Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post







    Ignorance, trolling, or mental health?

    Sometimes it's difficult to tell.
    You need to take a step back, my definition of (evil) innovation is completely different to yours.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

      You need to take a step back, my definition of (evil) innovation is completely different to yours.
      Stop talking gibberish. You contradicted yourself and playing dumb will only make you look sillier.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Passer_By View Post
        Continuing from Post 230:



        Here's something that Abu Sulayman and his 'side-kick' will find hard to understand... let alone accept!

        Why does the Qur'an tell us that the Polytheists of Makkah affirmed (WITH CERTAINTY) that Allah is the One who created, and that it is He who provides...etc??

        Answer: The reason is NOT so that we think that they were Muwahhideen (Believers in Tawheed)... it is rather the opposite... it is to show us that they were (still) Polytheists (Mushrikeen)!...

        How is that??

        Allah SWT is teaching us (in those verses) that 'if you achieve PARTIAL Tawheed... this will not save you!'... You have to achieve Full Tawheed (in All its categories, angles, types, parts...etc).

        For example: You cannot believe that Allah SWT is THE ONE AND ONLY Creator, Provider and Sustainer... and then go to a grave and ask a dead person to provide you with this and that (job, house, husband, wife, children, success...etc, or give divine attributes to the Prophet ...etc)... These (and other) practices and beliefs are unfortunately very widespread in our Islamic world... and have been for many, many centuries.

        I am very grateful to the 'Ulama (scholars) of Ahlus Sunnah WalJamaah (Whom you've insulted and called heretics)... for simplifying and preserving Tawheed for us in its Pure form.

        I hope that I have not insulted any scholar (no matter what their beliefs or inclinations were...)... nor called anyone a heretic!

        I think I'm done here...
        ​Salam brother, You need to repent and learn real Tawheed. Seriously your feham of Tawheed like all Wahhabis is seriously faulty.

        Yes in your definition of Tawheed Shirk they were guilty of Shirk Ilahiyyah, in your vocab Ulluhiyyah ... We worship them so they bring us closer ... But you also established and believe in realm of Tawheed Rububiyyah Mushriks were upon Tawheed because they believed In Allah has Creator etc ...

        First of all Rububiyyah is not out side of Ilahiyyah but an attribute of Ilah which is used as Ism Khaas (special name). Therefore to attribute a god or gods as equal or unequal partners of Allah one ends negating Tawheed Rububiyyah.

        Allah says had there been many gods eaxh would have taken his creation away with him. He says this because Rububiyyah is essential part of Ilahiyyah. God is always Lord. So if a creation is believed to be God/god then by default Rububiyyah is rejected.

        The verses on which Wahhabis have established their understanding that Mushruks were muwahid in Tawheed Rububiyyah only establish that Mushrikeen believed Allah manages major affairs of creation (minor are delegated to their gods). None of those verses say Mushriks were Muwahid. In reality problem is in your methodolgy of determing Tawheed/Shirk and to be precise in light of subject, Rububiyyah.


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post




          Now let's get into the issue:

          As for the definitions you gave (and it is in accordance with the Najdi understanding):

          - Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusice in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to believe in Him being described with absolute perfection and being necessary or essential in existence and being free of need / flaws / similarity and so on.
          So your definition is actually lacking and more is needed to be regarded a monotheist in this.

          - As for Divinity (Uluhiyya), then your definition is a CATASTROPHE and the reason is the following: You're making the Divinity of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala DEPENDENT on the actions of His servants and this is is wrong, rather the Divinity of Allah ta'ala is due to Him being exclusive in having the characteristics of Lordship without any partners whatsoever!
          ​​​​​​

          If you have understood the above, you will also understand that Lordship and Divinity are connected to each other and necessitate each other and can NOT be seperated from each other and for this reason the Muslims have always believed that there is ONE Tawhid!


          That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine ? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves ?

          Comment


          • Abu Sulayman

            Just wanted to share with you some statements from ibn hajar al asqalani regarding his commentary on the hadith of the black stone. In his explanation of the hadith he cites tabari, who says

            قال الطبري : إنما قال ذلك عمر لأن الناس كانوا حديثي عهد بعبادة الأصنام ، فخشي عمر أن يظن الجهال أن استلام الحجر من باب تعظيم بعض الأحجار كما كانت العرب تفعل في الجاهلية ، فأراد عمر أن يعلم الناس أن استلامه اتباع لفعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، لا لأن الحجر ينفع ويضر بذاته كما كانت الجاهلية تعتقده في الأوثان ،
            al tabari said, “ʿUmar only said this because the people were close to the era of Idol-Worshipping; so he feared that the ignorant ones would think that kissing the Black Stone is one of the acts of reverence for some of the stones, as the Arabs used to do in the Jāhilīyah.

            So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”


            عمر رضي الله عنه أنه جاء إلى الحجر الأسود فقبله فقال إني أعلم أنك حجر لا تضر ولا تنفع ولولا أني رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقبلك ما قبلتك

            `Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said “No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. And had I not seen Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) kissing you I would not have kissed you.”

            قوله : ( لا تضر ولا تنفع ) أي إلا بإذن الله
            Ibn hajar writes : His statement, “You cannot benefit or harm means: except by the permission of Allah.”


            Imam Tabari confirms that the polytheists did indeed believe that their idols were independent and had their own will separate from Allah. If they believed their idols lacked agency of their own then they wouldn't threaten their idols with the Messenger of Allah , or believe that their idols had the power to avert Allah's punishment, power to grant victories etc.

            The fact that the polytheist believed that Allah needed partners to help Him manage His dominion negates Allah's authority and independence and at the same time establishes the independency of their idols. They believed that Allah was dependent on their idols to run His dominion now how can these same idols be under the complete control & will of Allah if He is dependent on them ? More importantly why would Allah who is Independent need dependent gods ?


            source: https://islamweb.net/ar/library/inde...2945&idto=2946

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
              That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine ? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves?
              Brother why can't you comprehend and understand a simple statement of Tawheed? Why are you even arguing on something which you cant understand in the first place? I can assure you if you understood what he is saying you will not dispute/disagree? I will answer your question at the end. First let me explain to you what brother Sulayman wrote.

              "Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusive in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to believe in Him being described with absolute perfection and being necessary or essential in existence and being free of need / flaws / similarity and so on. So your definition is actually lacking and more is needed to be regarded a monotheist in this."

              First lets explain somethings to you: Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Rabb without blemish instead He is Kamil/Akmal (perfect) Rabb. Your Rabb is Wajib ul-Wujud(1) (existence is essential/fundamental requirement). It is essential to believe your, Rabb is Qaim Bil-Zaat (aka Mustaqil biz-zaat), which means to believe your Rabb is source of His own existence. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Rabb without Likness/Mithl/similarity.

              Here brother Abu Sulayman said to be a Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah it is not enough to just to believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Creator, Sustainer, and Manager of affairs of His creation. But to be Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rubbubiyyah you have to believe your Rabb is first and foremost Wajib ul-Wujud Rabb, Mustaqil bil-Zaat Rabb, Kamil and Akmal Rabb, He was Khaliq, Malik, Raziq before Makhlooq. His Khaliqiyyah and Raziqiyyah, Malikiyyah wasn't effected by, or created when He created His creation. All Rabb's attributes are Qadeem (eternal) just as his Zaat is Qadeem. Therefore His Rububiyyah was even when He hadn't created creation. He was Malik before His Mulk.He was Khaliq before His Khalq. And Raziq before Rizq. He was all this from eternity.Therefore you cannot limit restrict and judge Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) in context of your Rabbs creation. Doing that you miss big chunk of Tawheed. If you judge Allah's Rububiyyah in light of His creation, or after He created creation, which Salafis do, then you ignore the fact that your Lord is Eternal and His attributes are eternal, you ignore the fact that He is Wajib ul-Wujud Rabb, Mustaqil bil-Zaat Rabb, Qadeem Rabb, la-Mahdood Rabb etc. If you judge Rububiyyah in light of His creation, or from the time when He created His creation then by default you will limit Rububiyyah in light of His creation. And that has happened because in your belief just mere belief that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Creator of all is enough to warrant Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Where as Tawheed al-Rububiyyah requires that you believe your Lord is Qadeem with his Zaat and Sifaat. And to be Muwahid in Rububiyyah it is essential to believe your Lord is Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat because if you do not believe this for Allah Rabbil Aalameen you cannot be Muwahid even if you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is creator, sustainer, manager, punisher of creation because you have negated fundamental requirement of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

              And brother Abu Sualyman is absolutely correct in his accessment that your definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is defective because it establishes Tawheed al-Rububiyyah even in absence of essential beliefs of Tawheed such as Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Qadeem, La-Mahdood. And how can someone be upon Tawheed al-Rububiyyah when they don't believe their Lord is source of His own existence, His existence is fundamental requirement for creation to exist. And their Lord is Eternal/Qadeem in His Essence/Zaat and Sifaat/Attributes. How can someone be Muwahid when they don't affirm such fundamental beliefs about their Lord? And how can a definition be Tawheed al-Rububiyyah be correct and be actual definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah when it establishes Tawheed even in absence of such fundamental beliefs of Tawheed?

              Brother Sulayman wrote:

              "As for Divinity (Uluhiyya), then your definition is a CATASTROPHE and the reason is the following: You're making the Divinity of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala DEPENDENT on the actions of His servants and this is is wrong, rather the Divinity of Allah ta'ala is due to Him being exclusive in having the characteristics of Lordship without any partners whatsoever!"

              What he wrote here is connected with what he said previously because Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah and Tawheed al-Rububiyyah are Lazim and Malzum. You cannot take the one out of the other. One is result of other and other is result of one i.e. technically I would say Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah are Lazim and Malzum. Salafis say Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah, in my vocab Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah, is established on basis of worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). And Shirk of Ulluhiyyah on basis of directing actions of worship to His creation. Brother Abu Sulayman says your saying this is wrong and I absolutely agree with brother Abu Sulayman. He states you and Salafi kind are saying Tawheed/Shirk Ulluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is connected with actions of creation i.e. worship of Allah/creation. He says no Tawheed/Shirk of Ulluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is not connected with worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) or worship of creation. Rather Tawheed al-Ulluhiyyah is based on uniqueness/exclusiveness of Zaat and Sifaat of Ilah/Rabb. He again is absolutely correct. Because Salafi Tawheed/Shirk Ilahiyyah is connected with actions of worship. Worship Allah and you're Muwahid in Ilahiyyah and worship creation you're Mushrik in Ilahiyyah. Let me make this simple in two steps.

              Do you agree that belief before action, yes or no? Do you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is the One and the Only Ilah are you Muwahid with this belief or do you need to perform action of worship? You/I believe Rama/Krishna/Uzza/Zeus is your Ilah are you guilty of Shirk in Ulluhiyyah or do you have to actually direct action of worship toward these to be guilty of Shirk in Ulluhiyyah? You will agree in both cases affirming belief, Allah is the one and the only Ilah, is enough to warrant Tawheed, and to believe Zeus/Uzza are Ilahs is enough to warrant Shirk in Ulluhiyyah. Yet Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk Ulluhiyyah require action of worship to declare someone to be Muwahid/Mushirk. Suppose I believe Jesus is my Ilah partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is supreme Deity and I solely direct my actions of worship toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Am I Muwahid now? How can such definition be correct that judges Tawheed/Shirk on basis of actions and not belief? Tawheed and Shirk are primarily belief/creed and secondarily of actions (in which Shirki beliefs are affirmed hence association of Shirk with action).

              Brother Abu Sulayman said: "... rather the Divinity of Allah ta'ala is due to Him being exclusive in having the characteristics of Lordship without any partners whatsoever!" This is absolutely correct.Requirement of Tawheed al-Ulluhiyyah is not to whom the actions are directed rather with which belief actions are directed toward Him. If you believe my Ilah is Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and He in his Zaat/Essence and Sifaat/Attributes is Qadeem, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Wajib ul-Wujud, la-mahdood etc. You have established exclusivity/uniqueness for His Zaat and for His Sifaat. To establish Shirk in Ilahiyyah/Ulluhiyyah mere act of belief there is equal/inequal partner Ilah or Rabb with Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Shirk. Other way is to establish for a creation characteristics which are unique to Him only. Such as Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Qadeem, Wajib ul-Wujud like Christians do for Jesus. They make Jesus duplicate/twin of Allah's attributes/characteristics hence they are guilty of Shirk on two accounts. They affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, and they affirm attributes which are unqiuely for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) such as Mustaqil bil-Zaat etc. Note every attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive/unique to Him including Rauf/Rahim even though Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) said Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Rauf and Rahim too.

              Allah is unique Rauf/Rahim because he was so Mustaqbil bil-Zaat meaning he was Rauf/Rahim by His ownself.He was Rauf/Rahim from eternity/Qadeem etc. There are two uniqueness/exclusiveness types, one is Lafzi and other is Manavi. All attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) are unique to Him in Manavi sense i.e. in sense of meaning. Lafzi would be ar-Rahman because Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) only used Rahman for Himself. Rauf/Rahim for Prophet as well but it is still unique for Him as explained.


              @Abu Sulayman

              Brother you're discussing people who aren't grounded in knowledge nor they are familiar with your vocablarly. It is just going above their heads. You're very knowledgable and you should use your knowledge in refuting Salafi/Wahhabi heresies. Don't waste your time do something constructive.

              Notes:

              1 - Wajib ul-Wujud's opposite is Mumkin ul-Wujud. His creation is mumkin ul-Wujud, meaning they can have existence or have no existence, creations existence depends upon Allah's the Wajib ul-Wujud's existance. Mumkin ul-Wujud cannot exist but for Wajib ul-Wujud to not to exist is Muhaal (impossible). In other words Allah's non-existence is impossible.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
                Abu Sulayman

                Just wanted to share with you some statements from ibn hajar al asqalani regarding his commentary on the hadith of the black stone. In his explanation of the hadith he cites tabari, who says

                قال الطبري : إنما قال ذلك عمر لأن الناس كانوا حديثي عهد بعبادة الأصنام ، فخشي عمر أن يظن الجهال أن استلام الحجر من باب تعظيم بعض الأحجار كما كانت العرب تفعل في الجاهلية ، فأراد عمر أن يعلم الناس أن استلامه اتباع لفعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، لا لأن الحجر ينفع ويضر بذاته كما كانت الجاهلية تعتقده في الأوثان ،
                al tabari said, “ʿUmar only said this because the people were close to the era of Idol-Worshipping; so he feared that the ignorant ones would think that kissing the Black Stone is one of the acts of reverence for some of the stones, as the Arabs used to do in the Jāhilīyah.

                So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”


                عمر رضي الله عنه أنه جاء إلى الحجر الأسود فقبله فقال إني أعلم أنك حجر لا تضر ولا تنفع ولولا أني رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقبلك ما قبلتك

                `Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said “No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. And had I not seen Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) kissing you I would not have kissed you.”

                قوله : ( لا تضر ولا تنفع ) أي إلا بإذن الله
                Ibn hajar writes : His statement, “You cannot benefit or harm means: except by the permission of Allah.”

                Imam Tabari confirms that the polytheists did indeed believe that their idols were independent and had their own will separate from Allah. If they believed their idols lacked agency of their own then they wouldn't threaten their idols with the Messenger of Allah , or believe that their idols had the power to avert Allah's punishment, power to grant victories etc.

                The fact that the polytheist believed that Allah needed partners to help Him manage His dominion negates Allah's authority and independence and at the same time establishes the independency of their idols. They believed that Allah was dependent on their idols to run His dominion now how can these same idols be under the complete control & will of Allah if He is dependent on them ? More importantly why would Allah who is Independent need dependent gods?

                source: https://islamweb.net/ar/library/inde...2945&idto=2946
                Brother If Mushrikeen believed their gods were not dependent but independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and they believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) was in fact dependent upon the gods to manage affairs of universe then doesn't this prove Mushrikeen were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah according to your Salafi understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah?

                Secondly you wrote:

                "The fact that the polytheist believed that Allah needed partners to help Him manage His dominion negates Allah's authority and independence and at the same time establishes the independency of their idols. They believed that Allah was dependent on their idols to run His dominion now how can these same idols be under the complete control & will of Allah if He is dependent on them? More importantly why would Allah who is Independent need dependent gods?"

                Brother not all independence is absolute independence. You're independent to do as you please but are you independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'laa). Point is we are not totally dependent nor totally independent. Some dependency exists. Did mushrikeen believe their gods created themselves? No! So even though there is independency there also is dependency. Mushrikeen said:

                “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.”The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671]

                Allah's mastery over their gods means they were subordinate and dependent upon Allah in belief of Mushrikeen. You need to step back from discussion that took place on IslamicAwakening forum in thread, "What Is Ibadah?" You all are still flipping revolving around that discussion. Which Salafi side was totally misunderstanding everything being said just like you're misunderstanding what brother Abu Sulayman is saying here. If Mushrikeen believed their gods were totally independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) even in realm of creation of gods then this belief was Shirk on two accounts, on account of absolute independence and affirmation of Ilahiyyah for a creation. And if they believed their gods were dependent they were still guilty of major Shirk on account of attributing Ilahiyyah to a creation.

                Here is a verse:

                “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28]

                One whom your right hand possesses is he independent? A god whom Allah possesses how can he be independent? What is Allah insinuating in this verse? That the gods of Mushrikeen are independent or dependent in belief of Mushrikeen?


                “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.” [Ref: 16:75]

                This is parable of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and gods of Mushirkeen. Mushrikeen attributed dependence upon their gods in some instances and independence in other cases but they did not believe their gods were independent bi-Zaatihi instead they believed their gods were independent bi-iznihi ta'ala. Despite this they were guilty of major Shirk because they had affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods. Even in limited capacity this affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is major Shirk.


                You asked, Why would Allah need dependent gods when he is independent?

                Islamicly/Muslimicly Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't need dependent or independent gods there are such gods as partners with him. With regards to Mushrikeen. Mushrikeen didn't believe their Allah has to be independent. The total independence from an in-equal god, or equal god is actually belief of Muslims. We believe our Allah is independent. The Mushrikeen believed their god can do with help and it doesn't effect his God-hood thats why they were Kosher in attributing sons, mothers, fathers, daughter,s angels, Jinn as gods. In their believe total absolute independence wasn't essential for Allah's god-hood. In Islam and as Muslims we believe our Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is totally independent of everything He created. It has been roughly ten years since 'What is Ibadah?' discussion and people are still stuck on this topic of dependence and independence. You have to make distinction between Islamic belief of absolute independence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and belief held by polytheists that their gods have limited independence in confines of certain boundaries. And you have to understand that they beleived Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has granted their gods certain liberties to act as they wish. But this does not mean they believed their gods were totatally independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and what He created.

                You need to stop arguing. You're just going round and round and creating more confusion for yourself. Go to this link, and look for the articles on subject of how to establish Tawheed, Shirk. You seriously need to learn methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah to understand what we are tell you. Only way you be able to make sense of things we tell you is if you learn our methodology of determinng Tawheed Shirk. Otherwise there is no hope:


                [EMail.] I Said: Following article briefly explains Tawheed, here. A very important article on subject of Tawheed/Shirk because it explains many things not addressed in articles but which always become part of almost every Sunni/Salafi debate, here. Content wise this article is related to previous one, here. Next article explains methodology and then demonstrates how Ilahiyyah is determined if explicitly has not been affirmed, here. And in context following comprehensively explains and refutes innovated principles often employed to support charge that Muslims are committing Shirk, here.

                I Said: Also following article responds to a misconception about methodology of Ahlus Sunnah; it absolves polytheists of their Shirk, here. In this capacity following article also explains how methodology of Ahlus Sunnat establishes Shirk, here. Fundamentally cause of dispute between Wahhabis and Sunnis is issue of definition of worship, worship, and Shirk of attributes. And what Shirk of attributes is and how it is warranted is issue of contention/dispute. Dispute is over how a attribute/name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is is exclusive to Him alone.

                I Said: Following two articles focus on Sunni and Wahhabi methodologies of determining exclusivity of essence, attributes, and actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And judges which is in accordance with teaching of Quran and Sunnah; basic here, comprehensive here. And lastly following was a debate/discussion on subject of Tawheed/Shirk and it points to flows in their methodology, here. [End of mail.]

                Comment


                • So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”

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

                  Brother this statement does not mean Mushrikeen believed their gods were totally completely absolutely independent of Allah. Amr slaps you. I believe he independently slapped you i.e. harmed you. And Bakr comes and puts ice on your bruised face. And I believe Bakr did benefit independently. Do you really believe i believe harm/benefit of Bakr/Amr was independent of Allahs granted power, means and permission?

                  Mushrikeen believed in independence for their gods but in confines set by Allah. Just like you're independent but in confines set by Allah. You're independent to do certain things like slaping me, working, sitting standing, running, walking. But are you free to grant paradise and hell and treasures of earth to whom ever you please. Are you indepent enough to make rain?

                  The Kamis of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) if it didnt benefit or bring benefit why was it sent to prophet Yaqub? Is it because Allah couldnt restore eye sight without the kamis? Or is it because tabarruqaat of Anbiyah are means of His mercy. Hajr al-Aswad by itself does nothing it is a stone but it is associated with people of worth and due to that association Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) benefits through it - i.e. expiation of sins. Mushrikeen believed benefit harm comes from their idols/gods which is wrong. There is clearly a difference.

                  Stop reading everything through pin hole of Wahhabism you will never see the light of day like this. Your hereafter is in your own hand. You have one chance to make it right or blindly follow. Don't put too much faith in Abdullahs Arabic knowledge, elequent speech. There will be 72 sects. All confident they are upon Quran/Sunnah.and guidance because they can speak read write ARabic but will enter in hell. One group of truth has always existed and will continue to exist till the day of judgment. Strive to find it.








                  Comment


                  • Typing error - wrong:

                    "Islamicly/Muslimicly Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't need dependent or independent gods there are such gods as partners with him.

                    Corrected:

                    Islamicly/Muslimicly Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't need dependent or independent gods NOR there are such gods as partners with him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SkippedPath View Post
                      So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”

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

                      Brother this statement does not mean Mushrikeen believed their gods were totally completely absolutely independent of Allah. Amr slaps you. I believe he independently slapped you i.e. harmed you. And Bakr comes and puts ice on your bruised face. And I believe Bakr did benefit independently. Do you really believe i believe harm/benefit of Bakr/Amr was independent of Allahs granted power, means and permission?

                      Mushrikeen believed in independence for their gods but in confines set by Allah. Just like you're independent but in confines set by Allah. You're independent to do certain things like slaping me, working, sitting standing, running, walking. But are you free to grant paradise and hell and treasures of earth to whom ever you please. Are you indepent enough to make rain?

                      The Kamis of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) if it didnt benefit or bring benefit why was it sent to prophet Yaqub? Is it because Allah couldnt restore eye sight without the kamis? Or is it because tabarruqaat of Anbiyah are means of His mercy. Hajr al-Aswad by itself does nothing it is a stone but it is associated with people of worth and due to that association Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) benefits through it - i.e. expiation of sins. Mushrikeen believed benefit harm comes from their idols/gods which is wrong. There is clearly a difference.

                      Stop reading everything through pin hole of Wahhabism you will never see the light of day like this. Your hereafter is in your own hand. You have one chance to make it right or blindly follow. Don't put too much faith in Abdullahs Arabic knowledge, elequent speech. There will be 72 sects. All confident they are upon Quran/Sunnah.and guidance because they can speak read write ARabic but will enter in hell. One group of truth has always existed and will continue to exist till the day of judgment. Strive to find it.

                      Firstly i think you got me confused as i don't subscribe to the salafi creed never have actually, tbh i'm puzzled why you would think that considering my stance is very explicit. Secondly your analogy of using human action has a very flawed premise in that humans and god(s) are not beings of equal stature. A god possess unique qualities unlike that of humans, one such quality is that of being independent and having the authority and will to carry out any actions without any limitation.

                      The mushrikeen believed that their idols could benefit & harm without the Will of Allah and the reason for this was because they believed their idols possessed the quality of being independent to act on their own. Just like the same way we believe that Allah is independent and acts according to His Will, this is what the mushriks believed about their gods. The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi


                      How can the pagans believe that their idols possessed independence only in will but not ability ?Having an Independent will is a result of having an independent attribute the 2 are connected to each other. Negating Allah's Will/permission automatically establishes independent attributes to the deity one worships, take chrisitians for example they believe that Nabi Isa performed miracles in and of himself not because he carried them out with the permission of Allah like we muslims believe. That's why when people ascribe rububiyyah to other than Allah they automatically negate Allah's authority & will while establishing it to other than Allah


                      Secondly there's a mistake in your understanding regarding the talbiyah & the verses that you quoted. In the talbiyah there's an obvious contradiction of what they used to chant and in 30:28 Allah uses that parable to address and refute the contradiction. The pagans say that Allah has partners that He owned, in 30:28 Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal. In the parable the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned

                      Allah is telling them that : None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah?"



                      At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’


                      A slave has no power of his own, owns nothing and is dependent on his master while a partner is independent and can do what he wills with his wealth etc. So one can not be a partner and a slave at the time it's simply a contradiction.

                      Comment




                      • @AdoonkaAlle

                        Salam alaykum.

                        My apologies. I mistook your rhetorical tone as questioning to cast doubt. I also interpreted your statement in wider context of brother Abu Sulayman's statement

                        "Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusice in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to ..."

                        And now if you read your statement in this context:

                        "That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves?"

                        It becomes obvious why I thought you was misunderstanding. After you pointed out that you're not Salafi I kind of re-read everything and noted you wrote above specificly in context of text you highlighted and not generally what you quoted. It would have helped if you have referenced 'you' in your statement to specific in your mind because unspecified i.e. 'you' contextually seemed to be directing criticism at brother Abu Sulayman. And after your correction I figured this 'you' is directed toward a person of specific sect, or toward a sect.

                        Anyhow fault is mine because I didn't look into context of discussion instead jumped on what i read but all was not at loss because through my mistake I explained brother Abu Sulayman's points which am sure he explained already.

                        I will explain why Sunnis (Ashari/Maturidi) theologians charge Mushrikeen of affirming absolute independence for gods in a bit. In fact I do it now. It is because of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Once you attribute Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to a creation, to any creation, then by default even if Mushrik doesn't believe in absolute independence (istiqlal), beginningless, eternalness, Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Muhaal ul-Fana etc. Even in the absence of these beliefs Mushrik is guilty of these because he/she has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for a creation. In other words they have unknowingly, unwillingly, rather stupidly equalled a creation in his Zaat, Sifaat to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). You might question, how come they guilty of this when they don't believe it? Well look at it from another perspective. An atheist who doesn't believe there is a God, or any god, he believes universe came out of nothing, or it always existed. Atheist is technically a Mushrik even though he don't believe in a God, or any god. It is because he has indirectly affirmed for creation an attribute which is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) i.e. self -existance.Inferrence. and methodology of Ahlus Sunnah establishes that Mushrikeen are not only guilty of affirming absolute independence of their gods but d they are also guilty of absolute equality of their gods with Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). The need here is to make distinction between what the Mushrikeen actually believed in regards to their gods and what their belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods warrants in methodology and principles of Ahlus Sunnah.

                        Being, Attributes And Actions:

                        All living creatures have three essentials, Zaat (i.e. physical being - body), Sifat (i.e. attributes – hearing, seeing), and A’faal (i.e. actions). Attributes/Actions cannot exist without and independent of the Zaat but the Zaat can exist without and independent of attributes/actions.[2] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has Zaat [which befits His majestay], Sifaat [which befit His majestay] and A’afal [which befit His majestay] but not like His creation. One cannot legitimately separate the attribute/attributes or action/actions from the being of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). If attribute/action is removed from the Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then Zaat has lacks the removed attribute/action. Attribute/action cannot exist independent of the Zaat and if one believes attribute exists independent of Zaat then automatically that attribute/action is a separate Zaat and no longer part of original. Hence Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) should not be distinguished in a fashion that His attributes/actions become gods independent of Him or existing independent of Him. A mans attributes/actions are actions/attributes of the physical body therefore any increase in strenth of attributes is increase in ability of body. Point is attributes/actions exist in Zaat as such when Shirk in Sifaat or A’faal is warranted then automatically Shirk of Zaat is also warranted.
                        ...
                        How Shirk Of Zaat Is Warranted:

                        Apart from the above mentioned occasions generaly when ever Shirk of Sifaat or Shirk of A’fal occurs Shirk of Zaat is automatically warranted. Suppose y creation is believed to possess attribute of all-seeing – just like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is all-seeing, then one who believes y possesses the all-seeing attribute has committed major Shirk in attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Attributes are part of physical being or Zaat of a creature and if one possesses great attributes then these great attributes also elivate his Zaat by bringing prestiege. Apart from the physical appearance character of a person is juged on merits, qualities and attributes. Better the merits, qualities attributes more superior the Zaat of person will be judged and better the qualities and merits superior the person will be. If a attribute of the God is given to a creation then that merit, quality, attribute will elivate that Zaat to status of god-hood. The attribute of all-seeing maybe the only attribute which one ascribed to the being but fact remains the physical being of y is said to possess the attribute of all-seeing. Hence the physical-being/Zaat of y has also been elivated to status of god-hood due to one godly attribute/quality being attributed to y.
                        Take from my article: Understanding Of Different Types Of Shirk In Islamic Theology.

                        This doesn't exactly go with what I stated but it states the principle, if attribute of Allah is given to creation then creation is made Allah. And of creation is believed to be Allah then attributes of Allah are by defaulted warranted in methodology and belief of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. In context, Ilahiyyah warrants absolute independence so Mushrik were guilty of affirming absolute independence even though they did not believe this. We say Christians are affirming three gods and therefore they are Mushriks but they believe they are monotheists because Jesus ghost father are one and the same but distinct. We judge them to be Mushrik based on our methodology and teachings and not what they affirmed. In the same way we say Mushriks were guilty of affirming absolute independence because they affirmed Ilahiyyah for their gods but they didn't affirm it. So what the Quran says in refutation of Mushriks and it indicate they affirmed independence etc. Quran is not stating this is what they beleived but they become gujilty of due to affirming certain Shirki beliefs. So even though they said we dont believe independence Quran establishes they affirmed independence.

                        On IslamicAwakening forum in thread, what is Ibadah, vast majority of discussion revolved around inferred absolute equality resulting from affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for false gods which is inclusive of istiqlal (independence). And it revolved around what Mushrikeen actually affirmed with their tongue and believed in their hearts. I did my best to intervene between both Salafi and Sunni side and clarify to both sides what actually issue is but no one paid attention to the idiot telling people to stop and listen.and it is unlikely anyone pay heed to idiot some 9 years later. I have been embroiled in debates discussions for past two and half years and before that I wrote articles explaining methodology of Ahlus Sunnah.

                        You wrote:

                        "Firstly i think you got me confused as i don't subscribe to the salafi creed never have actually, tbh i'm puzzled why you would think that considering my stance is very explicit. Secondly your analogy of using human action has a very flawed premise in that humans and god(s) are not beings of equal stature. A god possess unique qualities unlike that of humans, one such quality is that of being independent and having the authority and will to carry out any actions without any limitation."

                        Brother you're making assumptions about beliefs held by people about their gods. What your ideal of god is not necessarily ideal cherished by Hindus, or Greeks, or Romans, Chineses civilisation. Yes our ideal of God is of total absolute independence. Totally independent of any need to have god/gods partners and independent of His creation. This is our ideal. Why are you assuming our ideal is shared by everyone. Hindus believe their god Rama, or Krishna which ever it was, was tricked to chase a buck/deer and Ravana/demon sneaked in his house house and kidnapped their gods wife and kept her in his residence in what is now Sri Lanka for 11 long years. Their god was unable to rescue his wife so he got help from Hannuman/monkey-god and his monkey army. This monkey god and his army used stones built a land connection to Sri Lanka a great battle ensued and finally their god got his wife back. That demonstrates Mushrikeen had pretty standard folklore about their abilities and inabilities of their gods. How independent does he has to be to actually be able to get his own wife back and have to get help of monkeys to get her back. Not very independent. You need to make distinction between what the Mushriks believed and what they become guilty of from Islamic perspective due to what they beleive.

                        You wrote:

                        "The mushrikeen believed that their idols could benefit & harm without the Will of Allah and the reason for this was because they believed their idols possessed the quality of being independent to act on their own. Just like the same way we believe that Allah is independent and acts according to His Will, this is what the mushriks believed about their gods. The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi."

                        Yes they beleived their gods could benefit harm no denial but they believed they have been given certain independence in decision making. Allamah Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah) major scholar of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah from Pakistan. I am Hanafi, Maturidi, and Barelwi. The Allamah I referenced clearly stated in is Maqalat volume one, page 30, under heading, Zeroorat e Tawheed i.e. The Need Of Tawheed. That Mushriks believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted certain righteous persons Ulluhiyyah. This Allamah is equivlent of Ghumari brothers (Allah be pleased with them) , and equivlent of Shaykh Muhammad Alawi al-Makki (rhaimullah). Shaykh is known due to his learning and is commonly called, [Imam] Ghazali of time i.e. Ghazali e Zaman. Mushrikeen did not believe their gods created themselves, existed from eternity. True or No! Then how can they be affirming absolute independence? Absolute independence requires no dependence of any sort. Mushrikeen believed Laat Uzza Manat as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). How can the Mushrikeen affirm absolute independence when the very notion of being His daughters indicates dependence.You have to judge the belief of Mushrikeen based on what they believed and judge what they became guilty of due to their belief. You have to keep what you deduce in light of Islamic teachings seperate from what the Mushriks actually beleived with their own mouths. Like I said before they affirmed independence of their gods in confines set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Make distinction between what they profess with their tongues like you do with Christians and the judgment you make about their belief in light of Islamic teaching of Tawheed/Shirk. Keep the two seperate.

                        You wrote:

                        "
                        The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi.""

                        Can you tell me incidents references in which the Mushrikeen believed their gods went against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), or said they can go against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).

                        With regards to following statement of Tabari: "
                        So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”" There are two things clear, no Mushrik was stupid enough to believe the stone benefits and harms by itself. I think Tabari was making reference to god which represented the idol. That the Mushrikeen beleived their gods benefitted/harmed by-self. Idols were used was Qibla of worship by some and in belief of other idols were object of worship. Objective in both cases was to get benefit avert harm, or inflict harm get benefit. Once again this is not conclusive. Just as we are bi-zaatihi able to inflict harm and benefit yet ... I have already said this.

                        You wrote:

                        "How can the pagans believe that their idols possessed independence only in will but not ability? Having an Independent will is a result of having an independent attribute the 2 are connected to each other. Negating Allah's Will/permission automatically establishes independent attributes to the deity one worships, take chrisitians for example they believe that Nabi Isa performed miracles in and of himself not because he carried them out with the permission of Allah like we muslims believe. That's why when people ascribe rububiyyah to other than Allah they automatically negate Allah's authority & will while establishing it to other than Allah"

                        I cant figure out how any of this goes against confined independence.

                        You wrote:

                        "Secondly there's a mistake in your understanding regarding the talbiyah & the verses that you quoted. In the talbiyah there's an obvious contradiction of what they used to chant and in 30:28 Allah uses that parable to address and refute the contradiction. The pagans say that Allah has partners that He owned, in 30:28 Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal. In the parable the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned. Allah is telling them that : None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah? At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’ A slave has no power of his own, owns nothing and is dependent on his master while a partner is independent and can do what he wills with his wealth etc. So one can not be a partner and a slave at the time it's simply a contradiction."

                        Of course that is the case, in Hadith it is narrated what the Mushriks beleived and in Ayah their belief is refuted. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is logical and rationally pointing faults in their beliefs.

                        You misunderstood my intent why i employed the verse, it was to caroborate what is found in the Hadith i.e. Mushriks believed gods are owned subject to authority of Allah. Even though the verse refutes what they believe it does make reference to what they believed implicitly:
                        “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28] “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.”The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] And I was only coroborating Hadith in case you turn around and say Hadith is Daif because Shaykh al-Bani said it. Lol. Point was Mushrikeen beleived independence in confines of dependence. So verses Ahadith which indicate independence should be understood what is established from this Hadith/verse of dependence also. And through these we establish two sides of coin. independence in confine of dependency.

                        Comment


                        • AdoonkaAlle

                          You wrote:

                          "One of the counterarguments salafis bring forth to prove that the pagans of quraysh didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods is to show that the pagans believed their worship of their gods happened by the approval and will of Allah. That this recognition which they affirmed for Allah together with their talbiyah proves that they didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods, but the important question that needs answering is this. does believing in a subordinate or an independent god beside Allah negate the shirk of ascribing an ilah to Allah?

                          I took your words from, here. You yourself believe Talbiya establishes dependence upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and not independence seven months downs the line you're saying Mushrikeen believed in independence of their gods from Allah. Brother I sincerely advise you to withdraw. Save mine and your exchanges. Wait few months. Few weekd if not months, and re-read what I wrote and what you wrote but read what i wrote first and then re-read the entire exchange. Things will become clear. You're confusing yourself. You need to take step back and look from afar not from within the crowd.

                          In, What Is Ibadah, thread that i keep referring to, there was 200 some pages and it was going strong. Why? Because everyone was expert at the subject.Brother Abu Sulayman was part of that discussion too. I joined in cause i was told to join by a Sunni. Istiqlal was the core subject Salafis were peddling total complete independence like you said abve and Sunnis were establishing dependence. I have some 35 articles on Tawheed/Shirk some short, some very very comprehensive regarding methodology of establishing Tawheed Shirk of a belief. These would help you a lot. Start systematic study. Don't jump into deep waters without learning the swimming you will drown. I am not saying you don't have knowledge I am saying you havent studied Tawheed Shirk principally. I linked you some articles have read of them, better if you study em.

                          After you come back and you still feel the need for discussion on this subject we will go on.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SkippedPath View Post

                            @AdoonkaAlle

                            Salam alaykum.

                            My apologies. I mistook your rhetorical tone as questioning to cast doubt. I also interpreted your statement in wider context of brother Abu Sulayman's statement

                            "Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusice in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to ..."

                            And now if you read your statement in this context:

                            "That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves?"

                            It becomes obvious why I thought you was misunderstanding. After you pointed out that you're not Salafi I kind of re-read everything and noted you wrote above specificly in context of text you highlighted and not generally what you quoted. It would have helped if you have referenced 'you' in your statement to specific in your mind because unspecified i.e. 'you' contextually seemed to be directing criticism at brother Abu Sulayman. And after your correction I figured this 'you' is directed toward a person of specific sect, or toward a sect.

                            Anyhow fault is mine because I didn't look into context of discussion instead jumped on what i read but all was not at loss because through my mistake I explained brother Abu Sulayman's points which am sure he explained already.

                            I will explain why Sunnis (Ashari/Maturidi) theologians charge Mushrikeen of affirming absolute independence for gods in a bit. In fact I do it now. It is because of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Once you attribute Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to a creation, to any creation, then by default even if Mushrik doesn't believe in absolute independence (istiqlal), beginningless, eternalness, Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Muhaal ul-Fana etc. Even in the absence of these beliefs Mushrik is guilty of these because he/she has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for a creation. In other words they have unknowingly, unwillingly, rather stupidly equalled a creation in his Zaat, Sifaat to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). You might question, how come they guilty of this when they don't believe it? Well look at it from another perspective. An atheist who doesn't believe there is a God, or any god, he believes universe came out of nothing, or it always existed. Atheist is technically a Mushrik even though he don't believe in a God, or any god. It is because he has indirectly affirmed for creation an attribute which is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) i.e. self -existance.Inferrence. and methodology of Ahlus Sunnah establishes that Mushrikeen are not only guilty of affirming absolute independence of their gods but d they are also guilty of absolute equality of their gods with Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). The need here is to make distinction between what the Mushrikeen actually believed in regards to their gods and what their belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods warrants in methodology and principles of Ahlus Sunnah.



                            Take from my article: Understanding Of Different Types Of Shirk In Islamic Theology.

                            This doesn't exactly go with what I stated but it states the principle, if attribute of Allah is given to creation then creation is made Allah. And of creation is believed to be Allah then attributes of Allah are by defaulted warranted in methodology and belief of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. In context, Ilahiyyah warrants absolute independence so Mushrik were guilty of affirming absolute independence even though they did not believe this. We say Christians are affirming three gods and therefore they are Mushriks but they believe they are monotheists because Jesus ghost father are one and the same but distinct. We judge them to be Mushrik based on our methodology and teachings and not what they affirmed. In the same way we say Mushriks were guilty of affirming absolute independence because they affirmed Ilahiyyah for their gods but they didn't affirm it. So what the Quran says in refutation of Mushriks and it indicate they affirmed independence etc. Quran is not stating this is what they beleived but they become gujilty of due to affirming certain Shirki beliefs. So even though they said we dont believe independence Quran establishes they affirmed independence.

                            On IslamicAwakening forum in thread, what is Ibadah, vast majority of discussion revolved around inferred absolute equality resulting from affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for false gods which is inclusive of istiqlal (independence). And it revolved around what Mushrikeen actually affirmed with their tongue and believed in their hearts. I did my best to intervene between both Salafi and Sunni side and clarify to both sides what actually issue is but no one paid attention to the idiot telling people to stop and listen.and it is unlikely anyone pay heed to idiot some 9 years later. I have been embroiled in debates discussions for past two and half years and before that I wrote articles explaining methodology of Ahlus Sunnah.

                            You wrote:

                            "Firstly i think you got me confused as i don't subscribe to the salafi creed never have actually, tbh i'm puzzled why you would think that considering my stance is very explicit. Secondly your analogy of using human action has a very flawed premise in that humans and god(s) are not beings of equal stature. A god possess unique qualities unlike that of humans, one such quality is that of being independent and having the authority and will to carry out any actions without any limitation."

                            Brother you're making assumptions about beliefs held by people about their gods. What your ideal of god is not necessarily ideal cherished by Hindus, or Greeks, or Romans, Chineses civilisation. Yes our ideal of God is of total absolute independence. Totally independent of any need to have god/gods partners and independent of His creation. This is our ideal. Why are you assuming our ideal is shared by everyone. Hindus believe their god Rama, or Krishna which ever it was, was tricked to chase a buck/deer and Ravana/demon sneaked in his house house and kidnapped their gods wife and kept her in his residence in what is now Sri Lanka for 11 long years. Their god was unable to rescue his wife so he got help from Hannuman/monkey-god and his monkey army. This monkey god and his army used stones built a land connection to Sri Lanka a great battle ensued and finally their god got his wife back. That demonstrates Mushrikeen had pretty standard folklore about their abilities and inabilities of their gods. How independent does he has to be to actually be able to get his own wife back and have to get help of monkeys to get her back. Not very independent. You need to make distinction between what the Mushriks believed and what they become guilty of from Islamic perspective due to what they beleive.

                            You wrote:

                            "The mushrikeen believed that their idols could benefit & harm without the Will of Allah and the reason for this was because they believed their idols possessed the quality of being independent to act on their own. Just like the same way we believe that Allah is independent and acts according to His Will, this is what the mushriks believed about their gods. The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi."

                            Yes they beleived their gods could benefit harm no denial but they believed they have been given certain independence in decision making. Allamah Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah) major scholar of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah from Pakistan. I am Hanafi, Maturidi, and Barelwi. The Allamah I referenced clearly stated in is Maqalat volume one, page 30, under heading, Zeroorat e Tawheed i.e. The Need Of Tawheed. That Mushriks believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted certain righteous persons Ulluhiyyah. This Allamah is equivlent of Ghumari brothers (Allah be pleased with them) , and equivlent of Shaykh Muhammad Alawi al-Makki (rhaimullah). Shaykh is known due to his learning and is commonly called, [Imam] Ghazali of time i.e. Ghazali e Zaman. Mushrikeen did not believe their gods created themselves, existed from eternity. True or No! Then how can they be affirming absolute independence? Absolute independence requires no dependence of any sort. Mushrikeen believed Laat Uzza Manat as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). How can the Mushrikeen affirm absolute independence when the very notion of being His daughters indicates dependence.You have to judge the belief of Mushrikeen based on what they believed and judge what they became guilty of due to their belief. You have to keep what you deduce in light of Islamic teachings seperate from what the Mushriks actually beleived with their own mouths. Like I said before they affirmed independence of their gods in confines set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Make distinction between what they profess with their tongues like you do with Christians and the judgment you make about their belief in light of Islamic teaching of Tawheed/Shirk. Keep the two seperate.

                            You wrote:

                            "
                            The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi.""

                            Can you tell me incidents references in which the Mushrikeen believed their gods went against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), or said they can go against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).

                            With regards to following statement of Tabari: "
                            So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”" There are two things clear, no Mushrik was stupid enough to believe the stone benefits and harms by itself. I think Tabari was making reference to god which represented the idol. That the Mushrikeen beleived their gods benefitted/harmed by-self. Idols were used was Qibla of worship by some and in belief of other idols were object of worship. Objective in both cases was to get benefit avert harm, or inflict harm get benefit. Once again this is not conclusive. Just as we are bi-zaatihi able to inflict harm and benefit yet ... I have already said this.

                            You wrote:

                            "How can the pagans believe that their idols possessed independence only in will but not ability? Having an Independent will is a result of having an independent attribute the 2 are connected to each other. Negating Allah's Will/permission automatically establishes independent attributes to the deity one worships, take chrisitians for example they believe that Nabi Isa performed miracles in and of himself not because he carried them out with the permission of Allah like we muslims believe. That's why when people ascribe rububiyyah to other than Allah they automatically negate Allah's authority & will while establishing it to other than Allah"

                            I cant figure out how any of this goes against confined independence.

                            You wrote:

                            "Secondly there's a mistake in your understanding regarding the talbiyah & the verses that you quoted. In the talbiyah there's an obvious contradiction of what they used to chant and in 30:28 Allah uses that parable to address and refute the contradiction. The pagans say that Allah has partners that He owned, in 30:28 Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal. In the parable the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned. Allah is telling them that : None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah? At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’ A slave has no power of his own, owns nothing and is dependent on his master while a partner is independent and can do what he wills with his wealth etc. So one can not be a partner and a slave at the time it's simply a contradiction."

                            Of course that is the case, in Hadith it is narrated what the Mushriks beleived and in Ayah their belief is refuted. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is logical and rationally pointing faults in their beliefs.

                            You misunderstood my intent why i employed the verse, it was to caroborate what is found in the Hadith i.e. Mushriks believed gods are owned subject to authority of Allah. Even though the verse refutes what they believe it does make reference to what they believed implicitly:
                            “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28] “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.”The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] And I was only coroborating Hadith in case you turn around and say Hadith is Daif because Shaykh al-Bani said it. Lol. Point was Mushrikeen beleived independence in confines of dependence. So verses Ahadith which indicate independence should be understood what is established from this Hadith/verse of dependence also. And through these we establish two sides of coin. independence in confine of dependency.

                            The statement from imam tabari establishes that the pagans believed their gods were independent bi dhaati. Now this statement of his completely contradicts your claim that they believed their gods had independence only bi ithinihi and not bi dhaati. According to the imam the pagans believed that their gods had the power to benefit and harm independently from Allah meaning the source of their power didn't come from Allah, this is clear cut shirk and i don't understand how you can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point

                            Just as we are bi-zaatihi able to inflict harm and benefit yet ... I have already said this.
                            According to you pagans believed their gods were independent bi-iznihi ta'ala and this is shirk, what about independence bi zaati ? isn't shirk as well ? how can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point ? It's why i told your analogy was completely flawed by making comparisons between human action and actions of a god.


                            Regarding the talbiyah of the pagans , what did their gods own ? The things which their idols owned were the things which the pagans brought to them. Allah tells us In 6:136 that they assigned a portion of what He created of crops and livestock to their gods but what is for their gods does not reach Allah, while what is for Allah reaches their gods. So they were lying when they claimed that Allah owned what their partners owned. Proving that their gods were not dependent on Allah





                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SkippedPath View Post
                              AdoonkaAlle

                              You wrote:

                              "One of the counterarguments salafis bring forth to prove that the pagans of quraysh didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods is to show that the pagans believed their worship of their gods happened by the approval and will of Allah. That this recognition which they affirmed for Allah together with their talbiyah proves that they didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods, but the important question that needs answering is this. does believing in a subordinate or an independent god beside Allah negate the shirk of ascribing an ilah to Allah?

                              I took your words from, here. You yourself believe Talbiya establishes dependence upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and not independence seven months downs the line you're saying Mushrikeen believed in independence of their gods from Allah. Brother I sincerely advise you to withdraw. Save mine and your exchanges. Wait few months. Few weekd if not months, and re-read what I wrote and what you wrote but read what i wrote first and then re-read the entire exchange. Things will become clear. You're confusing yourself. You need to take step back and look from afar not from within the crowd.

                              In, What Is Ibadah, thread that i keep referring to, there was 200 some pages and it was going strong. Why? Because everyone was expert at the subject.Brother Abu Sulayman was part of that discussion too. I joined in cause i was told to join by a Sunni. Istiqlal was the core subject Salafis were peddling total complete independence like you said abve and Sunnis were establishing dependence. I have some 35 articles on Tawheed/Shirk some short, some very very comprehensive regarding methodology of establishing Tawheed Shirk of a belief. These would help you a lot. Start systematic study. Don't jump into deep waters without learning the swimming you will drown. I am not saying you don't have knowledge I am saying you havent studied Tawheed Shirk principally. I linked you some articles have read of them, better if you study em.

                              After you come back and you still feel the need for discussion on this subject we will go on.
                              This is the 2nd time you're jumping to conclusions about me without actually taking the time to read what my actual views are. On page 2 of the same thread i stated the following at #19


                              Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post

                              Without a doubt the pagans believed their gods had independent powers but i was trying to look at the opposite view that salafis claim. Even if we assume for arguments sake that the pagans believed the powers of their gods came from Allah, does it change anything ? does shirk only occur when they believe their gods act outside of Allah's will ? The pagans worshipped their gods alongside Allah with the belief that it happens by the Will of Allah but despite this fact this act of theirs is still considered to be shirk. So what about believing that their gods had powers and acted on them by the Will of Allah ?

                              Believing and affirming gods alongside Allah will always be shirk, it doesn't matter whether one believes the god(s) in question is either independent from or dependent on Allah.


                              I also have no idea where you keep on referencing what is ibadah thread as I've never read it , the first time i had a discussion with Abu Sulayman was regarding the topic of rububiyyah.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post


                                The statement from imam tabari establishes that the pagans believed their gods were independent bi dhaati. Now this statement of his completely contradicts your claim that they believed their gods had independence only bi ithinihi and not bi dhaati. According to the imam the pagans believed that their gods had the power to benefit and harm independently from Allah meaning the source of their power didn't come from Allah, this is clear cut shirk and i don't understand how you can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point



                                According to you pagans believed their gods were independent bi-iznihi ta'ala and this is shirk, what about independence bi zaati ? isn't shirk as well ? how can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point ? It's why i told your analogy was completely flawed by making comparisons between human action and actions of a god.


                                Regarding the talbiyah of the pagans , what did their gods own ? The things which their idols owned were the things which the pagans brought to them. Allah tells us In 6:136 that they assigned a portion of what He created of crops and livestock to their gods but what is for their gods does not reach Allah, while what is for Allah reaches their gods. So they were lying when they claimed that Allah owned what their partners owned. Proving that their gods were not dependent on Allah
                                Once Ilahiyyah or Rububiyyah is affirmed ... Then to affirm a attribute or all of them bi zaatihi or bi iznihi is major shirk. If Mushriks believe ilah is confined limited born dependent ... Or even if they affirm notions opposite such as unlimited eternal independent ... Nothing will change their major shirk to tawheed because ... Ilahiyyah is affirmed explicitly. In absence of explicit belief of ilahiyyah for creation we have to infer ilahiyyah from other beliefs. I already used atheist as example. They have no belief in god but their belief universe self created it out of nothing or eternally existed proves their shirk. In other words their beleif universe is source of its own existance i. E. bi zaatihi establishes they affirmed for it trait of Ilah so we charge them of major shirk due ilahiyyah being affirmed for creation.

                                bi iznihi and bi zaatihi efffects and change a belief from tawheed/shirk in absence of clear emphatic affirmation of ilahiyyah. But wen clear ilahiyyah rububiyyah is affirmed for creation neither iznihi removes this shirk nor bi iznihi adds more shirk to it ... This is a misconceptions which salafis have and youre asking me same as if i am salafi.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X