A brother asked me to respond to the accusations made against Hizb ut Tahrir that are in two videos on this page:
http://ahlulsunnahwaljammah.wordpress.com/category/callers-to-deviation-deviant-sects/refutation-of-hizb-ut-tahrir-ht/ [Edit: The link is no longer available, but you can search YouTube for the two videos if you would like to listen to them, using obvious keyword searches].
My responses are below:
As for Shaykh Al-Albaani’s video, half the video is him just speaking in generic rules, such as “if it contradicts the Qur’an and Sunnah, then it is wrong,” and we agree with that.
As for the second half of his video where he speaks of specifics against the Hizb, he simply misunderstood most of the points he accused the Hizb of. The points are:
1- The claim that we put the human mind ahead of the Shari’ah.
This is completely wrong and is something people often misunderstood. To keep this simple, here is a quote from the very first chapter of the very first book that every single member of Hizb ut Tahrir must study called “The System of Islam,” it says: “Consequently, Iman in Allah comes through the rational way (through the mind) and this Iman must be by the rational way. Thus, as such, it becomes the basis upon which Iman in all matters beyond our senses and in all of that which Allah informed us is built….(but) Iman in the Shari’ah is not based on the mind. Rather, one must surrender completely to all that which was revealed from Allah (swt).”
In other words, belief in the existence of Allah (swt) is based on proving it through the mind, and belief in the authenticity of the Qur’an is based on proving it through the mind. But everything else, such as belief in the aspects of the Aqeeda (Akhirah, Angels, Jinn, etc) and in the Ahkam of Allah (all that is Halal, Haram, etc) is not based on the mind, rather it must be accepted entirely based on the evidences from the Qur’an and Sunnah.
So, this first point is simply a misunderstanding of what we actually said.
2- The claim that we “don’t need to take an evidence that is Thanni (indecisive) in meaning or Thanni in chain of narration into Aqeeda.”
Suffice it to say that our opinion on this matter is the EXACT same opinion as Imam Al-Shafi’iee, Imam Abu Haneefa, and Imam Malik on this issue. The only scholar of the 4 who said that Thanni is taken into Aqeeda is Ibn Hanbal, and Al-Albani was a Hanbali (as are nearly all the self-proclaimed “salafi” scholars of Saudi Arabia, since Muhammed bin Abdul-Wahhab was a Hanbali, and somehow they have been taught that no other opinions are valid other than his). It is acceptable to follow Ibn Hanbal’s opinion, but let’s not act as if there are no other opinions out there.
The majority of scholars actually said that Thanni is NOT taken into Aqeeda. For example, Imam Al-Shafi’iee said in his book “Al-Risaala”: “Khabar Al-Khaasa (also known as Khabar Ahad) is accepted as outward knowledge (actions) only, and allows interpretation (i.e. is Thanni) and is understood through Ijtihaad, and it is used for the slaves (of Allah) in the branches of the Deen, not in its Usool, such as the Aqeeda.” It’s surprising how the Saudi system brainwashes scholars to think that only the Hanbali opinion exists in the universe.
3- As for his comment regarding the “saved sect” and the “Jama’ah,” here is a video of a talk I gave on the Hadith regarding the 73 sects, which explains the topic in full from the perspective of the classical scholars, and I quote those classical scholars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC0BKsvl4Ms. This video also addresses some of what Al-Wadi’iee said in that other video.
As for Al-Waadi’ee’s video, his mistakes are as follows:
1- He says Hizb ut Tahrir was established in Jordan, but the Hizb was actually established in Al-Quds.
2- He says that the Hizb broke off from Al-Ikhwaan, but this is simply wrong, and I don’t even know where people get this ridiculous idea from in the first place. Shaykh Taqi was never a part of Al-Ikhwaan.
3- He accused us of saying “Nothing should be accepted except for that which conforms to the intellect.” I already addressed this misunderstanding in my response to the accusations of Al-Albani in the previous post here.
3a- He says “this is why they reject punishment of the grave.” This is a blatant lie, and the Hizb absolutely does not reject punishment of the grave. He is simply spreading a lie without actually bothering to look into the Hizb literature to confirm it. Had he checked, he would have found absolutely nothing of the sort.
3b- He says “and they reject that the Dajjal will be brought forth.” Again, this is a blatant lie, and has absolutely no basis for it whatsoever. The Hizb does not reject the coming of the Dajjal, period. If anyone believes this garbage, let them bring their proof from anything we have written.
4- He said “they have no concern for teaching good etiquette or with spreading knowledge.” This is simply an insult to everyone’s intelligence. What kind of a man says such a thing? What kind of shallowness is this??
Suffice it to say, we do concern ourselves with teaching good etiquette and with spreading knowledge, because the Ahkam of Islam ITSELF is good etiquette, and da’wa ITSELF is spreading knowledge. If anything, we dedicate our lives to spreading good etiquette and Islamic knowledge. How can anyone say otherwise??
And tell me, is it good etiquette to spread lies about your Muslim brother without verifying it? Is it good etiquette to insult and slander your Muslim brothers by using insults such as “they are Khabeeth” (they are dirty/impure)? Is it “spreading knowledge” to spread misinformation without bothering to do ANY research from the source?
5- He said “it is a party that cultivates its followers upon seeking after and studying politics, which contradicts religion.” So, to him, politics contradicts religion. This is simply a typical secularized mentality.
Suffice it to say, Rasool Allah (saw) described the Prophets as “politicians” in the Hadith “Bani Israeel used to have their political affairs managed by the Prophets.” The Hadith specifically says “Tasus-hum” which is the verb tense of “Siyaasah,” which means “politics.”
Islam defines politics as “managing the societal affairs of the people.” So, yes, we dedicate our lives to the societal affairs of the Ummah. Abu Bakr (ra) was one of the greatest politicians of all time. As was Umar, and Uthman and Ali (raa). And above them all was the best politician the world has ever seen: Rasool Allah (saw). The Ummah was woken up from this sick disease of secularism. We no longer fall for this “politics contradicts the religion” garbage. We are aware the Islam IS politics. Only the blind still do not see this fact.
6- He says that the leader of the Hizb said regarding teaching the Qur’an: “we do not want to produce dervishes.” And again, this is a lie and again a mockery of the Ummah’s intelligence. The Hizb requires all its members to read the Qur’an fluently.
Although I will add that the members of the Hizb do say that the Qur’an should not be taught detached from its meanings and detached from its practical application. That will produce dervishes, who chant the Qur’an as sounds, rather than understand it as a set of solutions and guidance for mankind.
7- As for shaking the hand of a woman, the Hadith of the Bay’ah of Al-‘Aqabah clearly indicates that Rasool Allah (saw) was shaking women’s hands during the Bay’ah. Even if you disagree on this point, this is a Fiqhi difference of opinion, and Islam permits Ikhtilaaf on this matter.
8- And yes, it is permissible for a woman to sit in the Shoorah council. There is no problem with this point. The Shoorah council is not a ruling body, it is an advisory council, and women have the right to voice their opinions and concerns. If you disagree, present your evidence proving otherwise.
9- As for allowing non-Muslims into positions of ruling, again this a lie and an insult to everyone’s intelligence. Our books (I can count at least 4 or 5 primary Hizb books off the top of my head that explicitly refute this ridiculous accusation) clearly say that it is forbidden for a non-Muslim to take any position of ruling. I mean, we have a book called “The Ruling System of Islam” that discusses it. Can the name of the book be any more obvious as a source of verification of such accusations? Is it so hard to just check?? La Hawla wala Quwwata illa Billah.
How does such a person have so little fear of accountability on the Day of Judgement when slandering his Muslim brothers? How can someone spew such lies without bothering to check them? How can someone like this even be considered a “scholar”??
There are two conditions for taking knowledge from someone: One, they must have enough knowledge, and two, they must be JUST. Spreading lies – obvious lies that are EASILY refuted by simply looking into our books that are available for free – is not just. It is unjust. It is disgusting. It is slander. It makes me sick listening to this intellectual sewage.
May Allah (swt) forgive Al-Wadi’ee for his ignorance on this matter, and his lies against his Muslim brothers.
(Post was originally a comment on Mazin Abdul-Adhim’s Facebook page)