The Method of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Taking the Hadith

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Raheem

The Method of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in Taking the Hadith

As for the method of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in taking the Hadith and using it as evidence, the Hizb has adopted a specific opinion in respect of this matter and listed this opinion in the Book of “The Islamic Personality” Volumes 1 and 3. The Party takes the Hadith according to this opinion. Hence it takes Ahadith from the six books and also from the books of the Imams, such as the Musnad of Ahmed and al-Muwatta’ among others. It also takes Ahadith from other than these books according to the soundness of the Hadith, without lending consideration to the book. The Party takes the Hadith also from the recognized books of Usul such as Jama’ al-Jawami’ of al-Amidi for instance, and from the books of Fiqh of most scholars such as al-Mughni , al-Mabsut, al Majmu’ and   al-Mudawwana al-Kubra among others. That is where the Party takes the Hadith from and uses it as evidence, exactly like the way Omar Ibnul Khattab used to take it. Thus, it would seek evidence from the narration of a trustworthy, sincere and regimented narrator, whether the Hadith was Sahih or Hasan, and it would categorically reject the weak, whether in respect of the good deeds or otherwise. The Party does not deem the weak Hadith as part of what is permitted to be taken even if its reports were varied and multiple, because it deems that the weak remains weak; it condemns the use of a weak Hadith even as evidence for a good deed.

However, the Party takes certain Ahadith that others may not accept; for instance, the Party accepts the “Mursal” Hadith because it deems its rejection unjustified. It also takes the Hadith accepted by most distinguished scholars and Usul scholars and deems it as part of the Hasan Hadith, in line with what the scholars of the science of Hadith have stipulated; it also deems what is not acted upon due to its contradiction to what is conclusive equal to what is rejected as a report; it would not take it and it would even reject it. The Party does not use the Ahad Hadith as evidence for what is part of the Aqeedah matters even if it were Sahih or Hasan because Aqeedah matters are only taken by way of certitude or by way if a conclusive evidence; it cannot be taken from doubtful evidence. All this, among other issues it has adopted in Usul al-Fiqh and the science of Hadith, is listed and explained in its books. Hence, all the Ahadith listed in the books published by HT are either Sahih or Hasan; none of them is weak. It may be weak in the eyes of certain Muhadditheen because according to them it may contain some weakness or because some narrators are deemed unqualified, but to the Party, the Hadith remains of the Hasan type because it is taken according to what the Party has adopted. The Hadith may also not be found in the Books of Sahih, but the Party does not confine its taking of the Hadith to specific books or specific narrators; the Party would only take the merits of the Hadith into consideration, irrespective of the book or the narrator. For instance, a Hasan Hadith may be listed in other than the Sahih books, such as in the book of al-Bayhaqi; it may be listed in a book of Fiqh and taken by a Mujtahid such as al-Shafii’ but not listed in the Sahih books, and it may even be deemed weak by some Hadith scholars. Hence, the Party takes it on the basis of the Hadith and not according to which specific book it is taken from nor according to a specific narrator, nor because it has or has not been refuted by any of the Hadith scholars. The Party has adopted a method for establishing the evidence in the issue of the Hadith and it is according to this method that it seeks evidence via the Sahih Hadith and the Hasan Hadith, and it never seeks evidence from the weak Hadith.

The Party realises that its books are Party books and not publications, that they are books of thoughts and rules and not books of Hadith; hence, it does not mention when establishing the evidence the narrator of the Hadith or who extracted it or the name of the book from which it is taken; it may simply mention one sentence of the Hadith and not mention the rest; it may even content itself with mentioning one single phrase, which is the subject of the evidential aspect, and not mention anything else. All this is because the books of the Party are books of thoughts and books of rules, not books of Hadith. The reason behind this is that the Party books are designed to be taught in the Halaqat in the first instance and to help the reader to focus on the thoughts they contain and the rules that are included; thus they should be devoid of anything that may distract the mind. Mentioning something on the margin of the page may distract the reader and mentioning more than what is related to the evidence may shift the reader’s mind. Therefore, in order to confine the mind of the reader to the thoughts and the rules, the Party has deliberately refrained from mentioning the narrators or the extractors of Hadith or the names of the books. In some cases the Party contented itself with part of the Hadith; all this has been for the sake of confining the mind of the reader to the thoughts and the rules.

Some of the pupils of Fiqh from among the Shabab of the Party had thought that the party’s decision to refrain from mentioning the narrators and extractors (authenticators) was because it opted for the easy option and wanted to spare itself the burden of exploring the Ahadith. Hence, they took it upon themselves to extract all the Ahadith in the form of books and submitted them to the Party, then suggested that they should be mentioned as a footnote in the Party books once they are re-printed. However, the Party explained to them its viewpoint and the purpose of not mentioning the narrators, names of books etc and reminded them that extracting the Ahadith would be easier than pursuing and exploring the thought and that it was easy to perform during the pursuing and exploring of the thought; yet the Party refrained from this deliberately, because the books are books of thoughts and books of rules, not books of Hadith, and besides, they are Party books.

Furthermore, the Party’s practice in terms of refraining from mentioning the narrators and extractor is the same as the practice of the Fuqaha’ at all times. All the books of Fiqh of all times and up until today do not mention the narrators or the extractors of Hadith. The scholars do not engross themselves in this because the aim is not the narration of the Hadith so that its extractor and the trustworthiness of its narrator should be mentioned, so as to establish its credibility; the aim is rather to explain the Shari’ah rule, thus the scholar contents himself with stipulating that the Shari’ah rule’s evidence is a Hadith, then he mentions the Hadith on its own and maybe just part of it or one phrase that is the object of evidence within the Hadith. This is the sound approach. The books of Hadith have the right, or rather they should mention the narrator and the extractor, but the books of Fiqh and the books of thoughts and rules are only concerned with the rule and its evidence; it is not fitting for them to concern themselves with other than the evidence or the relevant aspect of the evidence.

Source: The Dossier (Hizb ut-Tahrir)