We request clarification of the belief of the Tahrir Party regarding the issue of deriving belief from ahad hadiths?

The Shaykh : I came across the book, and it has been printed in a new edition. They amended the text which was "It is not permissible to derive belief from ahad hadiths." They changed it to say: "It is not obligatory." Since it is not obligatory, it became permissible. This is a manipulation between "not permissible" and "not obligatory." The phrase "not obligatory" gives the opposite meaning of the previous one, meaning it is permissible. It is not obligatory for you to eat meat, but it is permissible. We entered prison, and the prison of Hasakah, and it was also among the decrees of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) that a group of disbelievers who did not know that this one was a Salafi and that one was a party member or a Tahriri were there, so they grouped all of us together as Muslims. There were seventeen of us. And you would see these discussions night and day, in many areas... And among these matters was this issue. Some of them were not aware of this amendment. What was on their tongue? The old school: "It is not permissible." I confronted one of them about this: "We did not see, we did not see, such and such." Their leader is named Mustafa Bakri, and he knows him from Aleppo. I told them, "Ask him!" He said, "Yes, it is correct, just as the shaykh says. It was 'not permissible' and it became 'not obligatory.' So, in their opinion regarding this amendment, you have the choice. This is terrible politics. If you take from ahad hadiths, you are not criticized, and if you do not take from them, you are not criticized either. It is the same; this is permissible and this is permissible."

The questioner : Do we believe in it or do we hold it as a belief?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : We believe in it, but we do not hold it as a belief.

The Shaykh : You are rushing. Did you hear the three stages?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : In the second stage, we are now. Then, my sir, they published a statement that I had not seen before, saying there: "It is obligatory to believe in ahad hadiths." We asked them what that means? He said: In some of their texts, they explicitly stated that it is forbidden to hold ahad hadiths as a belief. I told him, "How is that?" He said, "Belief (tasdiq) is different from creed (i'tiqad)." This is a fatwa, isn't it? I told them, "Does that mean the word of Allah (Mighty and Majestic): 'And a confirmer' means not a believer, but only from the standpoint of the predominance of probability?!" That is how they interpreted belief (tasdiq)! So they stood up and prohibited the term: "It is obligatory to believe in ahad hadiths." That means it is obligatory to hold it as a belief, but not a firm belief; it is somewhat weakened. But if you take it as a settled creed, that is forbidden!! This is the final stage they reached, and we do not know if there is a fourth stage after it or not. So I used to say to them, "O people, your saying: 'It is not permissible' or 'It is not obligatory' or 'It is obligatory to believe'—this is a creed. How is this creed, and you have passed through three stages?!" You say that it is not permissible to take from ahad hadiths in creed, because creed must be built upon certainty. So you did not build anything upon certainty. You said this, then you amended it to the second, then you amended it to the third. So you are not settled in your creeds. What is your opinion regarding the branch issues?! So, the group, from the scientific aspect.

The questioner : It is not permissible in: "The System of Islam."

The Shaykh : Details of knowledge.

The questioner : It is not permissible in "The System of Islam," the first edition. In the first edition?

The Shaykh : The second edition: "It is not obligatory."

The questioner : In approximately which page?

The Shaykh : At the beginning of the book, under the title "Faith." The title of the path is exactly "The Path of Faith." The Path of Faith, yes. But from the educational aspect, they are completely lacking.

The questioner : Their discussion of divine decree and destiny.

The Shaykh : The discussion of divine decree and destiny is not dangerous, but it lacks clarity, meaning the Muslim is not convinced.

The questioner : Is there Mu'tazilah in it?

The Shaykh : It did not occur to me that there was Mu'tazilah at that time, because I was studying the book and it is well known. But it occurred to me that there was no clarity. They say there that they are going in a circle within a circle, detailing this detail. Do you remember, you...?

The questioner : It is stuck in my mind that there is Mu'tazilah.

The Shaykh : I do not remember, I do not remember. And I do not want to speak about people, no matter how far they are from the truth, except what I know completely. And I say to them, "O people, you want to establish the Muslim state! The Muslim state is not established in this way. You must understand the Islamic rulings, and indeed the Islamic creed before everything else, in the correct manner."