The Shaykh Al-Albani’s response to an article issued by the Tahrir Party prohibiting the leasing of land. And his remarks on its leader, Taki al-Din al-Nabhani.

The Shaykh : I would like to mention on this occasion a story I told to some of the brothers present on some previous occasions. The gist of it is thatThe Shaykh : Taki al-Din al-Nabhani, the founder of the well-known Islamic Tahrir Party, which is still known today, had not come to Damascus during my time until recently, before my departure from Damascus. He came, and I was informed of the news, so I visited him. I learned of his plan and his methodology. I am not now in a position to lengthen this account. The point is that it has been a long time since I got to knowThe Shaykh : him first, and his methodology and the methodology of his party second. After that, one of my Egyptian brothers, whom Allah the Exalted guided to this Salafi methodology, presented to me a bulletin issued by the Tahrir Party. Its topic was the prohibition of leasing land. This is part of their methodology and their call. I read the article and realized that they adopt this issue as part of a political methodology they have, and not because the scriptural evidence led them to this conclusion. My companion asked me, “What is your opinion?” I told him what I held: that this statement is incorrect. If you gather the evidence regarding this issue, there is a detailed ruling: leasing land is permissible, but not under conditions that might lead to litigation between the lessor and the lessee. He asked, “What do you think? Should you respond to them?” The point here is that I said, “By Allah, I am not eager to respond to these people, because I believe that speaking to them is of no benefit, since the individual party member cannot express an opinion contrary to the party’s opinion. If he does, he is expelled from the party. They do not have the scholarly spirit that allows every individual, even if he has some knowledge, to express his opinion. They may allow expressing an opinion, but they do not allow adopting it, because adopting what the party leader adopts is like the Caliph. The Caliph who rules over all Muslims; if he adopts an opinion, they also adopt it, because it is not permissible for a Muslim, no matter how learned, but to adopt that opinion. This is certainly a mistake, and this is also a separate discussion. But the mistake is magnified in their case when they transferred this attribute from the ruler of all Muslims, who is the Caliph, to the head of a party. It is not permissible for anyone belonging to this party to adopt a view contrary to what the leader has adopted. So I said, “What is the benefit of responding to them?” He kept urging me and making the response seem attractive to me. He said, “There is... he calls himself... do you know the man? Abu... Fawaz al-Salhi? Abu...?” I yielded to him and wrote a response. I also included in the response an article I had read at that time in the magazine *Al-Muslimun*, which was being published at that time byThe Shaykh : Mustafa al-Siba'i (may Allah have mercy on him), written by a Pakistani or Indian Muslim, of course. I included both articles and responded to them. As they say in our region in Sham, “Days passed and days came, and the years rolled by,” and I do not know what the party’s position is regarding this response. Did they accept it? That is what I consider unlikely. Did they respond to it so that I would know my error from my correctness? I did not know that either.