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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    Wahhabi leaders: The pagans accepted the lordship of Allah completely and without any partners


    Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - the leader and founder of the Wahhabi / Najdi movement - said in his Kashf al-Shubuhat:

    فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة

    So if it is said: These verses were sent down regarding the woshippers of idols; how do you make the righteous (Salihin) like the idols or how do you make the Prophets (Anbiya`) like idols?
    Then the answer is as already mentioned: If it is established that the disbelievers testified lordship (Rububiyya) completely for Allah and that they did not intend from those whom they turned to except their intercession...

    - end of quote -

    Ibn Baz (d.1420 AH) - one of the leading "Salafi" scholars and former Mufti of the so called "Saudi" state - said in his Majmu' Fatawa:

    أما كونه سبحانه رب الجميع وخالق الخلق ورازقهم ، وأنه كامل في ذاته وأسمائه وصفاته وأفعاله ، وأنه لا شبيه له ، ولا ند له ، ولا مثيل له ، فهذا لم يقع فيه الخلاف بين الرسل والأمم ، بل جميع المشركين من قريش وغيرهم مقرون به

    As for Him (i.e. Allah) - praise be to Him - being the lord (Rabb) of all and the Creator of the creation and its Sustainer and that He's perfect in his essence (Dhat), names (Asma`), attributes (Sifat) and actions (Af'al) and that he has no likeness, no rival and no equal: Then there occurred no difference regarding this between the Messengers and [their] nations, rather all pagans from Quraysh and from other than them were [already] accepting this.
    - end of quote -
    With the above claims in mind let's resume:

    { وَمَا قَدَرُواْ ٱللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ وَٱلأَرْضُ جَمِيعـاً قَبْضَـتُهُ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ وَٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتُ مَطْوِيَّاتٌ بِيَمِينِهِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ }

    { And they did not realise the importance of Allah as was His right; and on the Day of Resurrection, He will compress the lands and the heavens will be rolled up by His power; Purity and Supremacy are to Him, from all what they ascribe as partners. }

    [39:67]

    Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said in the Tafsir of the above Aya:

    وقوله: { وَما قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ } يقول تعالى ذكره: وما عظَّم الله حقّ عظمته، هؤلاء المشركون بالله، الذين يدعونك إلى عبادة الأوثان. وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل. ذكر من قال ذلك: حدثني عليّ، قال: ثنا أبو صالح، قال: ثني معاوية، عن عليّ، عن ابن عباس، قوله: { وَما قَدَرُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ } قال: هم الكفار الذين لم يؤمنوا بقدرة الله عليهم، فمن آمن أن الله على كلّ شيء قدير، فقد قدر الله حقّ قدره، ومن لم يؤمن بذلك، فلم يقدر الله حقّ قدره

    [With] His Statement { And they did not realise the importance of Allah as was His right; } [Allah] - Exalted be his remembrance - is saying: They - who ascribe partners to Allah and call you to the worship of the idols - did not glorify Allah as He deserves to be glorified.
    The like of what we've stated here was also said by the people of interpretation: Mentioning of those who said this:
    'Ali narrarted us and said: Abu Salih reported and said: Mu'awyiyya reported from 'Ali from Ibn 'Abbas:
    Regarding [His] statement { And they did not realise the importance of Allah as was His right; }: They are the disbelievers who did not believe in the power of Allah over them. So the one who believes that Allah has power over everything has realised the importance of Allah as was His right, and the one who does not believe in this has not realised the importance of Allah as was His right.

    - end of quote -

    Imam al-Qurtubi (d.671 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the Aya 6:91:

    قوله تعالى: { وَمَا قَدَرُواْ ٱللَّهَ حَقَّ قَدْرِهِ } أي فيما وجب له وٱستحال عليه وجاز. قال ٱبن عباس: ما آمنوا أنه على كل شيء قدير. وقال الحسن: ما عظّموه حقَّ عظمته

    The statement of [Allah] ta'ala { And they did not realise the importance of Allah as was required } meaning: Regarding what is necessary regarding Him and what is possible and impossible regarding Him.
    Ibn 'Abbas said: They did not believe that [Allah] has power over everything.

    al-Hassan said: They did not glorify him as he deserves to be glorified.

    - end of quote -

    Comment


    • #32
      The modern-day "Salafis" claim that the word "Ilah" only means "Ma'bud" (worshipped being or object) and is not connected to the belief in Lordship

      The response to them is from several angles:

      1 - If this would be true, then the first part of the Shahadatayn which is "La Ilaha illa Allah" would not be complete because it would not include that there is no Lord (Rabb) other than Allah and there is no doubt that the Shahada is complete. This necessitates that the meaning of Lordship is also included in the word "Ilah".

      2 - If the Messengers - peace be upon them - only called the people to worship Allah alone without teaching them that there is one Lord alone (as "Salafis" like Salih al-Fawzan claim, see second post in this thread), then why is that the angels will ask everyone after their death who their Lord (Rabb) is?! If even the Makkan pagans were accepting this - as the "Salafis" claim (thereby REJECTING hundreds of Ayat and Ahadith!!!) - why do the angels ask this question?!

      3 - Why is that in the Qur`an al-karim the word "Rabb" and the word "Ilah" are used as synonyms? Does that not clearly show that they are connected to each other and can NOT be separated?

      4 - In all languages the word for "Ilah" is connected to having divine attributes! What are these attributes? They're [at least some of] the attributes of Lordship!
      Take for example the word "Khuda" in Persian or "Tangri" in Turkish or "God" in English.

      As for Arabic: Then let's refer to an expert and scholar in the Arabic language:

      Abu Mansur al-Azhari (d. 370 AH) said in his Tahdhib al-Lugha:

      وقال أبو الهيثم: فالله أصلُه إلاَه، قال الله جل وعز: ((ماَ اتَّخَذَ اللهُ مِنْ وَلَدٍ، وماَ كانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إلهٍ إذًا لذَهَبَ كلُّ إلهٍ بما خَلَقَ)) . قال: ولا يكون إلها حتى يكون معبودا وحتى يكون لعابده خالقاً، ورازقاً، ومدبِّرا، وعليه مُقتدِرا، فَمن لم يكن كذلك، فليس بإله، وإن عُبِد ظُلماً، بل هو مخلوق ومُتعبد

      Abul Haytham said: The root of [the word] Allah is Ilah. Allah - 'azza wa jall - says: { Allah has not chosen any child, nor any other God (Ilah) along with Him – were it so, each God (Ilah) would have taken away its creation, ... } [23:91].
      He [further] said: [A being] can not be an Ilah except if he's [deserving to be] worshipped and the creator, sustainer and regulator of his worshippers and [he has to] to prevail over them. So whoever is not like that (i.e. has not the mentioned attributes of lordship) is not an Ilah even if he's worshipped unjustly, rather he's created and a slave himself.

      - end of quote -

      Here we see that the meaning of "Ilah" is explicitly connected to the having attributes of Lorship!
      What is also interesting is the Aya that is mentioned in this context, which is enough to destrop the argument of the opponents:

      { مَا ٱتَّخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِذاً لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَـٰهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلاَ بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ سُبْحَانَ ٱللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ }

      { Allah has not chosen any child, nor any other God (Ilah) along with Him – were it so, each God (Ilah) would have taken away its creation, and each one would certainly wish superiority over the other; Purity is to Allah above all the matters they fabricate. }

      [23:91]

      Note how in the Aya "Ilah" is mentioned and connected to the divine attribute of creating! This is an Aya from the Book of Allah, so there is no way to reject this for the opponents!
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 05-02-20, 06:27 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        This question is from another thread, but quite on-topic (because "Salafis" think it somehow proves their claim regarding this issue):

        Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

        So exactly how do you interpret al-Zumar:3?
        And have you ever read the CLASSICAL Tafasir of this Aya?!
        Or let's ask this: Are you aware of the hundreds of Ayat which show beyond any doubt that the Makkan pagans were NOT accepting the Lordship of Allah ta'ala alone and without any partners?

        Let's first read the Aya you're referring to:

        { أَلاَ لِلَّهِ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْخَالِصُ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَآءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلاَّ لِيُقَرِّبُونَآ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ زُلْفَىۤ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ كَـفَّارٌ }

        { Pay heed! Worship is for Allah only; and those who have taken others as their supporters / protectors beside Him say; “We worship them only so that they get us closer to Allah”; Allah will surely judge between them regarding the matter in which they dispute; indeed Allah does not guide one who is a big liar, extremely ungrateful. }

        [39:3]

        In the Aya these polytheists are explicitly admitting that they worship other than Allah ta'ala (so how for God's sake can it apply to Muslims who flee away from worshiping other than Allah ta'ala)!
        And in the beginning of the Aya it's saying that this is the statement of those who have taken OTHERS as their protectors / supporters (Awliya`: plural form of Wali) besides Allah ta'ala! And this already shows that they were attributing Lordship to other than Allah ta'ala!

        Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said:

        حدثني محمد بن الحسين، قال: ثنا أحمد بن المفضل، قال: ثنا أسباط، عن السديّ: { قُلْ أغَيْرُ اللَّهِ أتَّخِذُ وَلِيًّا } قال: أما الوليّ: فالذي يتولونه ويقرون له بالربوبية

        Muhammad bin al-Husayn reported to me and said: Ahmad bin al-Mufadhdhal narrated and said: Asbat narrated from al-Suddi:
        [Regarding the Ayah] { Say, “Shall I choose as a supporter / protector someone other than Allah } [6:14] he said: As for [the meaning of] al-Wali (protector / supporter): He's the one whom they take [as such] and affirm lordship (Rububiyya) (!!!) for him.

        - end of quote -

        Note what Imam al-Tabari says regarding the Aya 3:7 itself:

        يقول تعالـى ذكره: { إنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي } إلـى الـحقّ ودينه الإسلام، والإقرار بوحدانـيته، فـيوفقه له { مَنْ هُوَ كاذِبٌ } مفتر علـى الله، يتقوّل علـيه البـاطل، ويضيف إلـيه ما لـيس من صفته، ويزعم أن له ولداً افتراء علـيه، كفـار لنعمه، جحود لربوبـيته

        [Allah] - exalted be His remembrance - says: { Indeed Allah does not guide } to the truth and to His religion - [and that is] Islam - and to the affirmation of His Oneness (Wahdaniyya) - making him succeed [to this] - { one who is a big liar }, who is lying about Allah and saying about Him falsehood and ascribes to Him that which is not from his [perfect] attributes and falsely claims that that he has a child and is a disbeliever in his favours and a denier of his Lordship (Rububiyya)!
        - end of quote -

        And the part with { so that they get us closer to Allah } is regarding intercession, but their belief in intercession is different from us Muslims: They believe in an intercession which happens without the permission or command of Allah as already mentioned.

        Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) said in the Tafsir:

        أجاب أصحابنا عن السؤال الأول فقالوا إن القوم كانوا يقولون في الأصنام إنها شفعاؤنا عند الله وكانوا يقولون إنها تشفع لنا عند الله من غير حاجة فيه إلى إذن الله، ولهذا السبب رد الله تعالى عليهم ذلك بقوله { مَن ذَا ٱلَّذِى يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِهِ } [البقرة: 255] فهذا يدل على أن القوم اعتقدوا أنه يجب على الله إجابة الأصنام في تلك الشفاعة، وهذا نوع طاعة، فالله تعالى نفى تلك الطاعة بقوله { مَا لِلظَّـٰلِمِينَ مِنْ حَمِيمٍ وَلاَ شَفِيعٍ يُطَاعُ

        Our Companions responded to the first question, so they said: These people were saying regarding the idols "they're our intercessors in front of Allah" and they were saying "they intercede for us in front of Allah without there being a need for the permission of Allah". Because of this Allah ta'ala responded to them with his saying { who is he that can intercede with Him except by His command? } [2:255]. This indicates that these people believed that it's obligatory upon Allah to respond to the idols regarding the intercession, and this is a kind of obedience. So Allah rejected this obedience with his saying: { and the disbelievers will have neither any friend nor any intercessor who will be obeyed. }
        - end of quote -

        I really advice you "Salafi" laymen to fear Allah ta'ala and NOT to take your Mashayikh as Lords besides Allah ta'ala!
        Instead of blindly repeating their false statements hold firmly to the Book of Allah ta'ala and refer to the CLASSICAL scholars and not those innovators, who falsely claim to be following the Salaf al-salih while rejecting hundreds of Ayat and having not a single chain going back to our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!
        Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 05-02-20, 06:38 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          This post if from another thread, but quite on-topic:



          And have you ever read the CLASSICAL Tafasir of this Aya?!
          Or let's ask this: Are you aware of the hundreds of Ayat which show beyond any doubt that the Makkan pagans were NOT accepting the Lordship of Allah ta'ala alone and without any partners?

          Let's first read the Aya you're referring to:

          { أَلاَ لِلَّهِ ٱلدِّينُ ٱلْخَالِصُ وَٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَآءَ مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلاَّ لِيُقَرِّبُونَآ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ زُلْفَىۤ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَحْكُمُ بَيْنَهُمْ فِي مَا هُمْ فِيهِ يَخْتَلِفُونَ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي مَنْ هُوَ كَاذِبٌ كَـفَّارٌ }

          { Pay heed! Worship is for Allah only; and those who have taken others as their supporters / protectors beside Him say; “We worship them only so that they get us closer to Allah”; Allah will surely judge between them regarding the matter in which they dispute; indeed Allah does not guide one who is a big liar, extremely ungrateful. }

          [39:3]

          In the Aya these polytheists are explicitly admitting that they worship other than Allah ta'ala! And in the beginning of the Aya it's saying that this is the statement of those who have taken OTHERS as their protectors / supporters (Awliya`: plural form of Wali) besides Allah ta'ala! And this already shows that they were attributing Lordship to other than Allah ta'ala!

          Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) said:

          حدثني محمد بن الحسين، قال: ثنا أحمد بن المفضل، قال: ثنا أسباط، عن السديّ: { قُلْ أغَيْرُ اللَّهِ أتَّخِذُ وَلِيًّا } قال: أما الوليّ: فالذي يتولونه ويقرون له بالربوبية

          Muhammad bin al-Husayn reported to me and said: Ahmad bin al-Mufadhdhal narrated and said: Asbat narrated from al-Suddi:
          [Regarding the Ayah] { Say, “Shall I choose as a supporter / protector someone other than Allah } [6:14] he said: As for [the meaning of] al-Wali (protector / supporter): He's the one whom they take [as such] and affirm lordship (Rububiyya) (!!!) for him.

          - end of quote -

          Note what Imam al-Tabari says regarding the Aya 3:7 itself:

          يقول تعالـى ذكره: { إنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي } إلـى الـحقّ ودينه الإسلام، والإقرار بوحدانـيته، فـيوفقه له { مَنْ هُوَ كاذِبٌ } مفتر علـى الله، يتقوّل علـيه البـاطل، ويضيف إلـيه ما لـيس من صفته، ويزعم أن له ولداً افتراء علـيه، كفـار لنعمه، جحود لربوبـيته

          [Allah] - exalted be His remembrance - says: { Indeed Allah does not guide } to the truth and to His religion - [and that is] Islam - and to the affirmation of His Oneness (Wahdaniyya) - making him succeed [to this] - { one who is a big liar }, who is lying about Allah and saying about Him falsehood and ascribes to Him that which is not from his [perfect] attributes and falsely claims that that he has a child and is a disbeliever in his favours and a denier of his Lordship (Rububiyya)!
          - end of quote -

          And the part with { so that they get us closer to Allah } is regarding intercession, but their belief in intercession is different from us Muslims: They believe in an intercession which happens without the permission or command of Allah as already mentioned.

          Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) said in the Tafsir:

          أجاب أصحابنا عن السؤال الأول فقالوا إن القوم كانوا يقولون في الأصنام إنها شفعاؤنا عند الله وكانوا يقولون إنها تشفع لنا عند الله من غير حاجة فيه إلى إذن الله، ولهذا السبب رد الله تعالى عليهم ذلك بقوله { مَن ذَا ٱلَّذِى يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِهِ } [البقرة: 255] فهذا يدل على أن القوم اعتقدوا أنه يجب على الله إجابة الأصنام في تلك الشفاعة، وهذا نوع طاعة، فالله تعالى نفى تلك الطاعة بقوله { مَا لِلظَّـٰلِمِينَ مِنْ حَمِيمٍ وَلاَ شَفِيعٍ يُطَاعُ

          Our Companions responded to the first question, so they said: These people were saying regarding the idols "they're our intercessors in front of Allah" and they were saying "they intercede for us in front of Allah without there being a need for the permission of Allah". Because of this Allah ta'ala responded to them with his saying { who is he that can intercede with Him except by His command? } [2:255]. This indicates that these people believed that it's obligatory upon Allah to respond to the idols regarding the intercession, and this is a kind of obedience. So Allah rejected this obedience with his saying: { and the disbelievers will have neither any friend nor any intercessor who will be obeyed. }
          - end of quote -

          I really advice you "Salafi" layman to fear Allah ta'ala and NOT to take your Mashayikh as Lords besides Allah ta'ala!
          Instead of blindly repeating their false statements hold firmly to the Book of Allah ta'ala and refer to the CLASSICAL scholars and not those innovators, who falsely claim to be following the Salaf al-salih while rejecting hundreds of Ayat!
          What is your response to the following Hadith?

          It has been narrated on the authority of Anas that the Quraish made peace with the Prophet (ﷺ). Among them was Suhail b. Amr. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to 'Ali:

          Write" In the name of Allah, most Gracious and most Merciful." Suhail said: As for" Bismillah," we do not know what is meant by" Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim" (In the name of Allah most Gracious and most Merciful). But write what we understand, i. e. Bi ismika allahumma (in thy name. O Allah). Then, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Write:" From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah." They said: If we knew that thou welt the Messenger of Allah, we would follow you. Therefore, write your name and the name of your father. So the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Write" From Muhammad b. 'Abdullah." They laid the condition on the Prophet (ﷺ) that anyone who joined them from the Muslims, the Meccans would not return him, and anyone who joined you (the Muslims) from them, you would send him back to them. The Companions said: Messenger of Allah, should we write this? He said: Yes. One who goes away from us to join them-may Allah keep him away! and one who comes to join us from them (and is sent back) Allah will provide him relief and a way of escape.
          -Sahih Muslim 4404

          Why did the polytheists ask to write Bi ismika Allahumma, if they did not believe in the Lordship of Allah?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

            What is your response to the following Hadith?

            It has been narrated on the authority of Anas that the Quraish made peace with the Prophet (ﷺ). Among them was Suhail b. Amr. The Prophet (ﷺ) said to 'Ali:

            Write" In the name of Allah, most Gracious and most Merciful." Suhail said: As for" Bismillah," we do not know what is meant by" Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim" (In the name of Allah most Gracious and most Merciful). But write what we understand, i. e. Bi ismika allahumma (in thy name. O Allah). Then, the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Write:" From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah." They said: If we knew that thou welt the Messenger of Allah, we would follow you. Therefore, write your name and the name of your father. So the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Write" From Muhammad b. 'Abdullah." They laid the condition on the Prophet (ﷺ) that anyone who joined them from the Muslims, the Meccans would not return him, and anyone who joined you (the Muslims) from them, you would send him back to them. The Companions said: Messenger of Allah, should we write this? He said: Yes. One who goes away from us to join them-may Allah keep him away! and one who comes to join us from them (and is sent back) Allah will provide him relief and a way of escape.
            -Sahih Muslim 4404

            Why did the polytheists ask to write Bi ismika Allahumma, if they did not believe in the Lordship of Allah?
            Salamun 'alaykum,

            First:
            I don't respond to the Hadith, because this is NOT befitting of a Sunni! Rather you should have asked how I understand the Hadith.

            As for my understanding of this Hadith and the like of it, then it has been already been answered in this thread and I ask you to go to the first posts, because there you'll already see these issues clarified and among that is the following post:

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            Does the belief in a "supreme god" turn one into a "monotheist in lordship"?

            Know that their whole argumentation is based upon completely misunderstanding some Ayat where the polytheists are asked who created the heavens and the earth and they responded "Allah".

            Now we know that many polytheists believe in a god, who is greater in rank than the rest of their "gods". Odin was such a "supreme God" for the north european people. Zeus for the Greek people and those influenced by their religion and culture. But did their view of this "supreme God" match with our view regaring Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala? NO! Did this belief in a supreme God stop them from believing in other "gods"? NO! They believed in gods of rain, sun, thunder, wind, fertility and so on.
            The same was true for the Arab polytheists of Makka. Just because some of them believed that Allah is something like a "supreme God" their view of Allah ta'ala was still very much different from that of Muslims (as will be shown) and they still believed in all kinds of other "gods". And the Qur`an and the historical records are the greatest proof against anyone trying to argue otherwise.
            Lat, Manat and 'Uzza; does that ring a bell?

            Let's first see what the polytheists of Makka believed regarding Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.



            Go to post #1, where the following is proven:

            - Makkan pagans: It's impossible that only one God exists

            Go to post #2, which contains proving the following points:

            - Wahhabi leaders: The pagans accepted the lordship of Allah completely and without any partners

            - Does the belief in a "supreme god" turn one into a "monotheist in lordship"?

            Go to post #3, which contains proving the following:

            - The pagans of Makka had no conviction regarding Allah and whether He created everything

            - The pagans of Makka were ready to curse Allah if someone cursed their false gods

            - The Makkan pagans assigned a bigger portion for their false gods than for Allah

            - The Makkan pagans ascribed to Allah what they did not accept for themselves (i.e. daughters)


            - The Makkan pagans disbelieved in the resurrection, because they doubted the power of Allah

            Go to post #4 and #5, which contains proving the following:

            - The Makkan pagans doubted the knowledge of Allah and that He's All-hearing

            - The Makkan pagans believed that Allah needs help to preserve and control the universe

            Go to post #6, which contains proving the following:

            - The Makkan pagans believed in the existance of gods besides Allah and explicitly stated this with their tongues

            - The Makkan pagans ascribed daughters to Allah (and thereby them having a share in His lordship and divinity)

            Go to post #7, which contains proving the following:

            - The Makkan pagans believed in a type of intercession which happens without the permission of Allah

            Go to post #8, which contains proving the following:

            - The Makkan pagans believed that their "gods" could bring benefit and harm independently from Allah or alongside Allah


            Note: The above points are all proven through Ayat and by referring to classical Tafsir scholars.

            Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
            Conclusion:

            The pagans did not accept the lordship of Allah ta'ala completely and without any partners. Rather they had doubts regarding Allah ta'ala, his power, his knowledge, his perfection and his ability to preserve and control the whole universe. They believed that one god alone could not preserve and control this big and diverse world alone and therefore claimed that many gods existed. They ascribed qualities of lordship (like being in possession of the absolute intercession, bringing harm and benefit and other than this) to those whom they regarded as gods. Based upon this belief they regarded many beings / things of being worthy of worship and therefore rejected the fact that only Allah ta'ala is worthy of worship.
            This means the belief in lordship and divinity is connected to eachother and cannot be seperated. Trying to seperate lordship from divinity and to act as if the Islamic call to monotheism only called the people to the belief in the divinity of Allah ta’ala alone but not His lordship (or the other way around) is in direct opposition to the Qur`an al-karim and the Islamic teachings.
            Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 05-02-20, 07:19 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post


              Does the belief in a "supreme god" turn one into a "monotheist in lordship"?

              Know that their whole argumentation is based upon completely misunderstanding some Ayat where the polytheists are asked who created the heavens and the earth and they responded "Allah".

              Now we know that many polytheists believe in a god, who is greater in rank than the rest of their "gods". Odin was such a "supreme God" for the north european people. Zeus for the Greek people and those influenced by their religion and culture. But did their view of this "supreme God" match with our view regaring Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala? NO! Did this belief in a supreme God stop them from believing in other "gods"? NO! They believed in gods of rain, sun, thunder, wind, fertility and so on.
              The same was true for the Arab polytheists of Makka. Just because some of them believed that Allah is something like a "supreme God" their view of Allah ta'ala was still very much different from that of Muslims (as will be shown) and they still believed in all kinds of other "gods". And the Qur`an and the historical records are the greatest proof against anyone trying to argue otherwise.
              Lat, Manat and 'Uzza; does that ring a bell?
              What is the evidence for using the term "supreme God"? Which of the classical books mentions this concept?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

                What is the evidence for using the term "supreme God"? Which of the classical books mentions this concept?
                Are you serious? As Muslims we believe in one God (i.e. Allah ta'ala) without any partners.

                As for the concept of a "supreme God", then this is from the belief of polytheists! And the same goes for "rain god", "thunder god" and so on! Go ask them why they believed in this, but don't tell me that they were accepting the Lordship of Allah ta'ala completely and without any partners (because this entails REJECTING AYAT and doing this knowingly is disbelief)!
                Did you care to read the first 8 posts?
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 05-02-20, 07:45 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                  Are you serious? As Muslims we believe in one God (i.e. Allah ta'ala) without any partners.

                  As for the concept of "supreme God", then this is from the belief of polytheists! And the same goes for "rain god", "thunder god" and so on! Go ask them why they believed in this, but don't tell me that they were accepting the Lordship of Allah ta'ala completely and without any partners!
                  Do you care to read the first 8 posts?
                  Again.

                  Where is the evidence for this concept and for calling it "supreme God"? Which classical books mentions/discusses this concept of belief in polytheists?

                  You don't give the source of this claim. Just flawed reasoning.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by notEVOLVED View Post

                    Again.

                    Where is the evidence for this concept and for calling it "supreme God"? Which classical books mentions/discusses this concept of belief in polytheists?

                    You don't give the source of this claim. Just flawed reasoning.
                    Really? Did you even care to read my posts? All points were proven by clear Ayat and scholarly statements.

                    I can actually give you quite easily scholarly statements that say that the Makkan pagans viewed their so called "gods" in relation to Allah ta'ala similar to the relation between princes / ministers and [their] kings who intercede with them without their permission for both those whom the kings like and those whom they hate.

                    I'll give you a hint: Simply go and read some famous and classical Tafasir regarding the Aya you asked first (i.e. 39:3) and you'll find this explicitly (and even word by word!) mentioned. (I really wonder what the point of discussing is, if you haven't even looked up the Tafsir of the Aya that you mentioned!)

                    And now it's my turn to ask:
                    Do you deny that the polytheists believed that Allah ta'ala alone has NOT all attributes of Lordship and that they ascribed some of these attributes to their false gods?
                    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 05-02-20, 10:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Last edited by notEVOLVED; 06-02-20, 01:17 AM. Reason: 🚫

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        I can actually give you quite easily scholarly statements that say that the Makkan pagans viewed their so called "gods" in relation to Allah ta'ala similar to the relation between princes / ministers and [their] kings who intercede with them without their permission for both those whom the kings like and those whom they hate.
                        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!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Shaykh Yusuf al-Dijwi: Assessment of the Division of Tawhid into Uluhiyya and Rububiyya


                          The Shaykh Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Dijwi al-Maliki al-Azhari (d. 1365 AH) stated - as mentioned in Maqalat wa Fatawa al-Shaykh Yusuf al-Dijwi (p. 248-256) (translation taken from HERE) - the following:

                          We have received many letters asking for the definition of tawhīd al-uluhiyya (Oneness of Allāh in Divinity) and tawhīd al-rububiyya (Oneness of Allāh in Lordship) and also in regards [the principle according] to which they were arranged, who it was that differentiated between them and the proof of its validity or invalidity.

                          Our reply, with the assistance of Allāh, is as follows:

                          The person who viewed such was Ibn Taymiyya, who invented this, saying:

                          Indeed the Messengers were not sent save for the purpose of [teaching] tawhīd al-uluhiyya which means to single out Allāh (alone) for worship; as for [the other,] tawhīd al-rububiyya, which is to believe that Allāh is the Lord of all existence and disposer of their affairs, none has disagreed with this, Muslim or polytheist, the proof for which is the Almighty’s statement And if you were to ask them who fashioned the heavens and the earth they would reply Allāh(Qur’ān 39:38)

                          They also say:

                          Those who seek means (wasīla) through the Prophets and pious, intercede through them and call upon them during hardships are worshipping them. (The Arabs of jahiliyyah) rejected the belief of the rububiyya of statues, Angels and the Messiah and they did not become disbelievers because of believing in the rububiyya of these statues and whatever is alongside it, rather by abandoning tawhīd al-uluhiyya by worshipping them, and this is the same for those who perpetually visit graves, seek means through the pious, call upon them, and seek their assistance, seeking from them that which Allāh has not given them the ability to do.

                          Muhammad bin `Abdul Wahhāb said:

                          Indeed their disbelief is more distasteful than the disbelief of worshipping statues.

                          If need be I could have presented his entire sorrowful and valiant discourse, but this is a summary of their views just for clarification and it contains a number of claims which we shall present again in brief and discuss them using both logic and text.

                          Their view that tawhīd divides into uluhiyya and rububiyya was unheard of before Ibn Taymiyya and is unimaginable as you shall soon learn. The Messenger of Allāh did not say to anyone who accepted Islam ‘there are two tawhīds, and unless you single out Allāh in uluhiyya you are not a Muslim’ and neither did he demonstrate this in a single discourse and this was not heard from a single member of the salaf who they [the followers of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn `Abdul Wahhāb] boast of following in everything.

                          This division makes no sense for the true God is the true Lord and the false god is the false lord. None is deserving of worship or being assumed as divine except one who is the Lord. This division makes no sense also because we do not worship except those who we believe to be a lord that benefits and harms and thus worship is but a result of lordship, as the Almighty says:

                          The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, so worship Him and be patient in His worship. Do you know of any equal to Him?” (Qur’ān19:65).

                          Therefore uluhiyya is a consequence of rububiyya; for if we do not believe he is a lord who benefits and harms, then worship to him is illogical, as the Almighty says (about Sheba and her people):

                          That they do not prostrate to Allāh, Who brings forth what is hidden in the heavens and the earth (Qur’ān 27:25),

                          indicating that prostration is unbefitting for any, other than those who possess ability and power, and it would bear no implication prostrating to any other. This is what is understood and is proven from the Qur’an and Sunnah. As for the Qur’an it states:

                          And (a prophet) will not instruct you to take the Angels and Prophets as lords. (Qur’ān 3:80),

                          which clarifies the great number of lords they possessed; despite the clarity of the Qur’an that they made the Angels lords, Ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab said they are monotheists in rububiyya since they have only one lord but they commit shirk in tawhīd al-uluhiyya’! Yūsuf said to his two companions in prison while inviting them to tawhīd:

                          Are many lords better or Allāh, the One, the Irresistible?(Qur’ān 12:39)

                          And Allāh the Almighty says:

                          They disbelieve in the Most Merciful; say (O Muhammad): ‘He is my Lord’” (Qur’ān 13:30),

                          for they did not make him lord. Another example is as Allāh says of the statement of a person,

                          But he is Allāh, my Lord” (Qur’ān 18:38),

                          in response to one who denounced the Almighty’s rububiyya. Also consider their discourse on the Day of Rising:

                          By Allāh! Indeed we were in clear error when we made you equals to the Lord of all existence. (Qur’ān 26:97-98),

                          and observe the Almighty’s statement:

                          When it is said to them ‘Prostrate before the Most Merciful!’ they replyWhat is the Most Merciful, should we prostrate before whom you instruct us to?’” (Qur’ān 25:60).

                          Do you view the one to say this, a monotheist?! Now consider the Almighty’s statement:

                          And they argue about [the divinity of] Allāh (Qur’ān 13:13),

                          as in many other verses which we shall not detail; but the point is that these kuffar did not possess tawhīd al-rububiyya as Ibn Taymiyya claimed; and Yūsuf was calling to nothing other than tawhīd al-rububiyya because in reality there is no such thing as tawhīd al-rububiyya and tawhīd al-uluhiyya according to Yūsuf so are they more acquainted with tawhīd than him and will they say he has erred in his interpretation of ‘lords’ which should have been ‘gods’?!

                          In addition, Allāh has said when he took the covenant from all people:

                          Am I not your Lord?” and they replied ‘Yes’ (Qur’ān 7:172),

                          so if acceptance of tawhīd al-rububiyya was insufficient and accepted by the polytheists, as Ibn Taymiyya said, then taking this covenant would be unnecessary and they would not have to say on the Day of Rising:

                          Indeed we were unaware of this (Qur’ān 7:172);

                          it would be necessary for Allāh to change the conditions of the covenant to what they recognise and include uluhiyya since rububiyya is insufficient according to them, and all those other things which we would have to expand upon, which are not hidden from you. Anyway, tawhīd al-rububiyya was sufficient for them and they were not required to accept tawhīd al-uluhiyya also.

                          Also the Almighty’s statement: He is the God in the Sky and the God on earth,shows He is the God on earth even if he is not worshipped as shall be the case at the end of time so. If it is said this means he is worshipped in the sense that he is alone in deserving worship, then we reply there is no difference in this case between god and lord for the one deserving of worship is the Lord and no other. However the discussion of Pharaoh with Musa was regarding rububiyya:

                          I am your lord, most high. (Qur’ān 79:24),

                          and then he said:

                          If you take a God besides me I shall imprison you.” (Qur’ān 26:29),

                          and nobody claims these are of the same meaning.

                          As for the Sunnah, there is the case of the two Angels asking the dead of the identity of one’s lord and not of one’s god because there is no distinction between lord and god – because they do not follow Ibn Taymiyya and nor do they speak in a chaotic way; in the view of these people it would be necessary to ask ‘Who is your god?’ not ‘Who is your lord?!! Regarding the statement,

                          And if you were to ask them who fashioned the heavens and the earth they would reply Allāh (Qur’ān 39:38),

                          this is what they say with their tongues but do not believe in their hearts; they were forced to say this for the decisive proofs that were presented before them. Perhaps they spoke of something that wouldn’t even come near to settling in their hearts or reaching their souls, since they accompanied this statement with phrases showing they were lying because they believed the idols could benefit and harm. Also they became completely ignorant of Allāh and attributed even the smallest of matters to other than him for instance when the people of Hud said to him

                          We say nought except that our Gods have afflicted you [with evil] (Qur’ān 11:54),

                          so how can Ibn Taymiyya say that they believe their gods neither harm nor benefit? Observe the claim of these people about their cattle

                          ‘This is for Allāh’ they claim ‘And this is for our associates’; whatever is for Allāh reaches their associates and whatever is for their associates does not reach Allāh (Qur’ān 6:136),

                          they present their associates with even the smallest and most insignificant of things. And Allāh says, explaining their belief in statues:

                          [On the Day of Judgement it would be said to them] We do not see with you those intercessors you claimed to be associates (Qur’ān 6:94),

                          showing they believed them to be their associates. Also Abū Sufyan said at Uhud Superior is Hubāl and the Messenger of Allāh replied Allāh is the most High and Prominent”. So consider this and tell me what do you consider of the tawhīd that Ibn Taymiyya was ascribing to them, saying in this they are the same as the Muslims but they only differ in tawhīd al-uluhiyya?! This is also proven by the statement of Allāh Do not curse those whom they call on besides Allāh lest they curse Allāh out of enmity with no knowledge, do you think they believed in tawhīd after seeing this?!

                          The followers of Ibn Taymiyya after all this say ‘they are monotheists in regards tawhīd al-rububiyya and the Messengers did not fight them but for the purpose of tawhīd al-uluhiyya, and they disbelieved not except by abandoning this’!! I do not know the connotations of such restrictions, considering they denied the Messengers, refuted what was sent to them, made Halal the Haram, rejected life after death and the Afterlife, claimed that Allāh has a wife and a son and the Angles are the daughters of Allāh:

                          Know that they from amongst their inventions claim ‘Allāh has bore a child’ and they are liars (Qur’ān 37:151-152),

                          and for all these reasons the Messengers did not fight them according to these people but fought them for the absence of tawhīd al-uluhiyya and they are like the Muslims in regards to tawhīd al-rububiyya!! Or the Muslims are greater disbelievers in the view of Muhammad bin `Abdul Wahhāb!

                          We do not agree with any of this, yet we say:

                          Upon the supposition there is a distinction between tawhīd al-rububiyya and tawhīd al-uluhiyya as is claimed, tawassul (seeking means to Allāh) does not negate tawhīd al-uluhiyya because it is not worship, neither linguistically, nor legally, nor customarily and none have said that to call upon and seek means through the pious is worship. The Messenger of Allāh has not informed us of this and if it was worship or similar to it, it would not be permissible to do this for both the live and the dead.

                          If one insists that Allāh is closer to us than our jugular vein so we need no intermediation we reply ‘you have learnt a thing but are ignorant of a thing’ for if your view is such it would be necessary for you to leave all means and intermediates in everything since this world is built on the wisdom that there are means and accessories to everything. It would be necessary for him to deny intercession on the Day of Rising and that `Umar erred when he said:

                          We seek means to you through the uncle of your Prophet, `Abbās.(Sahīh Bukhārī)

                          They would have to close all doors to means and intermediates which is in opposition to the divine Sunnah (way). It is also necessary they fall under the same rule they place the Muslims under since it is impossible they leave all means and intermediates. The difference between the live and dead in this context has no implication for the one seeking means does not ask of anything from the dead by principle but seeks from Allāh alone through the means of the dead or the repute of the dead person in Allāh’s eyes or His love for him or the like of this, is there any ascription of divinity to the dead in this, or is this worship? These people base their view on unverified conjecture, after all Muslims have permitted tawassul, rather have considered it to be good.

                          Look into the books of the four madhhabs and even the books of the Hanbalīs in the adab (manners) of the visitation of the Prophet and you’d find that they consider tawassul through him recommended, this remained as consensus until Ibn Taymiyya came and opposed the consensus and others persisted in the instability of this dissension, opposing both intellect and text.

                          - end of quote -


                          CONCULUSION: Divinity (Uluhiyya) follows from Lordship (Rububiyya) and this is something intuitively understood by all normal human beings with the exception of the evil Najdis in their vain to make Takfir upon Ummati Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!
                          No person worships something without having the belief that this being has at least some attributes of Lordship. The Qur`an al-karim clearly affirms that the polytheists used to ascribe [at least some of] the attributes of Lordship to that which they worshiped instead or alongside Allah ta'ala and that they did not even affirm all attributes of Lordship for Allah ta'ala in the first place! They would even curse Him if one were to insult their idols, so what kind of Tawhid is this?
                          This means that making a complete distinction between Lordship and Divinity is an unacceptable innovation and not correct and claiming that these polytheists were "better in creed" - while knowing what these polytheists believed - than many Muslims is outright disbelief!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Abu Sulayman


                            Have look at the following statements from islamqa


                            Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah means affirming that Allaah is One and Unique in His actions

                            The mushrikeen among whom the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent did not disagree with this aspect of Tawheed, rather they affirmed it in general terms

                            The fact that the mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah does not mean that they did so in a complete sense. Rather they used to affirm it in a general sense, as Allaah tells us in the verses quoted above. But they had some faults in their beliefs that undermined this concept, such as attributing rain to the stars, and their belief that soothsayers and fortunetellers had knowledge of the unseen, and other forms of shirk concerning the divine Lordship
                            Taken from islamqa: The real meaning of Tawheed Rububiyyah
                            1. They define Tawheed Rububiyyah as singling out Allah in His actions
                            2. Divide tawheed Rububiyyah into :
                              1. Complete Tawheed Rububiyyah
                              2. General Tawheed Rububiyyah
                            3. Affirm that the mushrikeen committed shirk in Tawheed Rububiyyah

                            How are those statements not contradicting each other ? How do shirk and tawheed coexist together ?

                            Even if we were to assume for arguments sake that they didn't commit shirk in tawheed rububiyyah, how do they still retain their tawheed in this aspect after committing shirk in uluhiyyah ? It's like claiming an apostate still retains emaan after they've left the deen. It just doesn't add up at all and they want to convince us that they're following the Prophet ?

                            Just imagine making excuses for mushriks who engage in blatant shirk yet when it comes to muslims they don't hold their tongues and are quick to label them as mushriks, spill their blood etc simply because they don't share their innovated understanding of tawheed and shirk

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
                              Abu Sulayman


                              Have look at the following statements from islamqa










                              Taken from islamqa: The real meaning of Tawheed Rububiyyah
                              1. They define Tawheed Rububiyyah as singling out Allah in His actions
                              2. Divide tawheed Rububiyyah into :
                                1. Complete Tawheed Rububiyyah
                                2. General Tawheed Rububiyyah
                              3. Affirm that the mushrikeen committed shirk in Tawheed Rububiyyah

                              How are those statements not contradicting each other ? How do shirk and tawheed coexist together ?

                              Even if we were to assume for arguments sake that they didn't commit shirk in tawheed rububiyyah, how do they still retain their tawheed in this aspect after committing shirk in uluhiyyah ? It's like claiming an apostate still retains emaan after they've left the deen. It just doesn't add up at all and they want to convince us that they're following the Prophet ?

                              Just imagine making excuses for mushriks who engage in blatant shirk yet when it comes to muslims they don't hold their tongues and are quick to label them as mushriks, spill their blood etc simply because they don't share their innovated understanding of tawheed and shirk
                              It’s easily understandable and reconcilable.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                                It’s easily understandable and reconcilable.

                                Please do explain how one can ascribe partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship yet still maintain their tawheed ?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X