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

  • #91
    Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

    What's this narration from Ibn Taymiyyah that najdis kept putting in their books? I remember i read it in one of MiaW books (Mufeed Al Mustafeed?):

    "Whoever calls Ali is a kafir, and whoever doubts in his disbelief is a kafir"

    They say ibn Taymiyyah said it, but so far I've never found it (not that I read much), even if he did say it then they have completely misunderstood it because Ibn Taymiyyah never went around calling his opponents who believed in istaghatha (asking the dead for help) mushriks or kafirs, let alone chain takfeer on it.....he was strongly against it though, no doubt.

    Do you know anything about it?
    New comment on the other thread:

    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    MIAW's (d. 1206 AH) ignorance regarding al-Iqna' (one of the most widespread Fiqh books in Najd!)

    Al-Iqna' [fi Fiqh al-Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal] by Imam al-Hajjawi (d. 968 AH) was among the most widespread Fiqh books in Najd [together with Muntaha al-Irada [fi Jam' al-Muqni'] by Imam Ibn al-Najjar al-Futuhi (d. 972 AH)].

    Yet Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) - in his rather shocking level of ignorance - was unable to quote this book correctly and this with the knowledge that it was available to all scholars in Najd!

    So let's see the relevant passages:


    Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab stated in his Takfiri work Mufid al-Mustafid fi Kufri Tarik al-Tawhid p. 297 the following:

    وقد ذكر في الإقناع عن الشيخ تقي الدين أن من دعا علي بن أبي طالب فهو كافر، وأن من شك في كفره فهو كافر. فإذا كان هذا حال من شك في كفره مع عداوته له ومقته له، فكيف بمن يعتقد أنه مسلم ولم يعاده؟

    It was mentioned in al-Iqna' from [the words of] the Shaykh Taqi al-Din [Ibn Taymiyya] that the one who calls Ali bin Abi Talib is a disbeliever and that whoever doubts his disbelief is [also] a disbeliever.

    If this the case for the one who doubts his disbelief while showing enmity and aversion to him, then what is the case of the one who believes he is a Muslim and doesn't show enmity to him?

    - end of quote -


    Now let us look what is stated in reality in al-Iqna' 4/299:

    وقال: ومن سب الصحابة أو أحد منهم واقترن بسبه دعوى أن عليا إله أو نبي وأن جبريل غلط - فلا شك في كفر هذا بل لا شك في كفر من توقف في تكفيره

    He (i.e. al-Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya) stated: Whoever insults the companions or one of them and joins with his insult the claim that Ali [bin Abi Talib] is a God (Ilah) or a Prophet or that Jibril made a mistake, then there is no doubt on his disbelief, rather there is no doubt on the disbelief of the one who refrains from excommunicating (Takfir) him.
    - end of quote -


    Now compare these two passages and ask yourself if that is how a scholar quotes a reference! He completely changed the text!
    Would you trust such a creature regarding your religion?

    Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

    Ye, what we have today is a third or even 4th wave watered down version of the najdi dawah.
    Very true.

    Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post
    Quran 9:31

    They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

    Allah says they took them as Lords then says worship right after it, they go hand in hand.
    Indeed. And this Aya is regarding the Ahl al-Kitab, so imagine the amount of polytheism that can be found in pagans!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

      What's this narration from Ibn Taymiyyah that najdis kept putting in their books? I remember i read it in one of MiaW books (Mufeed Al Mustafeed?):

      "Whoever calls Ali is a kafir, and whoever doubts in his disbelief is a kafir"

      They say ibn Taymiyyah said it, but so far I've never found it (not that I read much), even if he did say it then they have completely misunderstood it because Ibn Taymiyyah never went around calling his opponents who believed in istaghatha (asking the dead for help) mushriks or kafirs, let alone chain takfeer on it.....he was strongly against it though, no doubt.

      Do you know anything about it?
      Salam alaykum

      Brother Hajji addresses this issue from 28:07 to 29:36:



      The segment is apart of Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab's refutation of his brother (MIAW) which starts at 21:00.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

        Salam alaykum

        Brother Hajji addresses this issue from 28:07 to 29:36:



        The segment is apart of Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab's refutation of his brother (MIAW) which starts at 21:00.
        Very interesting, so it's a misquote, no wonder no one could ever find it.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

          Salam alaykum

          Brother Hajji addresses this issue from 28:07 to 29:36:



          The segment is apart of Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab's refutation of his brother (MIAW) which starts at 21:00.
          وعليكم السلام

          Dawah man makes me laugh, he called certain groups khawarij but then attempts to defend the najdi dawah.

          Comment


          • #95
            Abu Sulayman

            Assalamu alaykum,

            What are your thoughts regarding the Prophet(saws) classifying Riyaa in worship as Shirk (albeit minor) without this being a violation of Tawhid al-Rububiyyah? Does the necessary linkage between Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah only apply when it comes to Shirk Akbar? If the answer is yes, then would it still not have been more consistent if this was classified as minor Kufr in light of these standards of categorization?

            Comment


            • #96
              Muhammad Hasan
              Abu Sulayman

              Could you guys direct me to any books or lectures that elaborate on the concept of Shirk and its relationship with Tawhid al-Rububiyyah?

              ​​​​​​​

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                Muhammad Hasan
                Abu Sulayman

                Could you guys direct me to any books or lectures that elaborate on the concept of Shirk and its relationship with Tawhid al-Rububiyyah?
                No responses? I hope the brothers are not fed up with me already. Or maybe it's because there was too many "Wahhabi" threads circulating at once the other day.

                Muhammad Hasan

                You're pretty good when it comes to linking sources. I'm looking for lectures on the reality of Shirk according to Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  Abu Sulayman

                  Assalamu alaykum,

                  What are your thoughts regarding the Prophet(saws) classifying Riyaa in worship as Shirk (albeit minor) without this being a violation of Tawhid al-Rububiyyah? Does the necessary linkage between Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah only apply when it comes to Shirk Akbar? If the answer is yes, then would it still not have been more consistent if this was classified as minor Kufr in light of these standards of categorization?
                  Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullah,

                  sorry for the late reply.

                  If you think about it, then our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) calling showing off as [minor] polytheism supports even more the linkage between Lordship and Divinity in greater polytheism.

                  A Muslim who performs an act of worship in order to show off, why is it that his action does not turn him into a polytheist and this while he performed an act of worship with his intention not being solely Allah ta'ala?
                  Because the Muslim does not believe that anyone other than Allah ta'ala can have any characteristics of Lordship.

                  As for the reasoning behind calling it still as polytheism (but only minor), then this due to the intention containing other than Allah ta'ala while performing an act of worship.
                  ​​​

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    Muhammad Hasan
                    Abu Sulayman

                    Could you guys direct me to any books or lectures that elaborate on the concept of Shirk and its relationship with Tawhid al-Rububiyyah?
                    There is a work called "al-Ru`ya al-Wahhabiyya lil Tawhid" by Shaykh 'Uthman al-Nablusi (one of the students of the Shaykh Sa'id Fouda) and in it he refutes the Najdi misunderstanding of Tawhid from A to Z with so many clear Ayat, Ahadith and statements of classical scholars, that I doubt that anyone could read the work and still remain upon the Najdi misunderstanding.

                    Unfortunately it's only available in Arabic.

                    (There is also a thread on the aslein-forums, where the author posted many of the important points of the work.)
                    ​​​​​​​

                    Regarding a lecture (in English), then I think you had already listened to this video here, right?:



                    (Just a note: There maybe similarities between the understanding of Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and the Najdis on the first sight, but in reality they had clear differences and the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH) explained that quite well (even if Ibn Taymiyya's understanding is problematic itself to a certain degree). Regarding these type of issues it's better to refer to Hanabila, because they understand Ibn Taymiyya usually better than the Asha'ira due to being upon the same Madhhab. And never refer to Najdis, because they lack understanding regarding everything.)

                    The brother Muhammad Hasan may know more sources in English than me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                      No responses? I hope the brothers are not fed up with me already. Or maybe it's because there was too many "Wahhabi" threads circulating at once the other day.

                      Muhammad Hasan

                      You're pretty good when it comes to linking sources. I'm looking for lectures on the reality of Shirk according to Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah.
                      Well I don't answer, because I don't know.

                      On a side-note: I'm not very interested in these theological topics these days, I think there are other things to discuss, particularly in the political realm. I still have to write that reply to YahyaIbnSelam, and I wrote a long comment on some YouTube video which some HT guys actually responded to. They've invited me to email them on the issue...


                      As for the terminology "Tawhid al-Rububiyyah", this is generally more of an Athari terminology, not used by many Ash'ari/Maturidis. Though I think Imam an-Nawawi may have used it (can't remember where I heard that). But generally, unless it is in refutation of the Taymiyyans or mentioning an old Hanbali work, I don't think you will find that kind of terminology/classification in widespread use amongst modern Sunnis. Not that there's anything wrong with that type of classification, its based off of the first few Ayat of Surah Fatihah. But as far as its use goes it seems to have declined as of later history, I could be wrong, Allahu Alam.

                      On the topic of answering questions though, I did ask you a question on this thread here. When you find some time (e.g. this weekend if you're not busy), take some time to think about it and post your reply.
                      Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                      "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                      Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                      Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                      1/116

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                        The brother Muhammad Hasan may know more sources in English than me.
                        On the specific issue he has asked about, I honestly don't know. With modern scholars at least, I am only aware of this being used in refutation (e.g. in that lecture you've linked). I recall Shaykh Asrar making good use of it in his debate with AbdulRahman Hassan. Yeah I'd say his best bet are the works of the contemporary Hanbali scholars, but little is in English. Shaykh Abu Jafar al-Hanbali might have a few books - maybe the one where he quotes Sulayman bin Abdul Wahhab (al-Hanbali) - perhaps check that out. I haven't read it myself, so I can't guarantee it will be relevent, but it should be insha'Allah.

                        But he's asked a very technical question. I think the whole point about Riyaa being like a minor Shirk is more of a rhetorical point, emphasising the severity, not to treat it like Shirk in any formal sense. It reminds me of a lecture of an academic who talked about how the Prophet Salallahu Alayhis Salam's speech will often contain severity/hyperbole to emphasise certan things - the trait of a good leader and speaker - but it is important to be familiar with Prophetic speech to learn to realise this to not make a mistake in understanding certain Hadith.

                        Other than that, all I can say is that the sins of Kufr stem from Kibr (arrogance), which is also integral to Riyaa. Same think can be said with Kufr Duna Kufr. I see these as more rhetorical points emphasising severity and closeness to "real"/major Kufr/Shirk.

                        Allahu Alam.
                        Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                        "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                        Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                        Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                        1/116

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                          On the specific issue he has asked about, I honestly don't know. With modern scholars at least, I am only aware of this being used in refutation (e.g. in that lecture you've linked). I recall Shaykh Asrar making good use of it in his debate with AbdulRahman Hassan. Yeah I'd say his best bet are the works of the contemporary Hanbali scholars, but little is in English. Shaykh Abu Jafar al-Hanbali might have a few books - maybe the one where he quotes Sulayman bin Abdul Wahhab (al-Hanbali) - perhaps check that out. I haven't read it myself, so I can't guarantee it will be relevent, but it should be insha'Allah.

                          But he's asked a very technical question. I think the whole point about Riyaa being like a minor Shirk is more of a rhetorical point, emphasising the severity, not to treat it like Shirk in any formal sense. It reminds me of a lecture of an academic who talked about how the Prophet Salallahu Alayhis Salam's speech will often contain severity/hyperbole to emphasise certan things - the trait of a good leader and speaker - but it is important to be familiar with Prophetic speech to learn to realise this to not make a mistake in understanding certain Hadith.

                          Other than that, all I can say is that the sins of Kufr stem from Kibr (arrogance), which is also integral to Riyaa. Same think can be said with Kufr Duna Kufr. I see these as more rhetorical points emphasising severity and closeness to "real"/major Kufr/Shirk.

                          Allahu Alam.
                          *certain ^thing
                          Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                          "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                          Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                          Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                          1/116

                          Comment


                          • *Riyaa is minor shirk - I meant to compare to major Shirk.
                            Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                            "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                            Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                            Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                            1/116

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              Muhammad Hasan
                              Abu Sulayman

                              Could you guys direct me to any books or lectures that elaborate on the concept of Shirk and its relationship with Tawhid al-Rububiyyah?
                              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                              You're pretty good when it comes to linking sources. I'm looking for lectures on the reality of Shirk according to Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama'ah.
                              aMuslimForLife

                              Any recommendations?

                              Comment


                              • I don't know whether you have read that already, but this might also help:

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                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!
                                (Remember that the above refutation applies more to the Najdis, because Imam Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) position is still more nuanced than it seems at first sight.)
                                ​​​​​

                                And also this here:

                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali: Idolatry and its forms

                                The Hanbali scholar, the Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad bin Hassan al-Shatti (d. 1348 AH) (from the Hanbali al-Shatti family and grandson of the famous Hanbali 'Allama Hassan bin 'Umar al-Shatti (d. 1274 AH)!), said in al-Nuqul al-Shar'iyya fil Radd 'ala al-Wahabiyya (p.11-17) (translation taken from HERE):

                                When discussing shirk,1 it should be known that there are two forms - the greater and the lesser. The greater form is the worship of idolatrous symbols2 and/or idols themselves,3 while the lesser form is looking at causes, depending upon them or showing dependence on them while being heedless of Allah.4 Indeed Allah, He is the One who brought these things into existence. Showing off5 is also a form of shirk, being referred to as minor shirk. The evidence for the dividing of shirk into categories has been mentioned by Allah in the Qur’an, reported in the Sunnah and agreed upon by the Consensus. Our evidence comes from the words of the Exalted One in the Qur’an:

                                And most of them do not believe in Allah except that they associate partners.6

                                Allah the Exalted, with this statement, has stated that most of His Slaves possess shirk while they are in a state of faith. Had the intent been major shirk, which negates faith, this would have caused a contradiction in His Word, but this is not possible as He is the One who destroys falsehood and contradiction. If we examine the context, we will know from this that there is another form of shirk, which is the lesser.

                                We have examples of this in the Sunnah, as explicitly stated in the following hadith from the companion, Abu Musa al-Ash`ari, Allah be pleased with him. He said, “The Messenger of Allah was giving us a speech one day, when he stated:

                                People! Beware of this shirk, for it is more inconspicuous than the tapping of an ant’s legs on a rock’.”7

                                In another narration, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, stated:

                                Shirk in my Ummah is more inconspicuous than the tapping of an ant’s legs on the rock.”8

                                The commentator on this hadith, Imam al-Munawi,9 said, “This is because they are looking at causes, such as rain, heedless of the uncaused cause. Whoever makes himself content with causes, has taken protectors besides Allah. A believer does not leave his faith except by denying the uncaused cause and the witness over all, the Lord of Lords, and he indicated this by saying that it is more concealed... Up to that it was waning, coming to nothing among them. He was pleased with them for the virtue of their certainty, especially while Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them. Thus, even if it was a danger for them, the dangers were hidden and there were no traces of it in their souls, just as there is no trace of the tapping of an ant’s legs on the side of a rock.”10

                                This is the clear and complete understanding of the hadith. Allah willed Abu Bakr as- Siddiq, one of the companions, to ask, “Messenger of Allah, how do we negate it if it is more inconspicuous than the tapping of an ant’s legs?” He said:

                                You should say, Allah! Indeed we seek refuge in you that we should associate anything with you while we know and we seek your forgiveness for that which we do not know.”11

                                There was also a hadith collected by Imam Ahmad, narrated by Mahmud ibn Labid, who said that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

                                Indeed, I fear for you the minor shirk.
                                The companions said, “And what is the minor shirk?” He said: “Showing off.”12

                                There are many similar hadiths on this topic, but we will not mention every relevant hadith on this subject in this small research.13 This would go beyond the scope of this small work, which is to explain and clarify the truth while enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, giving advice to the Muslims in the faith. It became necessary to write this book when some of the people of knowledge began agreeing with the people of false desires and whims.14 To this we can only say there is no might or power except in Allah!

                                There is also consensus on the topic in question. It is a clearly established point of creed that no common Muslim15 ceases being a believer due to a major sin.16 Once this agreed upon point is known,17 how can one then hold common Muslims to be unbelievers when they do things such as attributing things to cause, making intercession,18 seeking a deed to be done in this life or the Hereafter from a prophet, saint or pious person, living or dead? How could they label them unbelievers when the common Muslims believe that the uncaused cause in the above points being granted is Allah, who is the Creator of the cause and the effect?

                                At no point is it permissible for us to hold the belief that the one who does any one of these actions mentioned is heading towards kufr,19 or that we judge that he is in kufr without asking him the reality of his creed. What is more, we are not to go into subterfuge and spying on matters where things are attributed to cause, as there are explicitly worded texts on the subject.20 Thus, the one who would make the judgement of kufr on someone committing these actions is in fact an unbeliever21 who has exited from the faith due to his following his base desires.

                                Whoever calls a believer an unbeliever then one of them is that.”22

                                This is the exact wording of the hadith that has also been mentioned by Imam `Abdul Wahhab ash-Sha`rani to be of reliable narration and narrators in his book, The Great and Weighty Matters for Consideration.23

                                The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said moreover:

                                Refrain from those who believe ‘there is no god but Allah’ and do not call one of them an unbeliever due to a sin, for whoever accused those who believe, ‘there is no god but Allah’ of kufr, then he is the one who is closest to kufr.”24

                                In another narration he, peace and blessings be upon him, states:
                                He is the one who is the most disbelieving.”25

                                Once this is understood, for someone to then state that the shirk in question here is of one degree and that it will nullify and render one’s faith as void, contradicts explicitly worded texts, and breaks the consensus.

                                This is just one of the five issues mentioned in this set of statements. It is these issues that the cursed Najdi group are contradicting by their explicitly held belief that whoever should make intercession26 with the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, or other than him, when in need or seek something from him, call on him in his stated need or intention, even if with the vocative particle, ‘O, Messenger of Allah’,27 or believing in any prophet or saint that is dead and making him an intermediary between him and Allah the Exalted, when in need, then he is an idol worshipper whose blood and wealth have become subject to spilling and seizure.28 There is, however, a small contingent among them who do not utter such charges at Muslims so as to call them unbelievers.29 Whoever believes this of the Muslims, may Allah give him what he deserves.

                                Their leader and head, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, the ‘Najdi shaykh’,30 explicitly held these deviant conclusions and stray positions. He is the very one responsible for the corruption of the common folk of Arabia. It was due to him that his followers dispatched a long message to my venerated grandfather, the pious scholar and source of authority for the Hanbalis in his age while he was alive, the late Shaikh Hasan ash-Shatti. This was sent to him believing that he might look at it and praise it. At this time, he was very ill and it was not easy for him to refute all the statements therein in detail, so he wrote at the end of the last page of the message some illuminating comments that can be summarised as follows:

                                I have read this general message with regard to the matter of Revealed Law as it relates to some doubts that were raised by some ignorant people, who do not necessitate kufr in principle, while some of it may be beneficial in consideration. Ibn `Abdul Wahhab has declared them to be kafir due to this action as stated in this letter, in addition to his declaring their blood and wealth licit for spilling and seizure. This belief was reached due to what appeared to their people by the outward import of the explicitly worded texts of Revealed Law built upon their founder’s ignorance, hatred and bad thoughts about the believers. May Allah curse whoever has this creed, for indeed, whoever declared a believer to be a kafir has already committed kufr.31

                                Most certainly, at the time of his writing this, his death, may Allah have mercy upon him, was near and it was not easy for him to refute all the statements in the letter in detail, but Allah is our Reckoner and the best one to be trusted. As further evidence, consider the following incident when my grandfather went to the Umayyah Family Central Masjid32 in Sham. Once inside, he overheard an elderly woman saying, “Sayyidi Yahya! Let my daughter be pardoned for my sake!” The Shaikh found the outward import of this speech to be a serious problem and not befitting etiquette in the presence of Allah. He advised her to show righteousness and etiquette in supplication.

                                He said to her, “My dear daughter! You should say, ‘By the rank or position of Sayyidi Yahya! Let my daughter be pardoned for my sake’!” She said, “Let it be known, Sir, that this is what I mean by the words I say. I say these words because he is nearer to Allah than I.” The Shaikh said, “I understood from that statement that her creed was fine, being that she held that Allah Alone is the doer of all things. The one thing that needed clarification from her was this statement, which was going to Allah the Exalted, for intercession by her seeking her means from him.” My grandfather then said, “I then decided to leave her, as to my knowledge her creed was correct.”

                                Let one then consider the ignorant, harsh and unforgiving people, and how they are with the Ummah of the Chosen One,33 peace and blessings be upon him. Take a careful look at how they release charges of kufr on the Muslims, declaring their blood and wealth licit for spilling and seizure, without the necessary legal prerequisites being present34 while it seems clear to any of the ignorant people amongst their ranks.35 It is Ibn `Abdul Wahhab who is responsible for this issue and the other issues mentioned, who has brought about this hastily thrown together set of principles. There is nothing in these principles except manifest darkness, immense warring and tribulation. It is the creed of the people of Harura’36 being propounded as well as the devises of Satan being used, and may Allah preserve us and the Muslims from that calamity. Amin.

                                - end of quote -

                                (The footnotes can be found in the translation linked above.)


                                Just look at the harshness in the words of the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti al-Hanbali and then you'll understand how far these Najdis had gone astray! What is ironic is that they thought he will praise their deviation and Khariji way when sending the letter to him!

                                And this also shows you that the problem is in the very principles that they had set up in their ignorance and that it’s necessary to be against them and their modern supporters!

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X