The Raid of the Faithful in Refuting the Contraventions of Hizb At-Tahrir

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. May the highest rank be bestowed upon Muhammad, the Master of the Messengers, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, and his kind and pure Al and Companions; and may Allah protect his nation from that which he fears for it. Thereafter:

A group of people called Hizb at-Tahrir{1} emerged to spread falsehood and incite meaningless controversies. The founder of this party was a man named Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy. He unrightfully claimed for himself the status of ijtihad and ignorantly dealt with the issues of the Religion. Consequently, he perverted and belied the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, and contravened the scholarly consensus (ijma^) in cases pertaining to both the fundamentals and the ramifications of the Religion.

We embarked upon writing this concise treatise to fulfill the obligation that Allah ordained upon us which is to command the lawful (ma^ruf) and forbid the unlawful (munkar), and to advise and warn the Muslims against this party and their sayings. We substantiated this treatise by proofs from the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Prophet, the ijma^ of the nation, and the statements of the scholars to expose the wrong sayings and negate the false opinions of Hizb at-Tahrir.

Warning against the deviant and straying people is an obligatory matter. In fact, if warning against the person who cheats the Muslims in articles of trade is obligatory, then it is more so to warn against the person who intrigues and perverts the Religion and belies Allah and the Messenger. Allah, ta^ala, said in Surat Al-^Imran, Ayah 104:

which means: [Let there be among you a nation that invite to the good, command the lawful, and forbid the unlawful.]

Abu ^Aliyy ad-Daqqaq said: "The one who withholds the truth is a mute devil."

The leader of Hizb at-Tahrir, Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy, said in his book, Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah (Volume 1, pages 71-72): "These actions (i.e., the actions of man) are not related to Allah’s creating and Allah’s creating is not related to them, because man is the one who performs them by his will and choice, thereupon, the voluntary actions do not fall under Allah’s creating."

He also said in the same book (Volume 2, page 74): "Rendering the reward or punishment contingent upon guidance and misguidance denotes guidance and misguidance are doings of the slave and not from Allah." He stated a similar thing on page 72 in another one of his books called Nidham-ul-Islam.

• THE REFUTATION OF THE FIRST STRAYING

These words of Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy are contrary to the Qur’an, the hadith, the explicit sound intellect, and the sayings of the scholars.

Nabahaniyy’s Negation of the Qur’an

Allah ta^ala said in Surat-ul-Furqan, Ayah 2:

which means: [He created everything and made terms for them.] Allah said in Surat As-Saffat, Ayah 96:

which means: [Allah created you and your doings.] Also, Allah said in Surat al-Qamar, Ayah 49:

which means: [Verily, I have created everything according to My Destiny.]

The term shay’ (thing) in these verses includes everything which enters into existence. Bodies, the voluntary and involuntary motions and rests of the slaves, and what pertains to them are not excluded. Moreover, voluntary actions far exceed the involuntary ones. So, if Hizb at-Tahrir’s claim was correct i.e., every voluntary action of the slave is a creation of the slave himself, then what the slaves would create among their actions would be more than what Allah creates--a thought the sound intellect totally rejects. Linguistically, the term shay’ (thing) refers to what is existing--which includes these voluntary actions.

Hence, this affirms an-Nabahaniyy’s claim is a rejection of the texts of the Qur’an and hadith. Allah, ta^ala, said in Surat ar-Rum, Ayah 30:

which means: [Who guides the one whom Allah has misguided?] Also, Allah said in Surat al-A^raf, Ayah 156, predicating about Musa:

which means: [This is only Your (i.e. O Allah) test; with it You stray whomever You willed and You guide whomever You willed.] Also, Allah said in Surat al Qasas, Ayah 57:

This means: [You (O Muhammad) do not guide whomever you would like to guide, but Allah guides whomever He wills.] This is to say that no one creates guidance in the hearts of the slaves except Allah. Allah said in Surat al-’A^raf, Ayah 155:

which means: [You misguide with it whomever You will, and guide whomever You will.] This Ayah stands as explicit evidence that Allah is the One Who creates the guidance in the hearts of those whom He willed to guide, and the misguidance in the hearts of those whom He willed to misguide.

There is no other meaning in the Arabic language for the saying of Allah:

except that Allah creates the misguidance in the hearts of those whom He willed, and He creates the guidance in the hearts of those whom He willed. This is so because the pronoun in the saying of Allah and His saying refers only to Allah--without any probability whatsoever of it referring to the slave. The meanings that Hizb at-Tahrir adopt clearly contradict the Book of Allah.

The statements of their leader also contradict the saying of Allah in Surat al-An^am, Ayah 110:

which means [We turn their hearts and sights.] In this Ayah, Allah revealed that both the actions of the hearts and the actions of the limbs are doings of Allah. Do they have a reply to this Ayah?

Allah ta^ala said in Surat al-Baqarah, Ayah 102:

which means: [They shall not harm anyone by it (i.e. sorcery) except if Allah wills.] Allah, ta^ala, said in Surat an-Nisa’, Ayah 78:

The meaning is: [If they encounter a goodness, they say it is from Allah, and if they encounter a calamity, they say it is from you. Say all are from Allah.] Also Allah said in Surat Saba’, Ayah 54:

It means: [They were blocked from what they desire.] In Surat Hud, Ayah 34, Allah said:

which means [...If Allah wanted to misguide you.] In Surat al-An^am, Ayah 109 Allah said:

which means: [As such, We have embellished for every nation that which they do.] In Surat al-Baqarah, Ayah 7, Allah said:

This means: [Allah sealed their hearts and veiled their hearing and sight.] Surat an-Nisa’, Ayah 155:

means: [Rather, Allah sealed their hearts with their blasphemy.] In Surat Yunus, Ayah 100, Allah said:

It means: [Not a soul shall believe except by the Will of Allah.] In Surat at-Takwir, Ayah 29, Allah said:

which means: [You do not will anything unless Allah, the Lord of the World, wills.] In Surat as-Sajdah, Ayah 13, Allah said:

which means: [If We had willed, We would have guided every soul.] In Surat al-Hujurat, Ayah 7, Allah said:

This means: [He made you love the belief and decorated it in your hearts.]

Hence, it is irrefutable that an-Nabahaniyy negates the Qur’an. Likewise, the statements of their leader contradict all other similar meanings that are in the Book of Allah. These meanings include: Allah is the One Who gives the belief out of His Benevolence and Generosity to whomever He wills among His slaves; Allah is the One Who makes the belief beloved to the heart of the slave, decorates it in his heart, and guides him to the straight path; Allah seals the hearts of some of His slaves; no one can do what is not written for him, and the slave does not harm or benefit himself or others except if Allah willed; all the doings of the slaves happen by the Will of Allah, and there is no saying, doing, or intention of a human which would take place except by the Will of Allah, ta^ala.

An-Nabahaniyy’s Negation of the Hadith

The following are examples of Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy’s negation of the hadith. Imam Muslim in his Sahih, al-Bayhaqiyy, and others narrated that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, said:

which means: <<Everything is by the creating of Allah----even stupidity and intelligence.>> As related by Ibn Hibban, the Prophet said:

which means: <<Allah is the Creator of every doer and his doing.>> Also, the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, said:

which means: <<Those who claim there is no Destiny (Qadar) (i.e., they claim that the slave creates his doings) are the zoroastians (majus) of this nation. If they get sick, do not visit them, and if they die, do not attend their funeral.>> This was related by Abu Dawud in his Sunan and al-Bayhaqiyy in his book, Al-Qadar. The Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, said:

<<Six I have cursed and Allah has cursed and every Prophet has cursed: The one who adds to the Book of Allah, and the one who belies the Destiny (Qadar) of Allah...>>

Moreover, an-Nabahaniyy negated the hadith that was related and determined to be sahih by Ibn Jarir at-Tabariyy in his book, Tahdhib ul-Athar:

which means: <<Two types among my nation have no share in Islam, those who deny Destiny (al-Qada) and al-Murji’ah{2}>> This hadith is explicit in classifying as blasphemous those who deny Qadar. Hence, Hizb at-Tahrir, by saying: "The slave creates his own actions by his will and creating," have deprived themselves of Islam and separated themselves from it like the snake sloughs off its skin.

An-Nabahaniyy also negated the hadith that was related by Muslim from the route of Abul-Aswad ad-Du’liyy who said:

^Imran Ibn al-Husayn told me, ‘Do you see what the people travail with and do today? Is it something predestined according to the Qadar? Or is it something they do on their own? According to what their Prophet came to them with what is the answer to this matter?’
I said: ‘It is something predestined and created.’
He said: ‘Is not that unjust?’
I dreaded of his saying immensely and said: ‘Everything is a creation of Allah and His Ownership; He is not questioned about what He does but they are questioned.’
He said: ‘May Allah endow His mercy on you, I only intended by my question to shield your mind. Two men from the tribe of Muzaynah came to the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, and said: ‘Do you see what the people travail with and do today? Is it something predestined according to the Qadar of Allah or something that they do on their own?’ What is the answer to this matter according to Allah’s Revelation? The Prophet replied: ‘It is something created and predestined and it is confirmed in the Book of Allah (in Surat as-Shams, Ayah 8 and 9):

This means: [Allah created all the souls and inspired them with their God-fearingness or misguidance.]

An-Nabahaniyy’s Negation of the Sound Intellect

An-Nabahaniyy’s negation of the sound intellect lies in that his saying necessitates Allah is defeated and compelled. According to him, the slave is the creator of these sins regardless of the Will of Allah. However, the truth is that Allah is always subduing, for Allah ta^ala says in Surat Yusuf, Ayah 2:

which means: [Allah subdues (carries out) His will.]

According to the claim of Hizb at-Tahrir, "Things happen in the dominion of Allah against His Will." This is invalid. Nothing happens in Allah’s dominion, whether a blink of an eye or a glance, except by His Creating, Predestination, Power and Will--regardless of whether it is good or evil. He is not questioned about what He does but they are questioned. It is intellectually invalid that some doings are created by Allah and other doings are created by others. Hence, what Hizb at-Tahrir say is invalid, and they negate the People of Truth. In his book, Al-Wasiyyah, Imam Abu Hanifah said: "The slave is a creature--as are his doings, confessions and knowledge."

An-Nabahaniyy’s Negation of the Sayings of the Scholars

It was narrated that Ibn ^Abbas said: "The saying of those who deny the Destiny (Qadar) is blasphemous." Also it is reported that ^Umar Ibn ^Abdul ^Aziz, Imam Malik Ibn Anas, and al-Awza^iyy said: "Those who deny Destiny (Qadar) are ordered to repent, if they do not they will be killed."

^Abdur-Razzaq as-San^aniyy narrated in his Musannaf the following:

Ma^mar told us that Azzuhriyy said: "I was informed three journals were found in the shrine of Prophet Ibrahim with writings in each. Written in the first journal was: ‘I am Allah, the Owner of Makkah. I created it the day I created the sun. I surrounded it by seven angels and I made the meat and milk blessed for its people.’ Written in the second journal was: ‘I am Allah, the Owner of Makkah. I created the kinship (ar-rahim) and derived its name from mine. He who is kind and visits his kins shall observe benefits, and he who does not shall be left out.’ Written in the third journal was: ‘I am Allah, the Owner of Makkah. I have created the good and the evil. Let the one whom the good runs on his hands be delighted, and let the one whom the evil runs on his hands be threatened with torture.’"

It was reported from the route of Ma^mar, from the route of Ibn Tawus, from the route of his father, that a man said to Ibn ^Abbas: "Some people say that evil is not by Allah’s creating." Ibn ^Abbas said: "Between us and those who deny Destiny (Qadar) stands the following ayah in Surat al-An^am, (Ayah 149):"

This means: [O Muhammad, say Allah has the ultimate proof; had He willed, He would have guided you all.]

Among the strayings of Hizb at-Tahrir is another saying in the same book, Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah. Their leader said: "The impeccability of the prophets and messengers applies after one is revealed as a Prophet or Messenger. However, prior to the prophethood it is possible for them to do what is possible for the rest of the creation, because the impeccability pertains to prophethood."

• THE REFUTATION OF THE SECOND STRAYING

The People of Truth have unanimously agreed the prophets must be attributed with truthfulness, trustworthiness and intelligence. From that it is known Allah, ta^ala, does not choose to this office except those who are clear of vileness, dishonesty, stupidity, lying, and dullness. Henceforth, the one who had such a history is not suitable for the office of prophethood even if one abandons such vices. Prophets must be attributed with impeccability from blasphemy, enormous sins, small abject sins, and meanness. Regarding other small sins that are not mean, most of the scholars said they are possible for them. This was reported by more than one. Imam Abul Hasan al-Ash^ariyy is of the same opinion. However, according to the false claim of the leader of Hizb at-Tahrir, the prophethood is suitable to the one who is a robber, thief, grave robber, homosexual, or is attributed with any other vileness that occurs from people. 

THE THIRD STRAYING

Among their strayings is their saying that Majlis ash-Shura has the right to remove the caliph whether or not there is a reason. This was published in one of their pamphlets that was authored by the followers of Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy and distributed in Damascus over twenty years ago. In their book, Dustur Hizb at-Tahrir, page 66; and their book, Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah, Volume 2 Section 3 pages 107-108--regarding the matters that alter the status of the caliph and make his removal obligatory--they said: "To become apparently a fasiq." An-Nabahaniyy said in his book Nidham ul-Islam, page 79: "If he did not apply the rules of the Religion or was unable to carry out the affairs of the state it becomes obligatory to remove him immediately."

• THE REFUTATION OF THE THIRD STRAYING

Their saying negates the hadiths that affirm the status of the caliph. It negates the saying of the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, which is related by Muslim:

which means: <<He who hates something about his Amir, let him be patient with him; for there is no one among the people who walks away half a cubit from the caliph and dies with that status, except his death will be similar to the one who dies in ignorance.>>

It also negates the following famous sahih hadith that orders one not to walk out on the caliph except for the reason of blasphemy. Al-Bukhariyy and Muslim related the hadith which says:

This means not to oust the people in charge except the one in whom you see an apparent blasphemy.

In interpreting this hadith, an-Nawawiyy said: "The meaning of the hadith is not to contend with the people in charge for their rule. Also, not to object to them except if you witness from them firm abominable matters that you have learned about in the rules of Islam. If you see that, detest it and utter the truth wherever you are. However, walking out on them and fighting them is forbidden by the consensus (ijma^) of the Muslims even if they are sinful and unjust." The hadiths to that effect are numerous, and Ahl us-Sunnah have the consensus in their statements that the caliph is not removed for fisq{1}. However, although he is not ousted for his sins, the caliph is not obeyed in them. The members of Hizb at-Tahrir have rendered the caliph a plaything, like a ball between the hands of the players.

In Sahih Muslim, ^Abdullah Ibn ^Amr Ibn Al ^As was told by ^Abdur-Rahman Ibn ^Abdi-Rabbil Ka^bah: "Your cousin, Mu^awiyah, orders us to consume each other’s money sinfully and to kill one another and Allah, ta^ala, says (in Surat an-Nisa’, Ayah 29):

which means: [Do not eat your money unrightfully amongst you unless it is a mutually agreed upon trading.] Allah said (in Surat an-Nisa’, Ayah 29):

which means: [Do not kill yourselves.] ^Abdullah Ibn ^Amr became silent and then said: "Obey him in what involves obedience to Allah, and disobey him in what involves disobedience to Allah."

Hence, if the caliph orders with good and evil, no matter how sinful he is--excluding blasphemy--weapons are not to be drawn against him. This is so because the tribulation resulting from ousting him is bigger than his sin.

 Also among their strayings is what they say in their book Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah, page 13 and page 29: "The one who dies without pledging allegiance to a caliph, his death is similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance." They mention in their book, the so-called Al-Khilafah, page 4: "The Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, made it obligatory on every Muslim to have a pledge of allegiance and described the one who dies without having a pledge of allegiance as one who dies in a state of ignorance." In the same book, they also say: "All the Muslims are enormously sinful for falling short of appointing a caliph for them. Moreover, if they unanimously fell short, the sin will be on every individual all over the land in the entire world." They also mention in another part of the book: "The time given to the Muslims to appoint a caliph is two nights; hence, it is not allowed for one to stay more than two nights without a pledge of allegiance." Also they say: "If the Muslims do not have a caliph for three days, all of them become sinful until they appoint one." In another book they say: "The Muslims in Lebanon, as well as in all the Islamic countries, are sinful to Allah if they do not act to revive Islam and appoint one caliph that would unite them."

• THE REFUTATION OF THE FOURTH STRAYING

These statements are examples of how the members of Hizb at-Tahrir pervert words and take them out of context. The hadith they refer to was related by Muslim from the route of Ibn ^Umar and it is as follows:

which means: <<He who withdraws his hand from the obedience (i.e. to the caliph) will face in the Hereafter the judgment of Allah without an excuse. The one who dies without a pledge of allegiance will die similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance.>>

Hizb at-Tahrir mention repeatedly the last part of the hadith to the people: "The one who dies without a pledge of allegiance will die similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance." The meaning of the hadith is not what they claim. Rather, the meaning is that the one who rebels against the caliph and remains in rebellion until death, then his death will be similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance. Similarly, this meaning is indicated in the hadith of Muslim from the route of Ibn ^Abbas about the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam:

which means: <<He who dislikes something from his Amir, let him be patient, for there is no one among the people who walks away half a cubit from the sultan and dies in that status, except his death will be similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance.>>

Hence, his saying "and dies in that status" is explicit in that the one whose death is similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance is the one who rebels against the sultan. What indicates that also is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah related by Muslim about the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam:

which means: <<The one who walks away from the obedience and departs the jama^ah and dies, his death will be similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance.>> Similarly, the hadith of al-Bukhariyy and Muslim from the route of Hudhayfah Ibn al-Yaman indicates the same thing. After describing those who invite to the gates of Hellfire, the Prophet, sallallahu ^alaihi wa sallam mentioned:

which means: <<Adhere to the jama^ah of the Muslims and their Imam (caliph).>> Hudhayfah said: ‘And if they do not have a jama^ah or an Imam (caliph)?’ The Prophet replied:

which means:<<Seclude oneself from all of these factions.>> The Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, did not say "Then you will die similar to the one who dies in a state of ignorance."

Moreover, there is a hardship in what the members of Hizb at-Tahrir claim. Today, the Muslims are unable to appoint a caliph, and Allah, ta^ala, says in Surat al-Baqarah, Ayah 286:

which means: [Allah does not obligate a soul except with which it can cope.]

They ignored the hadith of al-Bukhariyy and Muslim and they clung to Hadith Muslim after taking it out of context. Henceforth, the invalidity of their sayings is evident. Their aim was to confuse the Muslims so they would follow Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy who claimed the status of caliph for himself; his group pledged allegiance to him. He also claimed to divide the countries among his three children. He called one of them the Amir of Iraq, the second the Amir of the lands of ash-Sham, and the third the Amir of Egypt. Moreover, he claimed the title of ‘Umm-ul-Mu’minin’{2} for his wife.

After the death of an-Nabahaniyy, Hizb at-Tahrir appointed a caliph, now living in Denmark, where he performs the hadd on the one who commits adultery among them.

Following are the qualifications requied in the caliph:
1) To be from the tribe of Quraysh. If one qualified person who is from Quraysh is found, then it is not allowed to resort to others.
2) To be trustworthy, ^adil, known for his religiousness, and his testimony is permissible to accept.
3) To be knowledgeable. The minimal acceptable level of knowledge is to be a mujtahid.
4) To be free from all handicaps that impede him from carrying out the tasks of the caliphate, such as blindness.
5) To have demonstrated bravery in defending and rescuing the Muslims.
6) To be a free man.
7) To have vast comprehension of the different facets of politics and management of wars.

We ask Hizb at-Tahrir: "Does their so-called appointed caliph satisfy these qualifications required in a caliph?"

Also among their strayings is what they said in some pamphlets that they distributed in Tripoli, Lebanon, over fifteen years ago. They said it is not forbidden to walk with the intention of committing adultery with a woman or sodomy with a boy, but rather the sin lies in the actual committing of the act.

• THE REFUTATION OF THE FIFTH STRAYING

Their saying includes negating both ijma^ and the hadith that was related by al-Bukhariyy, Muslim, and others which is:

which means: <<Written on the son of Adam is his share of adultery that he inevitably commits; the adultery of the eyes is the forbidden sight, the adultery of the ears is the listening, the adultery of the tongue is the forbidden talking, the adultery of the hands is the forbidden touching, and the adultery of the legs is the forbidden walking.>>

An-Nawawiyy mentioned in his interpretation of Sahih Muslim that by the indication of the aforementioned hadith, walking with the purpose of committing adultery is forbidden and the unlawful touch is forbidden.

Among their strayings also is their claim that it is permissible for a man to kiss a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah){1}. Likewise, they say, touching and walking and the like for that purpose is permissible. This was mentioned in one of their pamphlets that contained questions and answers. As an answer to the judgement of the lustful kiss and the proof therein, they said:

"...It is understood from the aforementioned gathered answers that the lustful kiss is permissible and is not forbidden...We speak out frankly to the people on this subject that kissing per se is not forbidden. This is so because it is allowable, and it falls under the general proofs that render the regular actions of humans permissible. Henceforth, walking, touching, sucking, moving the nose, kissing, drawing the lips together, and other actions that fall under the general proofs are not forbidden as far as the normal format is concerned, but rather, they are among what is allowed. The government, however, hinders its practice; the government stops the man from kissing a woman in public.

Henceforth, the government may stop in public what is allowable. There are some men who touch the dress of a woman with desire, some look at her shoe with desire, some listen to her voice on the radio with desire. A man may do this to a point of arousal that his penis moves upon hearing her voice directly, or hearing her sing, or reading advertisements about her, or receiving a letter from her, or hearing from her through someone else. Hence, all these are allowed lustful actions pertaining to the woman, for they fall under the proofs of what is allowable."

Hizb at-Tahrir mentioned (as an answer to a question dated Muharram 2nd, 1390 H) in another pamphlet: "The one who kisses a man or a woman arriving from travel, or shook hands with them, without the intent of commiting adultery or sodomy, then such action is not forbidden, and this is why both are permissible."

Also they claim it is permissible for a man to shake hands with a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah), claiming the Messenger did that. They claim this is indicated by the following hadith of Umm ^Atiyyah on pledging allegiance to the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, which was narrated by al-Bukhariyy:

which means: <<A woman pulled her hand away from us.>> They say this means that other than this woman did not pull her hand away. They also say that pledging allegiance takes place by shaking hands or writing, and that there is no difference in this between men and woman. Hence, they claim, it is rightful for women and men alike, to shake hands with the caliph in pledging their allegiance. This is mentioned in their book, Al-Khilafah, pages 22-23 and in their book called Ash-Shakhsiyyah al-Islamiyyah, Volume 2, Section 3, pages 22-23, 107-108.

After lengthy words in one of their pamphlets called "The Islamic Judgment on the Man Shaking Hands with a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah)" they said: "If we look thoroughly into the hadiths from which some of the scholars took that it is forbidden to shake hands with women, we find they do not include forbiddance or prohibition." They ended their pamphlet by saying: "What applies to shaking hands apply to the kiss."

• THE REFUTATION OF THE SIXTH STRAYING

Ibn Hibban narrated from the route of Umaymah Bint Ruqayyah and Ishaq Ibn Rahawayh with a chain of narration classified as hasan from the route of Asma’ Bint Yazid to the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, that he said:

which means: <<I do not shake hands with women.>> After relating the hadith, al-hafidh Ibn Hajar said: "The hadith contains it is allowed to listen to the speaking of the marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah) and her voice is not like the unlawful nakedness (^awrah ){2} but touching the skin of the marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah) without a necessity is forbidden." As to the hadith of Umm ^Atiyyah that was mentioned in the book of al-Bukhariyy, it is not a statement pertaining to touching skin on skin. However, it means that the women used to point with their hands without touching when pledging allegiance. Henceforth, it is incumbent upon one to interpret the hadith in a manner to join the two affirmed hadiths, because it is incumbent upon us to comform between the two hadiths if each of them is affirmed.

Furthermore it was reported in Sahih al-Bukhariyy from the route of ^A’ishah, may Allah raise her rank (in the same chapter where the hadith of Umm ^Atiyyah was reported) that she said: "The Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, used to accept the pledge of allegiance from the women by the utterance of Ayah 12 Surat al-Mumtahinah which includes:

which means: [Order them not to associate anything with Allah.] She said: "The hand of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, never touched the hand of a women except for a woman under him." Hence, had the meaning of pledging allegiance been shaking hands, as Hizb at-Tahrir claimed, then her words would have been contradictory.

In his book, Lisan al-^Arab, Ibn Mandhur said: "To pledge allegiance is to promise with it." The hadith: <<Pledge allegiance to me with Islam>> is an expression of promise and vow. Hence, touching skin on skin is not among the linguistic or the religious conditions of pledging allegiance. Pledging allegiance pertains to pledging without touching. The Companions pledged allegiance to the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, in the Pledge of ar-Ridwan by shaking hands for an additional meaning of confirmation. The pledge of allegiance could also be by writing, however among what would refutes their lie that other than Umm ^Atiyyah put out her hand to the Prophet and shook hands with him during the pledge of allegiance is the hadith of al-Bukhariyy from the route of ^A’ishah:

which means: <<No, by Allah, his hand did not touch the hand of a woman during the pledge of allegiance; he would not accept their pledge except by him saying: ‘I have accepted your pledge of allegiance on that matter.’>> Also, in refutation, we ask: "Where is it stated in the hadith of Umm ^Atiyyah that women shook hands with the Prophet?" This is only a delusion on the part of Hizb at-Tahrir and a fabrication.

Moreover, the proof of the prohibition of shaking the hands of and touching the marriageable women (ajnabiyyah) without a barrier is the hadith of the Prophet: <<For one to be stabbed by a piece of iron in his head is better for him than touching a woman who is not lawful for him.>> This hadith was related by at-Tabaraniyy in Al-Mu^jam al-Kabir. It was classified as hasan{3} by al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar, Nur ad-Din al-Haythamiyy, al-Mundhiriyy, and others.

The touching which is mentioned in the hadith refers to the hand and the like and not merely to sexual intercourse as Hizb at-Tahrir claim. Furthermore, Ibn Abu Shaybah, in his Musannaf, reported that the narrator of the hadith, himself, Ma^qal Ibn Yasar, (one of the Companions) understood from the hadith the opposite of what Hizb at-Tahrir claim.

It is clear that Hizb at-Tahrir told fabrications about the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, belied ^A’ishah, perverted the Arabic language, and permitted that which the Messenger of Allah forbade.

What reflects their ignorance is their claim about the hadith of at-Tabaraniiyy which forbids shaking hands with the marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah). Since it is among the ahad{4} category, they say it is not relied upon for deducing judgments. We answer them with what al-Khatib al-Baghdadiyy mentioned in his book, Al-Faqih and Al-Mutafaqqih: "It is permissible to rely upon the hadith of the ahad category." Moreover, the masters of the Religion have determined that the hadith of the ahad category is a proof in all matters of the Religion. No one among the imams has differed in that by requiring tawatur{5} except al-Amidiyy--whose opinion does not stand as a proof. Hence, the obstinacy of Hizb at-Tahrir to the truth has been shown beyond ambiguity.

Regarding the report that a black slave woman led the Prophet around the neighborhoods of the city, Hizb at-Tahrir claim this hadith proves it is permissible to shake hands without a barrier with a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah). We tell them this hadith does not state she was holding the Prophet’s hand without a barrier, and there is no proof that she was at a desirable age in the first place. Furthermore, it is not permissible to cancel the following explicit hadith which is in Sahih Muslim: <<The adultery of the hand is shaking hands with a woman unlawfully.>> For the first hadith which insinuates touching hands. This is contrary to the following rule established by the masters of the Religion and hadith: "If two hadiths, based on their chain of narrators, appear to be affirmed but conflict with one another in meaning, then it is obligatory to conform their meanings together as much as possible. However, if it is not possible then the latter is known as abrogating the former, and the former is abrogated by the latter. If that is not possible to know, then preponderance{6} will be adopted."

Even if we adopt preponderance (which is not the case), then due to the ijma^ of the ummah, the hadith of Muslim has more weight. The four schools forbid touching a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah) without a barrier whether with or without a desire. The hadith that complies with the practice of the majority of the scholars of the Religion preponderates over the one that contradicts it. Therefore, the hadith that there is ijma^ on preponderates even more.

O Reader, observe the violation of Hizb at-Tahrir’s saying that it is not forbidden to walk for adultery, nor is it forbidden for the man to kiss a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah), and vice versa. Likewise, according to them, massaging, sucking, and lustfully touching the dress of a marriageable woman (ajnabiyyah) are all considered to be allowed. Are not their statements in contradiction with the aforementioned hadith of at-Tabaraniyy? Are they not in contradiction with hadith Muslim? i.e., <<It is written on the son of Adam his share of adultery he will inevitably commit: the adultery of the eyes is the forvidden sight, the adultery of the ears is th forbidden listening, the adultery of the tongue is the forbidden talking, the adultery of the hands is the forbidden touch and the adultery of the legs is the forbidden walking, and the heart loves and wishes and the sexual organ will belie it or confirm it.>> Note also that in another narration by Abu Dawud the hadith mentions: <<...and the hands commit adultery and their adultery is unlawfully touching a woman, the legs commit adultery and their adultery is the forbidden walking and the mouth commits adultery and its adultery is the forbidden kissing.>>

The doing of Hizb at-Tahrir is blasphemous because rejecting the texts is blasphemy as was mentioned by an-Nasafiyy and others. How would it be valid for them to claim the status of Muslims while negating Islam? The Muslim is the one who submits to Allah and His Messenger. One is not a Muslim if he rejects the statements of the Qur’an or the statements of the hadith. We say to them, stay away from claiming to be Muslims. You do not belong to Islam--for you have rejected the texts.

Similar lies are numerous in the books of Hizb at-Tahrir, among of which is their claim that whenever the person is able to conclude rules, he becomes a mujtahid. Hence, to them, deduction and ijtihad are possible for all the people and is facile to all especially considering that the hands of people are easily accessible to books in the Arabic language and Islamic jurisprudence. This is their statement in Kitab At-Tafkir, page 149. Moreover, on page 147 of the same book, they say: "The mujtahid does not need to know the fundamentals of al-fiqh or the Ayat and hadiths."

• THE REFUTATION OF THE SEVENTH STRAYING

These words of Hizb at-Tahrir open the door for passing judgments without knowledge. Didn’t they know the mujtahid is the one who knows what is related to judgments in the Qur’an and Sunnah, al-^amm and al-khass, al-mutlaq and al-muqayyad, al-mujmal and al-mubayyan, an-nasikh and al-mansukh? Also from the Sunnah he knows the mutawatir, al-ahad, al-mursal, al-muttasil, and the trustworthiness and/or discredibility of the narrators. The mujtahid knows the sayings of the Companions, and the mujtahids after them, the ijma^ and other, including al-qiyas (the hidden and apparent, the correct and incorrect). He knows the mother tongue of the Arabs that the Qur’an was revealed in, and he knows the essentials of the belief. It is conditional that the mujtahid be trustworthy, have strong intellectual ability, and have memorized the ayat and hadiths that pertain to deducing rules. Moreover, the people of knowledge would profess such traits to him. No one among the acknowledged scholars has professed such traits--nor even what is less than them to Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy. A man like him is not knowledgable--let alone be a mujtahid.

It is sufficient for refuting their statement to mention the following hadith which is mutawatir and sahih by agreement{7}:

which means:

<<May Allah flourish a person who hears my saying, understands it, and delivers it the way he hears it. One may carry a religious knowledge and he is not knowledgeable, and one may carry a religious knowledge to someone who is more knowledgeable than himself.>> The saying of the Messenger: "One may carry a religious knowledge and he is not knowledgeable" means that among you are those who do not have a share in understanding the judgments contained in the hadith they hear from the Prophet. However, their share is to deliver it to others whose share may be in deducing judgments and performing ijtihad. In this hadith the Messenger divided his companions into two categories, one category, more numerous, who do not have a share in deducing judgements and ijtihad, rather they are narrators that will let others hear what they have heard from the Messenger, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam. The second category are those who can understand and deduce judgments.

Among the strayings of Hizb at-Tahrir are the following words that are mentioned in Kitab Hizb at-Tahrir, page 17: "The abode that we live in today is an abode of blasphemy because it applies the rules of blasphemy, and it is similar to Makkah at the time of the Revelation of the Messenger." They also say on page 32 of that book: "Among the countries of the Muslims today there is not one country or state that applies the rules of Islam to the state affairs or the matters of living--this is why it is considered an ‘Abode of Blasphemy’ even though its people are Muslims."

• THE REFUTATION OF THE EIGHTH STRAYING

None of the scholars before have said a similar statement as Hizb at-Tahrir’s. On the contrary, we observe that history speaks for itself to refute their statement. Mu^awiyah used to eat the money of others and kill Muslims unrightfully as was mentioned in the hadith of Muslim which we cited earlier. Yet no one considered the country of Muslims where he ruled an ‘Abode of Blasphemy’ as a result of that. Moreover, Mu^awiyah rebelled against the righteous caliph, ^Aliyy Ibn Abi Talib, and killed many Muslims in that strife--still no one considered the country of Muslims an ‘Abode of Blasphemy’ as a result. Similarly, after Mu^awiyah, many among the caliphs, rulers, and sultans took maks (tax from traders), rebelled against the caliph, and fought one another for worldly matters. In spite of that, no one considered the countries of the Muslims as ‘Abodes of Blasphemy.’ As a matter of fact, this ill-notion of Hizb at-Tahrir goes back to al-Khawarij in the earlier times and to Sayyid Qutb and his followers in the recent times.

The strayings that we mentioned are only a strain of dungeons of darkness that Hizb at-Tahrir spread. As a matter of fact many volumes will stand short in presenting all the misguidance they radiate.

A recent article in Al-Watan Al-^Arabiyy issue no 921 dated 10/28/94 under the title (London: The Capital of International Islamic Extremism) highlighted that London alledgedly houses the activities and leaders of the so called Islamic extremism movements. The author of the article under this context said "--by the same analogy some observers and analysts of the English hospitality extended to those "Muslims" remind of the history of Hizb at-Tahrir which stands in the fore front of "Islamic extremism" in London and reminds of the special and significant relations that existed thirty years ago and may be still existing today between Hizb at-Tahrir and the English and American intelligence agencies."

The one who pensively looks at the behavior of the Hizb at-Tahrir faction knows they call the Muslims to chaos and extravagance. The call of Hizb at-Tahrir is a call for disarrayment in the matters of the Religion. Amazingly enough, how do they consider disarrayment in the matter of the Religion suitable when disarrayment in the worldly matters of living is not suitable? Al-Afwah al-Awdiyy said: "The affairs of the people are not run soundly if they live in chaos without guidance and there is no guidance if the ignorant among them prevail.

Footnote

1.      Hizb at-Tahrir is the name of a devious group that emerged about fifty years ago under the leadership of Taqiyyud-Din an-Nabahaniyy. Hizb at-Tahrir means the Party for Liberation.

2.      Al-Murji'ah is a deviant blasphemous faction. Among their false sayings is: "No matter how many enormous sins a believer commits, he will not be tortured on the Day of Judgment.

3.      Fisq refers to committing enormous sins.

4.      Umm-ul-Mu'minin is a title given to the wives of the Prophet which means 'the Mother of the Faithful'.

5.      An ajnabiyyah is a woman a man is allowed to marry. (Mahramiyyah is a woman whom a man is not allowed to marry in any case such as his mother, sister, daughter, aunt, and the like.

6.      The ^awrah is the part of the body that another person is not allowed to see.

7.      A hasan hadith is a hadith which is less than a sahih in classification but both are relied upon in deducing judgments.

8.      An ahad hadith is a hadith which has one route of narration.

9.      Tawatur means to have many routes of narration that makes it intellectually impossible for all of the narrators to agree to lie about it.

10.  Preponderance in this context refers to giving more weight to one saying over another based on certain rules.

11.  By agreement in this context means al-Bukhariyy and Muslim narrated it and agreed on its status as being sahih.