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

[AdoonkaAlle]

Please note the forllowing passage from the above quote:

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).

Even in that quote they concede the fact that the pagans committed shirk in rububiyyah, now the important question to ask is how can people who commit shirk in rububiyah have tawheed in rububiyyah ?

The fact that they committed shirk in rububiyyah is what lead them to commit shirk in uluhiyyah, because worship is the result of affirming rububiyyah to the one whom you believe is your Rabb. Since the pagans did not single out Allah alone in His Rububiyyah they then proceeded to worship others beside Him, as in the case before rububiyah is also inter-linked with uluhiyyah.

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 sole reason why they worshipped other gods is because they already had committed shirk in rububiyyah, ie they affirmed attributes of lordship to their gods. What the fatwa attempts to do, is to belittle the core foundation why the pagans deviated in the first place. Had they not committed shirk in rububiyyah they would have never worshipped any gods alongside Allah

[Abu Sulayman]

Allah says: "والذين اتخذوا من دونه أولياء ما نعبدهم إال ليقربونا إلى هللا زلفى"

And those who have taken as protectors other than Allah (say) we don’t worship them except to come closer to Allah. [39:3]

Allah has also says: “و يعبدون من دون هللا ما ال يضرهم و ال ينفعهم و يقولون هؤالء شفعاؤنا عند هللا”

And they worship other than Allah that which neither protects nor harms them and they say that these are our intercessors with Allah. [10:18]

Furthermore, Allah says: أم اتخذوا من دون هللا شفعاء قل أو لو كانوا ال يملكون شيئا و ال يعقلون. قل هلل الشفاعة جميعا له ملك السموات و االرض ثم إليه ترجعون “

Have they (the pagan Arabs) taken other than Allah intercessors? Say if it were that they neither possess anything nor had sense. Say (to them) Allah possesses all intercession. He possesses everything in the heavens and the earth and to him you will return. [39:43-44]

These Ayat were all sent down regarding the polytheists and to apply them to the Muslims is clearly from the way of the Khawarij, may Allah ta'ala give them what they deserve.


For a better understanding of the first Aya you posted (3rd Aya of Surat al-Zumar) please read the following:

- Is the simple asking for intercession condemned in the Qur`an as polytheism? (part 2)

Is the simple asking for intercession condemned in the Qur`an as polytheism? (part 2)


{ تَنزِيلُ ٱلْكِتَابِ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْعَزِيزِ ٱلْحَكِيمِ }
{ إِنَّآ أَنزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكَ ٱلْكِتَابَ بِٱلْحَقِّ فَٱعْبُدِ ٱللَّهَ مُخْلِصاً لَّهُ ٱلدِّينَ }
{ 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 }
{ لَّوْ أَرَادَ ٱللَّهُ أَن يَتَّخِذَ وَلَداً لاَّصْطَفَىٰ مِمَّا يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ سُبْحَانَهُ هُوَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلْوَاحِدُ ٱلْقَهَّارُ }

{ The revelation of the Book is from Allah, the Most Honourable, the Wise. }
{ We have indeed divinely revealed the Book to you with the truth, therefore worship Allah, as His sincere bondman. }
{ Pay heed! Worship is for Allah only; and those who have taken others as their supporters 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. }
{ Were Allah to create a son for Himself, He would have chosen any one from His creation! Purity is to Him! He is Allah, the One, the All Dominant. }

[39:1-4]

The 3rd Aya of Surat al-Zumar is used by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and his followers to declare the Muslims seeking intercession with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unjustly as "polytheists", while it should be obvious that the Aya can not apply to Muslims.


So let's look at the Aya 39:3 passage by passage:


- { Pay heed! Worship is for Allah only; }

Know - may Allah have mercy upon you - that the pure religion - and all worship - being for Allah ta'ala alone was rejected by the pagans, because they could not imagine how there could exist one God alone without any partners - as is reported in the noble Qur`an regarding them:

{ وَعَجِبُوۤاْ أَن جَآءَهُم مٌّنذِرٌ مِّنْهُمْ وَقَالَ ٱلْكَافِرُونَ هَـٰذَا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ }
{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }

{ And they were surprised that a Herald of Warning came to them from among themselves; and the disbelievers said, “He is a magician, a great liar!” }
{ “Has he made all the Gods into One God? This is really something very strange!” }

[38:4-5]

Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) stated in his Tafsir regarding the Aya 38:5:

وقوله: { أجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلهاً وَاحِداً } يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: مـحمد ساحر كذّاب: أجعل مـحمد الـمعبودات كلها واحداً، يسمع دعاءنا جميعنا، ويعلـم عبـادة كل عابد عبدَه منا { إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجابٌ }

With His [mentioning of their] statement { “Has he made all the Gods into One God?” } [Allah] is saying: These disbelievers - who claimed that "Muhammad is a magician, a liar" - said:
Has Muhammad turned all worshipped beings / things into One [God], who hears all our supplications and knows the worship of all his worshippers? { This is really something very strange! }.
- end of the quote -

Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) stated in the Tafsir of the same Aya:

وقالوا: { أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وٰحِداً وَأَنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْء عُجَابٌ } أي بليغ في التعجب وأقول منشأ التعجب من وجهين الأول: هو أن القوم ما كانوا من أصحاب النظر والاستدلال بل كانت أوهامهم تابعة للمحسوسات فلما وجدوا في الشاهد أن الفاعل الواحد لا تفي قدرته وعلمه بحفظ الخلق العظيم قاسوا الغائب على الشاهد، فقالوا: لا بد في حفظ هذا العالم الكثير من آلهة كثيرة يتكفل كل واحد منهم بحفظ نوع آخر

And they said: { “Has he made all the Gods into One God? This is really something very strange!” } and this shows astonishment and I say that the reason for [their] astonishment is from two sides:
The first one: That these people were not from the people of contemplation and reasoning, rather their imagination / perception was [only] bound to that which can be perceived by ones senses. That's why when they saw that in the Shahid (present; that which we perceive) the power and knowledge of one actor / doer [alone] does not suffice to preserve this big creation / world they made an analogy from the Shahid (present) to the Gha`ib (absent; that which we don't perceive); so they said: For the preservation of this diverse world it's necessary that many gods exist and everyone of them takes care of a different kind [of creation].
- end of the quote -



- { and those who have taken others as their supporters beside Him say; }

The expression of taking supporters / protectors (Awliya`) besides Allah is mentioned a lot in the Qur`an al-karim, so its important to understand what this expression indicates and means.
Its singular form is Wali as found in the following Aya:

{ قُلْ أَغَيْرَ ٱللَّهِ أَتَّخِذُ وَلِيّاً فَاطِرِ ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلأَرْضِ وَهُوَ يُطْعِمُ وَلاَ يُطْعَمُ قُلْ إِنِّيۤ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكَينَ }

{ Say, “Shall I choose as a supporter someone other than Allah, Who is the Originator of the heavens and the earth and Who feeds and does not need to eat?” Say, “I have been ordered to be the first to submit myself (to Him), and O people, do not be of the polytheists.” }

[6:14]

Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) stated in his Tafsir of the Aya 6:14:

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 -



- { “We worship them only so that they get us closer to Allah”; }

Note that this statement contains a clear affirmation of WORSHIPPING other than Allah ta'ala! It also contains the CLAIM of intending to get closer to Allah, so this is how it is connected to the issue of intercession.

In the book of Allah ta'ala there is differentiation between two types of intercession:
- An accepted intercession: This happens by the permission / command of Allah ta'ala such that it falls under the complete knowledge and power of Allah ta'ala and this is what the Muslims believe in. (Tawassul falls under this category!)
- A rejected intercession: This happens without the need for the permission / command of Allah ta'ala (or even in spite it going against His permission!), such that it does not fall under the complete knowledge and power of Allah ta'ala - as is the belief and claim of the polytheists! - and this is open polytheism and disbelief!

For this reason we find a lot of Ayat where the issue of intercession (Shafa'a) is always mentioned together with the issue of permission (Idhn) like in the Ayat 2:255, 10:3, 20:109 and 34:23.
Allah ta'ala clarified that that the issue is not as the pagans assume:

{ وَأَنذِرْهُمْ يَوْمَ ٱلأَزِفَةِ إِذِ ٱلْقُلُوبُ لَدَى ٱلْحَنَاجِرِ كَاظِمِينَ مَا لِلظَّالِمِينَ مِنْ حَمِيمٍ وَلاَ شَفِيعٍ يُطَاعُ }

{ And warn them of the day of impending calamity, when hearts will rise up to the throats filled with grief; and the disbelievers will have neither any friend nor any intercessor who will be obeyed. }

[40:18]

Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) stated in the Tafsir of the Aya 40:18:

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 -



- { Allah will surely judge between them regarding the matter in which they dispute; }

According to Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) the dispute between the polytheists from one side and the Muslims from the other side was NOT about affirming Lordship alone and completely for Allah ta'ala. This is why he claimed the following 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 -

And it has been already established from what has followed that the pagans would not accept the Lordship of Allah ta'ala completely and that they would affirm Lordship for other than Allah ta'ala.

There is a thread named as "Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans", where the following issues are established by Qur`anic Ayat (and also scholarly explanations):
- the pagans couldn't imagine how one God alone could exist
- 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.

To make it short: What Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab claimed - which by the way is very basis for all the further mistakes that he then made - is open rejection of the Qur`an al-karim and therefore a type of disbelief!
(Note: The Prophets - peace and blessings be upon them all - called to the Lordship and Divinity of Allah ta'ala at the same time, because Lordship and Divinity are connected to each other and necessitate each other and can not be separated from each other.)


What is now interesting is that the Aya 39:3 itself does not accept the CLAIM of these polytheists that they intended to get closer to Allah ta'ala, rather calls their claim a LIE:



- { indeed Allah does not guide one who is a big liar, extremely ungrateful. }

Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) states in the Tafsir of the very Aya in question (39:3) the following:

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 -

How could their claim be not a lie while they would curse Allah ta'ala, if one were to curse their false deities?! How could their claim be true, while they were not even sure regarding the very existence of Allah ta'ala and doubted His knowledge and power and ascribed characteristics of Lordship to OTHER than Him?!


Conclusion from the above:
- The pagans could not imagine that one God alone could preserve this diverse creation and therefore affirmed the existence of many gods
- They took others as supporters and protectors instead of Allah ta'ala and this entailed ascribing to them characteristics of Lordship!
- They lied in their claim of intending "closeness to God", because their very belief in intercession is one without the permission of God being needed and that even things can happen against His permission! They were also lying because they actually didn't even really believe in Him and were ready to curse Him and even those among them would not do so regarded Him only as some sort of "supreme deity" and NOT as the sole Lord without any partners in his divine Self, Attributes and Actions whatsoever!

Note how the very next Aya declares God transcendent from having offspring and this should be enough for you to understand regarding what kind of people these Ayat was revealed!

So the question is: Does any of the above apply to the Muslims asking the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - for supplication / intercession?! Obviously no! So how could the above Aya apply to a Muslim then? It obviously can't and only someone who lacks knowledge and understanding on a very fundamental level would doubt this!

[aboosait]

.............The sole reason why they worshipped other gods is because ........

Drawing conclusions based on what?

Ibn Katheer said in his commentary on the verse

{And if you asked them who created them, they would surely say, "Allah." So how are they deluded?} [Quran 43:87]:

"In this verse, Allah, the Exalted, emphasizes the fact that none is worthy of worship save Him, because the polytheists who associated partners with Him in worship admitted that He is the Sole Creator of the heavens, earth, sun, moon, day, and night, and that He is the Sole Sustainer of all Creation, Who grants all beings provisions, and Who has predetermined their destinies and decreed that they should be granted dissimilar amounts of provision in this worldly life, making some rich and some poor. Verily, Allah is the All-Knowing of His slaves, their situations, and what suits them best. The verse underlines that Allah is the Creator of all things and solely manages their affairs.

If this is the case, then why is other than Him worshipped? Why is other than Him relied upon? Just as He is One in His dominion, He should be One in worship. The polytheists used to admit His Ruboobiyyah, as in their Talbiyah during the pre-Islamic pilgrimage: 'Labbayka la shareeka laka, illa Shareekan huwa laka, Tamlikuhu wa-ma malak.' (At Your service! You have no associates save the one who is Yours. You have dominion over him and over what He possesses.)" So this is not the claim of those you referred to as "Wahabis or Salafis".

This amount of Ruboobiyyah existed in those who believed that the angels are the daughters of Allah. They did not believe that the angels created them along with Allah or the like of the attributes of Ruboobiyyah mentioned above.

It is worth highlighting that the Muslim should beware of letting such titles (like Sufis, Wahabis, and the like) stop him from accepting the truth when it becomes clear to him. Verily, rejecting the truth is one of the key reasons for the disunity of Muslims.

Allah, the Exalted, says (what means):

{And from those who say, "We are Christians," We took their covenant, but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So, We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.} [Quran 5:14]
Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah commented on this verse, saying, "Whenever people neglect some of the commands of Allah, animosity and discord break out among them. And if they disunite, they are destroyed and ruined. Verily, unity is a source of mercy and disunity is a source of torment."

Allah, the Exalted, criticized some actions of the Jews or Christians or polytheists in order to warn the Muslims against imitating them in this regard.

[AdoonkaAlle]

Drawing conclusions based on what?

Isn't it obvious ? we worship Allah because He is Our Rabb, so when others worship others beside Allah it's because they've affirmed attributes of rububiyyah to their gods. Allah condemns the mushrikeen in the Quran numerous times for worshipping gods besides Him who neither have the power or ability to create, provide etc. In fact Allah calls us to worship Him alone because He is the only True Rabb.

Ibn Katheer said in his commentary on the verse

{And if you asked them who created them, they would surely say, "Allah." So how are they deluded?} [Quran 43:87]:

"In this verse, Allah, the Exalted, emphasizes the fact that none is worthy of worship save Him, because the polytheists who associated partners with Him in worship admitted that He is the Sole Creator of the heavens, earth, sun, moon, day, and night, and that He is the Sole Sustainer of all Creation, Who grants all beings provisions, and Who has predetermined their destinies and decreed that they should be granted dissimilar amounts of provision in this worldly life, making some rich and some poor. Verily, Allah is the All-Knowing of His slaves, their situations, and what suits them best. The verse underlines that Allah is the Creator of all things and solely manages their affairs.


If this is the case, then why is other than Him worshipped? Why is other than Him relied upon? Just as He is One in His dominion, He should be One in worship. The polytheists used to admit His Ruboobiyyah, as in their Talbiyah during the pre-Islamic pilgrimage: 'Labbayka la shareeka laka, illa Shareekan huwa laka, Tamlikuhu wa-ma malak.' (At Your service! You have no associates save the one who is Yours. You have dominion over him and over what He possesses.)" So this is not the claim of those you referred to as "Wahabis or Salafis".

The same ibn kathir in surah 17:111 says the following


And say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a son...'') that the Jews and Christians said that Allah has taken a son; the Arabs said, "At Your service, You have no partner except the partner You have, and You possess him and whatever he owns;'' and the Sabians and Magians said, "If it were not for the supporters of Allah, He would be weak.'' Then Allah revealed this Ayah:

And say, "Praise to Allah, who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] Dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification."
(17:111)


There are many more ayah from ibn kathir that are similar to the one above, now what salafis do is selectively quote from the tafsir books and then apply their own understanding to it. All mushrikeen. To have tawheed in rububiyyah means to single out all the qualities of Lordship to Allah alone. The pagans of mecca, christians, jews etc do in fact affirm some qualities of Lordship to Allah but they also affirmed some qualities to the gods they worshipped alongside Allah at the same time. This is why we do not ascribe tawheed to them as they committed shirk in rububiyyah. It's disingenuous to selectively take out the qualities which the pagans affirmed for Allah and affirm tawheed rububiyyah on this basis when they have ascribed partners to Allah in His Rububiyyah.

This amount of Ruboobiyyah existed in those who believed that the angels are the daughters of Allah. They did not believe that the angels created them along with Allah or the like of the attributes of Ruboobiyyah mentioned above.

It is worth highlighting that the Muslim should beware of letting such titles (like Sufis, Wahabis, and the like) stop him from accepting the truth when it becomes clear to him. Verily, rejecting the truth is one of the key reasons for the disunity of Muslims.

Allah, the Exalted, says (what means):

{And from those who say, "We are Christians," We took their covenant, but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So, We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.} [Quran 5:14]
Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah commented on this verse, saying, "Whenever people neglect some of the commands of Allah, animosity and discord break out among them. And if they disunite, they are destroyed and ruined. Verily, unity is a source of mercy and disunity is a source of torment."

Allah, the Exalted, criticized some actions of the Jews or Christians or polytheists in order to warn the Muslims against imitating them in this regard.

Even that fatwa from islamweb that you cite don't dispute the fact that attributing offspring to Allah is shirk in not only in asma wa sifaat but also in rububiyyah. Now the question that needs answering is how can the pagans have tawheed rububiyyah when they've committed shirk in rububiyyah. Just like the other fatwa from islamqa despite admitting the pagans committed shirk in rububiyyah stil went ahead to affirm tawheed rububiyyah to them.

Isn't this not a contradition ? to claim that one have shirk and tawheed at the same time ?

All perfect praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is His slave and Messenger.

Believing that Allah, the Exalted, has a son involves Shirk in Asmaa wa Sifaat (Allah's Names and Attributes) and Shirk in Ruboobiyyah (Allah's Lordship), and it leads to Shirk in Uloohiyyah(the Servitude to Allah); thus incorporating the three categories of Shirk.

https://www.islamweb.org/en/fatwa/35...ories-of-shirk

This amount of Ruboobiyyah existed in those who believed that the angels are the daughters of Allah. They did not believe that the angels created them along with Allah or the like of the attributes of Ruboobiyyah mentioned above.

The above statement is very flawed as it tries to establish tawheed rububiyyah to the pagans based on some of the qualities of Lordship that the pagans affirmed for Allah. What they're doing is ignoring the fact that the same pagans also affirmed some qualities of Lordship to their gods as well. It's disingenuous on their part as they themselves define tawheed rububiyyah as singling out all the qualities of Lordship to Allah alone. The shirk that the pagans commit in rububiyyah cancel out any tawheed that they had in rububiyyah.

If a person worships Allah for 6 days out of 7, and on the seventh day he decides to worship buddha , no one in their right mind would claim that "he has partial/general tawheed uluhiyyah"!? Rather, he would be considered 100% Mushrik. Now what salafis have done is to claim that somehow the pagans retain their tawheed rububiyyah despite committing shirk in this category.

My question to you still stands, how can people who commit shirk in rububiyyah have tawheed in this category ? if you agree that an individual who commits shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah can't have tawheed uluhiyyah why are you then willing to entertain the exact opposite when it relates to tawheed rububiyyah ?

[Abu Sulayman]

Abu Sulayman
Are you familiar with Shaykh Kareem Helmy from Egypt and would you say that this is a fair representation of the Hanbali position on Istigatha?
https://thethinkingmuslim.com/2020/1...-kareem-helmy/

I don't know the Shaykh you mentioned and what he mentioned lacks precision regarding the issue of Istighatha, because it's not like one can apply the same ruling to everything that is called "Istighatha" and this due to the fact that different people may have a different understanding of what Istighatha even is.

There is one form of Istighatha which basically everyone from the 4 Madhahib forbids, while there is another one where one will find more classical scholars either allowing it or even performing it themselves than those who disallow it.

I would therefore first mention the different forms of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) (let's for now put aside the ruling for others) and thereafter mention the ruling that the classical scholars have mentioned:

The first type of Tawassul: That is to ask Allah ta'ala by the virtue of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) or his rank or his blessings such that one says "O my Lord, I ask you to forgive me for the sake of your noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)" or what is similar to that.

The second type of Tawassul: That is to ask our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to supplicate to Allah ta'ala for one's need such that one says "O Messenger of Allah, pray for for the forgiveness of my sins" or what is similar to that.

The third type of Tawassul: That is to mention the wanted the thing to our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) while intending him to pray for you (so it's the same as the second type in meaning, but the wording differs) such that one says "O Messenger of Allah, your Umma needs help" or what is similar to that.

As for Tashaffu': That is to ask our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession, which is the same as asking him to pray for you and this means it's identical to the second type of Tawassul in reality such that one says "O Messenger of Allah, I've come to you seeking intercession through you unto my Lord" or "Intercession, O Messenger of Allah" or what is similar to that.

As for Istighatha: That is to ask for aid from our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) intending him to pray to one's Lord and it's the the same as the third type of Tawassul such that one says "O Messenger of Allah[, help]" or what is similar to that.

There is another type of Istighatha (which is the one who is disallowed by agreement), which shall be mentioned later on.


Now the ruling mentioned by the classical scholars:

The first type of Tawassul, which is to ask Allah ta'ala by the virtue of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), is allowed according to classical scholars in general (meaning: all 4 schools!). Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) explicitly allowed this and even someone like Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), who was one of the first to deny its permissibility (while it seems that he later on retracted this position), acknowledged that this was indeed allowed by Imam Ahmad.
Note that in this type of Tawassul one is not asking the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for something just like if one were to say in Ramadan "O my Lord, forgive me for the sake of this blessed month" it would not be regarded as asking for something from the month of Ramadan.

The second type of Tawassul (which is the same as Tashaffu' as already clarified), which is to ask for supplication / intercession from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), is something that the classical scholars in general (meaning: all 4 schools) regarded as good and allowed during the visitation of the blessed grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). This type is also explicitly supported by the Hanabila in general with the exception of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) (who seems to have retracted from this later on also) and his supporters.

The third type of Tawassul (which is the same as Istighatha as already clarified), which is to mention the wanted thing to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) or to simply call him for aid while intending him to supplicate for one's need, is where disagreement happened. One will find more classical scholars allowing this or even themselves performing it than those disallowing it.
Imam Ibn Taymiyya famously disallowed this also - based upon blocking the means to misunderstandings and excessive practices - and was harshly attacked by many other scholars for this during his lifetime.

The reason for this attack upon him is from several sides:
- He didn't just disallow Istighatha (together with the third type of Tawassul), but also Tawassul (the first type and second type) and Tashaffu' (same as second type of Tawassul) and this with the knowledge that these things are established by shar'i proofs and by the actions of the early Muslims and the generations after them. Regarding the first type of Tawassul he claimed that it's disallowed no matter whether during his lifetime or after it and this due to a wrong comparison and saying that it is like swearing by him. And as for the second type of Tawassul (or say Tashaffu'), then he allowed it only during his lifetime and not after it.
- He didn't simply disallow Istighatha with other than our Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), but included its prohibition with him also and this was unacceptable to the rest of the scholars. This is due to fact that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the Best of Creation and the one with the highest rank among the creation and the one whom the greatest of miracles have been given and this even after his lifetime. It's established that he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is a witness upon us and he is informed regarding our deeds and that he prays for us and is connected to his nation even after death and is therefore able to help his Umma even now. His intercession for his Umma is also established by clear cut proofs. It should be noted here that Imam Ibn Taymiyya did not deny any of this - quite unlike the Najdis, who do not know the the high rank and status of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and view him as a "dead man" and a "simple postman" with no real connection to his nation anymore - and based his prohibition on the blocking of means and not upon denying anything mentioned before.
- He tried to put into question things established in other Madhahib from their trustworthy and major scholars - like him trying to put the incident with Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) recommending seeking intercession with our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) during the visitation into question and this despite the Malikiyya transmitting it from there their major scholars - and this resulted with the scholars of the other Madhahib heavily attacking him.
- He spoke regarding the visitation itself in a problematic way, which some scholars took as a sign for him having a problem in his very faith.

Note that the mentioned type of Istighatha was practiced by major scholars from among the Hanabila and other than them:
- Imam Ahmad himself used to say "O slaves of Allāh! Guide us towards the (correct) route" when he lost his way on the way to Hajj and this is established from him and from other scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf.
- Imam al-Sarsari (d. 656 AH) was a Hanbali scholar and famous for his poetry in praise of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and it was filled with Istighatha. Yet we see that the Hanabila in general do not just praise him heavily, but also these very poems containing clear Istighatha and not a single one of them criticizes him even with one word (rather the opposite: Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) explicitly calls him as "staunch upon the Sunna" and praises these very poetry!) with the exception of Ibn Taymiyya. And even Ibn Taymiyya only criticized him very lightly while clearly having a very positive opinion of him and in real life he would even go to gatherings where his poems would be said and even cry when listening to them as his foremost student reported.
In one line he says for example while addressing the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) "So help me and be the refuge of my weakness".
- The 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) stated in Ghida` al-Albab "O my master, O messenger of Allah, take my hand..." and he stated also other than this.

There are also other examples, but the above should be enough for now, so that no one claims any "agreement of the Hanabila on the prohibition of Istighatha" out of nowhere, while their major scholars would perform Istighatha themselves!


Now the question remains: Then what is the type of Istighatha that all disallowed?:

In order to answer this let us refer to Imam al-Tufi's (d. 716 AH) response against Imam Ibn Taymiyya regarding the issue of Istighatha (and this with the knowledge that Imam al-Tufi was not just a major Hanbali scholar, but also someone who respected Ibn Taymiyya a lot):

He brought the statement of Ibn Taymiyya, where he states "Yet we only contend with the seeking assistance of a created being in matters that are specific to God, the Exalted and Majestic, such as divine mercy, forgiveness, sustenance, giving life and so on. So one must not say, “Oh Muhammad forgive me or have mercy upon me or sustain me or answer me (and in another manuscript of the same text ‘give me life’ was mentioned) or give me money and a child” as all of that is associating a partner to God by consensus.".

Note that what Imam Ibn Taymiyya describes here is NOT the Istighatha mentioned before (and not what the scholars where defending against him!) and this is the type of Istighatha that he regards as Shirk in reality, so let us not mix it up with the aforementioned type.

So what did Imam al-Tufi respond (and this in the context of defending Istighatha!)?: He stated by saying "what you have mentioned is an agreed upon matter known to the youngest of Muslim let alone the eldest, i.e. that with regards to Divine Omnipotence another created being is not to be sought under any circumstance and that neither should be attributed to it. We have seen rabbles of people and their common-folk and the furthest of them from knowledge and divine certainty (gnosis) seeking refuge at the room of the Prophet (i.e. his resting place), may God send his peace and blessings upon him, and they do not go beyond asking for intercession and his being a medium, “Oh Prophet, intercede on behalf of us. Oh God, by the blessing of your Prophet, forgive us.”"

(See the whole response here: "Imam al-Jazari [al-Shafi'i] (d. 711 AH) and Imam al-Tufi [al-Hanbali] (d. 716 AH): On seeking aid with the Best of Creation ﷺ and responding to Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) objections")


I say: So this is the type of Istighatha where there is agreement on it's prohibition and that is to ask for things which are known to be specific to Allah ta'ala like forgiveness, sustenance and so on. Note that the one who asks these type of things from the creation while believing that they are able to give them these things themselves has disbelieved by agreement, but if he intends that the creation prays for him, then his act is not allowed and abominable even if it does not put him out of the religion.
.
So when major scholars stated that Istighatha is allowed they were not intending what Imam Ibn Taymiyya was regarding as Shirk in the very first place.

Hope this differentiation is clear enough.

[AmantuBillahi]

Abu Sulayman

So what is your issue with Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab who also considers this last form of Istighatha as Shirk? Have you watched Yasir Qadhi's video on the Najdi Da'wah and his Fatwa on Istighatha? Do you agree with the positions he puts forth in both those videos?

What Shaykh Yasir is claiming is that if one performs last form of Istighatha while believing that Allah has granted the Prophet(saws) the ability to respond then this is merely Haram and doesn't fall under Shirk.

Example: "O' Messenger of Allah(saws), help me find my wallet." If this is done with the intention that Allah has granted the Prophet(saws) the ability to help you from his grave without always having to ask Allah (which would be actually be Shafa'a), then this would fall under the category of Bid'ah and Haram. Now, if the indivudal believed that the Prophet(saws) could help you independently from Allah granting him this ability, then that would fall under Shirk according to the concensus of the Ummah.

Note that Yasir Qadhi attributes this view to the majority of modern and ancient scholars outside of the Najdi movement. He also claimed that this is actually the view of Ibn Taymiyyah and many of the classical Hanbalis themselves.

[AmantuBillahi]

Abu Sulayman

I request that you spare 5 hours from your week and try to watch the following videos:

Yasir Qadhi's Fatwa on Istigatha:

Yasir Qadhi on Istigatha & the Najdi Da'wah:

The second video is technically a response to the amount of criticism he received from the first. Please watch them in full and comment on which aspects you disagree with.

[Abu Sulayman]

Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) wrote Qa'ida Jalila fil Tawassul wal Wasila, where he criticized Tawassul and Tashaffu' as one of the first in Islamic history, which resulted with a huge backlash against him by the rest of the scholars.

Scholars discussed with him because of his position on this issue. Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) (and also others from Ibn Taymiyya's students and their students) reported such an incident in al-Bidaya wal Nihaya. In clarification of his position Ibn Taymiyya stated "Aid is not sought except from Allah, and aid is not sought from the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - with the meaning of worship, rather one performs Tawassul and Tashaffu' with him unto Allah ta'ala."

Note that some of the scholars present did not find anything wrong in what he stated, while others still thought that it lacks the proper decorum with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

He also has a Fatwa (which can be found in Majmu' al-Fatawa), where he states "That which is legislated is to perform Tawwasul through him (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in one's supplication just like it's found in the Hadith reported and authenticated by al-Tirmidhi that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - taught to a person to say 'O Allah, I ask You and approach You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, o Messenger of Allah, I approach my Lord through you in this need of mine, that it be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me.' This Tawassul through him is good (and therefore allowed), but as for calling him and seeking aid through him, then this is forbidden (Haram)...".

Note that the incident mentioned and the Fatwa are both after writing Qa'ida Jalila and that is why I stated that it seems that he actually retracted his view on Tawassul and Tashaffu' and only disallowed Istighatha. And even when it comes to Istighatha, then the type that was allowed by other scholars is not what he regarded as Shirk (rather he disallowed that type only based upon blocking the means), but rather to ask for that which is specific to Allah ta'ala from the creation.

Note that the Shaykh Mustafa al-Shatti al-Hanabli (d. 1348 AH) clarified this issue of Istighatha and what Ibn Taymiyya was actually regarding as a form of Shirk and also hinted towards Ibn Taymiyya's retraction regarding Tawassul and even quoted the Fatwa above.

What the Najdis however did - and this due to their ignorance and extremism - was to take Ibn Taymiyya's views out of their context and mix everything up with their own false ideas and act as if the resulting [mis]understanding in their heads was revelation and then start killing everyone and everything based upon it and even stated that Takfir upon the people of Makka is obligatory in order for one to be Muslim. How they reached such a level of extremism is really beyond me.


Now regarding the ruling of the type of Istighatha that Imam Ibn Taymiyya was actually regarding as Shirk (and as already mentioned: that type is disallowed by everyone), then the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH) actually clarified that it can be Shirk asghar or Shirk akbar based upon the intention (but it's usually Shirk asghar when done by some Muslims out of ignorance and therefore does not through one out of the religion).

Reread this here please:
"'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW"

[AmantuBillahi]

This is another example of Asrar Rashid confirming the same concept:

"I said you cannot make a generalization. This differs from individual to individual because some people will not believe that this Wali is benefitting me, but they will believe that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has given him ability to pray for me in his grave. Now, can a person in the Barzakh have Khabar (information) about his relatives on the outside and their requests for him to make Dua for them? This is something which is debatable; you cannot just declare the person a Mushrik. Yes, you can say they are mistaken. How are they mistaken? A person can go to the grave of a person buried and he can ask him for help with the intention that Allah has granted him the ability (Qudra) -- and a person can respond by saying that you are mistaken and Allah has not given him this ability. But if this person believes that this Wali helps him independently from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, then he has committed Shirk" [1:06:35]

Notice that the Qudrah being referred to is not the Qudrah of merely praying to Allah, but the Qudrah to help you themselves in accordance with the Will and Qadr of Allah.

For example, if I was in front of you right now and you requested me to grab you a cup of water, then I would have the ability to pass you a cup of water without making Du'a to Allah. This is an ability that Allah has granted me which only takes place as a result of His Will and Qadr. I could even reject Allah's existence and still perform this action as long as Allah Wills for it to happen. Similarly, one could ask the Messenger of Allah(saws) for something while believing that he has the Qudrah to grant it to him without the need for the Messenger(saws) to request it from Allah. It is a part of his Barzakh capabilities which are ultimately in the control of Allah(swt) just like everything else.

[AmantuBillahi]

^ Video reference:

Abu Sulayman

[Abu Sulayman]

Abu Sulayman

So what is your issue with Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab who also considers this last form of Istighatha as Shirk? Have you watched Yasir Qadhi's video on the Najdi Da'wah and his Fatwa on Istighatha? Do you agree with the positions he puts forth in both those videos?

What Shaykh Yasir is claiming is that if one performs last form of Istighatha while believing that Allah has granted the Prophet(saws) the ability to respond then this is merely Haram and doesn't fall under Shirk.

Example: "O' Messenger of Allah(saws), help me find my wallet." If this is done with the intention that Allah has granted the Prophet(saws) the ability to help you from his grave without always having to ask Allah (which would be actually be Shafa'a), then this would fall under the category of Bid'ah and Haram. Now, if the indivudal believed that the Prophet(saws) could help you independently from Allah granting him this ability, then that would fall under Shirk according to the concensus of the Ummah.

Note that Yasir Qadhi attributes this view to the majority of modern and ancient scholars outside of the Najdi movement. He also claimed that this is actually the view of Ibn Taymiyyah and many of the classical Hanbalis themselves.

I haven't watched YQ's videos to be honest.

Regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He regards the mere asking for intercession as greater polytheism (and this while this is regarded as something good by all 4 Madhahib during the visitation of the blessed grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!) and he also regards asking that which is NOT specific to Allah ta'ala as greater polytheism. Thereafter he claimed that anyone whom his call (yes his own!) has reached and who does not agree with what he stated is a disbeliever, whose blood is allowed to be spilled.
Imam Ibn Taymiyya did not claim any of this, nor even one tenth of this!


Now let's go back to classical scholars instead of the views of IAW (who is far away from thinking like a scholar anyways):

Take the 'Allama 'Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad al-Mashhur [al-Shafi'i] (d. 1320 AH) - the Faqih of Hadhramawt - and his support for Tawassul and Istighatha in his book Bughyat al-Mustarshidin 4/483-484, where he states "Performing Tawassul (taking means to ones Lord) with the Prophets (Anbiya`) and the Righteous (Awliya`) in their life and after they have passed away is allowed according to the divine law,...The statement of the believer 'O so and so' (Ya Fulan) when in hardship is included in Tawassul with the one called [from the creation] unto Allah ta'ala, and turning the call to [the creation] is done metaphorically and not in reality." and then keeps on how it's intended and that it's allowed.

At the end he quotes the 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi (d. 1194 AH) - the Mufti of the Shafi'iyya in al-Madina al-munawwara - (who was upon the very same view) stating "As for taking the Prophets and the Righteous as means (Tawassul) [to one's Lord], then it's a recommended issue, established by authentic narrations and it has been agreed upon performing it. Rather Tawassul has been established with good deeds even though they're accidents (A'radh), so with selves [or persons] (Dhawat) it's even more [established]!
As for making intermediaries between the slave and his Lord: If he calls them as he calls Allah ta'ala in the issues and he believes that they have [real] influence (Ta`thir) in any issue instead of Allah ta'ala, then this is disbelief (Kufr), but if he intends [performing] Tawassul with them to Allah ta'ala in the fulfillment of his needs while believing that Allah is the one who benefits and harms [in reality] and has [real] influence [alone], then the apparent is that he has not disbelieved, even if that which he's doing is abominable."

Note that his statement "if he calls them as he calls Allah ta'ala in the issues" is very same form of Istighatha, that all agree on disallowing (as already mentioned).

Look at the Tafsil now:
- If the person believes that they (the creation) have [real] influence (Ta`thir) in any issue instead (or even alongside) of Allah ta'ala, then this is disbelief (Kufr)
- But if this person intends [performing] Tawassul with them to Allah ta'ala in the fulfillment of his needs while believing that Allah is the one who benefits and harms [in reality] and has [real] influence [alone], then the apparent is that he has not disbelieved, even if that which he's doing is abominable

(The whole quote can be read here: "OP: Summary of its ruling by 'Allama 'Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad al-Mashhur (d. 1320 AH) and 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi (d. 1194 AH)")


The issue here is not whether the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has the ability to help or not, but rather that some wordings are not befitting of a believer and should not be said, especially when one can use more clear wordings that don't have any wrong implications.
As for the ability of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to help his Umma, then there should be no doubt regarding this and it's established. If Musa (peace be upon him) could help this Umma after having left this life several thousand years ago and if the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) met him in more than one place in the incident of al-Isra` wal Mi'raj, then what about the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?!
This whole imagination as if the Prophets and Messengers of Allah (peace be upon them) are somehow imprisoned to a specific place (meaning: their graves) after their death is nothing but a Najdi imagination. Do you know that neither Imam Ibn Taymiyya nor his foremost student has such a wrong imagination?
In fact different classical scholars (including Ibn Taymiyya's foremost student, if I remember correctly!) mentioned that the martyrs have been seen fighting the disbelievers even after their death! So what about the Prophets and the Messengers of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them), who are alive in their graves even after their death?!

[AmantuBillahi]

I haven't watched YQ's videos to be honest.

I would urge you to watch them when you find the time inshaAllah. Esspecially the second video on Istigatha and the Najdi Da'wah.

Let me just asking you directly what is your view on the following scenario: Someone says, "O' Messenger of Allah(saws), help me find my wallet." The person making this request believes that Allah has granted the Prophet(saws) the ability to hear him from distances and answer his requests without the need for the Prophet(saws) to make Du'a to Allah.

It is similiar to the example in post #129 of asking someone in front of you for water. The person being asked doesn't need to raise his hands to Allah and request for the action to be fulfilled. Allah has granted him the means to perform this action which is ultimately achieved through the Will and Qadr of Allah.

Yasir Qadhi's position is that this is Bid'ah and Haram but doesn't constitute Shirk. Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab would claim that this is the Du'a of worship and therefore resulting in Shirk.

[AmantuBillahi]

[aboosait]

.............. The shirk that the pagans commit in rububiyyah cancel out any tawheed that they had in rububiyyah.

Allah Subhanahu wa ta 'alaa has explicitly mentioned their towheed ruhubiah in the quran. How could you cancel it out?

[AdoonkaAlle]

Allah Subhanahu wa ta 'alaa has explicitly mentioned their towheed ruhubiah in the quran. How could you cancel it out?

Allah has never affirmed tawheed to the pagans, this is a distorted view propagated by salafis. How can Allah affirm tawheed rububiyyah to people who commit shirk is his Rububiyyah ? You just read fatwas from islamqa & islamweb stating that the pagans committed shirk in rububiyyah ? The quote from islamqa is very explicit about this, yet you continue to ignore this completely

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).

Tawheed and shirk negate each other, how is it possible to affirm both for anyone ?

Look at what Allah says about the pagans for denying resurrection

And if you are astonished,[O Muḥammad] - then astonishing is their saying, "When we are dust, will we indeed be [brought] into a new creation?" Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.

Allah is informing us that they have disbelieved for denying resurrection, now how can tawheed be ascribed to them after committing kufr ? kufr like shirk negates tawheed, it's impossible that they can coexist with tawheed in any form.