HT or MPAC

[IbnKhaled]

The punishment of the grave issue is probably the most (in)famous.

Basically it goes back to whether the position of HT as a group (as of course Khalifah is just a means to an end, not the end itself) subscribes as an organisation to the ijtihad of Sh Nabhani, which differs from the orthodox schools in both fiqh and aqeedah.

Given that it is reliant on the ijtihad of him and his students re: methodology, I don't really see how it cannot.

[Joe Bloggs]

Once I posted articles,
Perfecting Oneself through Working to change:
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.p...Working+change
Individual Reformation:
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=1305
We perform all fards at the same time. Off course we try to do it to our best of ability and with sincerity but Allah the Judge who accepts it

Jazakallah Kahir they were truly inspiring.

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by IbnKhaled

The punishment of the grave issue is probably the most (in)famous.

Basically it goes back to whether the position of HT as a group (as of course Khalifah is just a means to an end, not the end itself) subscribes as an organisation to the ijtihad of Sh Nabhani, which differs from the orthodox schools in both fiqh and aqeedah.

Given that it is reliant on the ijtihad of him and his students re: methodology, I don't really see how it cannot.

This sounds like the most plausible explanation, this is why there is so much confusion and misunderstanding over HT

[IslamicHope]

Syed Qutb, HT, and most classical Sunni scholars, say that a Khabar al-wahid (a hadith with only 1 person in the chain in each step) is not 100% definite, so you can't call people kafir for denying a particular hadith, but that hadith is up to 99% definiate, depending on classification by the scholars to Mashur, Sahih, Hassan, or Da'eef etc.

And Punishment in the grave is Muttawair Manawi (i.e has multiple reports in many individual ahad hadiths, hence raising it to muttawatir) so is not denied, or even written about in any official HT books. The person that raised a question about if Punishment in the grave is Ahad or Muttawatir is Omar Bakri, but he was booted 10 years ago by HT as far as I remmeber, but people in their deviousness still quote him as evidence to attack HT, although he himslef has retracted that view, and become a hardcore wahabi al-qaida supporter.

HT is made up of Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Maliki's no shia is accepted for membership unless they renounce shi'ism, in favour of Sunni Islam. Hence Ht does not have a policy on members individual school of thought, but do have some core issues.

This is what all this silly fuss is about, it is nothing to do with HT, it is classical Sunnis vs Saudi neo-Wahabis. If you attack HT for the opinion that Ahad Hadith are not 100%, then you have to atack Syed Qutb too, and Ikhwaan, and Jamaat-i-Islami, and classical scholars like Imam Shafi'i and Imam Nawawi. This discussion has been raised simpy to create fitnah, and in fighting which Muslims love to engage in, whihc serves our enemies. The Saudi State funds peope and groups to get Muslims hair splitting among themselves while our enemies watch and destroy us.

[Nahda]

Originally Posted by *Rahim*

This sounds like the most plausible explanation, this is why there is so much confusion and misunderstanding over HT

I don’t think so, there are some people who like to do much hoo-haa about this without understanding the basis of it and eventually regret what they have done, even myself when I first heard such issue I was quiet confused but one of the sincere member of hizb explained this to me and also I myself checked it out-things are much clearer now.
A while back, I remember one of the brother posted the answer of this question,

Believe in the punishment of the grave:

Believe : Yes

Have it as part of the Aqeeda : No

[Illuminate]

Originally Posted by outsider

If you really want to know email HT directly. Then post their reply here and we can discuss this all to your hearts content. Although, unless you are a scholar or trainee scholar things are going to get very confusing very fast especially when discussing aqeeda, its sources and the differing legitimate and illegitimate interpretations.

Salaam

missed your post early: I did send them email, still awaiting for a reply, if I ever receive a response I will send you a copy...

Syed Qutb, HT, and most classical Sunni scholars, say that a Khabar al-wahid (a hadith with only 1 person in the chain in each step) is not 100% definite, so you can't call people kafir for denying a particular hadith, but that hadith is up to 99% definiate, depending on classification by the scholars to Mashur, Sahih, Hassan, or Da'eef etc

What I can gather about HT and the believes of some there leaders is that they said some classical scholars have said regarding ahad hadith... that it has doubt it in..... so therefore we cant be part of our aqeedah...i.e. the arguement between Mutawaatir vs. Aahaad hadiths

I dont share this view totally, as it is misrepresntation of the classical scholars meaning of "that it has doubt". I have tend to look at whether a hadith is authentic or unauthentic, and only look at the main scholars of hadith like bukhari, muslim, ahmad, malik, abu Dawood and few others....Anyway there is nothing wrong in narrating weak hadith

Believe in the punishment of the grave:
Believe : Yes
Have it as part of the Aqeeda : No

So you believe in the punishment of the grave but it is not part of your aqeeda - so that is why HT question the meaning of ones creed ??????


Jazakallah for your replies

ma sallam

[NNA2001]

What makes one a Muslim….when he says - "I believe in Allah, in His Angels, His Scriptures, His Messengers, the Last Day, and that everything good and bad in the world is predestined by the Almighty Allah, and I believe in Resurrection after Death."

We need to very be careful what we say otherwise we are claming someone kafeer, that’s a big deal!

[IslamicHope]

This whole discusssion is, even by HT laymen, above the heads of most people, even HT's. Aqeeda issues, and issues of scholarly debate have become widespread among people, to attack each other. HT's get attacked on these issues, and most of them don't know how to defend themselves on these issues, because they are not taught to delve into aqeeda issues of another Musllim, and rightly so; then they end up replying in the wrong way, which digs deeper holes for themselves.

Listen peeps, In arabic there is more than 1 word for doubt, e.g shaq, Thann, etc, and depending on which word used, indicates the level of trust you have in that issue whihc ontains doubt. DOesnt make sense to even have this discussion in english. Doubt is not the right word to use, you can't say you doubt hadith, it indicates lake of acceptance. What the Sunni poition is that just like I'm sure that there is currently more than 1 car in London, we are sure that the Ahad Hadith are true, reliable, and it is a sin to deny them, any of them. However it is not 100% definite for me, that currently there is more than 1 car in london, because I am not in london at the moments, and there could have been a major disaster, or a mass-fleeing of people exclusively in their cars, although far-fetched, it is a possibility. In ths same way, it is a possibility, a very remote one, that there could be a mistake in a hadith with only 1 reporter, in each stage of the hadith. Thats why you cannot call people Kafir for denying them, because otherwise Shia who deny Bukhari, would be declared Kafir by all Sunnis.

The other issue id the definition of the words Aqeeda and Iman, which are sometomes used for the same semantic meaning, but at other times not. Imam Ghazzaali says in his "Ihyaa" that the word Iman was used in 3 different ways for 3 different meanings by the prophet (saw). Thats why the scholars used a more technically specific term : Aqeeda. They say that anyone who denies any of the Aqeeda issues is a Kafir, Aqeeda is all those beliefs that if you deny you are out of Islam. Please note, there is also a further complication: Aqeeda, Usul of Aqeeda, and furoo of aqeeda, but I dont want to go anymore into this. Let just leave this issue, and not go around enquiring into peoples aqeedas, mostly these debates end up nowhere, and are dangerous, because it has impications of takfeer.

[IbnKhaled]

Aqeedah is indeed dangerous.

As is prayer that does not fit in with any of the methodologies of the major madhabs.

[NNA2001]

I know its off topic, but i dont want to start another thread for this.....

--------------------------------------------------------------


Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain Responds to Muslim MPs Call to Ban Party

London, UK, July 20 – The call by some Muslim MPs to UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke to ban the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a non-violent Islamic political party that rejects terrorism and militancy, is nothing more than an attempt to stifle legitimate political expression in the Muslim community.

For over five decades Hizb ut-Tahrir has faced intense repression at the hands of the rulers of the Muslim world. In Uzbekistan, tens of thousands of our members have been imprisoned for little more than distributing a leaflet or raising a political discussion. In their treatment of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the rulers of the Muslim world have made it abundantly clear that they will not tolerate any political dissent whatsoever. Despite this intense repression, including torture, rape, imprisonment without trial and extra-judicial killings, Hizb ut-Tahrir has not wavered from the path of non-violent political work in the slightest. The dungeons of the Muslim world are full with our prisoners of conscience. The current global leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir, Ata Abu Rushta, was a designated Amnesty International prisoner of conscience in the late 1990s.

Dr Imran Waheed, the Representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "Like the tyrant ruler of Uzbekistan, the statements of these MPs calling for action against Hizb ut-Tahrir are evidence of their intolerance of political dissent. They want the Muslim community to forget the dodgy dossier and the war on Iraq and would rather the Muslim community join the fold of the Labour Party than ask searching questions of their politicians."

"Hizb ut-Tahrir continues to enjoy wide support in the Muslim community – indeed these MPs know that many of their close family members are active members of Hizb ut-Tahrir."

Notes to Editors:

"Hizb ut-Tahrir is a completely non-violent organisation." [Craig Murray, the ex-British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Al-Jazeera, 17/5/05]

"…it advocates the restoration of the Islamic caliphate. It differs from jihadi groups which share this objective in abstaining from violent activity." [International Crisis Group, 2/3/05]

"Hizb ut-Tahrir [HT] is an independent political party that is active in many countries across the world. HT's activities centre on intellectual reasoning, logic arguments and political lobbying. The party adheres to the Islamic Shariah law in all aspects of its work. It considers violence or armed struggle against the regime, as a method to re-establish the Islamic State, a violation of the Islamic Shariah." [Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under FOI Act]

"Hizb ut-Tahrir - Lines to take if extensive coverage is given in the media: Freedom of thought and speech key element of our society. Our tradition that there is a place for those who disagree with the way we do things – unless they espouse violence as a way to achieve their ends." [Restricted Home Office Documents 19/8/03, Released to Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 1/6/05 under FOI Act]

"We have yet to see convincing evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir as an organisation advocates violence or terrorism. Nor are we aware of any co-operation between it and Al Qaeda." [UK FCO Minister Bill Rammell, Hansard, 19/4/04]

"It will be impossible to see Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. If Hizb ut-Tahrir resorts to violence then it can be described as a terrorist organisation. Further more Hizb ut-Tahrir, as it stands, cannot be proscribed as a terrorist organisation." [Verdict Turkish Second State Security Court, 13/4/04]

"Hizb ut-Tahrir does not advocate a violent overthrow of Muslim regimes... Instead HT believes in winning over mass support, believing that one day these supporters will rise up in peaceful demonstrations and overthrow the regimes of Central Asia." [Ahmed Rashid, Jihad: the Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia]

"Hizb ut-Tahrir quite explicitly disavows violence as its means for achieving power." [John Schoeberlein, Director of Harvard University’s Central Asia program]

"Hizb ut-Tahrir has shown dissatisfaction on the policies of the [Pakistan] government which is the right of each and every citizen…I am unable to understand as to how distribution of these pamphlets in the general public was termed as terrorism or sectarianism.” [Multan Bench, Lahore High Court, March 2005]

"Ata Abu Rushta, spokesperson for the Hizb ut-Tahrir, Liberation Party in Jordan, a party seeking to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in February by the State Security Court for lese-majesty under Article 195(1) of the Penal Code in connection with an interview he had given to the newspaper al-Hiwar. The statements on which the charges were based did not advocate violence." [Amnesty International Report, 1997]

[Illuminate]

So HT are trying to sell themselves as a pacifist organisation

[outsider]

salaams

How did u come to that conclusion?

Ht is simply saying it does not accept or advocate violence in its activites to reestablish the Islamic State. That is not being pacifist.

It would be pacifist if it prevented its followers from fighting if their lands were occupied, which it does not.

ws

[Damascus]

This thread was started by a racist and has become nothing but an HT bashing/propaganda session.

There are other threads on which this debate should be held.

So the muslim army, led by the amir of jihad, will fight. The army will be massive, with technological knowledge provided by all the hyper-qualified muslim specialists which the khalif will employ, and bring them out of mass unemployment in the muslim lands! The industry will be linked with jihada military industrial complex that's funny just like america are you sure your not working for them?, and this will generate employment. The education will be islamic, teaching islamic history, islamic concepts, advanced technological knowledge, etc. The khalifah will produce thinkers, scholars, scientists of the highest calibre, and education will be free, and mandatory.sorry i don't need dreamers, fortune tellers or clairvoyant psychic's, telling me how wonderful life would be in a future chalifate. a lot of us need tangibale realities based on the here and now.

As for the timtable of events, most of these changes will be instantaneous since they are linked directly with the application of the islamic ruling system,
it may take up to a year to set up the state in its entiretyplease tell me you are having a laugh, 12 months, 365 days, 1 year to to change a nation state to chaliphate, with implementing changes to all the national institutions and ministrys (health,education,economic,military etc etc) into chaliphate institutions. one year. for example to change, the most basic british or the european union institutions takes more than a year to implement, from it conception to it execution. thats with very low levels of corruption and public opposition, do you think you gonna have a free ride in establishing a caliphate, i 'd rethink that time table if i were you, but it will be better than the current so-called superpower, USA, which has high levels of poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and other social problems but you gonna have you economic and social condition based on a military industrial complex based on fighting perpetual wars, just like the Neo Con doctrine, are you sure you don't work for them?.
The khilafah will then spread through the islamic lands rapidly and naturally, to form the invincible khilafah.more of the eutopian stuff. deal with the now please.

In response to ur query there is no thinktank simply because there is no need for it. The Hizb has a clearly outlined agenda in each country it undertakes the dawah.what reminding each and every muslims that he or she is kalifa, gods representative on earth and that before you can have an islamic state, you need to have in you a islamic state of mind. how many of the 1.what ever, billon muslims do you think have an islamic state of mind? not every muslim thinks like you or even like me. that's the beauty of no compulsion. the path of the manifest Truth is out there but we chose to take it or we chose not take it. we get reward for taking it and punishment leaving it. but you can not force it on anyone, by all means tell someone the errors of their ways if he take you advice or not its his/her prerogative/reward/punishment

The Hizb has laid down clear plans for what happens post coup so your gonna take power and instal chaliphate, thats odd its what the CIA do overthrow governments, are you sure do don't work for them, so many coincedances and similarities, sorry i digress, is this gonna be a violent or peaceful coup'de tare? as most are violent. the first islamic state was in median, yeah? was that a coup? did'nt the people and leadership of median ask for one? In simple terms, the first Islamic state established in Medina was based on a social contract, was constitutional in character and the ruler ruled with the explicit written consent of all the citizens of the state. the way your putting it, Hizb does'nt do it that way. are you gonna take it and make a chaliphate by force if necessary. is that right? detailing the necessary changes planned every 12 hours and preparations for likely attacksso it gonna be violent.

While the work is essentially the same where ever it may be, the Hizb does study the political and social reality of each new territory. Unfortunately i cannot go into this on the forum.if you gonna have an islamic hegemonic world, most of the information will be apply to everywhere or is it the MODS

Like i said earlier, if you have any specific queries pls get in touch directly.thanks but i like our discussion to open, so anyone who has questions or answers can chip in

as for the political scholars, islamic scholars, sharia jurist and scholar, islamic economic and ecomomic scholars, cultural scholars, islamic philosophers. and experts on the sectrain and nationalism grievance and problems of the todays muslim world. are all must universally accepted as authorities in their fields and disciplines. have HT something like this? that they are universally accepted and respected by their counterparts in the muslim world and non muslim world? do any hold chairs and are heads of department in the world's best teaching institutions

[outsider]

salaams

Ok i am gonna try to answer some of teh points u raise..tho like i said before, this is not the most convinient manner of holding this discussion.

From your posts you seem to demand a detailed policy document of what will happen after the Islamic state is declared. I cant give you this. Firstly no think tank exists simply becuase it if did all people associated with it would be arrested and chucked into jail and all opponents would be aware of what teh plans were and try to prevent them from developing in the first place.

The Hizb has produced literature on what will happen. I posted the link elsewhere but it got deleted by the mods. If i post the stuff here it will take up too many pages. Let me try and summarize some of it.

Firstly, you are correct in stating the Rasool (saw) did not take power with force. It was an agreement between the tribe leaders of Madinah and the Muslims. But that does not mean a coup is different. The coup is the only other valid means of taking power and abiding by the sunnah becuase the coup involves seeking the influential people in that society and asking them to hand power to those who wish to implement Islam.

Some people have suggested the closest example of the Rasool (pbuh) is to take power through democratic means via elections. Firstly, this is not similar since that is a different process and involves being part of a system of parties all vying for power in an Non islamic system, in the same manner, which the Rasool (pbuh) did not do. Also, to use the democratic process today in Muslim lands will inevitably and unfortunately mean a dissolution of Islamic teachings in order to become legitimate and to not incur the wrath of foreign powers should you become successful..eg Algeria, Turkey, Egypt. You can also take the other extreme of Pakistan where religious parties pushing for power but are seen as chummy and corrupt.

A state in a year???

I think the poster was suggesting that the state is existent immediately upon its declaration. However the changes needed in society will take time. A year may be too optimistic but one should not be too downhearted. Change can happen extrememly quickly should there be a willing populace and a strong determined government.

The HIzb is not taking the power by force. It would not take power in that manner. It sees no benfit in inciting civil war. However, once declared there may be sections of the community who rebel, those whose interests have been threatened and are being provoked by pandering from foreign allies. That does not mean wholesale massacre. It is simply an acknowldement of what may happen and what should be prepared for. Hopeful, this will be a very small number and they will be free to pack up and leave. The state is not going to go on a rampage.

Jihad is central to the State. There are too many threads on this topic so im not offering any more definitions. Let me just say that the State will spread through the process of Jihad and that this has many meanings. For instance, teh state should encourage its scholars to depart from its land and go to neighbouring lands to encourage the people there to join and enjoy the benefits of teh state over them. Jihad, in the strict military sense, is only induced when the dawah carriers in neighbouring lands are being persecuted and hilled or when the state itself is being threatened.

There is a clear relationship between striong economically advanced countriesa and the defence industry. I see no reason why this should not be the case for an Islamic country. It will ensure there is a continuos supply of research and technology being produced and, like in the west, will have advantage sfor the civilian industries. It may also keep us from relying on the west for our protection. It is not neo con. Do not fall into this mentality. Islam demnds we have the means and the right to defend ourselves.

Too much typing..hands hurt.
Await your response.

ws

[Damascus]

From your posts you seem to demand a detailed policy document of what will happen after the Islamic state is declared.i and so many others want to see a detailed plan before, during and after. we want to see a well thought conception and execution of your ideas that are tangible and achievable and not just lip service I cant give you this. Firstly no think tank exists simply becuase it if did all people associated with it would be arrested and chucked into jail and all opponents would be aware of what teh plans were and try to prevent them from developing in the first place. sorry but that a poor excuse, if you can talk about recreating a chaliphate. but your great minds can't come together out of fear of jail. so to produce a clear plan to change state institutions over to chaliphate one is stoped because your so called enemies will know your plans, it did stop the neo cons with their plans, it didnt stop marx with the communist manifesto or adolf with mien kampf. i believe the fear is more to do with a realisation, that it is unachievable and so will bring the end of HT as it pined all its ideology on a chaliphate

The Hizb has produced literature on what will happen.eutopian stuff to feed to the your members, when we get power this what is gonna happen and everything will brilliant for muslims I posted the link elsewhere but it got deleted by the mods. If i post the stuff here it will take up too many pages. Let me try and summarize some of it.

Firstly, you are correct in stating the Rasool (saw) did not take power with force. It was an agreement between the tribe leaders of Madinah and the Muslims. But that does not mean a coup is different. The coup is the only other valid means of taking power and abiding by the sunnah becuase the coup involves seeking the influential people in that societyoh what about the man and women in the street, do they not have say? if they want your chaliphate and asking them to hand power to those who wish to implement Islam. who's authority and what leader will you put into power. what qualifications have they to take the hold of power and govern the lives of billions?

Some people have suggested the closest example of the Rasool (pbuh) is to take power through democratic means via elections. Firstly, this is not similar since that is a different process and involves being part of a system of parties all vying for power in an Non islamic system, in the same manner, which the Rasool (pbuh) did not do. Also, to use the democratic process today in Muslim lands will inevitably and unfortunately mean a dissolution of Islamic teachings in order to become legitimate and to not incur the wrath of foreign powers should you become successful..eg Algeria, Turkey, Egypt. You can also take the other extreme of Pakistan where religious parties pushing for power but are seen as chummy and corrupt.what safegard do you have from spilling into a tyranic state

A state in a year???

I think the poster was suggesting that the state is existent immediately upon its declaration. However the changes needed in society will take time. A year may be too optimistic but one should not be too downhearted. Change can happen extrememly quickly should there be a willing populace and a strong determined government.you will never get a complete support of all the people, and even before you've got any state your already ostracized by many muslim, so in way your already conducting a civil war

The HIzb is not taking the power by force. It would not take power in that manner. It sees no benfit in inciting civil war. However, once declared there may be sections of the community who rebelthen you have right in declaring anything if you have not got full support, those whose interests have been threatened and are being provoked by pandering from foreign allies.what's the difference between theirs and yours? That does not mean wholesale massacre. It is simply an acknowldement of what may happen and what should be prepared for muslims killing muslims, oh great, thats what we need right now. Hopeful, this will be a very small number and they will be free to pack up and leave. just like what happened in afghanistan, civil war, refugee crisis of millions of people
The state is not going to go on a rampage.i do think so, every revolution, takeover and conquest has been bloody, except when muslims returned mecca.

Jihad is central to the State. There are too many threads on this topic so im not offering any more definitions. Let me just say that the State will spread through the process of Jihad and that this has many meanings. For instance, teh state should encourage its scholars to depart from its land and go to neighbouring lands to encourage the people there to join and enjoy the benefits of teh state over themLOL ahhhh what, if your state is going to be a benefit to all people, then surely in its action at home with its citizens would draw people to islam. it will lead by example. oh jews, oh christians, oh non believers come to the chaliphate, you'll be 2nd class citizen and have to pay a tax come join the benefits and thats the compassionate version. . Jihad, in the strict military sense, is only induced when the dawah carriers in neighbouring lands are being persecuted and hilled or when the state itself is being threatened.so you not going to be happy with the borders you already have and you gonna start missionary work just like what christians are doing in muslim lands. sowing seeds of disruption amongst people so you can wage war and expand

There is a clear relationship between striong economically advanced countriesa and the defence industry. I see no reason why this should not be the case for an Islamic country.so you gonna follow the example of the west and base you economy on war and death. nice It will ensure there is a continuos supply of research and technology being produced and, like in the west, will have advantage sfor the civilian industries. It may also keep us from relying on the west for our protection. just listen to your self and what your advocating. from death and war technology to the home. look at western societies and how this form of aneconomy is a poison. It is not neo con. Do not fall into this mentality. oh but it is neo con mentality, your not opposites but the same Islam demnds we have the means and the right to defend ourselves.the keyword being defend, but you gonna export wars, with your missionary work

Too much typing..hands hurt.
Await your response.

ws

No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution.

Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

[outsider]

salaams

Interesting replies....unfortunately i cant reply in detail for a while.

In the meantime give me your solutions then....

ws

[abuimaan an-nepalee]

Originally Posted by IslamicHope

Syed Qutb, HT, and most classical Sunni scholars, say that a Khabar al-wahid (a hadith with only 1 person in the chain in each step) is not 100% definite, so you can't call people kafir for denying a particular hadith, but that hadith is up to 99% definiate, depending on classification by the scholars to Mashur, Sahih, Hassan, or Da'eef etc.

And Punishment in the grave is Muttawair Manawi (i.e has multiple reports in many individual ahad hadiths, hence raising it to muttawatir) so is not denied, or even written about in any official HT books. The person that raised a question about if Punishment in the grave is Ahad or Muttawatir is Omar Bakri, but he was booted 10 years ago by HT as far as I remmeber, but people in their deviousness still quote him as evidence to attack HT, although he himslef has retracted that view, and become a hardcore wahabi al-qaida supporter.

HT is made up of Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, and Maliki's no shia is accepted for membership unless they renounce shi'ism, in favour of Sunni Islam. Hence Ht does not have a policy on members individual school of thought, but do have some core issues.

This is what all this silly fuss is about, it is nothing to do with HT, it is classical Sunnis vs Saudi neo-Wahabis. If you attack HT for the opinion that Ahad Hadith are not 100%, then you have to atack Syed Qutb too, and Ikhwaan, and Jamaat-i-Islami, and classical scholars like Imam Shafi'i and Imam Nawawi. This discussion has been raised simpy to create fitnah, and in fighting which Muslims love to engage in, whihc serves our enemies. The Saudi State funds peope and groups to get Muslims hair splitting among themselves while our enemies watch and destroy us.

Incorrect.

Ht state 'adhabul qabr is not a decisive issue, infact a guy called Rashad ali who claims he is a mujtahid member of HT said to me

Originally Posted by rashad ali

the only thing qati'e (decisive) about 'adhabul qabr is that it is not qati'e (decisive)

And on more than one occasion he stated that it was permissable to be with HT and reject in totality the existence of 'adhabul qabr

So it is not about omar bakri muhammad it is the Hizb!

Go and ask, Issam al-amerah or samir from sheffield who are considered scholars from the Hizb.

Have you read the arabic article by abu malik from canada a member who rejected it was mutawatir ma'nawi and in the Qur'an?

even the issue of mutawatir ma'nawi nabhani never took it as a definitive source of 'aqeedah he said it was khabar al-ahaad and doesn't exist:

Originally Posted by nabhani

Nabhani in Ash-Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 3

And the mutawatur ahadith (is) qati'e thabout from Nabi (Sallahu 'alayhi was-sallam), therefore it will be bnding to act upon it in everything. including the sunnah which is verbal, physical or silence (meaning the silence of Rasul(saw)).

And from the verbal mutawatir ahadith is His (sallahu 'alayhi was-sallam's) statement:

He who lies about me intentionally shall have his seat in the hell-fire!

and from the physical sunnah al-Mutawatir (is) the 5 prayers, (wa 'adad), and their (number of) rakat/units, and that is relating the manner in how the prayer is performed and fasting and hajj"

Nabhani, Taqi-ud-deen, Ash-Shaksiyyah Islamiyyah Volume 3, page 76, 3rd edition.

And shi'ah do not have to leave their madhab to join HT there are many shi'ah ht in lebanon for example.

Also read this:

stated in a leaflet called: 'A call from Hizb ut-Tahrir. To the muslims in general, and specifically to the muslims of Iraq and Lebanon' distributed in arabic in Lebanon and Iraaq and the general arab lands, published 9th rabee al-awaal 1424ah corresponding to 10/05/03. This is an official leaflet available here: http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/arabic...at/nashrat.htm when you go to the link you look for the leaflet with the corresponding date

in this article is tell us why are not sad to see shi'a go to their masjid and not to the sunni ones and vice versa, and how they (ht) allow shi'a to join their party, that we are all brothers etc. Here is some of what they have to say(based upon official translation):

Originally Posted by ht

"it indeed pains the soul when muslims leave the mosque, shouting with sunni slogans, and the others leave another mosque, shouting shia slogans, in substitute of the embracing of the 2 parties, and calling with one voice;the voice of Islam, and that they are Muslims, brothers in ALLAH (swt) and the beloved of his messenger....

Does it not cause tears, that the shia do not enter the sunni mosques, and if they entered the eyes turn at him. And that the sunni do not enter the mosques of the shia, and if they entered, it is as if it is foreign land?...

Indeed the muslim is a brother of another muslim, whether he is shia or sunni. Whatever authority he imitates or whichever Mujtahid he follows...

But isn't it from that which makes the heart bleed, that we find the groups close themselves except to a certain group or madhab? And this group doesn't accept into it's membership except shia, and the other doesn't accept sunni.....

Indeed Hizb ut-Tahrir, the political party established upon islam, and islam alone, it's membership is open for every muslim, whether he is Sunni or shia as long as he believes in the islamic aqeeda."

also regarding the madhahib of ht shabab, you do know they say nabhani was a mutlaq so there fiqh is not from only 4 madhahib.

wa ALLAHU Ta'ala a'lam

[abu_ali]

Originally Posted by irfan

A friend of mine wants to join HT after reading their statement about the London attacks. He also got into a ruckus after Juma in which he defended a guy handing out the HT statement.

I personally think he would be better-off joining MPAC. How do I convince him?

i would never advice any1 to join mpac. or mcb etc. they all call for democracy and participation within the system which is haram. also they attack the mujahideen and call for the arrest of muslims. they dont have much sunnah in them.. good advice would be stay away from them.
find a groups who calls for islam. not democracy

[sunni]

Originally Posted by abu_ali

i would never advice any1 to join mpac. or mcb etc. they all call for democracy and participation within the system which is haram. also they attack the mujahideen and call for the arrest of muslims. they dont have much sunnah in them.. good advice would be stay away from them.
find a groups who calls for islam. not democracy

HAHAHHAHAHAA TYPICAL LAZY BUM! WHO ISNT DOING ANYTHING BUT SEATING ON HIS BACKSIDE AND TELLING OTHERS TO BE LIKE HIM!

[abu_ali]

Originally Posted by sunni

HAHAHHAHAHAA TYPICAL LAZY BUM! WHO ISNT DOING ANYTHING BUT SEATING ON HIS BACKSIDE AND TELLING OTHERS TO BE LIKE HIM!

do not assume not allowed to make assumptions. to give dawah it must be done according to the quran and sunnah not from ones own hawah.
becoming mp's and lords etc is not allowed in islam.
give dawah command good forbid evil work for islam. without having to compromise