Al-Albaani asked about Sayyid Qutb and a Mention of Hizb at-Tahrir | 6

by The Albaani Blog

The Meccan Man: Before maghrib prayer, it is fitting that we … and maybe in this, inshaa Allaah, there will be guidance for all … Sayyid Qutb says: that the belief in One God isn’t just a matter of faith limited to our conscience, it’s a complete way of life. The limits of creed/faith are much more encompassing than just “static belief”–it’s as if he is referring to the Murji’ah without even knowing it, those whose belief doesn’t extend beyond the limits of their hearts; that the limits of creed expand and spread until they include all aspects of life, and likewise in Islaam the issue of Haakimiyyah and its branches are [issues of] creed, just like manners generally are an issue of creed, for it is from creed that a methodology for life emanates which includes manners and values just as it includes social/cultural traditions and legislated matters alike.

Al-Albaani: Correct.

The Meccan Man: These statements are correct?

Al-Albaani: Yes.

The Meccan Man: Our brother commenting on these statements says that there is truth and confusion in them, as for [the statements that] creed is the basis for a way of life, then it is comprehensive and accepted.

Al-Albaani: Alhamdulillaah, okay.

The Meccan Man: and he [i.e., the brother whose comments on Qutb’s quotes the Meccan Man is reading out] acknowledged all his [i.e., Qutb’s] statements, but [said], ‘as for the statement that the limits of creed stretch and expand until they include all aspects of life then nothing from the Book or the Sunnah proves this and no scholars of Islaam have said this.’

Al-Albaani: This is a superficial man.

The Meccan Man: This [commentary on Sayyid Qutb’s words] is incorrect?

Al-Albaani: Yes. Is it possible for us to know who it is [who has made this commentary on Qutb’s statements]?

The Meccan Man: I’d prefer not to [mention his name], “… so these are the aberrant/bizarre statements of Sayyid Qutb so that he can expand the scope of declaring others to be disbelievers …” Don’t you see that this necessitates what’s not necessarily true? [i.e., isn’t it false to assume from these statements of Sayyid Qutb’s that he is expanding the scope of declaring people to be disbelievers?]

Al-Albaani: Yes, without doubt.

The Meccan Man: [Don’t you see that this necessitates what’s not necessarily true] concerning those who oppose his manhaj, he doesn’t declare others to be disbelievers … just because someone opposes his methodology Sayyid doesn’t declare him to be a disbeliever …

Al-Albaani: We do not know him to be like that. I believe the man was not a scholar.

The Meccan Man: No doubt, yes.

Al-Albaani: But he does have statements he made whilst in prison, which, in reality, are from inspiration [ilhaam].

The Meccan Man: Yet along with that he strays from mentioning grave-worship.

I’ve found some statements of Ibn al-Qayyim’s mentioned in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’een which are exactly the same as those [of Sayyid Qutb]. He says that tawhid includes such and such and such and such and emanates from the heart to the limbs to other than that, it resembles these statements [of Qutb].

So the reality is that [the mistaken understanding they have] stems from the fact that they [incorrectly] interpret the statements of others even though their brothers in creed and minhaaj, especially those like you and like his eminence Shaikh Abdul-Aziz [Ibn Baaz] and others like him hold that this issue does not have the meaning given to it by those people.

Al-Albaani: This is correct.

Relating to this … when I would debate with Hizb at-Tahrir regarding their belief and misguidance that aqidah cannot be established through ahaad hadith, I would say to them that this statement of yours is a matter of creed, and in matters of creed you make it a condition that the proof must be unequivocal in its being established and in the point that it is proving, and [then] I would establish for them that they have not been upon any aqidah since the day their group was set up.

Because in this issue they went through three stages.

The first one was written in the first edition of a book of theirs, I don’t remember what its name is right now, but it had a chapter entitled, ‘The Path of Faith.’ In it they said that it was ‘not permissible’ to accept aahaad hadith in aqidah–just like that, ‘not permissible.’

Then the second edition of the book came out and they changed, ‘not permissible,’ to ‘not obligatory,’ they removed the word, ‘not permissible,’ and put, ‘not obligatory,’ in its place, so now it became permissible to use aahaad hadith in aqidah. Before they used to say it was not permissible, they changed that to not obligatory. ‘Not obligatory,’ i.e., you’re free to choose as you like, if you want you can take it, if not, leave it. Whereas before they had said it was not permissible. So this was the second stage of advancement.

The third stage, and I don’t know if they are still on it, was that they said, ‘You must accept aahaad hadith,’ i.e., endorse them but not believe them as aqidah. They played with words, ‘Affirm but not believe.’

And this is a discussion that occurred between me and some people from your country specifically where Al-Hasfah Prison brought us together. I found fifteen followers of Hizb at-Tahrir there who had one Aleppan leader over them, his name was Mustafaa Bakri. Do you know Mustafaa Bakri?

Those Present: No.

Al-Albaani: You don’t know him.

And al-Hamawi who was their main debater, was tall, stout, blond, having a good appearance but in no way daunting.

The point is I told him, ‘My brother, you get enthusiastic over the aqidah of Hizb [at-Tahrir] and you don’t even know it.’

He said, ‘How so?’

I said, ‘Don’t you believe that Hizb [at-Tahrir] previously used to hold that it is not permissible to take matters of aqidah from aahaad hadith?’

He said, ‘Yes. And that is our aqidah.’

I said, ‘No, they progressed beyond this and said, ‘It is not obligatory.’

He said, ‘Where?’

I said, ‘The second edition. And the last thing they said was that it is permissible, but only to affirm and not to [actually] have faith in it or to believe it as [a matter of] aqidah.’

Allaahu Akbar! They play with words so that their retraction will not become apparent to the members of their group. The point is that this was the introduction, and I had challenged them with issues which they had no way of answering.

I said to them, ‘Brothers …’–and here is the crux of the matter in relation to the statements [about the discussion of Sayyid Qutb] which we heard just now–‘Everything that has come in Islaam must be [related to] aqidah. When you perform an obligatory duty but divest it from aqidah, then you have done nothing [i.e., it is as though you have done nothing even though you may have physically performed an obligatory duty], when you distance yourself from something forbidden not because Allaah has forbidden it then you have not worshipped Allaah by distancing yourself from that thing …’ and so on and so on.

And from what I said was that, ‘If there was a distinction between aqidah and rulings, the opposite would have been closer to the truth–because every ruling includes aqidah, and so when such a ruling is stripped of any aqidah related to it, it becomes null and void–whereas not every [point of] aqidah includes action. So it is possible for you to believe [in something] and it is not necessary that you will have to perform any action in relation to that point of aqidah. For example, faith in the punishment of the grave,’ which is something they doubt and they say that it is not established because there is no proof unequivocal in its being established and unequivocal in proving it, and of course we are not now in the middle of refuting this claim of theirs, the point is that, ‘your belief of whether or not there is punishment in the grave, does not change anything in your progress in life or your actions,’ of course in the end there will be an effect, but I want to distinguish between legislated rulings … so every ruling includes aqidah–you say that this is haraam, i.e., you have believed that it is haraam, you say this is obligatory, i.e., you have believed that it is obligatory, and likewise are the five rulings as they say.

So Islaam, all of it, is aqidah, this is a reality. And thus aqidah must prepare the one who holds it to comply with it: if it is something related to just believing in something from the Unseen, he believes in [that thing of] the Unseen, if it is related to a legislated ruling then he acts upon it in light of the legislated ruling that it contains.

And I gave you an example … from that which I was tried with in Damascus was a debate I had with the Qaadiyanis, so from the beliefs of the misguided Qadiyaanis is that they believe that the two sunnah rak’ahs [prayed before] the morning prayer [fajr] are obligatory.

So I will take this as an example: after the call to prayer for fajr, two men get up and pray the two rak’ahs. One of them with the intention that he is praying [two] sunnah [rak’ahs] and this is correct, and the other is praying with the intention that they are obligatory, and this is incorrect. So the action is one, but the intention differs, one intention nullified the action of worship and the other intention made the action correct.

Thus, the pivot for all the rulings of Islaam is aqidah, so it is not permissible at all to separate aqidah from some parts of Islaam and to leave others. And this is a point of understanding which I wanted to make you aware of.

The Meccan Man: Here, for example, they …