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

[SkippedPath]

I am not going wild goose chase so just let settle the discussion here:

- Mushrikeen did not believe their gods created themselves, existed from eternity. True or No! Or do you believe mushrikeen believed their gods created themselves?

- Absolute independence requires no dependence of any sort. Mushrikeen believed their gods-angels = 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 on father for existance?

You answer these two and then reconcile them with absolute independence.
-------------------------------------------

Fundamental reality is independence or dependence neither of these notions would remove shirk from belief of mushrikeen. If they believe their gods do things bi zaatihi it is shirk. bi iznihi would also be shirk, bi ghayr iznihi also shirk , bil ardhi also shirk. With independence would be shirk, dependently doing things would also warrants shirk. Nothing averts shirk until ilahiyyah rububiyyah are belief. Once these two are negated then bizaatihi, bil ardhi and bi iznihi and bi ghayr iznihi could change judgement. Belief that angels help bi iznihi, bil ardhi would be in acxordance with tawheed but bi ghayr izni and bil zaatihi would warrant shirk if both were affirmed in absolute sense.

[Abu Sulayman]

SkippedPath and AdoonkaAlle : I think both of you brothers intend the same and just misunderstand each other because of the usage of different terminology.

As for the belief of the Makkan pagans:

A lot of the Makkan pagans believed in the existence of Allah ta'ala or let's better say CLAIMED so when being asked, but they also believed in the existence of so called "gods" - whom they attributed with characteristics of Lordship - alongside Him and in fact gave more importance to these false "deities" than to the Creator jalla jalaluhu.

Remember that prior to 'Amr bin Luhayy the Arabs were monotheists due to what had reached them from the teachings of our Masters Ibrahim and Isma'il (may peace and blessings be upon them).
After 'Amr bin Luhayy they fell into polytheism and paganism to such a degree that the Arabian peninsula became filled with this darkness.
Then our noble Prophet (sallallahu ayhi wa sallam) was sent as a light and guide to the true way and as a warner and bringer of glad tidings and he ('alayhil salatu wal salam) extinguished the darkness of polytheism and paganism from the Arabian peninsula with the permission of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.

As for the issue of independence and dependence:

Know that the view of many of the Makkan pagans regarding the relation between Allah ta'ala and their false "deities" was similar to the relationship between a king and his ministers and princes.

What this basically means is that they ascribed both dependence and independence to them. To understand this better consider this:

A king can not rule alone over all the lands and regions under his control, because he lacks the needed amount of knowledge and power to do so. So he needs people, who will help him in ruling: His ministers, princes / princesses, soldiers and so on.
While these ministers and princes are subordinate to the king and under his command, they are still able to independently make decisions, which means even without the knowledge or will of the king. In fact they could even put the authority of the king into question and rebel against them.

The relationship that these Makkan pagans had in mind was basically like the relationship described above.
So while it may seem that they regarded their "gods" to be subordinate to Allah ta'ala, they at the same time did ascribe to them independance to such a degree that these "gods" may even put the authority of Allah ta'ala into question and act against His will, which is why they were ready to curse Allah ta'ala, if one where to curse their false "deities".



I would like to add some important points here:
- The polytheists of Makka - like all pagans - had anthropomorphist ideas regarding what is divine and what not and for this reason their claim of believing in the existence of Allah ta'ala is REJECTED, because they had a completely different view of Him and did not affirm all characteristics of Lordship for Him and at the same time they ascribed to him children and flaws and similarity and likeness. To make it short: That which they called "Allah" was not Allah ta'ala in reality!

- The pagans and polytheists are not a monolithic group. So while the views stated in the beginning applies to the Makkan pagans, the other pagans had different beliefs. Take for example the Greek pagans or the Egyptian ones: They did not know Allah ta'ala at all, not even at a very basic level.

- That which however UNITES ALL PAGANS is their view that beings other than Allah ta'ala have characteristics of Lordship and therefore deserve worship.

[Abu Sulayman]

As for the issue of independence and dependence:

Know that the view of many of the Makkan pagans regarding the relation between Allah ta'ala and their false "deities" was similar to the relationship between a king and his ministers and princes.

What this basically means is that they ascribed both dependence and independence to them. To understand this better consider this:

A king can not rule alone over all the lands and regions under his control, because he lacks the needed amount of knowledge and power to do so. So he needs people, who will help him in ruling: His ministers, princes / princesses, soldiers and so on.
While these ministers and princes are subordinate to the king and under his command, they are still able to independently make decisions, which means even without the knowledge or will of the king. In fact they could even put the authority of the king into question and rebel against him.

The relationship that these Makkan pagans had in mind was basically like the relationship described above.
So while it may seem that they regarded their "gods" to be subordinate to Allah ta'ala, they at the same time did ascribe to them independance to such a degree that these "gods" may even put the authority of Allah ta'ala into question and act against His will, which is why they were ready to curse Allah ta'ala, if one where to curse their false "deities".
[/B]

In the above context please also consider the following post:

For those who didn't find out in which Tafsir the above is explicitly stated:


Al-Hafidh Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) stated in his Tafsir of the Aya 39:3 (translation taken from HERE):

ولهذا قال تعالى: { أَلاَ لِلَّهِ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْخَالِصُ } أي: لا يقبل من العمل إلا ما أخلص فيه العامل لله وحده لا شريك له.
وقال قتادة في قوله تبارك وتعالى: { أَلاَ لِلَّهِ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْخَالِصُ }: شهادة أن لا إله إلا الله. ثم أخبر عز وجل عن عباد الأصنام من المشركين: أنهم يقولون: { مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلاَّ لِيُقَرِّبُونَآ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ زُلْفَىۤ } أي: إنما يحملهم على عبادتهم لهم أنهم عمدوا إلى أصنام اتخذوها على صور الملائكة المقربين في زعمهم، فعبدوا تلك الصور؛ تنزيلاً لذلك منزلة عبادتهم الملائكة؛ ليشفعوا لهم عند الله تعالى في نصرهم ورزقهم وما ينوبهم من أمور الدنيا، فأما المعاد، فكانوا جاحدين له، كافرين به. قال قتادة والسدي ومالك عن زيد بن أسلم وابن زيد: { إِلاَّ لِيُقَرِّبُونَآ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ زُلْفَىۤ } أي: ليشفعوا لنا ويقربونا عنده منزلة، ولهذا كانوا يقولون في تلبيتهم إذا حجوا في جاهليتهم: لبيك لا شريك لك، إلا شريكاً هو لك، تملكه وما ملك. وهذه الشبهة هي التي اعتمدها المشركون قديم الدهر وحديثه، وجاءتهم الرسل صلوات الله وسلامه عليهم أجمعين بردّها، والنهي عنها، والدعوة إلى إفراد العبادة لله وحده لا شريك له، وأنّ هذا شيء اخترعه المشركون من عند أنفسهم، لم يأذن الله فيه، ولا رضي به، بل أبغضه ونهى عنه،
{ وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِى كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولاً أَنِ ٱعْبُدُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَٱجْتَنِبُواْ ٱلْطَّـٰغُوتَ }
[النحل: 36]
{ وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلاَّ نُوحِىۤ إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ لاۤ إِلَـٰهَ إِلآ أَنَاْ فَٱعْبُدُونِ }
[الأنبياء: 25] وأخبر أن الملائكة التي في السموات؛ من الملائكة المقربين وغيرهم، كلهم عبيد خاضعون لله، لا يشفعون عنده إلا بإذنه لمن ارتضى، وليسوا عنده كالأمراء عند ملوكهم يشفعون عندهم بغير إذنهم فيما أحبه الملوك وأبوه
{ فَلاَ تَضْرِبُواْ لِلَّهِ ٱلأَمْثَالَ }
[النمل: 74]
تعالى الله عن ذلك علواً كبيراً

Allah says: (Surely, the religion is for Allah only.) meaning, He will not accept any deed unless it is done purely and sincerely for Him Alone, with no partner or associate. Then Allah tells us that the idolators say:

(We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah.) meaning what motivates them to worship them is the fact that they made their idols in the image of the angels -- or so they claim -- and when they worship those images it is like worshipping the angels, so that they will intercede with Allah for them to help and give them provision and other worldly needs. As far as the resurrection is concerned, they denied it and did not believe in it. Qatadah, As-Suddi and Malik said, narrating from Zayd bin Aslam and Ibn Zayd:

(only that they may bring us near to Allah. ) means, "So that they may intercede for us and bring us closer to Him.'' During Jahiliyyah, they used to recite the following for their Talbiyah when they performed Hajj; "At Your service, You have no partner except the partner You have; he and all that he owns belong to You.'' This pretentious argument which the idolators of all times, ancient and modern, used as evidence is what the Messengers, may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon them all, came to refute and forbid, and to call people to worship Allah Alone with no partner or associate. This is something that the idolators themselves invented; Allah did not give them permission for it, nor does He approve of it; indeed, He hates it and forbids it.

(And verily, We have sent among every Ummah a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah, and avoid Taghut.'') (16:36)

(And We did not send any Messenger before you but We revealed to him (saying): "None has the right to be worshipped but I (Allah), so worship Me.'') (21:25) And Allah tells us that the angels in the heavens, those who are close to Him and others, are all servants who submit humbly to Allah. They do not intercede with Him except by His leave for the one with whom He is pleased. They are not like the princes and ministers of their (the idolators') kings who intercede with them without their permission for both those whom the kings like and those whom they hate.

(So put not forward similitudes for Allah) (16:74). Exalted be Allah far above that.
- end of quote -



Even Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - who clearly played a role in producing this misunderstanding in the heads of the Najdis through some of his statements (even though he never went as far as them in their claims) - did explicitly state that the polytheists believed in "the affirmation of children and partners for Him (the Creator)" and that they would "affirm an intercession without His permission" (taken from Majmu' al-Fatawa 16/121-122):

فهو سبحانه يبين أنه هو المستحق للعبادة دون ما يعبد من دونه وأنه لا مثل له . ويبين ما اختص به من صفات الكمال وانتفائها عما يعبد من دونه . ويبين أنه يتعالى عما يشركون وعما يقولون من إثبات الأولاد والشركاء له .
وقال : { قل لو كان معه آلهة كما يقولون إذا لابتغوا إلى ذي العرش سبيلا } وهم كانوا يقولون إنهم يشفعون لهم ويتقربون بهم .
لكن كانوا يثبتون الشفاعة بدون إذنه فيجعلون المخلوق يملك الشفاعة وهذا نوع من الشرك . فلهذا قال تعالى : { ولا يملك الذين يدعون من دونه الشفاعة } فالشفاعة لا يملكها أحد غير الله
- end of quote -


Yet, these polytheists were "better in creed" than many Muslims - who do not believe in any of these pagan ideas! - according to the Najdis! So the one believing God to have children and partners is "better in creed" than the one who beliefs that God is transcendent from all of that?! Claiming this is disbelief in itself!

[SkippedPath]

Abu Sulayman jazakallah khayr.

[SkippedPath]

Salam alaykum.

Yeah it seems there is misunderstanding of terminologies.

By absolute independence i mean the kind affirmed for Allah subahanu wa tala. Zero dependence upon anything.

And Mushriks did not affirm this kind of independence for their gods because they believed their gods were created and created is dependent upon another for existance. Etc.