The Shaykh Al-Albani’s remarks on the Tahrir Party and their denial of ahad hadiths.

The Shaykh : This means that they have invalidated the science of narration, which they call... the narration of ahad hadiths. With great regret, this obsession, which this Abu al-Abbas and his like keep harping on, has been adopted by some Islamic parties in the modern era, namely the Tahrir Party. They say, with great regret, that an ahad hadith does not establish a creed. With this word, they are demolishing Islam from its foundation. It is enough to imagine a historical fact and a hypothetical scenario that I am describing to bring closer to people what is far from their minds. As for the first matter, the historical picture: We know for certain that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to send individuals from among his Companions to call the Arab tribes to Islam. Among the most famous of these, and the most famous of the lands to which these were sent, is Yemen. He sent Ali to them, he sent Abu Musa to them, and he sent Mu'adh ibn Jabal to them. With what did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) send them? Was it not with Islam? With the rulings of Islam only? Or with the creed and the rulings? With the creed and the rulings. As for all these people who are philosophizing that an ahad hadith does not establish a creed... you have to go in groups of tens, and their speech must be the same, and only then is the argument established against those. When the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Mu'adh ibn Jabal to Yemen, what did he say to him? He said: , to the end of the hadith. So the testimony that there is no god but Allah is the foundation of all Islamic creeds, and he called them to it. A single individual; they say this does not establish the creed. So does that mean that Islam is not established by all the Islamic callers today, because they are individuals? This is one of the most false of falsehoods, which contradicts the history of the early Muslims. And this is proof that it is from the speech of the scholars of kalam, whom they imposed to demolish the evidence of the people of the Sunnah and the community, so that they could unleash upon them: "Ah, this is an ahad hadith, it has no value." As for the hypothetical picture that I am assuming, to demonstrate the danger of this false creed that an ahad hadith does not establish a creed, I said to one of them one day: An Islamic caller from the Tahrir Party went to Japan, and began to gather people and collect them, and deliver lectures to them. And naturally, the first thing he started with was the creed, because that is their plan; the first thing one starts with is the path of faith, as it is withThe Shaykh : Taki al-Din, in some of his books, there is a title called "The Path of Faith." He started with the creed. Among the topics of this research titled "The Path of Faith" is the claim that an ahad hadith does not establish a creed. I imagined that one of the smart people in the assembly, hearing the lecture, said: "Oh Professor, you are telling us that an ahad hadith does not establish a creed, and you are calling us to Islam, and you are a single individual. So that means that what you are calling us to, with your creed, does not establish an argument against us. Therefore, you must return to your country and bring dozens like you, and let us hear your testimony and your speech, until your hadith becomes what? Mutawatir. And only then is the argument established against us." It is extreme nonsense, but this is what they require. Whenever a sound hadith comes, they reject it by saying it is an ahad hadith. They do not reject it by looking at the chain and saying it is not sound. Did Abu Bakr al-Siddiq lie? They say no. So why is it not accepted? This reminds me of something: if the whole world heard about Abu Bakr, not ten or twenty, but a hundred people, and a hundred people, and a hundred people, and they came and said to us: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq said, the Messenger of Allah said... the argument is not established by it. Why? Because it is ahad. So does Abu Bakr lie? No, he does not lie, far be it from him. So it is possible that he may make a mistake. So as long as it is possible that he may make a mistake, we do not accept his narration. Look, now, the statements by which they argue: is it not possible that they may make a mistake? Even though there are no sound chains for them, as we say regarding what is established from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Therefore, the truth is with the people of the Sunnah and the community, who argue with sound hadiths. And those who argue with the statements of others, which have no chain and no tether, are in manifest error. The summary of the previous speech is that they have no escape from one of two things: if they deny one, they do not benefit from denying the other. The first thing is that they disbelieved without an argument, they claimed. But the other thing is that they are misguided, because they contradicted the interpretation of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) of the Qur'an, and the righteous Salaf also, without any argument other than the statements of the sheikhs who follow them. And that is the manifest error. I personally, as I said, consider these people misguided, but I do not declare them disbelievers, because Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is the All-Knowing of what is in their chests. Do they deny to us that the speech of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is one of His attributes? And this is a reality from which a person cannot escape, if he is free from narrow sectarianism. Or, by Allah, the truth did not appear to them. So their reckoning is with Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).