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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 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 Maseh - and they do not believe in many things which are mentioned in hadeeth. And this is of course, something futilie since authentic aahaad ahadeeth 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 fulfill these five conditions amounts to knowledge whereas they say that it amounts only to conjecture (zann) - and the reply to them in detail is to be found in my book: "al-adillah wash-Shawaahid fee wujoob al-Akhdh bikhabral-waahid fil Ahkaam wal 'Aqaaid", where I mention their evidences from their book "ad-Doosiyyah" and I have replied to them in detail, so he who wishes to go into depth then let him refer back to that book, which I ask Allaah to make of benefit to the Muslims.
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-Sunna - who think that they have come out in their view from between dung and blood then they are Jabariyyah."
Then this is ignorance of this important part of 'Aqeedah since Ahlus-Sunna wal-Jamaa'ah affirm what Allah has affirmed and deny what Allah has denied. they affirm that the servant has free-will - except that it is not but by the will of Allah - the most Perfect and free from defects, and the Most high, and there are great proofs of this - and we have mentioned some of them in out reply to them in out book: "al-Jamaa'aatul-Islaamiyyah."
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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying: "let not a woman describe another woman to her husband - as if he were looking at her." So his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 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 reagrd 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 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 - that the person has to stick to the opinion of his imaam or his nation. Well what if that involves some sin, since that ruler, khaleefah or group may be right or wrong - so if a mistake is made then how can he still hold to that knowing that is is haraam.
Imagine, for example, that the ruler is a Hanafee who holds that drinking little alcohol - an amount nut sufficient to intoxicate is allowed but that which is forbidden is the final cup which intoxicates. Then does a person in this case have to hold to the opinion of his imaam? Or if his imaam, for example, holds the saying that the Quraan is created - as happened to Imaam Ahmad - then does he have to take on his view - and the practise of the salaf is contrary to this.
This is a brief account of HT - and HT do not follow Islaam but only support the idea of Islaam and they have wierd (and incorrect) opinions - for example, they do not order their wives to dress Islamically, since they say that men do not have any authority over women until the Khilaafah has been established - and of course this is contrary to the laws of Allah - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - in that the man has to strive to save his family from the Fire:
O you who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is men and stones. [Tahreem 66:6]
QUESTION. They say: "I accept the hadeeth in Bukhaaree is saheeh but I don't believe in it." What should be our response and attitude towards such people?
A. The text of theirs saying as occurs in their book 'ad-Doosiyyah' is that these ahadeeth - 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 tounge 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 ahadeeth about the punishment of the grave - which are not ahaad.
A. 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 catergories:
(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 - 'alaihi salaam - many hadeeth but not with a single meaning - rather they agree on a single fact - the descent of 'Eesaa, the coming of Dajjaal, the coming of the Mahdee - 'alaihi salaam - all of these are to them aahaad - even if they agree in the sense and meaning as long as they are not reported with a single wording
So they do not recognise the Mutawaatirul-Ma'nawee. therefore all the Sunnah to them is aahaad except a small part - but is we ask the,: "What is mutaawaatir 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 poer 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 definate - so this is not affirmation rather it is doubt and uncertainty.
They try to use as evidence for this - that the Khabarul-Aahaad amounts only to conjecture (zann) and they quote
They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, even though there has already come to them guidance from their Lord [Najm 53:23]
They follow noting but conjecture and conjectue avails them nothing against truth [Najm 53:28]
- however the 'zann' mentioned here is 'zann' (speculation) which is incorrect / proven wrong - not that which is definite (ie. correct) - and this is shown by their saying that the Khabarul-Aahaad is a proof with reagrd to Sharee'ah ruling and if it were incorrect speculative zaan then they would not worship Allah with that since it is delusion and doubt - whereas this correct zaan is of the level of certainty (yaqeen) because Allah ta'aalaa has explained they certainty (yaqeen) has levels - as Allah says:
But nay, you shall soon know (the reality). Again you shall know! Nay, were you to know with certainty of mind (you would beware) [Takaathur 2-4]
The level of knowledge reached here being 'yaqeen' (certainty).
And you shall certainly see Hellfire. Again, you shall see it with certainty of sight. Then, shall you be questioned that day about the joy (you indulged in). [Takaathur 2-8]
So between 'certain knowledge' ('Ilmul Yaqeen) and 'Aynul-yaqeen (certainty itself) is a level which Allah mentions at the end of Soorat ul-Haaqah: 'Haqqul-Yaqeen' - so we have,
(i) 'Ilmul Yaqeen (ii) Haqqul yaqeen (iii) 'Aynul Yaqeen,
all of them are certainty (Yaqeen) - are they a single thing? No rather they are levels - so Yaqeen (certainty) has levels, but its root is one, i.e. it's being knowledge. So the narration from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which fulfills the five conditions (of authenticity):
(i) the chain of narration be fully connected by (ii) trustworthy (iii) precise narrators (iv) nor contradicting something more reliable and (v) not having a hidden defect
- these conditions safeguard it from error and forgetfulness. We say - that a narrator may forget or make a mistake but we are sure in this case (i.e. after the fulfillment of the five conditions) and this narrator here did not forget since he is precise and trustworthy in his Deena and reliable and it is narrated from him by like of him - reliable and with precise memory not forgetting anything and it does no contradict the narrations of other narrators, and does not have a hidden defect - then we know that the narrator has not forgotten - not because we think he is infallible but because we have examined and checked - so this condition brings about knowledge with us: And even if we were to say: it only amounts to 'zann': then which zann would it be?, correct or certain zaan, or incorrect zann. then they will say correct zann! Then we say: it is a source for belief ('Aqeedah) as Allah ta'aalaa says:
Who bear in mind the certainty that they are to meet their Lord [Baqarah 2:46]
So the word 'zann' here is used with the meanings of belief in one of the principles of belief, i.e. belief in the Hereafter Allah ta'aalaa says:
I did really understand that my account would reach me [Haaqqah 69:20]
(Using the term 'zann') and this is quoted in praise of him, he is a Believer. [Also, the verse]:
And they perceived that there is no fleeing from Allah but to Himself [Tawbah 9:118]
in the story of those who remained behind - so here (again) 'zann' occurs with the meaning of I'tiqaad (certain belief) - so it has meaning of belief.
To sum up they are mixed up and inconsistent and you see one of them, for example, clean shaven, no beard, wearing clothes of the kaafirs, not acting on the dictates of Islaam in his life. He supports the ideal of Islaam. Islaam to him is an ideal to call for. But what is required is the following of Islaam not merely calling for it:
Greviously 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?
A. This is the saying of HT.
Firstly: HT invent lies against Allah so thet have distributed notes called notes of Hanz,it is said that this person was an agent of the British and that he links with the shaikh - the Imaan (rahimahullaah) and that he was a profuct of the British, etc. And they clain 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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . 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 weitten 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 Shaikh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhaab (rahimahulla) - and Aal Sa'ood was a treaty for furtherinf the cause of Islaam. And as if known the Deen has to have someone to carry it - so Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) refused the offer of Banoo 'Aamir to help him against the Kaafirs upon the condition that leadership would be theirs after him (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . So we say that this matter was not for booty or worldly gain - but for aiding the Deen of Islaam 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?
A. 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 htrough seeking aid from sources of strength and heads of tribes, heads of state, etc. - in order to bring about revilution 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.....
A. No - that is a fact - it is not permissible to have inherited Kings in Islaam - rather the Khaleefah is chosen from those fitting for the position and he is given oath of allegience - inherited Kingship is not allowed and Kingship is not Islamic.
QUESTION. We say that hereditary Kingship is haraam?
QUESTION. it is quoted, I thnk at the start of 'al 'Aqeedatul-Waasitiyyah' or 'Aqeedatul-Tahaawiyyah' , I am not sure - that Allah ta'aalaa - offered to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that he be a Prophet, a king or a servant and Messenger - so if tit is not correct to be king then....?
A. 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 wordl is that the son inherits from the father.
QUESTION. Then how or why did Allah - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - offer this to Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ?
A. He, ta'aalaa 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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said "I shoose to be servant and Messenger", and the Khaleefahs came after Allah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) - being chosen by the responsible and righteous offspring - the people of thr Soorah - so this was the Prophetic Khaleefah.
QUESTION. Some of HT accuse Shaikh Naasirul-Deen al-Albaanee of not knowing the Arabic language well.
A. This is a false slander without a doubt! Since Shaikh 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 witht he Shaikh for many years and he is Arabic of tounge nad they are non-Arabs - even if he is Albanian - since 'Arabic is due to language not race - and alhamdulillah (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 andthe 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 Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for [at least] one year or two and fought Jihaad along with him in [at least] one or two battles - so one who did that was a companion"
A. Firstly, Mu'aawiyyah is a Companion whether you apply their conditions or not and he is a Companion also as textually statedd by the scholars who have written his biography.
First he lived with Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 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 occured in the eighth year of Hijrah - (and) indeed he was one of those who wrote down the revelation for Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) - so even according to their conditions he is definitely a Companion.
Secondly, the correct definition for a Companion is: "One who saw Allaah' s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) even if only once - and died as a Muslim", and this is agreed upon by the scholars of hadeeth. And Mu'aawiyyah (may Allaah 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 Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . And Shaikh 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, Allaah ta'aalaa has witnessed in their favour that they are just. Allaah subhaanahu wata'aalaa 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 Maalik, Aboo Haneefah have agreed that letting the beard grow is waajib - 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 waajib. So whoever claims that ash-Shaafi'ee, Ibn Hanbal or Maalik said that it is an obligation, then they are wrong" - and that they challenge them to prove it.
A. What is correct from the sayings of the scholars of the four madhdhabs - on their books - in the old books of the Hanafees, in the books of the Shaafi'ees, the saying of Imaam Ahmad and Imaam Maalik is that it is waajib and that he who shaves is an open sinner (faasiq) who should be punished. Even to the extent that Imaam Maalik 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 waajib. The first hadeeth, the saying of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) : "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 landguage - 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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) : "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 waajib, but he did not order them, rather he recommended it for them. So the order means an obligation in the Sunnah of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and in the arabic language and in the Book of Allaah. For example, Allaah ta'aalaa 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 Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 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 (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) turned his face away from them, they replied: "Our Lord - meaning Kisraa - ordered us", so he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Rather my Lord ordered me to leave my beard and shorten my moustache."
QUESTION. They explain the hadeeth by saying that was not an order that was a request.
A. And this is of course ignorance of the hadeeth since he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "My Lord orderd me..." so of course they will twist words from their correct meanings.
QUESTION. They say concerning Eemaan and using the intellect in affairs that: When a persons Aqeedah agrees to his understanding intellect then it is said of a such a person that 'he has Aqeedah' i.e. when all of his Aqeedah agrees to his intellect. Then the muslim is sinful if he is not able to correct his Aqeedah with his intellect.
A. This is as they explain in their books and we have heard it from them - that they make it essential to reach Aqeedah by means of the intellect and that he who takes on belief blindly then his Eemaan is not counted. Then what is correct is that reaching Aqeedah through the intellect is good - but that the one who takes his Eemaan blindly then his Eemaan is acceptable before.
QUESTION. What do you mean by 'takes his Eemaan blindly'?
A. He takes it from his parents, or following his ruler, or a wife taking it from her husband, or a people taking it from their chief - this is taking it blindly. They did not reflect and consider but believed due to others and such a ones belief is acceptable to Allaah ta'aalaa as is proven by the fact that Sa'd ibn Mu'aadh (ra) was the chief of Ibn Abdil-Ashhal - and he was from the Ansaar, from the Aws - when he believed he returned to them and said he would not speak to them until they believed in Allaah, so they said: "We believe in Allaah", so did they stop, reflect and consider, or accept faith blindly? Is their belief correct or not? Their belief is Islamically correct. The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said - in the hadeeth which the brothers mentioned and asked about yesterday - "Allaah is amazed with a people who are taken in Paradise in chains", so the one who is taken in Paradise in chains: Is he a Believer or not? The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "No one will enter Paradise except a Believer". So he judged them to be Believers and they are in Paradise. And they didn't believe by means of reflection and consideration - rather they believed blindly, they lived amongst the Muslims, found Islaam and believed. So reflecting with the intellect is not a condition for the correctness of Eemaan but it is good for strengthening the Eemaan.
QUESTION. So what is the difference between the belief of such a person and the saying of the Hypocrite in the grave: "I heard the people saying such and such, so I said the same?"
A. This hypocrite who heard it and said it, said it but did not believe it and it did not settle in his heart, rather he was in doubt and uncertainty - whereas the other heard and believed and did not having any doubt remaining in his heart, since hearing is also a way to certain belief.
QUESTION. Then what is the difference between blind faith and arriving at faith using intelligence?
A. For example, some people come to believe in Allaah due to reflecting on creation, the harmony and precise order of this creation and due to that know that there is a Lord and believe in Allaah. But they also have to worship that God. Many westerners believe in the Lord but do not worship Him, so they need someone to guide them in that - and he is the Messenger or one to call them to Islaam. So the origin of their faith is reflection and the furtherance of their faith is through attaining knowledge and following blindly and otherwise the Sharee'ah, not through reflection. So the one who believes blindly for example, a person born a Muslim, finding both his parents Muslim, he did not consider or reflect on creation. He said: "Ashhadu allaah ilaaha illallaaha wa ashhadu anna Muhammadur-Rasoolullaah (I testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah alone and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah)" (so his parents are the ones who would cause him to become a Jew, Christian or a Magian. So this person did not consider or reflect. Is his Eemaan correct (or not)? This is the difference (between the two).
QUESTION. Now they are calling for Jihaad along with Shaikh Fadlullaah leader of the [so called] Hizbullaah - the Lebanese Shee'ee - and that the flag of Jihaad should be raised against the Americans in the Gulf. So what do you say about such a group of Muslims who call their followers to accept the saying of the Shee'ah in any matter?
A. This party is, of course, weird, in that it accepts amongst its ranks the Shee'ah. And [indeed] the leaders of those who call to it in Lebanon are Shee'ah such as Samee' Aatif as-Zain, perhaps you have heard of his books. He is a writer who has written for example, "Islaam and Human Heritage' and other books. He was a Shee'ah, so they accept Shee'ahs amongst their ranks since they are rationalists. That is they give precedence to their intellect - and I do not say that they are not intellectual, but rather they give the intellect precedence over the text. The Shee'ah are like them and this is a sign of the people of false desires (i.e. innovations)
Secondly, they do not consider the Shee'ah to be in contradiction to Islaam and this is ignorance of Islaam from them. The Raafidee Shee'ah of course curse the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and believe that they changed the Qur'an and invent a lie against the Mother of the Believers. And they have deeds and sayings for which Allaah sent down no permit. And the saying of Khomainee in his book 'Al-Hukoomat ul-Islaamiyyah', on p. 52: "... and one of the essentials of our madhdhab is that our infallible imaams have power over the creation and all the atoms of creation submit to them, and tat they have a station not reached by the nearest Angels nor any of the Messengers". So from the essential beliefs of their madhdhab is that this creation submits to their imaams and not to the Lord of Creation. This is clear Kufr. So those who do not know what is true Islaam and what breaks this true Islaam - and I do not find and example for them except the example which Shaikh Naasir - may Allaah increase him in good - gave for a Kurdish person who was with us in Syria and he was keen to spread Islaam. He passed by a Jew and said: "Become Muslim or I will kill you". So the Jew became afraid and said: "I will become Muslim, but tell me how I become Muslim? " So the Kurd said: "By Allaah, I do not know!"
And these people say we want to establish the Khilaafah, and we want to establish Allaah's rule and we want, and we want. And when we say to them: "What is Islaam", they say: "The Islaam of the Soofee, the Islaam of the Shee'ee, the Islaam of the Mu'tazilee" - a mixture! This is not Islaam. It is a corrupted form of Islaam.
QUESTION. Supposing a person does not pray, should you talk to him about the Khilaafah or Eemaan. He (the HT) the says: "Yes, you can talk to him about the Khilaafah, because talking about the Khilaafah system is talking about Eemaan, A 'Muslim' who doesn't even pray! Since Khilaafah is part of Eemaan.
A. I seek refuge in Allaah from Shaytaan the Rejected. O my brother they are seekers of rule and politics and they are not seekers of Deen and Aqeedah. The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) , did he teach the Companions that 'we will establish Allaah's rule on the earth' or that 'you should believe in Allaah'? He taught them to believe in Allaah and to obey Allaah's commands, to pray and give zakaah. All of that came before the Islamic nation. So how can we contradict Allaah's way and the way of His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in bringing about change and in teaching the people? This one who does not pray and does not worship Allaah subhaanahu wata'aalaa, what is the ruling about him in Islaam? He is a Kaafir. How can we ask a Kaafir to establish Allaah's order?
If you will aid Allaah he will aid you [Soorah Muhammad 47:7]
Is Allaah in need of an army like that. No. What He wants is that you should establish His Sharee'ah upon yourself, that is what is aiding Allaah's Deen as the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said to Ibn Abbaas: "Safeguard Allaah and He will safeguard you." Allaah has no need of anyone to protect him. And 'safeguard Allaah' means 'obey and safeguard the orders of Allaah'.
Safeguard your prayers especially the middle prayer [Baqarah 2: 238]
So what is meant is safeguarding the orders of Allaah. So before Allaah helps you by establishing the Islamic order and the Khilaafah and gives you authority in the earth, then you have to perform righteous deeds.
Allaah has promised to those amongst you who believe and do righteous deeds that He will of a surety grant them inheritance in the land. [Noor 24:55]
The first thing is that they believe (aamanoo), then they do righteous deeds and then He will place them in charge in the land. So how can we seek from people who do not pray, give zakaah, nor fast nor make Hajj - that they establish the Islamic order? Rather those people who do not fast and do not give zakaah - they will be the first people to stand in the way of Islamic rule.
QUESTION. They say: "Whoever does not work for the establishment for the Khilaafah is sinful, and anyone who has not worked for it since the fall of the Khilaafah in 1924 CE are sinful, all of them since it is waajib to establish it.
A. We say the one who denies the need to work for the Khilaafah is sinful, but the one who strives to bring Khilaafah about through education and spreading knowledge, then he strives to establish Allaah's Sharee'ah in His way and not in their (HT's) way. And it is not correct that everyone who does not work in their way does not work to establish the Khilaafah is sinful - and this is pure misguidance, since many of the Muslims are educating preparing and teaching the people to put Allaah's Sharee'ah into practice - and they in their view are striving to establish Allaah's Sharee'ah. So is there anything wrong in what they are doing?
QUESTION. What is the position of the Salafees with regard to the Khilaafah, since many of them as a counter-reaction call to the calls of the Ikhwaan and HT say: "We give our attentions to the matters of worship, education and correction/purification - so what is the position of the Salafees?
A. The position of the Salafees is clear - that we strive to re-establish Islamic life and to establish Allaah's laws upon the land by the way of correction and education. We strive and hope for good always, due to the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) : "Prophethood will be amongst you for as long as Allaah wills, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be Khilaafah upon the way of Prophethood, then Allaah will raise it up when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship, then oppressive Kingship, then Khilaafah upon the way of the Prophethood."
So we wait for the Khilaafah in the way of the Prophethood and we work to bring it about anew and (about) his saying: "Khilaafah upon the way of the Prophethood:
(i) that those who will restore this rightly guided Khilaafah are the Salafees, since they are the ones who carry upon the Prophetic way and (ii) that the Khilaafah which will come about will not be in the way of the Abbasids, nor the Umayyads nor the Othmaanis. Rather it will be on the way of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs.
So the men who will bring about the return of this Khilaafah will be upon the way of the Rightly Guided Khaleefahs and the way of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . So they have respect for and honour the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) . But if we look to the state of Hizb ut-Tahreer we find that they have hatred for the Companions and at the head of them Mu'aawiyyah, as we have just said. 'Khilaafah on the way of the Prophethood' - who are on the way of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ? The Companions, whereas you speak ill of the Companions!
QUESTION. Is the hadeeth mutawaatir or...?
A. No, the hadeeth is 'saheeh' - they use it often so it is said it is Khabarul-Aahaad - it is not Mutawaatir - so how can they use it. But it agrees with what they have in their minds. This hadeeth about the rightly guided Khilaafah is aahaad - and they use it often and I have spoken with their spokesman in Jordan, so we said to him: "This is Khabarul-Aahaad", so he said "Yes, but it agrees with the state of affairs as they are."
QUESTION. What is the response ti their accusation that our scholars, like 'Abul-'Azeez ibn Baaz (rahimahulla) and so on - are in the pockets of the governments - and why don't they give Fatwaa about what is happening with the Allies - but just talk about Bid'ah and shirk all the time - se they cast aspersions upon them.
A. As regards the events in the Gulf - the view of Shaikh al-Albanee and our view, is that we do not permit seeking the aid of the Mushriks, and the position of shaikh Naasir - may Allah increase him in good - is clear and contains do ambiguity - not out of love for one side or from fear of other - but rather due to the fear of Allah - subhaanaahu wa ta'aalaa.
Secondly: Those scholars, and we must have good thoughts about them - and it is Allah who takes account of them - then they are mild in their advising the rulers - so that hopefully Allah will correct them - that is the thought we hold about them. We do not agree about their Fatwaa about the war in the Gulf - they are not correct in our view - but they still receive reward for it - they performed ijtihaad and erred - and we have nathing to add to that - and that is our saying with regards to all the scholars - is they are incorrect they receive only one reward and if they are correct then they receive two rewards. And we have a different view about the affairs in the Gulf - about the presence of the American and the enemies of Allah - subhaanaahu wa ta'aalaa - in the Muslim land - we do not permit that.