal punishments and ofcourse on the issue of belief itself. In response to the latter assault, many muslims have undertaken upon themselves the task of developing intellectual arguments to prove the existence of God. Furthermore they insist that every Muslim should be familiar with these arguments, not just so that they can respond to the criticisms of the atheists, but also to strengthen and even validate his claim to be a Muslim. Consequently, many Islamic circles, Khutbas, talks ,articles e.t.c are all centered around this idea of rationally proving God's existence, making the Muslim feel guilty of blind faith if he is unable to do so. And Judging by the title of this article, one could be forgiven for thinking that this too is another rendition of those proofs…fortunately it isn't! Instead, this article questions the very basis of this whole argument and shows-by the will of Allah- that such discussion about the existence of Allah, rather than strengthening faith can destroy it! [b]BLIND FAITH???[/b] The purporters of the principle that every Muslim must intellectually prove Allah's existence to himself (such as Hizb ut Tahrir) often compare the belief of the person born into a muslim family, with the belief of the people of Ibraaheem alaihis salaam who rejected the call of Ibraaheem because they blindly adhered to the religon of their forefathers : " When he (Ibraaheem) said to his father and his people: What are these images to which you are devoted? They said : We found our fathers worshipping them." [ al Anbiyah 21:52-53] Thus they argue, just as the people of Ibraaheem believed in idolatry, blindly, without question, many of us too do not have intellectual but blind and emotional faith in Allah. To support this idea, they will often quote the following verse in soorah Muhammad : " Know that laa ilaaha illallaah" [47:19]. From this verse they deduce that Allah is telling mankind to know ( i.e prove to yourself, rather than just trust in your inherent belief) that Allah exists. This, however, is a misinterpretation of the verse from two aspects. Firstly, the arabic word for know in this verse comes from Ilm (knowledge) and not from aql which means intellect or human reasoning. Unfortunately, distinction is often not made between the two words. Ilm, or knowledge, is that which is contained within divine revelation i.e Ilm can only originate from Allah. In contrast, aql is a purely human faculty which one uses to understand Ilm. Hence, in this verse Allah is not saying "Reason, that laa ilaaha illallaah," but "Know (through studying Allah's Aayaat) that laa ilaahaa illallaah." Secondly, the verse "Know that la ilaaha illallah" has often been translated as "Know that there is no God but Allah". Such a mistranslation, stems from the misconceptions that laa ilaaha illallah means that there is no God but Allah. NO! The true meaning of laa ilaaha illallah is that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. (See Facilitation by Allah in Explaining the conditions of " Laa ilaaha illallah" published by Jamia'at Ihyaa' Minhaaj al- Sunnah). So this verse is not ordering to have knowledge of the existence of Allah, but that he is to be worshipped. As for the first argument, that those who have not intellectually proven God's existence to themselves are, in reality, blind followers of Islam without certainty in their belief, then let us consider the beliefs of the whole of mankind today. Despite the growing trend towards atheism, few will argue that the vast majority of the worlds population still believe that a creator or God exists. Ofcourse, whether they actualise those beleifs through their practices is another matter entirely! And this has always been the case with mankind. And this is because belief in God, or Allah, is a natural inherent belief that Allah has endowed in the whole of mankind, in every generation. The prophet s.a.w said: " Each child is born in a state of fitrah (the natural way i.e upon Islam) but his parents make him a Jew or a Christian…" [Agreed upon]. The problem with most people is not that they don't believe in God, but that they commit an injustice to Allah by making shirk (partners) with Him, by taking on other deities such as Jesus, Idols wealth, personal desires e.t.c "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they make shirk with Him." [ 12: 106]. And to commit shirk (partners) with Allah, one has to acknowledge Gods existence in the first place. Analysis of every generation throughout history shows that it is only a few very arrogant and proud individuals who actually completely deny Allah's existence altogether (e.g Fir'awn- Pharoah, some philosophers and ofcourse the intellectuals). But as for most people, then their hearts are created in natural affirmation of Allah's existence, more than their natural affirmation of any other deity, as the messenger s.a.w said and as Allah mentions about them : " The Messengers said: Is there any doubt about Allah, the originator of the Heavens and the Earth?" [Ibraaheem 14: 10 see Ibn Abil Izz al –Hanafee (d.792) in his book Sharh Aqueeda Tahaaweeyah which is a commentory on the famous book of Aqueeda]. [b]OPENING THE DOOR TO DOUBT[/b] It is ironic to think that many of the sincere muslims who propogate the idea of the obligation of proving God's existence to oneself actually place doubt in the hearts of the Muslims even though their whole intention is to do precisely the opposite. Since, by asking Muslims to question their belief in Allah, they are opening the door to shaitaan, as indicated in the hadeeth where the prophet s.a.w said: "The Shaitaan comes to every one of you and says: 'Who created this and that'-untill he questions: 'Who created your Lord?'. When he comes to that, one should seek refuge in Allah and desist." [Sahih Muslim]. So rather than causing certainty of belief, arriving at the so called intellectual belief sows the seed of doubt into the heart. But the beleivers are those who " have believed in Allah and His Messenger and afterward doubt not…" [al Hujaaraat 49:15]. This is why the prophet s.a.w forbade us to reflect upon and question Allah's existence. He said, " Reflect upon the creation and do not reflect upon Allah." [at Tabaaraanee]. Of course, one must have certainty of belief. But this certainty comes from (a) our natural instinct, (b) from reflection upon Allah's creation and the harmony therein and (c) from Allah's revelation. It does not come from intellectual reasoning or contemplation about Allah himself. [b]THE ORIGINS OF THIS ARGUMENT[/b] The intellectual arguments concerning Allah's existence are not to be found in the early or later books of Islamic Aqueeda. Neither are there any reports that any of the companions or the early scholars deliberated on the issue. And most importantly, the Qur'aan does not mention a single instance where such arguments were raised by any of the prophets. Even when Moosa was faced with Fir'awn – the atheist, who considered himself to be God – not once did he ask Fir'awn to reflect on Allah's existence or try to rationally prove God's existence through theoretical arguments. Rather, he told Fir'awn to reflect upon Allah's creation and his signs. [ see Soorah Ta-Haa] So clearly such debates/ discussions e.t.c are something new to Islam and anything new in the religon is known as a Bid'ah (an innovation).[ And Imam Barbahaaree (d.326), in his book Kitab Sharh us Sunnah which is one of the earliest books on aqueedaa wrote : " Pondering or reflecting deeply about Allah is a bid'ah". It may be thought that the need for such discussion among Islamic circles may have grown in order to counter the rising tide of atheism among the people. This however does not explain the development of these discussions . Instead, intellectual arguments concerning Allah's existence took root among Muslims who were given to philosophy and debate,… [ these people emerged as a deviated sect known as the Mu'tazilah. Their cardinal tenet of belief was that the intellect (aql) was a guiding principle in all matters of belief (as opposed to revelation), such that all matters of belief which concorded with human reasoning were accepted, whilst those concepts which were difficult for the human mind to comprehend were rejected, e.g punishment of the grave, the miraaj, e.t.c]… sat amongst Jewish and Christian phiosophers in their gatherings. In such sittings, they would often contemplate the existence of God and use intellectual and theoretical arguments to prove the existence of God. The Muslim philosophers- pleased with what they heard- then introduced similar discussions amongst Islamic circles. Eventually, they made proving God's existence the first obligation upon a person and a condition for him being a Muslim. So, such discussions take their origin, not from divine revelation, but from the philosophers and theologians of other religons. [b]THE FIRST OBLIGATION[/b] Ibn Abil Izz, In his commentary of Aqueedah Tahaaweeyah wrote : " The first duty on a person who is responsible for his actions is to testify that there is non worthy of worship but Allah; not to contemplate, nor begin to contemplate, nor doubt – which was said by the leaders of the people of deviated phiosophy. Instead, the Imaams of the salaf were all agreed that the first thing a person is ordered to do is to make the two testifications of faith" [an Nawawi said something similar in Saheeh Muslim bi Sharhun Nawawee]. It should be clear by now that proving that God exists was no part of the dawah of any of the messengers, nor of the companions nor of the scholars. Neither does it have any firm basis in Islamic Aqueedaa. As such, our dawah and our study of Islam should concentrate on singling out Allah for worship and on making the prophet s.a.w our guiding light in all our affairs and this is how we will come to fulfill our two testifications of faith. Proving that Allah exists does not distinguish between eemaan and kufr…Because even if you have convinced yourself beyond all doubt that Allah exists, Indeed, even if you were to have spoken to Allah and He had spoken to you – even then you could end up being in Hell forever…afterall, isn't that the case with Shaitaan? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=22 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=21 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:00:36 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=21 http://www.inside-ht.com/backup/ht_articles/errors/htexpose.doc http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=21 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=20 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:59:21 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=20 Below are a number of articles of faith that are based on Ahad narrations, and the rejection of Ahad narrations in Aqeeda will result in the rejection of the following articles of faith. The implied rejection of such commonly known articles of faith negated by false rejection of ahad narrations should make clear the deviation of this group. 1) The Prophethood of Aadam AS and other prophets who have not been mentioned in the Qur`aan. 2) The virtue of our Prophet Muhammad SAW over rest of the Prophets and the Messengers. 3) The great intercession of the Prophet SAW on the day of resurrection. 4) Miracles of the Prophet SAW, such as splitting of the moon. Even though it is mentioned in the Qur`aan, they give it their own explanation different to its original meaning, and declare the supporting Ahadeeth to be Ahad, thus nullifying the belief that this miracle ever happened. 5) Some of the bodily characteristics of the Prophet SAW and some attributes related to his personality. 6) Some of the specialities of the Prophet SAW which as-Suyooti gathered in "al-Khasaa`is al-Kubraa", such as the prophet SAW entering Paradise (before his death) and seeing its people etc. 7) Belief in the questioning of Munkar and Nakeer in the grave. 8) Belief in the punishment of the grave. 9) Belief in the (Meezan) scales on the day of Judgement. 10) Belief in the bridge called Siraat. 11) Belief in the spring of the Prophet SAW, and that whoever drinks from it will never be thirsty again. 12) The questioning of the Prophets on the Day of Judgement about them proclaiming their message. 13) Imaan in all that has been authentically reported regarding the attributes of the Day of Resurrection. 14) Belief that Allah has written for every human being, his happiness and his sorrow, his provision and his lifespan. 15) Belief that the Qur`aan is the speech of Allah in reality and not metaphorical. 16) Belief that the Throne and the Footstool of Allah are a reality and not metaphorical. 17) Belief that the people of major sins will not last in the Fire forever. 18) Belief that the souls of martyrs are in the hearts of green birds. 19) Belief that Allah has made forbidden for the earth to consume of the bodies of the Prophets. 20) Belief that Allah has appointed angels to deliver the Salaam of the Ummah upon the Prophet SAW to him. 21) Belief in all the signs before the Day of Judgement, such as the appearance of Mahdi, the decsent of 'Isa AS, the emergence of the Dajjal, and the beast of the earth, and other narrations that have been authentically reported from the prophet SAW. 22) Belief that the Muslims will be divided in 73 sects, all of them in the Fire except one. 23) Belief in most the beautiful Names and the magnificent Attributes of Allah that the authentic narrations are very explicit about. 24) Belief in the Prophet SAW ascending up to the Heavens and seeing some of the great signs of His Lord. http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=20 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=19 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:41:12 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=19 Below are a number of articles of faith that are based on Ahad narrations, and the rejection of Ahad narrations in Aqeeda will result in the rejection of the following articles of faith. The implied rejection of such commonly known articles of faith negated by false rejection of ahad narrations should make clear the deviation of this group. 1) The Prophethood of Aadam AS and other prophets who have not been mentioned in the Qur`aan. 2) The virtue of our Prophet Muhammad SAW over rest of the Prophets and the Messengers. 3) The great intercession of the Prophet SAW on the day of resurrection. 4) Miracles of the Prophet SAW, such as splitting of the moon. Even though it is mentioned in the Qur`aan, they give it their own explanation different to its original meaning, and declare the supporting Ahadeeth to be Ahad, thus nullifying the belief that this miracle ever happened. 5) Some of the bodily characteristics of the Prophet SAW and some attributes related to his personality. 6) Some of the specialities of the Prophet SAW which as-Suyooti gathered in "al-Khasaa`is al-Kubraa", such as the prophet SAW entering Paradise (before his death) and seeing its people etc. 7) Belief in the questioning of Munkar and Nakeer in the grave. 8) Belief in the punishment of the grave. 9) Belief in the (Meezan) scales on the day of Judgement. 10) Belief in the bridge called Siraat. 11) Belief in the spring of the Prophet SAW, and that whoever drinks from it will never be thirsty again. 12) The questioning of the Prophets on the Day of Judgement about them proclaiming their message. 13) Imaan in all that has been authentically reported regarding the attributes of the Day of Resurrection. 14) Belief that Allah has written for every human being, his happiness and his sorrow, his provision and his lifespan. 15) Belief that the Qur`aan is the speech of Allah in reality and not metaphorical. 16) Belief that the Throne and the Footstool of Allah are a reality and not metaphorical. 17) Belief that the people of major sins will not last in the Fire forever. 18) Belief that the souls of martyrs are in the hearts of green birds. 19) Belief that Allah has made forbidden for the earth to consume of the bodies of the Prophets. 20) Belief that Allah has appointed angels to deliver the Salaam of the Ummah upon the Prophet SAW to him. 21) Belief in all the signs before the Day of Judgement, such as the appearance of Mahdi, the decsent of 'Isa AS, the emergence of the Dajjal, and the beast of the earth, and other narrations that have been authentically reported from the prophet SAW. 22) Belief that the Muslims will be divided in 73 sects, all of them in the Fire except one. 23) Belief in most the beautiful Names and the magnificent Attributes of Allah that the authentic narrations are very explicit about. 24) Belief in the Prophet SAW ascending up to the Heavens and seeing some of the great signs of His Lord. http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=19 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=18 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:06:22 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=18 A common trick and play on words that many of those calling the ideology of the HT is to say that "... some classical scholars have said regarding ahad hadith... that it has doubt it in..... so therefore we cant it part of our aqeedah... This confuses the ignorant and those who have little knowledge of Arabic. The scholars never use the word "doubt", rather they used the word "Dhan" which has two opposite meanings. "Dhan" is sometimes condemned in the Qur`aan and sometimes praised. From the examples of praiseworthy "Dhan" is when Allah said: "Indeed, I believed (Dhanantu)that I shall meet my Account! So he shall be in a life, well-pleasing." (al-Haaqqah 20-21) Here Allah uses the word "Dhan" as a synonym for belief in the day of reckoning, which is indeed a decisive belief. "...and they perceived (wa Dhannoo) that there is no fleeing from Allah, and no refuge but with Him." (at-Tawbah 118). Again, Allah praises the "Dhan" of the three Sahaaba who were abandoned by the Prophet SAW and his companions, as a punishment for not responding to the call of Jihaad. "(They are those) who are certain (Yadhunnoona) that they are going to meet their Lord, and that unto Him they are going to return." (al-Baqarah 46) Again, Allah uses the word "Dhan" is a replacement for our decisive belief in the day of judgement. " But those who knew with certainty (Yadhunnoona) that they were to meet their Lord, said: "How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allah's Leave?"(al-Baqarah 249) Yet again, Allah uses the word "Dhan" for certainty and not doubt. So the question is, what is the understanding of this word "Dhan" for which the Mushrikeen are condemned for following, and the Muslims are praised for believing in? The word "Dhan" , when it is blameworthy, then it is only a doubt, uncertainty and so it's condemned in all aspects of Sharee'ah whether belief or actions. But when it is praiseworthy, it is decisive belief with certainty. This is why the scholars of the Arabic language stated "Adh-Dhan - Shakkun wa Yaqeen" (meaning: adh-Dhan is doubt and certainty, see Lisaan al-Arab 13/272 and an-Nihaaya 3/163). So the "Dhan" used in the Qur`aan in praise for the believers is known as "Dhan ar-Raajih" (the beneficial Dhan) which amounts to certainty, where as the "Dhan" that is condemned is know as "Dhan al-Marjooh" which amounts to doubt and uncertainty. Therefore the "Dhan" mentioned by the scholars regarding Ahadeeth al-Ahad is Dhan ar-Raajih (beneficial Dhan), and this is why all of the scholars you mentioned below, accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, in spite of stating that Ahad narrations are Dhanni, as will be shown later on. Al-Haafidh Ibn Abdil-Bir said: "And what we say is: That it necessitates actions but not knowledge, like the witness of two witnesses or four is the same. And upon this are most of the people of Fiqh and Athar, and all of them adhere to the just Khabr al-Waahid in al-I'tiqaadaat (belief) and show enmity to and befriend upon it, and make it a path and a Deen in their beliefs, and upon this is the Jamaa'ah of Ahlus-Sunnah" (at-Tamheed 1/8) Secondly, lets say for the sake of argument, that the Dhan regarding Ahad narrations is of the doubtful type, and Allah said in the Qur`an, "And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is All-Aware of what they do." (Yunus 36), then from where did HT get the evidence to restrict this verse to only the doubts in belief and not actions? What proof do they have to restrict this verse to beliefs only and say, "it is condemned to follow doubts in belief, but one may follow doubts in actions"? Because the verse is 'Aam (general) without any Qaid (restriction) and if one wishes to make Taqyeed should come forward with another Shara'ee text in his support, as it is know from the rules of Usool al-Fiqh. http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=18 http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=17 Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:05:21 GMT What's wrong with HT? http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=17 * 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: 1)affirming al-Qadr(predestination) 2)Giving precedence to AbuBakr and Umar 3)al-Hawd - the Pond in Paradise 4)ash-Shafaa - Intercession 5)al-Meezan - the Scales 6)as-Siraat - the Bridge over Hellfire 7)Eemaan is statement and action 8)The Quraan is the speech of Allaah 9)Punishment of the Grave 10)Resurrection 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) * 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.) * Imaaam Ahmad (d.241H) (rh) said: "From the essentials of the 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) * 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.) * 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. Whosover 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) * 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-Numan 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 * Abul-Hasan al-Ash'aree (d.324H) (rh) said: "The Mu'tazilah denied Punishment in the grave. It has been related from the Prophet (saw) by many ways and by his Companions(ra). Nothing has been related from a single one of them denying or negating this, to the point when there is ijma (consensus) from the Companions of the Prophet(saw)" (Al-Ibaanah'an Usoolid-Diyaamah(p.201) He also said: "There is consensus that the Punishment of the grave is a true fact, and that people will be tested and questioned in their graves. So may Allaah establish us with what He loves" (Risaalah ilaa Ahlith-Thaghr(p.279) of Abul -Hasan al-Ash'aree) * Imaam al-Aajuree (d.360H) (rh) said: "Chapter: tasdeeq (affirmation) and eemaan in the punishment of the Grave" in which he brings many of the ahadeeth related by al-Bukhareee and Muslim and ends the chapter by saying: "So what is the condition of those who deny these ahadeeth except that they have deviated very far and are in a huge loss" (Ash-Shareaah(pp.358-364) of al-Aajuree) * Ibn Abee Haatim (d.327H) (rh) said: "Our chosen way is to follow the Messenger of Allah (saw), the sahaabah, the Tabieen and all those who followed them in goodness, along with abandoning looking into the innovated matters, to hold fast to the way of the Ahlul-Athar (People of narrations), such as Abu 'Abdullah Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaaq ibn Ibraheem, Abu 'Ubayd al-Qaasim ibn Salaam and ash-Shafiee, to hold fast to the Book, the Sunnah and the way of the Imaams who follow the narrations of the Salaf, adopting what was adopted by Ahlussunnah from the various cities" Up until his saying: "Eemaan increases and decreases and we have eemaan in the Punishment of the grave" (Ahlus-Sunnah waI'tiqaadud-Deen (no.14) * Imaam al-Barbaharee (d.329H) (rh) said: "Eemaan in the punishment of the grave and Munkir and Nakeer" Sharhus-Sunnah(no.18) * Al-Isma'eelee (d.371H) (rh) said: "Know - may Allaah have mercy upon us and you -that the way of Ahlul-Hadeeth, Ahlus-sunnah wal-Jamaah is to affirm belief in Allaah, His angels, His messengers and to accept whatever is recorded in the Book of Allaah - the Most high - and what is authentically related from the Messenger of Allaah (saw) until he said: "Punishment in the Grave is a true fact" Itiqaad A'immatul-Hadeeth(no.22) * Al-Qayrawaanee (d.386H) (rh) said: Under the chapter: "What is related in the Sunnah about the 'aqeedah of the heart from the obligatory matters of the Deen. From this is: Eemaan in the heart and pronouncing with the tongue that Allaah is the only deity worthy of worship, none has the right to be worshipped except Him" Up until his saying: "And punishment in the Grave is a true fact and the Believers will be tested in their graves" (Related by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijtimaa 'ul-Juyooshil-Islmaayihah(p.152) *Ibn Abee Aamneen (d.399H) (rh) said: "Ahlus-Sunnah have eemaan in the Punishment of the Grave, may Allaah protect us and you from this" Usoolus-Sunnah (Q.7) * Imaam al-Laalikaaee (d.418H) (rh) said: "Chapter: a report of what is related from the Prophet (saw) with regards to the fact that when the Muslims are lowered into their graves, they will be questioned by Munkar and Nakeer, and that Punishment in the grave is a true fact and eemaan in it is obligatory" (Sharh Usool Itiqaad Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah (6/1127) of al-Laalikaaee) http://www.daar-ul-ilm.co.uk/21/comment.php?entryid=17