Images: London Demo against the US

[Paragon]

I took photos of London Demo for Somalia and Iraq yesterday....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paragon]

Some of the speakers....

 

 

 

 

[sheherazade]

so how was the demonstration?

[Laba-X]

These are some Great pics Paragon. I think i must now definately consider the SLR.

 

Mine coming soon after i figure out how to post them!

[Faarax-Brawn]

Lovely Pictures. Completely different from the other Demo.

 

Paragon,Is that you gafuurka taagaya with the "End terrorism" Poster?

[Laba-X]

Here are some more...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fiqikhayre]

To Hell with Hizb-ut-Tahriir, what loosers!

[Centurion]

Last pic on Paragon's second post shows majid Nawaz, a prominent member of Xisb ut Taxriir, an organisation which advocates for a rebirth of the Khaliifah. He was tortured and held captive by the Egyptian police who arrested him whilst he was talking to some students at a University campus.

Right now he is a presenter on the Islam channel.

 

Xisb ut Taxriir organised this demonstration, it seems yet again we Somalis show our ineptitude in organising ourselves.

[-Lily-]

Paragon, did you take these? They look very professional and news worthy, I'm impressed.

[Fabregas]

How is the caliphate going for hizb u tahrir?

[Shakti]

if that’s what they call professional pictures nowadays than im sure i can sell my cell phone- pix as a news worthy ..huh? no offense mr Paragon.. just helping ya with Ur balance in walking after reading waters comment..

 

anyways

Amazing thing 2 see.. our ppl all gathered 4 one cause.. I personally do not think protest solves anything especially war situations. Totally waste of time : :rolleyes:

[Fiqikhayre]

Lies of the Hizb exposed. Beware of them brothers and sisters! They mainly recruit from Universities, don't get in contact with them! If you see one of them, educate them if you have the confidence and knowledge but if not don't talk to them at all about worldly and spiritual affairs!

 

Campaign Against the Corrupt Hizb ut-Tahrir

 

Exposing Some of the Lies and Misguided Methodology of the Wandering Deviants Hizb-ut-Tahrir (www.theclearpath.com)

 

Indeed All Praise is for Allaah, we Praise Him and we seek His Aid, and we seek His Forgiveness. And we seek refuge with Allaah from the evils of our own souls and from the evil consequences of our wicked deeds. He whom Allaah guides none can misguide and he whom Allaah misguides none can guide. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except for Allaah, Alone and without partners and I bear witness that Muhammad is his Slave and Messenger. To proceed, the best Speech is the Book of Allaah and the best Guidance is the Guidance of Muhammad (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) and the worst of all affairs are the newly invented matters. Every newly invented matter is Innovation and every Innovation is Misguidance and every Misguidance is in the Fire.

 

This short article is written to expose to the Muslims who care for their faith and for the truth the lies of the group that calls itself Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).

 

Hizb ut-Tahrir organised a 'March Against Corrupt Muslim Rulers' on Saturday 22nd December 2001 in London. To advertise this march of theirs they have produced a leaflet on which, alongside a picture of a Muslim ruler shaking hands with the Kaafir President of the USA, it is written,

 

"The Islamic Ummah has endured almost 80 years under the yoke of rulers who care not for her interests or for Islam ... The cause of the humiliation of the Muslim Ummah and the courage of the Kuffar to repeatedly humiliate the Muslims and pillage her lands is the Muslims rulers.

 

"This march ... will not merely discharge the energy of the Muslims of Britain by shouting a few empty slogans - rather it will focus the Ummah on the true crime - that of the Muslim rulers - and the only true solution - the change of these corrupt rulers and their immediate replacement with the Islamic Khilafah Rashida. A delegation will be sent to all the Muslim embassies including the criminal states of ... (they go on to name three Muslim countries)... - to send a powerful message from the Muslims of Britain for an end to tyranny and oppression."

 

This statement of theirs is full of lies that we will bi-idhnillahi ta’aala expose for all to see. Before we begin let us make it clear however that our aim in exposing these lies is only to please Allaah by standing up for the truth and opposing lies - whoever they are from. A Muslim is not nationalist or racist and he/she speaks the truth even against him or herself. So let no one say we are trying to justify the acts of tyranny and oppression for as will become clear by the end of this article, we are the ones who are following the Prophetic Methodology in dealing with it.

 

And we happily proclaim that we are opposing HT though they may be Muslims for it is Muslims like them who add to the problems of the Ummah as will become clear inshaaAllaah and because of their opposition to the Manhaj (Methodology) laid down by the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam).

 

We ask Allaah to accept this from us and to grant us a good reward in the Hereafter. We humbly beseech Allaah to allow us and all of the Muslims to see the good as good and the evil as evil. The Clear Path, www.theclearpath.com

 

Shawwal 1422 / December-January 2001.

 

HT's 1 st Lie

 

The first lie made by the HT shows how ****** and ignorant they are of the realities. They write in their flier, "The Islamic Ummah has endured almost 80 years under the yoke of rulers who care not for her interests or for Islam." This is an astonishingly foolish statement! Only 80 years O! HT? Have the Muslims been without khilaafah for only 80 years?! What a lie!

 

First of all by this statement of theirs, HT have contradicted the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu 'alaihi wasallam) himself. For the trustworthy Prophet said, "The Khilaafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be kingship after that."1 [1]

 

And he (SallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) also said, "The bonds of Islaam will collapse, one by one. Every time a bond collapses the people will hold rigorously to the one follows it. The first one to collapse is the rulership and the last one to collapse is the prayer."2[2] So it is clear that the problems of corrupt rulership is nothing new, rather it is one of the earliest problems.

 

And with this HT have also contradicted history. It is well known that Khilafah lasted in this Ummah for 30 years not more and then there was kingship. And maybe HT think that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was a rightly guided khalif. Or maybe the Moghul emperors were rightly guided khalifs?! And as for the Ottoman Empire, which was ‘dismantled’ in 1924, then it was hardly a Khalifate either.3[3] So as for HT’s statement about 80 years then it is out by 1300 years!

 

So how then have HT made this ignorant lie? And is this not a clear proof of their ignorance of the religion and of other matters? And is it not then clear to you O Muslim that HT have nothing to offer this Ummah other than their ignorant ranting?!

 

HT's 2 nd Lie

 

Continuing with their bad habit to speak without knowledge and rather to speak contrary to it HT then spew out the lie that, "The cause of the humiliation of the Muslims Ummah and the courage of the Kuffar to repeatedly humiliate the Muslims and pillage her lands is the Muslims rulers."

 

I would like to ask HT where they got this understanding from, was it from the Qur'aan or was it from Hadeeth or was it, as it seems more likely, from your own desires and deficient intellects?!

 

1 Reported by Ahmad, Tirmidhee, Aboo Ya’laa - Saheeh

 

2 Reported by Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Hibbaan. Ibn Hibbaan put it under the chapter heading, "A mention of the narrations that the first appearance of the breakdown of the bonds of Islaam will come from the corruption of the rule and the rulers."

 

3 Shaikh ul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728AH rahimahullaah) said, "So when the period of the Rightly Guided Khalifas had passed and the rule of kingship appeared, deficiencies appeared in the rulers … The kingship of Mu’aawiyah (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) was a kingship of mercy, so when it passed, the rule of Yazeed came and fitnah took place within it: the killing of al-Hussain (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) in Iraaq, the fitnah of the people of Hurrah in al-Madinah and the siege of Makkah when ‘Abdullaah ibn az-Zubayr made his stand. Then Yazeed passed away and the Ummah split up. Ibn az-Zubayr in the Hijaaz, Banu Hakam in ash-Shaam, and the jump to power of Mukhtaar ibn Abee ‘Ubayd and others in Iraaq. All of this took place at the end of the period of the Companions." Majmoo’ul Fataawaa 10/354-368..Are the corrupt rulers the cause of the humiliation or are they just a symptom themselves, a part of this humiliation?

 

Allaah (‘Azza wa Jall) says, "Verily! Allaah will not change the good condition of a people as long as they do not change their state of goodness themselves (by committing sins and by being ungrateful and disobedient to Allaah). But when Allaah wills a people's punishment, there can be no turning back of it, and they will find besides Him no protector." Soorat ar-Ra’d (13:11)

 

"Whatever of good reaches you, it is from Allaah, and whatever of evil befalls you, it is from yourself." Soorat un-Nisaa‘ (4:79)

 

"And whatever of misfortune befalls you, it is because of what your hands have earned. Yet He pardons much." Soorat ush-Shooraa (42:30)

 

"Evil has appeared upon the land and the sea, because of what the hands of men have earned. That Allaah may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return to Allaah in repentance." Soorat ar-Room (30:41)

 

The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu 'alaihi wasallam), who had more concern for the Ummah than the HT, informed us of the humiliation of the Ummah and he did not mention the corrupt Muslim rulers as the cause. Thawbaan (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) related that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "The nations are about to call each other and set upon you, just as the diners set upon food." It was said, ‘Will it be because of our small number that day?’ He said, "Rather, on that day you will be many, but you will be like foam, like the foam on the ocean. And Allaah will remove the fear of you from the hearts of your enemies and will throw Wahn (weakness) into your hearts." Someone said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! What is Wahn?’ He said, "Love of the world and hatred for death."4 [4]

 

Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) narrated that, "People used to ask the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ’alaihi wasallam) about the good and I used to ask him about the evil, for fear that it would reach me. So I asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, we were living in ignorance and evil, then Allaah brought this good to us. So will there be any evil after this good?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ I then asked, ‘Will there be any good after this evil?’ He replied, ‘Yes, but it will be tainted.’ So I asked, ‘What will be its taint?’ He replied, "A people who guide others to other than my way, you will approve of some of their actions and disapprove of others." I further inquired, ‘Then is there any evil after that good?’ He said, "Yes, callers at the gates of Hell – whosoever responds to their call, they will throw them into the Fire."5[5] I then said, ‘O 4 Aboo Daawood (no. 4297), Ibn ’Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (2/97/8) and others - Saheeh. Authenticated by Shaikh Naasir al-Albaani.

 

5 This is referring to those who call to Innovation. Ibn ‘Abbaas (radhiAllaahu ‘anhumaa) said that, "One day the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) drew for us a long, straight line and then he said, "This is the Path of Allaah." And then he drew lines to its right and to its left and then said, "these are different paths, upon each of these ways is a devil calling to it." Then he recited the verse, "Indeed this is My Straight Path, so follow it, and do not follow other paths" meaning these.Messenger of Allaah, describe them to us.’ He said, "They will be from our people and speak our language." I asked, ‘So what do you order me to do if I reach that?’ he said, "Stick to the Jamaa’ah 6[6] of the Muslims and their leader." I further asked, ‘What if they have neither a Jamaa’ah, nor a leader?’ He said, ‘Then keep away from all of those sects; even if you have to bite upon the roots of a tree, until death reaches you whilst you are in that state.""7[7]

 

Ibn ‘Umar (radhiAllaahu ‘anhumaa) narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ’alaihi wasallam) "When you deal in ’eenah (a transaction involving usury), take hold of the tails of cows, become content with agriculture and abandon jihaad in the Path of Allaah, then Allaah will permit your humiliation and He will not remove it from you, until you return to your Religion."8[8]

 

’Abdullaah Ibn ’Umar said, ‘The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ’alaihi wasallam) said, ‘O Muhaajiroon (Companions who migrated)! You may be afflicted by five things. Allaah forbid that you should live to see them. If fornication and adultery become widespread, then you should realize that this has never happened without new diseases befalling the people which their forefathers never suffered. If people should begin to cheat in weighing out goods, you should realize that this has never happened without drought and famine befalling the people, and their rulers oppressing them. If people should withhold the zakaah, you should realize that this has never happened without the rain being stopped from falling; and were it not for the sake of the animals, it would never rain again. If people should break their covenant with Allaah and His Messenger, you should realize that this has never happened without Allaah sending an army against them to take some of their possessions by force. If the leaders do not rule according to the Book of Allaah, you should realize that this has never happened without Allaah making them into groups and making them fight one another."9[9]

 

So where then HT is the mention of the corrupt Muslim rulers as the main cause for the Ummah’s humiliation? Rather what is apparent from the clear, authentic evidences is that the fault lies within the Ummah as a whole, not just in its rulers. And when we look to the authentic evidences we have mentioned, we find sin, transgression and innovation feature, so it becomes clear that innovated groups and sects like HT are themselves a cause of that which they claim they are out to rectify!

 

So we see again that HT say one thing yet Allaah and His Messenger (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said another. So O noble Muslim brothers and sisters! Can you see how the HT speaks contrary to the truth?! paths "for they will separate you away from His Path."" (Soorat al-An’aam 6:153). Bikr bin ‘Alaa said, "He meant the devils amongst men and these are the Innovations and Allaah knows best." And Mujaahid said about the other paths, "The innovations and doubts". (Al-‘Itisaam(1/40-45) of ash-Shaatibee)

 

6 Ibn Mas’ood (radhiAllaahu ‘anhu) said, "The Jamaa’ah is that which conforms to the truth even if you are alone." Reported by Ibn Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq with a Saheeh Isnaad as pointed out by Imaam Naasir al-Albaani in al-Mishkaat (1/61).

 

Ibn ‘Abbaas (radhiAllaahu ‘anhumaa) narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "Whoever sees something from his ruler which he dislikes let him be patient with him, for he who splits away from the Jamaa’ah by a handspan and then dies, dies a death of Jaahiliyyah." Reported by al-Bukhaaree (9/145), Muslim and Ahmad. 7 Bukhaaree (7084) and Muslim (1487) 8 Aboo Dawood (no. 3462) and Baihaqi in Sunan al Kubraa (3/316) – Saheeh. Authenticated by Ibn

 

Taymiyyah in Majmoo’ al Fataawaa (29/30) 9 Ibn Maajah (no. 4019) and Aboo Nu’aym in Hilyatul-Awliyaa‘ (8/333-334) – Hasan. Authenticated by Imaam Naasir al-Albani in Silsilatul Hadeeth as Saheehah (106).

 

HT’s 3 rd Lie

 

"This march ... will not merely discharge the energy of the Muslims of Britain by shouting a few empty slogans"

 

Rather what we have seen from experience many times before is that this is all marches are good for – shouting empty slogans and venting juvenile frustrations. How many decades of demonstrations have we seen and what results have we seen? Aside from the fact that it is contrary to the methodology of the Prophets (‘alaihimus salaam), the marching methodology is useless and is only used by those bankrupt of trust in Allaah. As anyone can see, marching and demonstrating are the tools of the fallacy of democracy, encouraged by it so that the people are pacified and suffice with their demonstration. So what does a Muslim believe in and utilize, democracy or Islaam? And what a fallacy for those who claim to oppose democracy to use its tools themselves! Allaahu Musta’aan!

 

Another despicable aspect of these silly demonstrations and marches that we see at least once a year is the amount of sin and transgression that wantonly occurs during them. The recent demos departing from Central Mosque 10[10] that were shown on TV, demonstrated it clearly for all to see. Unrelated sisters and brothers travelling together, chitchatting in the coaches – it is not hidden from the TV cameras so how can it be hidden from Allaah? And how can you expect the Aid or Mercy of Allaah when you disobey Him?

 

HT’s 4th Lie

 

Carrying on in their flier HT go on to say that, "the true crime" is "that of the Muslim rulers". And this too is another strange statement of the HT. What do they mean by ‘the true crime’? And what do they mean that it is of the Muslim rulers?

 

So if they mean shirk which is, as Allaah says, the greatest crime 11[11] then are not the non-Muslim rulers more guilty? Are not all the non-Muslims guilty? And are not the grave-worshipping Soofis of this Ummah guilty? So what does this HT mean?

 

Maybe it means the bombing of Afghanistan? Then if that is what they mean how about the non-Muslims who are dropping the bombs are they not doing a ‘true crime’?

 

Maybe HT mean the general state of the Ummah at present? Then maybe HT should look at themselves, for groups such as theirs are red-handed in the demise of the honour of the Muslims. How about their own true crime against the ‘aqeedah of Islaam? How about their denial of belief in Punishment of the Grave? Is that not the ‘true crime’??

 

So it is a good reflection of HT’s real goal and their real call that despite all the crimes that are prevalent throughout the world of differing degrees the only crime which is apparent to them is that of the Muslim rulers!

 

HT’s 5 th and 6 th Lies

 

And finally in this flier or theirs HT have included two lies in one go. "the only true solution - the change of these corru pt rulers and their immediate replacement with the Islamic Khilafah Rashida."

 

10 Which were admittedly not organized by HT but similar and comparable nonetheless. 11 Soorat Luqmaan (31:13) "Verily Shirk is a great oppression indeed.".The first of these lies is that the ‘only true solution’ lies in the ‘change of these corrupt rulers’. This is a futile and baseless claim.

 

Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta’aala) said as we have seen that "Verily! Allaah will not change the good condition of a people as long as they do not change their state of goodness themselves" and the scholars of tafseer have explained that this verse applies both ways. So due to sin and transgression and innovation Allaah will change the good condition of a people to a bad condition, and vice versa due to their returning to Tawheed, Sunnah and Tazkiyah Allaah will change the bad condition of a people to a good condition. This understanding is further reinforced by Allaah’s saying,

 

"Allaah has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practice their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islaam). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Faasiqoon (rebellious, disobedient to Allaah). Soorat an-Noor (24:55)

 

The Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) clearly stated that the humiliation of the Ummah would only be lifted when it returned to its deen, "then Allaah will permit your humiliation and He will not remove it from you, until you return to your Religion."7 He did not say ‘when you change your corrupt rulers’.

 

And looking to the Imaams of the Muslims from whom the HT are totally severed, we find the beautiful statement of Imaam Maalik (rahimahullaah), "Whosoever introduces into Islaam an innovation, and holds it to be something good, has indeed alleged that Muhammad (sallAllaahu ’alaihi wa sallam) has betrayed his message. Read the saying of Allaah the Most Blessed, the Most High:

 

"This day I have perfected your Religion for you, completed My favour upon you and I have chosen for you Islaam as your Religion." Soorat ul-Maa‘idah (5:3)

 

So that which was not part of the Religion at that time, cannot be part of the Religion today. And the last part of this Ummah cannot be rectified, except by that which rectified its first part."

 

So we can see that the statement of HT that the only solution is the replacement of the rulers is unanimously refuted by the authentic evidences from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Another blatant deception of HT lies exposed!

 

And then the second lie which they made within this statement, is that "immediate replacement with the Islamic Khilafah Rashida" is possible. Anyone with intellect can see that this is not how it works. Thinking that the Rightly Guided Khalifate can be established ‘immediately’ is nothing but a fanciful delusion...... HT’s Deviated Manhaj (Methodology) For All to See

 

Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu anhu) narrated in a longer hadeeth that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "There will come leaders who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans." He (Hudhaifah) asked, "What should I do O Messenger of Allaah if I reach that?" He replied, "You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey."12[12]

 

The Imaam of Ahl us Sunnah of his time al-Barbahaaree 13[13] (d. 329H) said, "If you find a man making supplication against the ruler, know that he is a person of innovation. If you find a person making supplication for the ruler to be upright, know that he is a person of the Sunnah, if Allaah wills.

 

Fudayl Ibn ‘Iyaad 14[14] said, "If I had an invocation which was to be answered I would not make it except for the ruler.""15[15]

 

He also said, "Whoever rebels against a Muslim ruler is one of the Khawaarij, has caused dissent within the Muslims and has contradicted the narrations and dies a death of Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic days of ignorance).

 

It is not permissible to fight the ruler nor to rebel against him even if he oppresses. This is due to the saying of the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) to Abu Dharr al-Ghifaaree, "Have patience even if he is an Abyssinian slave"16[16] and his saying to the Ansaar, "Have patience until you meet me at the pool."17[17] There is no fighting against the ruler in the Sunnah. It causes destruction of the religion and the wordly affairs."15

 

In a Saheeh Hadeeth reported by Imaam Ahmad, the Prophet (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wasallam) said, "The Khawaarij are the Dogs of the Hellfire." SO BE WARNED O MUSLIM WHO CARES FOR HIS RELIGION! BE WARNED FROM THE LYING HIZBUT TAHRIR!

 

12 Saheeh Muslim (no. 4554)

 

13 He was Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn ‘Alee ibn Khalf al-Barbahaaree. He acquired knowledge from the senior students of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal. 14 d. 187H

 

15 The Explanation of the Creed (Sharh us Sunnah) of Imaam al Barbahaaree. 16 Saheeh Muslim (nos. 4525, 4526) 17 Saheeh al Bukhaaree (5/136)

[Fanisha]

^^^ :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Fiqikhayre]

Paragon and his group further exposed!

 

Tape of Shaikh Saleem al-Hilaalee

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

 

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

 

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 (s.a.w.s) saying: "let not a woman describe another woman to her husband - as if he were looking at her." So his (s.a.w.s) saying: "...as if he were looking at her" - he is not actually looking at her, but a description of her is brought into his mind so the forbiddance is from this imaginary picture - so how is it then if the picture is physically in front of one looking at it?! - showing her attractions and her body - indeed revealing her 'awrah - is this not even more forbidden? Secondly, this picture even if it does not move or feel - yet it is a real picture - and nudity is something haraam - so how can we allow looking at this thing which is haraam?

 

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

 

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 the people did not support it, but rather opposed it. And for Allah's laws to be enforced throughout throughout this earth - they have to be carried / defended by the Believers -

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(i) Mutawatirul-Lafzee (whose wording is mutawaatir) - such as the ahaadeeth: "Let he who lies against me intentionally take his seat in the Fire." and

(ii) Mutawatirul-Ma'nawee (i.e. they differ in wording but are the same in meaning) such as the ahaadeeth about the descent of 'Eesaa - 'alaihi salaam - many ahaadeeth but not with a single meaning - rather they agree on a single fact - the descent of 'Eesaa, the coming of Dajjaal, the coming of the Mahdee - 'alaihi salaam - all of these are to them aahaad - even if they agree in the sense and meaning as long as they are not reported with a single wording

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(i) the chain of narration be fully connected by

(ii) trustworthy

(iii) precise narrators

(iv) nor contradicting something more reliable and

(v) not having a hidden defect

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 (rahimahullaah) - and Aal Sa'ood was a treaty for further in the cause of Islaam. And as if known the Deen has to have someone to carry it - so Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) 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 (s.a.w.s) refused the offer of Banoo 'Aamir to help him against the Kaafirs upon the condition that leadership would be theirs after him (s.a.w.s). 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?

 

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 (Hizb ut-tahreer) 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 Islaam - 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'aalaa - offered to the Prophet (s.a.w.s) that he be a Prophet, a king or a servant and Messenger - so if it 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 - subhaanahu wa ta'aalaa - offer this to Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s)?

 

Answer: He, Allah 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 (s.a.w.s) said "I choose to be servant and Messenger", and the Khaleefahs came after Allah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) - being chosen by the responsible and righteous offspring - the people of the Shoorah - so this was the Prophetic Khaleefah.

 

QUESTION. Some of Hizb ut-tahreer accuse Shaikh Naasirul-Deen al-Albaanee of not knowing the Arabic language well.

 

Answer: This is a false slander without a doubt! Since Shaikh Naasir, may Allah protect him, gained Knowledge of Ahaadeeth and spent his whole life with Ahaadeeth - which is the essence of 'Arabic - and since we have lived with he Shaikh 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 Alhumdolillaah (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 Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) 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"

 

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 Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) 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 (s.a.w.s) - 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 (s.a.w.s) even if only once - and died as a Muslim", and this is agreed upon by the scholars of ahaadeeth. 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 (s.a.w.s). 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.

 

Answer: 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 ahaadeeth, the saying of the Messenger (s.a.w.s): "Leave the beard, shorten the moustache and act differently to the Mushriks". And the order here makes it obligatory. But to them - the Hizb ut-tahreer - 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 fulfillment or that something has to be done? It is something which has to be done. And the saying of the Messenger (s.a.w.s): "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 (s.a.w.s) 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 ahaadeeth we find that keeping a beard is an obligation. And the saying of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s) 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 (s.a.w.s) turned his face away from them, they replied: "Our Lord - meaning Kisraa - ordered us", so he (s.a.w.s) said: "Rather my Lord ordered me to leave my beard and shorten my moustache."

 

QUESTION. They explain the ahaadeeth by saying that was not an order that was a request.

 

Answer: And this is of course ignorance of the ahaadeeth since he (s.a.w.s) said: "My Lord ordered 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.

 

Answer: 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'?

 

Answer: 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 (s.a.w.s) said - in the ahaadeeth 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 (s.a.w.s) 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?"

 

Answer: 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?

 

Answer: 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 Shi'ite - 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?

 

Answer: 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 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 that 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 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 Hizb ut-tahreer) 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.

 

Answer. 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 (s.a.w.s), 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 (s.a.w.s) 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 (s.a.w.s) 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.

 

Answer. 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 (Hizb ut-tahreer'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 Hizb ut-tahreer say: "We give our attentions to the matters of worship, education and correction/purification - so what is the position of the Salafees?

 

Answer. 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 ahaadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (s.a.w.s): "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 (s.a.w.s). So they have respect for and honour the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (s.a.w.s). 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 (s.a.w.s)? The Companions, whereas you speak ill of the Companions!

 

QUESTION. Is the ahaadeeth mutawaatir or...?

 

Answer. No, the ahaadeeth 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 ahaadeeth 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 to their accusation that our scholars, like 'Abul-'Azeez ibn Baaz (rahimahullaah) 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 - so they cast aspersions upon them.

 

Answer. As regards the events in the Gulf - the view of Shaikh al-Albaanee 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 nothing 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.

[Miriam1]

^ seriously who reads these long posts?

 

But its nice to know that there were protests on the same day in Canada and the UK, were there any in the US, or any of the other european countries? I wish I had some pics to post about the protest here in Toronto. But it was rather well done.