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

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...To the salafis it's not as this part of their aqeedah that they teach. Since shirk negates everything for the one who engages in it how is it possible to affirm tawheed afterwards for such a person ?

Since their shirk in uluhiyyah negates tawheed in it's entirety how in the world do they have any tawheed ? why did you then continue to distinguish between a generic and specific affirmation of tawheed when you fully know that the shirk mushrikeen committed was one that negated their tawheed in it's entirety ?

As stated, it's all academic. In your mind, does calling someone a mushrik mean you are affirming tawheed for them? You seem fixated on this easy to understand point.

[Eorlingas]

They're making excuses for them by claiming that they had tawheed rububiyyah while acknowledging they committed shirk in this aspect of tawheed.

They are not claiming that. They are stating how despite the mushrik claiming to accept that Allah is the creator or the heavens and the earth, as per the verses, they have rejected tawheed due their faulty concept of it.

Perhaps you need to learn to read properly or give your brain a rest from all the matam.

The Islamqa answer is explaining how the mushriks rejected Tawheed despite claiming to accept it.

Obviously you have an agenda, hence your stubborn inability to understand. Give my regards to your "Ayatollah".

[AdoonkaAlle]

As stated, it's all academic. In your mind, does calling someone a mushrik mean you are affirming tawheed for them? You seem fixated on this easy to understand point.

If it was as you say then salafis would never mention it in their aqeedah books nor would they teach it as part of their creed. They would also not make it a condition for a muslim's tawheed to be complete. Without a doubt your claim that it's just an academic categorisation and not a matter of creed is false, furthermore your insistence of validating their position of dividing tawheed into a general and complete sub-group despite acknowledging that shirk negates tawheed in it's entirety proves my point precisely.

You are contradicting yourself by claiming 2 irreconcilable views

1. Shirk negates tawheed completely
2. Shirk and tawheed can coexist ( by affirming tawheed and shirk to the mushrikeen )

does calling someone a mushrik mean you are affirming tawheed for them?

That's exactly what the fatwa claims by stating that the mushrikeen had tawheed rububiyyah even though they committed shirk. If someone is a mushrik this means that they don't have any tawheed, how then can we ascribe tawheed to such a person while he/she is in the state of shirk. It's illogical and mostly importantly contradicts the Quran.

You seem fixated on this easy to understand point.

I agree with you completely on that part but due to the salafi propagation of this innovated belief it has distorted the creed of very many people. They uphold now a contradictory belief in their understanding of tawheed without realising it at all. I am fixated as the first question that we'll be asked in the grave is who is our Rabb, how will we be able to answer such a question if we didn't have the correct understanding and belief who our Rabb is while we were alive ?

Brother it's not my intention to insult or ridicule you in any way, i just want you to reflect on this issue deeply and see if your understanding is in agreement with the Quran and Sunnah.

[AdoonkaAlle]

They are not claiming that. They are stating how despite the mushrik claiming to accept that Allah is the creator or the heavens and the earth, as per the verses, they have rejected tawheed due their faulty concept of it.

Perhaps you need to learn to read properly or give your brain a rest from all the matam.

The Islamqa answer is explaining how the mushriks rejected Tawheed despite claiming to accept it.

Obviously you have an agenda, hence your stubborn inability to understand. Give my regards to your "Ayatollah".

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

Those quotes alone should be more than sufficient to prove my case, if anything it's you who's refusing to acknowledge what they are affirming. They for once never state that the mushrikeen rejected tawheed due to the faults but rather what they claim is that their faults ie shirk is what led them to have a general tawheed. They clearly say that the mushrikeen

did not disagree with this aspect of Tawheed, rather they affirmed it in general terms

I applaud you for having honour for the deen of not affirming tawheed to mushriks but sadly those whom you're defending do not believe what you believe. How is it that as laypeople we understand the seriousness of attributing tawheed to mushriks but scholars don't ? ask yourself what is forcing them to say such things ?

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

If it was as you say then salafis would never mention it in their aqeedah books nor would they teach it as part of their creed. They would also not make it a condition for a muslim's tawheed to be complete. Without a doubt your claim that it's just an academic categorisation and not a matter of creed is false...

You seem to have misunderstood the position completely.

First of all, please quote where I claimed that 'it's' not a matter of creed.

[AdoonkaAlle]

You seem to have misunderstood the position completely.

First of all, please quote where I claimed that 'it's' not a matter of creed.

What did you mean by the following when responding to my question reagarding whether shirk in uluhiyyah negates tawheed in one category or all categories ?

The category of shirk vs the category of tawheed is academic. Shirk negates everything.

i interpreted it to mean that it didn't matter and that you were also saying that the categorisation salafis use was of not relevance to their understanding. I take it that you were simply stating that if shirk occurs then it doesn't matter which category it takes place in as it negates everything. The bit about not being a matter of creed was in response of me assuming that you were saying categorisation of tawheed was of no importance to salafis. I do apologise for misunderstanding your statement

Let me ask you this though, since you accept that shirk negates everything why do you then support the idea of affirming a general tawheed that has shirk in it?

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...Let me ask you this though, since you accept that shirk negates everything why do you then support the idea of affirming a general tawheed that has shirk in it?

I don't know what 'affirming a general tawheed that has shirk in it' means.

If someone testifies that there is one lord and creator, they are correct. If someone then calls on other than the creator, they have committed shirk. Therefore, you can say that there testimony was correct, but nullified due to action. So the testimony is affirmed but the action is rejected. Which part of this is problematic?

[Eorlingas]

Those quotes alone should be more than sufficient to prove my case, if anything it's you who's refusing to acknowledge what they are affirming. They for once never state that the mushrikeen rejected tawheed due to the faults but rather what they claim is that their faults ie shirk is what led them to have a general tawheed. They clearly say that the mushrikeen


I applaud you for having honour for the deen of not affirming tawheed to mushriks but sadly those whom you're defending do not believe what you believe. How is it that as laypeople we understand the seriousness of attributing tawheed to mushriks but scholars don't ? ask yourself what is forcing them to say such things ?

Lol ok for the last time you pathetic little Shia weasel...

Firstly the title of the IslamQA article

"The real meaning of Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah (Oneness of Divine Lordship), and those who reject it

The article concerns those who reject the "real meaning" of Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah.

IslamQA did not state that there is such a thing as a "general tawheed". That is a concoction of your diseased mind. What they said is that the the mushriks affirmed an aspect of Tawheed in "general terms".

"Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah means affirming that Allaah is One and Unique in His actions, such as creation, sovereignty, controlling affairs, provision, giving life and death, sending down the rain, and so on. A person’s Tawheed is not complete unless he affirms that Allaah is the Lord, Sovereign, Creator and Provider of all things, that He is the Giver of life and death, the One Who brings benefit and causes harm, the only One Who answers prayers, the One Who is in control of all things, in Whose hand is all goodness, the One Who is able to do whatever He wills – which also includes believing in the divine will and decree (al-qadar), both good and bad.

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, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And indeed if you ask them: ‘Who has created the heavens and the earth?’ They will surely say: ‘The All-Mighty, the All-Knower created them’”

[al-Zukhruf 43:9]

And they affirmed that Allaah is in control of all things and that in His hand is sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. Thus it is known that affirming the Lordship of Allaah is not sufficient for a person to be a true Muslim
, rather he must also affirm that which is implied by that, namely the oneness of the divinity of Allaah and he must devote his worship to Allaah alone.


"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. But these faults are limited compared to their incorrect beliefs with regard to the oneness of the divine nature (Tawheed al-uloohiyyah) and worshipping Allaah alone (Tawheed al-‘ibaadah).

The point of the article is an attempt to explain why mushriks are considered rejectors of Tawheed despite their affirming some aspects of it in general terms. It is not as you claim "attributing Tawheed to mushriks".

typical Shia twisting things. Why aren't these clowns banned yet?

[AdoonkaAlle]

I don't know what 'affirming a general tawheed that has shirk in it' means.

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.

A general tawheed according to the fatwa is one where one affirms actions to Allah but at the same time also affirms it to other than Allah. Basically one is not singling out Allah alone in His actions

If someone testifies that there is one lord and creator, they are correct. If someone then calls on other than the creator, they have committed shirk. Therefore, you can say that there testimony was correct, but nullified due to action. So the testimony is affirmed but the action is rejected. Which part of this is problematic?

If one commits shirk what it does is it negates/cancels out etc any beliefs that one held before committing it ie one no longer has the beliefs after the action of shirk is committed. Let me give you an example using wudhu, we know that certain things invalidate wudhu like visiting the toilet etc if the actions that invalidate wudhu occur can a person still claim to have wudhu afterwards ? Similarly Tawheed has to be free from any of the actions that negate it before we affirm it to anyone, you either have it or you don't.


After the action of shirk takes place and nullifies the testimony,the person no longer possesses the testimony as it's already been cancelled out, which is why you can't go back again and affirm it as there's nothing to affirm from the testimony after shirk takes place. If a negation is taking place what exactly is being negated, you need to ask yourself this question. This is why Allah informs us in the Quran that associating anything with Allah renders ones actions null and void.


And indeed it has been revealed to you (O Muhammad SAW), as it was to those (Allah's Messengers) before you: "If you associate anything with Allah, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers."(39:65)

That's why this idea of affirming general tawheed that has shirk in it is so problematic as it contradicts what we know from the revealed text.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

A general tawheed according to the fatwa is one where one affirms actions to Allah but at the same time also affirms it to other than Allah. Basically one is not singling out Allah alone in His actions





If one commits shirk what it does is it negates/cancels out etc any beliefs that one held before committing it ie one no longer has the beliefs after the action of shirk is committed. Let me give you an example using wudhu, we know that certain things invalidate wudhu like visiting the toilet etc if the actions that invalidate wudhu occur can a person still claim to have wudhu afterwards ? Similarly Tawheed has to be free from any of the actions that negate it before we affirm it to anyone, you either have it or you don't.


After the action of shirk takes place and nullifies the testimony,the person no longer possesses the testimony as it's already been cancelled out, which is why you can't go back again and affirm it as there's nothing to affirm from the testimony after shirk takes place. If a negation is taking place what exactly is being negated, you need to ask yourself this question. This is why Allah informs us in the Quran that associating anything with Allah renders ones actions null and void.


And indeed it has been revealed to you (O Muhammad SAW), as it was to those (Allah's Messengers) before you: "If you associate anything with Allah, (then) surely (all) your deeds will be in vain, and you will certainly be among the losers."(39:65)

That's why this idea of affirming general tawheed that has shirk in it is so problematic as it contradicts what we know from the revealed text.

I see it as the opposite of problematic because it shows that one isn't necessarily on tawheed just by claiming it, or by affirming only part of it. You have to ask yourself why such a person is called a mushrik as opposed to a 'general muwahid' or anything of the sort.

[AdoonkaAlle]

I see it as the opposite of problematic because it shows that one isn't necessarily on tawheed just by claiming it, or by affirming only part of it. You have to ask yourself why such a person is called a mushrik as opposed to a 'general muwahid' or anything of the sort.

That's a problem because to have tawheed is to believe in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship and Worship. Anything that fails short of this is not tawheed and we can never use the word tawheed to describe any belief that contradicts the above definition. Allah is the Only True Rabb and Ilah anyone that believes contrary to this and commits shirk can never have tawheed in any manner or form it's simple as that . This is what Allah informs us in His Quran, introducing beliefs that go against this is simply nothing but bidah

A mushrik is considered to be so because they ascribe partners to Allah while a muslim is one who doesn't do that. What do you mean by general muwahid ?

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

That's a problem because to have tawheed is to believe in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship and Worship. Anything that fails short of this is not tawheed and we can never use the word tawheed to describe any belief that contradicts the above definition. Allah is the Only True Rabb and Ilah anyone that believes contrary to this and commits shirk can never have tawheed in any manner or form it's simple as that . This is what Allah informs us in His Quran, introducing beliefs that go against this is simply nothing but bidah

A mushrik is considered to be so because they ascribe partners to Allah while a muslim is one who doesn't do that. What do you mean by general muwahid ?

If 'general tawheed' is affirmed in the way you say it is, then the status of such a person would be 'general muwahid' or 'general monotheist.' However, there is no such status. The status is outright mushrik. Therefore, the 'general tawheed' stuff is academic and simply a 'breakdown' of how something is shirk that negates tawheed.The premise being that despite affirming [one aspect of] tawheed, it can be negated [by another].

It's quite strange to suggest that calling a mushrik a mushrik is somehow being soft on shirk. If there was any implication that 'general tawheed' lessened the severity of shirk then you may have had a point.

[AdoonkaAlle]

If 'general tawheed' is affirmed in the way you say it is, then the status of such a person would be 'general muwahid' or 'general monotheist.' However, there is no such status. The status is outright mushrik. Therefore, the 'general tawheed' stuff is academic and simply a 'breakdown' of how something is shirk that negates tawheed.The premise being that despite affirming [one aspect of] tawheed, it can be negated [by another].

It's quite strange to suggest that calling a mushrik a mushrik is somehow being soft on shirk. If there was any implication that 'general tawheed' lessened the severity of shirk then you may have had a point.

I've to say you lost me there as i don't believe in that distinction that you're utilising there. Tawheed is one it has no separate aspects like salafis believe, affirming the Oneness of Allah's Lordship also affirms the Oneness of Allah's Worship meaning the True Rabb is the True Ilah. None is deserving of worship or being assumed as divine except one who is the Lord. 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.

So if one believes in an Ilah/god beside Allah then he/she cannot be free from Shirk ar-Rububiyyah, this fact is even acknowledged in the fatwa from islamqa. The moment shirk comes in it negates tawheed completely and a person's deeds, beliefs etc become worthless as Allah says in 39:65. How can you then ascribe "general tawheed" to such a person when Allah has already mentioned in His kitaab that they don't have any ?

the 'general tawheed' stuff is academic and simply a 'breakdown' of how something is shirk that negates tawheed

2 questions here;

1. What do you mean by general tawheed stuff is academic ? do you mean that it has not relevance other than being purely theoretical or ?
2. If shirk negates tawheed how is it possible to establish tawheed once it has been negated ie to say one has "general tawheed"

When you affirm the negation effect that shirk has on tawheed, are you implying an incomplete negation ? i ask this as you continuously affirm that there's some parts of tawheed left enough to warrant the establishing of a "general tawheed" .

It's quite strange to suggest that calling a mushrik a mushrik is somehow being soft on shirk

The point of contention is about the causes that lead a person to be classified as a mushrik. Salafi claim is that the mushrikeen were deemed so because they only committed shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah as they say that mushrikeen had tawheed in rububiyyah. We say they are mushriks because they had shirk in all aspects of tawheed. This is the major difference between salafis and the classical sunni position. How can people who commit shirk in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship be equal to those who don't do such a thing ?

If there was any implication that 'general tawheed' lessened the severity of shirk then you may have had a point

According to the salafis it certainly does, they use this "general tawheed" of the mushriks as evidence to establish the claim that tawheed rububiyyah isn't sufficient for an individual to be called a muslim. They say this is why you need tawheed uluhiyyah.

Thus it is known that affirming the Lordship of Allaah is not sufficient for a person to be a true Muslim, rather he must also affirm that which is implied by that, namely the oneness of the divinity of Allaah and he must devote his worship to Allaah alone.

How can people who commit shirk in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship be equal to us muslims who don't do this ? How can a christian who believes that Isa (peace be upon him) is a Lord with Allah be similar to us muslims ?

This belief of affirming "general tawheed" to mushriks and kafirs is indeed without a doubt an innovated belief introduced to the deen, it distorts the definition and meaning of tawheed as stated in the Quran and Sunnah. It's a bidah that eats away at the core of tawheed and erodes it.

[Abu Sulayman]

How can people who commit shirk in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship be equal to us muslims who don't do this ? How can a christian who believes that Isa (peace be upon him) is a Lord with Allah be similar to us muslims ?

Indeed. Barakallahu fik for your contribution in this thread.

On a general note: There is really no point in discussing with AA. He's dishonest and not interested in the truth.
Add to this: He's known to troll around - while being a mod! - and this is known to ALL people on this forum. Don't waste your time on him. I'm surprised that he hasn't insulted you yet, because he usually does this quite easily.

Anyways I would like to remind everyone that the original Najdi position is that the Makkan pagans accepted the Lordship of Allah ta'ala COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY PARTNERS and I've already quoted three of their leaders:
- Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - the founder of this sect - stated that the pagans "testified lordship (Rububiyya) completely for Allah"
- Ibn Baz (d. 1420 AH) - one of their leaders in the 20th century - stated that these pagans accepted Allah ta'ala as "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"
- Salih al-Fawzan - one of their contemporary leaders - "the meaning of "La ilaha illa Allah" ("There is no god but [one] God") is Tawhid al-Uluhiyya (monotheism of divinity) and not Tawhid al-Rububiyya (monotheism of lordship)"

Note that the above claims made by these Najdis is in DIRECT and OPEN opposition to the Qur`an al-karim! These people mentioned above have no excuse, because all of them have read the Qur`an!


It's established from the book of Allah ta'ala that..:
- the pagans couldn't imagine how one God alone could exist (because they couldn't imagine how one God alone could be aware of the worship of all of His worshippers - as stated by Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) in his Tafsir - and preserve this big world - as stated by Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) in his Tafsir - and I've quoted the Aya with both explanations in the OP)
- the pagans had no conviction regarding Allah and whether He created everything and were ready to curse Allah if someone cursed their false gods and assigned a bigger portion for their false gods than for Allah and ascribed to Allah what they did not accept for themselves (i.e. daughters) and disbelieved in the resurrection, because they doubted the power of Allah
- the pagans doubted the knowledge of Allah and that He's All-hearing
- the pagans believed that Allah needs help to preserve and control the universe
- the pagans believed in the existence of gods besides Allah and explicitly stated this with their tongues
- the pagans ascribed daughters to Allah (and thereby them having a share in His lordship and divinity)
- the pagans believed in a type of intercession which happens without the permission of Allah
- the pagans believed that their "gods" could bring benefit and harm independently from Allah or alongside Allah
- etc.

As for the position of "islamqa":
It's a [failed] attempt to update and modify the original Najdi position - which entailed disbelieving in what is stated in the Qur`an al-karim regarding the pagans - by claiming that these pagans where "general monotheists regarding God's Lordship". Note that there is no such thing as "general monotheists in Lordship", because the moment someone ascribes characteristics of Lordship to other than Allah ta'ala - which according to the Qur`an these pagans were doing! - then such a person simply is polytheist and that's it!

Note that the reason why "islamqa" tries to make such a contradicting statement is to defend the Kufri Najdi position, because they want to be able to keep on justifying the Takfir and accusation of "Shirk akbar" against other Muslims. So this issue is clearly not a simple "academic division", but rather one based upon which they invent rulings and apply it to the people of Islam!

Note that Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab - who is the source of all this evil - would address the scholars in his region and tell them basically that they're only accepting "Tawhid al-Rububiyya" and not "Uluhiyya" and are therefore upon the same Shirk as that of 'Amr bin Luhayy! So which "academic division" is this?!

Here an example:

Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab: Al-Saffarini, his teachers and his students did not know Islam!


Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - the leader of the Najdis and "Salafis" - said in a letter to the Shaykh 'Abdullah bin 'Isa [al-Tamimi al-Hanbali] (d. 1175 AH) - a student of the 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) - and his son and another scholar the following (as it is found in al-Rasa`il al-Shakhsiyya) while trying to justify to them his Takfir upon several families:

وأنتم تقرون أن الكلام الذي بينته في معنى لا إله إلا الله هو الحق الذي لا ريب فيه، سبحان الله إذا كنتم تقرون بهذا فرجل بين الله به دين الإسلام، وأنتم ومشايخكم ومشايخهم لم يفهموه ولم يميزوا بين دين محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم ودين عمرو بن لحى الذي وضعه للعرب بل دين عمرو عندهم دين صحيح ... الرجل الذي هداكم الله به لهذا إن كنتم صادقين لو يكون أحب إليكم من أموالكم وأولادكم لم يكن كثيراً فكيف يقال ... ا

You have [already] accepted that the statement which I have explained regarding the meaning of "La Ilaha illa Allah" is the truth without any doubt.
Subhanallah, if you are affirming this, then [this] is a man (he's intending himself!!!) through whom Allah has made the religion of Islam clear, [while] you and your teachers (Mashayikh) and their teachers did not understand [Islam], nor were they able to differentiate between the religion of Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and the relgion of 'Amr bin Luhayy (!!) - who had invented a religion (i.e. that of idol worship) for the Arabs (those of pre-Islamic times) -, rather according to them the religion of 'Amr bin Luhayy is the correct religion...
The man (he's intenting himself again!) through whom Allah has guided you to this, [and] if you are truthful, [then] if he would be more beloved to you than your wealth and your children, then this would be not much [to ask]. Then how is possible to be said...
- end of quote -

Comment: Wallahi, he has lied that they agreed with his explanation and wallahi he has lied in his indirect claim for prophethood!
The one who is more beloved to us than our wealth, our children and even our ownselves and the one through whom Allah ta'ala guided us to Islam and pure Tawhid - not the fake "Tawhid" that IAW came with! - is our Master Muhammad al-Mustafa, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam!!!

This man was literally killing (!) Muslims based upon this Kufri (!) principle that he invented and established as a new religion (!) in order to kill the people of Islam!

[AdoonkaAlle]

Indeed. Barakallahu fik for your contribution in this thread.

On a general note: There is really no point in discussing with AA. He's dishonest and not interested in the truth.
Add to this: He's known to troll around - while being a mod! - and this is known to ALL people on this forum. Don't waste your time on him. I'm surprised that he hasn't insulted you yet, because he usually does this quite easily.

Wa iyyak

I just wanted to see what his underlying reasons were and also make him understand the fault in his reasoning regarding this topic.

As for the position of "islamqa":
It's a [failed] attempt to update and modify the original Najdi position - which entailed disbelieving in what is stated in the Qur`an al-karim regarding the pagans - by claiming that these pagans where "general monotheists regarding God's Lordship". Note that there is no such thing as "general monotheists in Lordship", because the moment someone ascribes characteristics of Lordship to other than Allah ta'ala - which according to the Qur`an these pagans were doing! - then such a person simply is polytheist and that's it!

Note that the reason why "islamqa" tries to make such a contradicting statement is to defend the Kufri Najdi position, because they want to be able to keep on justifying the Takfir and accusation of "Shirk akbar" against other Muslims. So this issue is clearly not a simple "academic division", but rather one based upon which they invent rulings and apply it to the people of Islam!

I agree without this innovated understanding & division of tawheed their entire ideology falls apart.

This man was literally killing (!) Muslims based upon this Kufri (!) principle that he invented and established as a new religion (!) in order to kill the people of Islam!

Anyone who went against him in any way was a mushrik, even those who were previous allies of him like the people of Huraymila.

Brother do you have a pdf where you've gathered everything together ?