The Destructiveness of Hizbiyyah (Partisanship)  
Upon the Ummah

By the Scholar of Hadeeth, Shaykh Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee and ’Abdul-Maalik Ramadaanee al-Jazaa‘iree Translated by Abu Ibraaheem al-Canadee [1]

THE FORESIGHT OF THE SCHOLARS AND THE IMPATIENCE OF THE YOUTH:

“And in a cassette recorded by Silsilatul-Hudaa wan-Noor (no. 1/440), a long discussion took place between Shaykh al-Albaanee and some youth of the Algerian Islaamic Salvation Front in which they alleged in a most astoundingly exaggerated way that the Front had been responsible for the closure of many bars and houses of ill repute, for which the Shaykh only responded by prohibiting the entry into parliament, not concerning himself with the results of their partisanship. Mentioning his reason for the prohibition, he said:

“Firstly: That it is contrary to the guidance of the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam), since he never entered into such a thing with the disbelievers.

Secondly: That anybody who enters into the parliamentary system will surely deviate from Islaam, little by little.”

At that, one of them contended that the Front had never relinquished anything from the religion. So the Shaykh asked him whether the Front would actually deal with ribaa (usury) if some of the governmental establishments were to be in their possession.

 Answering in the affirmative, the youth proceeded to question the Shaykh, realizing that his first contentions had been unproven after this preliminary defeat, saying: “If we are being faced with a fiqh (jurisprudence) issue dealing with two opinions, one being considered by the scholars of jurisprudence to be preponderate (raajih) and the other one being considered to be less predominant (marjooh), and if we do not take the preponderate saying (al-qawlur-raajih) because it would trigger a trial, problem or cause  division amongst the Muslims, then would it be permissible for us to take the less predominant saying (al-qawlul-marjooh) for the interest of the unity of the Muslims?”

Then the Shaykh replied by saying: “That’s politics! That’s politics!”

Muhammad Ibraaheem Shaqrah then said: “That’s politics, not Shar’iyyah.”

So the Shaykh said: “Yes.” Then he went on to say: “In actuality, this is a very important matter. I’ve heard that the Front, or an-Nahdah (the Resurgence), [2] I don’t know - as I haven’t memorized the names well yet - that there are amongst them millions of people, is that not true?”

The youth replied optimistically: “Yes.”

The Shaykh said: “How many thousands of ’ulamaa‘ (scholars) are there amongst them?”

The youth replied: “They don’t have that.”

The Shaykh said: “How many hundreds of ’ulamaa‘ are there?”

The youth replied: “That’s not present amongst them.”

He said: “Fine, then who’s guiding them, O jamaa’ah (group)?”

He said: “A few Shaykhs. I mean to say...”

He said: “Can those few Shaykhs actually guide all of those millions of people?”

He said: “Of course not.”

He said: “Is it possible for them to teach those millions of people?”

He said: “Absolutely not.”

The Shaykh said: “In that case, you people are living in delusion, therefore, the question which you posed just now, whilst there be from amongst those millions of people ’ulamaa‘ which can guide the helm of those who are ruled from amongst the general population - when there be amongst them hundreds, and I do not say thousands - it would not be necessary to pose that question (which you had asked before): “Is it permissible for us to take al-qawlul-marjooh (the less predominant saying) and leave al-qawlur-raajih (the preponderate saying)?”, as it would be the Faqeeh (scholar of jurisprudence) (from amongst the hundreds of scholars who would) give the answer to that question. I will give you an example which will serve as a similitude for us which we have experienced in our lives with the various groups and parties; I once said to one of the individuals of Hizbut-Tahreer[3]: “O jamaa’ah (group), you people want to establish a Muslim country, although you don’t study the fundamentals and principals of the Sharee’ah (Islaamic law), and you try to prove your points in your books by using certain inauthentic hadeeth!”

He said: “My brother! We seek the like of yourself for help in this.”

The Shaykh said: “That answer is the beginning of the greatest defeat (in da’wah), because when there is a hizb (group or party) which must rely upon other than itself, then this can only mean that it is a hizb that is lacking in ability (to succeed).”

That person said to me: “You people are still wasting your time with those books which are yellowing with time...”

 Then the Shaykh made a remark concerning the millions of people from the Islaamic Salvation Front: “But all of those people, aren’t they in need of doctors who can care for their bodies? There is no doubt that these doctors can be found in the hundreds or even thousands. Fine, are they not in need of doctors - as it is said in this present age - for the soul? That comes first and is much more necessary; so can they be found with that same percentage? The answer is: ‘No...’”.

Then he informed them about the Hizbut-Tahreer discourse, wherein he said: “Suppose that you could instantaneously create an Islaamic state by a coup d’état, except that the people don’t have the disposition to be ruled by what Allaah has sent down. Perhaps... you... your jamaa’ah would say: ‘Decree Number One, Decree Number Two: It is forbidden - for example - to go to the cinemas, it is forbidden for women to exit without proper Islaamic Hijaab etc...’ You would perhaps find, that some of your women would be the first to contradict these Islaamic laws! Why? Because the people were not brought up upon that, and who cultivates this in the people? The scholars. And are we referring to any kind of scholar?’’

Then he spoke about the scholars who are acting upon the Book and the Sunnah, and he said: “For that reason, I believe that the greatest Jihaad right now is to educate and produce tens of scholars from amongst the millions of people over there, so that the orientation of those millions of people might be attended to in regards to their being educated and acquainted in their religion, upon the Islaam of the Book and the Sunnah. As for the attainment of rule, then every group is trying to arrive at attaining authority in the land, and they use extreme force in the implementation of their decrees and laws, irrespective of whether they be true or false, and Islaam is not like that.”

If only our brothers had taken that golden advice, they would have spared Islaam and the Muslims a great tribulation that is being lived today throughout the Muslim world. The success of the Islaamic Da’wah is repeatedly delayed as a result of the hastiness of the youth and the deviation of those who should be acting as guides. And from the hastening to bring something about before its appointed time comes the affliction of being deprived of its achievement, and Allaah is al-’Aasim (the Guardian).

I close off with these words which I hope will be understood by my brothers, which are: Indeed, the evil of setting out against the governments is proven by agreement of the texts and the state of affairs, as has appeared from the deeds of those youth in every age who are lacking in maturity. Much harm has arisen from their exodus from the scholars and their forfeiting of the scholars’ rights which duly belong to them, as well as their lack of trust in their rulings, except in that which agrees with the desires of their particular movements. Furthermore, they belittle the importance of their stature in matters of a political nature, and they are charged with being ’ulamaa‘ of the houses of wudoo’! The servile innovators ascribe to the formidable Salafee scholars nicknames of defamation, and in that lies the squandering of the rights of the carriers and witnesses of the Sharee’ah, and Allaah is al-Maw’id (the Promise).

COMMENTARY:

Shaykh ’Abdul-Maalik’s footnote to this excerpt: “Everyone who entered into political activity before its appropriate time, or anyone who did not rightfully belong to its sphere has said the like of that, and whoever has not been heard saying such a thing, then it is a sign that he is upon the right way. Even ’Alee Ibn Haaj fell into nicknaming the Salafee Shaykhs, as you shall read here – if Allaah wishes - whereas before, he used to forbid this from being done. This kind of political behaviour emerged from him such that he even accused the advocates of those who advised the people to stay in their houses and not to take part in the famous strike which the Front had organized with nifaaq (hypocrisy), and in those days, it was only Shaykh al-Albaanee who had been known to have said this from amongst the people of knowledge. And we had indeed informed him about the Shaykh’s saying in this regard and his ruling was even disseminated by loudspeaker at the well known Square of the 1st of May wherein the strike was taking place, much to the chagrin of those partisan to the Front. When ’Alee Ibn Haaj was arrested, he set about writing a letter containing this, the most apparent part of which contained; “He spoke the truth... and he spoke falsehood!” Contained within that letter is the charge of nifaaq (hypocrisy) upon the Shaykh which is made in a politically charged manner[4], and indeed his pen did transgress in respect to his insinuation contained within (B17Q) [5] right up until where he said: “So the offering of excuses and the escaping from defending the truth - all in the name of this being a fitnah (tribulation) is but the condition of the munaafiqeen (hypocrites) or the cowardly...!” What indicates that he was referring to Shaykh al-Albaanee and those who support him is his saying which can be found in (A12Q), [6] wherein he said: “So can it be said after all that the Jihaad which is being waged against the factions which are abstaining from implementing the laws of al-Islaam is a blind fitnah?!?”

As for the ’ulamaa‘ of Saudi Arabia, then it is has been known for the longest time that he refers to them as: “’Ulamaa‘ of the royal court! Rather, they are America’s ‘ulamaa‘! No, rather, they are ’ulamaa‘ of the Dollar”!!!

I found contained within the letter which he wrote to the minister of communications which I have reproduced here [7] the following statement concerning the Front: “For that reason, I say categorically, Allaah willing, that it is compulsory that the Algerian regime be fought against according to the Sharee’ah, just as it is compulsory to resist against it according to Western moral standards. This is because many of the evil du’aat (callers) abstain from naming the resistance against the tyrannically oppressive replacer of Allaah’s laws Jihaad, even though they have usurped the right of the people in choosing their own destiny... Is it complacency and submissiveness which you want from us in regards to the Tawaagheet [8] such as the likes of these futile Fataawaa (rulings) which were rendered by the ’ulamaa‘ of the police and the authorities?! And verily, I say this quite frankly and explicitly: It is the likes of these futile fataawaa which have wasted the rights of the people, drugging them to the point that they have now become like puppets in the hands of the Tawaagheet...”

I said: So then, the most learned and exemplary of ’ulamaa‘ such as the likes of Ibn Baaz, al-Albaanee and Ibn ’Uthaymeen - whose combined fataawaa are uniform in nature in regards to the forbiddance of fighting against the Algerian regime as you shall read here - are to be reckoned as being stupefied and evil du’aat?! And ’ulamaa‘ of the police and the authorities; because all of them refrained from naming what you are upon as being Jihaad?! Wa Laa Hawla Wa Laa Quwwata Illaa Billaah (There is no power or might, except by Allaah).” [9]

Footnotes:

[1] The following is taken from Madaarikun-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah (p. 223-228) of Shaykh ’Abdul-Maalik Ramadaanee al-Jazaa‘iree, this book includes an introduction and recommendation by al-’Allaamah Shaykh Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee and al-’Allaamah Shaykh ’Abdul-Muhsin Ibn Hamad al-’Abbaad al-Badr.  All footnotes were made by the translator.

[2] An-Nahdah, the Shaykh has mentioned the name of yet another Ikhwaanee hizb (party) from Algeria, each hizb competing with each other in trying to gain ascendancy over the people.

“Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you (O Muhammad) have no concern in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allaah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.” [Sooratul-An’aam 6:159]

[3] For more information regarding Hizbut-Tahreer and their particular methodology, refer to the section concerning them found in the book, al-Jamaa’aatul-Islaamiyyah of Shaykh Saleem al-Hilaalee.

[4] This letter is contained within the book; see (B14Q, B-A13Q, A11Q, B-A6Q)

[5] The Shaykh is referring to a particular section of the letter.

[6] The Shaykh is referring to a particular section of the letter.

[7] Madaarikun-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah (p. 257)

[8] Tawaagheet: This is the plural form of the word Taaghoot, which means anything that is worshipped other than the Real God (Allaah). In this case, ’Alee Ibn Haaj is referring to the case of those who rule by other than what Allaah has sent down. Ahlus-Sunnah have understood this matter in the following way:

 Imaam Ibn Abil-’Izz al-Hanafee (d.792H) - rahimahullaah - said: ‘‘And there is a matter which it is necessary to comprehend well - that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed can sometimes be kufr (disbelief) that ejects from the Religion and sometimes a major or minor sin - or it can be ‘metaphorical disbelief’ (kufran majaaziyyan) or ‘minor disbelief’ - and this is in accordance with the state of the ruler. If he believes that ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed is not waajib (obligatory) and that he has a choice in the matter - or if he disdains/despises it - while having conviction that it is the rule of Allaah, then this is the major disbelief. And if he believes in the obligation to rule by what Allaah has revealed and in this [particular] incident [he knows it to be the rule of Allaah] but he turns away from it - whilst acknowledging that he deserves punishment then he is a disobedient person and he is termed a disbeliever with the metaphorical type of disbelief or the minor type of disbelief.’’  Sharhul-’Aqeedatit-Tahaawiyyah (p. 363).

Al-’Allaamah Ibnul-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d.751H) - rahimahullaah - said: ‘‘And it is correct that judging by other than what Allaah has revealed is both types of kufr (disbelief) - kufr asghar (the minor disbelief) and kufr akbar (the major disbelief) - and [which of the two it is] depends on the condition of the ruler. If he believes in the obligation of judging by what Allaah has revealed in this situation but turned away from it - out of disobedience - and while acknowledging that he is deserving of punishment then this is kufr asghar. And if he believes that it is not obligatory and that he has a choice in the matter - along with his firm belief that it is the judgement of Allaah - then this is kufr akbar - and if he was ignorant in the matter or made an error then he is one who errs (mukhtee‘) and his ruling is as the same for those who err.’’  Madaarijus-Saalikeen (1/337).

[9] Madaarikun-Nadhr fis-Siyaasah (p. 228-229)