Discussion of some of the deviations of the Tahrir Party.

The questioner : There is a statement by the Tahrir Party that they say a man has no authority over a woman except after the establishment of the Islamic state?

The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.

The questioner : Likewise, enjoining good and forbidding evil and establishing the prayers are only after the establishment of the Islamic state, and they cite the saying of Allah the Exalted: So what is your response, may Allah reward you?

The Shaykh : First of all, I say this is not the opinion of the Tahrir Party! To be fair to them, so that we do not implicate them in sin.

The questioner : This, Professor, is found among them!

The Shaykh : Be patient with these people, my brother. First of all, they have no knowledge, and each group among them speaks in a different way, so their statements often contradict and conflict with one another. And I think, and Allah knows best, that I am among the most knowledgeable about them, because I was afflicted with them in Damascus, and they gathered me in prison with one of their leaders for months, and we would discuss day and night. Among them were young men like these enthusiastic ones. Their deceased Shaykh, may Allah forgive us and him, Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, decided in his book *Nizam al-Islam* (The System of Islam) explicitly that creed is not permissible to be taken from ahad hadiths; it is not permissible to be taken from ahad hadiths. This book spread, and may Allah will that it spread, and many of the Tahrir Party adopted it, and it became their creed. The consequence was that they became careless and negligent, and they rejected many authentic hadiths because they contained creed. Their affair reached the point of denying the punishment of the grave, which the Imams of hadith, such as al-Isqalani and his like, affirm as mass-transmitted. They also denied the condition that the Muslim ruler must be Qurayshi, because they said the hadith is not mass-transmitted, and the Imam of hadith scholars in his time and after his time, rightly, to this day, says it is a mass-transmitted hadith, and so on. So a discussion took place between me and some of them there in the prison in al-Hasakah regarding ahad hadiths and that it is not permissible to take from them in creed. I was more aware of the development of this opinion by the Tahrir Party than this enthusiastic member of the party, who was arguing with this opinion. First, he said it is not permissible to take creed from ahad hadiths. I said to him, this is contrary to the party's opinion. He said, no. I said, you know something and are unaware of other things. The new edition of *Nizam al-Islam* did not change anything; they took the word "not permissible" and put "not obligatory" in its place. It is a simple matter: "not permissible" versus "not obligatory." What is the difference? It means it is permissible! What was not permissible became permissible, but "not permissible" means to soften it a bit, meaning they satisfied these people a little and those people a little, but they did not satisfy the truth. If you wish to take from ahad hadiths, it is permissible, but it is not obligatory for you to take from ahad hadiths. This is a Tahriri party opinion; there are different opinions now. There is a magazine they print in Beirut called *al-Wa'i* (Awareness), which represents the Tahrir Party now, fresh, meaning they speak of enjoining good and forbidding evil and detail the ruling on it to a great extent with good detail. So this may have been their old opinion, and they do not know the new opinion they are adopting at the present time.
Ali Hasan : This is a good tracing of their position, my Shaykh.

The questioner : It is from your good opinion of them.

The Shaykh : So that we do not wrong them!

The questioner : No, this is their opinion in a new publication! Meaning, only five years ago!

The Shaykh : No, this is not new; time has passed over it and consumed it. I am telling you about weeks. So the important thing, my brother, is . This is actually from their ignorance. They are like the one who says a little riba is permissible because Allah Mighty and Majestic says . This is called arguing by the opposite implication. And here is the knowledge that needs to shake the shoulders, Doctor, it needs to shake the shoulders.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The scholars differed on whether it is permissible, or rather whether it is obligatory, to take from the opposite implication or not. There are two schools of thought. The Hanafi school does not take from the opposite implication. Why? Because they found verses like this verse, like the verse I cited. If the opposite implication is taken, there is a problem, and we have struck many explicit texts in this regard. Other scholars said it is obligatory to take from the opposite implication unless it contradicts an explicit text, and this is the correct view. And there is in the Qur'an the noble verse, what does it say?
Al-Halabi : .

The Shaykh : No, it is the verse about shortening the prayer in travel.
Al-Halabi : .

The Shaykh : Its implication is that if you do not fear, there is no shortening. If you fear that those who disbelieve will fitna you, is this implication taken? The answer is yes. The original rule is that this implication should be taken, and everyone who hears this verse should have the position of taking this implication. But whoever has been informed of the explicit text is not allowed to take this implication. What is the evidence? It came in *Sahih Muslim* that a man said to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), "Allah says , so why do we continue to shorten the prayer when we are safe?" 'Umar said, "I asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) about it." I said, "What did you say?"

The questioner : I asked the Messenger of Allah about it.

The Shaykh : Ah, 'Umar said, "I asked the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). I said, 'O Messenger of Allah, why do we shorten the prayer when we are safe?'" He said: The point is, from this hadith I understood a meaning that I presented to my school of thought, which I was raised upon, and I did not divorce it with three divorces! No, but I corrected my position from it. The Hanafi school says the opposite implication is not taken. But when I saw the Companions saying to the Messenger, "Why do we shorten the prayer when we are safe?" This Companion relied on the opposite implication; he cared about the opposite implication. If this pure Arab did so, what about the non-Arab, like me, who must consider and rely on what? On the opposite implication, unless an explicit text comes. Here the explicit text came, where the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified it for them. And I say, on this occasion, if such a discussion, if I may express it as a discussion between the Messenger and 'Umar, took place between a Hanafi Imam and one of his followers, who says to him, "O Imam, why do we shorten the prayer when we are safe, and you say the opposite implication is not relied upon?" He would not know how to answer; he would have to correct his ideas, just as I corrected mine. We must say the opposite implication is a proof unless it contradicts an explicit text. What is the explicit text here? Meaning that this was a condition, then Allah Mighty and Majestic lifted it. So if the opposite implication conflicts with an explicit text, it has no value. Now, this verse is like the other verses; it conflicts with the explicit commands: The same Tahrir Party brought this hadith and brought the detail in this week's period, which is very recent. So the group, truly...