On Hizbut-Tahrir | 4
by The Albaani Blog
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
Shaikh al-Albaani continues, “Here we will stop for a short while [to consider the following]: who are the scholars? Are they the scholars of the disbelievers? No, we give them no weight, due to what we just mentioned that they are not intellectuals, the reality is that they are clever/smart because they have invented and innovated and so on, and have advanced in material civilisation well-known amongst all [but they are not intellectuals].
Likewise the intellect of the Muslims, this intellect [found] in each individual amongst them differs, so the intellect of the scholar is not the same as that of the ignorant one.
And I will say something else: the intellect of the scholar who acts upon his knowledge is not equal to the intellect of the scholar who does not. They will never be equal, ever.
For this [reason] the Mu’tazilah deviated in many of the fundamental principles which they laid down and by which they opposed the way of the Legislation: in relation to the Book, the Sunnah and the methodology of the Pious Predecessors. This is the first point: the reliance of Hizb at-Tahrir upon the intellect more than should be the case.
The second point, and it branches off from the first one in my view, is that they divided the texts of the Book and the Sunnah into two, as regards their chain of narration and the proof taken/derived from them. [Namely, regarding] the chain of narration they said, “[It is possible that] a narration can be unequivocally established and it may also be [the case] that it is hypothetically established. [And in the same way] the point proven by a narration can be unequivocal [but others] can be hypothetical.”
We’re not debating this terminology [now], since the situation is as is said, every nation can use the terminology they wish, but what we are discussing is what [happens] when other things are added to this terminology which oppose what the first Muslims were upon.
And from this the importance of the Path of the Believers will become clear to you. Because the Muslim scholar, let alone the ignorant Muslim, was restricted from turning away from the text of the Book and the Sunnah by using terminologies like these. And as a result of the terminology of ‘unequivocal’ and ‘hypothetic’, whether concerning the chain of narration of the meaning taken from the text, the following resulted:
They said: when a text comes in the Noble Quraan–and it, without doubt, according to the previous terminology would be regarded as ‘unequivocal in its [textual authenticity] being established–[they said] when a text comes in the Quraan which is not unequivocal in the point being established [or the meaning being conveyed] then it is not obligatory on the Muslim to take the meaning that it contains, because it is something which can only be established hypothetically, so it is not permissible for him to adopt a point of creed on a text which is unequivocally established [as being true and from Allaah, i.e., the Quraan] but is suppositional in whichever point it is that is trying to be proven.
And likewise the total opposite is also true with them: that when a proof comes which is unequivocal in the meaning it is conveying but is suppositional [according to them] in its being established [as a correct and true text] then in the same way they will not take a point of creed from it.
And so [it is based upon this that] they came with a creed not known to the Pious Predecessors. And they laid down for themselves a new set of terminology, and their books are well-known, and [when I say] their books, it is the old ones I am referring to, because they have made changes therein, and I am from the most well-acquainted of people with those changes, but in reality it is only [change] in form. And [even] if it is conceded [that changes were made] then it only proves that even in their creed they were confused, since they said, “Creed is not established except by way of a proof which is  unequivocally established,  unequivocal in the point being proven.”
And so it was upon this that they established their creed: that creed is not taken from a hadith unequivocal in the proof it is conveying [but only, according to them,] authentic in its chain of narration [i.e., they do not regard a saheeh/authentic hadith as being unequivocal even though the meaning that it may contain is absolutely clear].
So we said to them in the debates and arguments we had with them, “Where did you get this principle from? And it is a principle which includes issues of creed, so where did you get this creed from? What is the proof that it is not allowed for a Muslim to base his creed on an authentic [saheeh] hadith but which is not reported in mutawaatir form which [according to them is the only form which] qualifies absolute certainty in the proof it is establishing? Where did you get this from?”
So here they became confused in their answer. And the discussion on this topic is lengthy, very lengthy, and as proof they used [texts] such as His Saying, the Most High, “They follow nothing but assumption/a guess, and indeed, assumption avails not against the Truth at all.” [An-Najm 53:28].”