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

  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Salam alaykum.

    Yeah it seems there is misunderstanding of terminologies.

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

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

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Abu Sulayman jazakallah khayr.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu Sulayman
    replied
    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
    As for the issue of independence and dependence:

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

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

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

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

    Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    - end of quote -



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

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

    - end of quote -


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

    Leave a comment:


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

    As for the belief of the Makkan pagans:

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

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

    As for the issue of independence and dependence:

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    ​​​​​​





    Leave a comment:


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

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

    - Absolute independence requires no dependence of any sort. Mushrikeen believed their gods-angels = Laat Uzza Manat as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). How can the Mushrikeen affirm absolute independence when the very notion of being His daughters indicates dependence on father for existance?

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

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

    ​​

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post


    The statement from imam tabari establishes that the pagans believed their gods were independent bi dhaati. Now this statement of his completely contradicts your claim that they believed their gods had independence only bi ithinihi and not bi dhaati. According to the imam the pagans believed that their gods had the power to benefit and harm independently from Allah meaning the source of their power didn't come from Allah, this is clear cut shirk and i don't understand how you can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point



    According to you pagans believed their gods were independent bi-iznihi ta'ala and this is shirk, what about independence bi zaati ? isn't shirk as well ? how can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point ? It's why i told your analogy was completely flawed by making comparisons between human action and actions of a god.


    Regarding the talbiyah of the pagans , what did their gods own ? The things which their idols owned were the things which the pagans brought to them. Allah tells us In 6:136 that they assigned a portion of what He created of crops and livestock to their gods but what is for their gods does not reach Allah, while what is for Allah reaches their gods. So they were lying when they claimed that Allah owned what their partners owned. Proving that their gods were not dependent on Allah
    Once Ilahiyyah or Rububiyyah is affirmed ... Then to affirm a attribute or all of them bi zaatihi or bi iznihi is major shirk. If Mushriks believe ilah is confined limited born dependent ... Or even if they affirm notions opposite such as unlimited eternal independent ... Nothing will change their major shirk to tawheed because ... Ilahiyyah is affirmed explicitly. In absence of explicit belief of ilahiyyah for creation we have to infer ilahiyyah from other beliefs. I already used atheist as example. They have no belief in god but their belief universe self created it out of nothing or eternally existed proves their shirk. In other words their beleif universe is source of its own existance i. E. bi zaatihi establishes they affirmed for it trait of Ilah so we charge them of major shirk due ilahiyyah being affirmed for creation.

    bi iznihi and bi zaatihi efffects and change a belief from tawheed/shirk in absence of clear emphatic affirmation of ilahiyyah. But wen clear ilahiyyah rububiyyah is affirmed for creation neither iznihi removes this shirk nor bi iznihi adds more shirk to it ... This is a misconceptions which salafis have and youre asking me same as if i am salafi.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdoonkaAlle
    replied
    Originally posted by SkippedPath View Post
    AdoonkaAlle

    You wrote:

    "One of the counterarguments salafis bring forth to prove that the pagans of quraysh didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods is to show that the pagans believed their worship of their gods happened by the approval and will of Allah. That this recognition which they affirmed for Allah together with their talbiyah proves that they didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods, but the important question that needs answering is this. does believing in a subordinate or an independent god beside Allah negate the shirk of ascribing an ilah to Allah?

    I took your words from, here. You yourself believe Talbiya establishes dependence upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and not independence seven months downs the line you're saying Mushrikeen believed in independence of their gods from Allah. Brother I sincerely advise you to withdraw. Save mine and your exchanges. Wait few months. Few weekd if not months, and re-read what I wrote and what you wrote but read what i wrote first and then re-read the entire exchange. Things will become clear. You're confusing yourself. You need to take step back and look from afar not from within the crowd.

    In, What Is Ibadah, thread that i keep referring to, there was 200 some pages and it was going strong. Why? Because everyone was expert at the subject.Brother Abu Sulayman was part of that discussion too. I joined in cause i was told to join by a Sunni. Istiqlal was the core subject Salafis were peddling total complete independence like you said abve and Sunnis were establishing dependence. I have some 35 articles on Tawheed/Shirk some short, some very very comprehensive regarding methodology of establishing Tawheed Shirk of a belief. These would help you a lot. Start systematic study. Don't jump into deep waters without learning the swimming you will drown. I am not saying you don't have knowledge I am saying you havent studied Tawheed Shirk principally. I linked you some articles have read of them, better if you study em.

    After you come back and you still feel the need for discussion on this subject we will go on.
    This is the 2nd time you're jumping to conclusions about me without actually taking the time to read what my actual views are. On page 2 of the same thread i stated the following at #19


    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post

    Without a doubt the pagans believed their gods had independent powers but i was trying to look at the opposite view that salafis claim. Even if we assume for arguments sake that the pagans believed the powers of their gods came from Allah, does it change anything ? does shirk only occur when they believe their gods act outside of Allah's will ? The pagans worshipped their gods alongside Allah with the belief that it happens by the Will of Allah but despite this fact this act of theirs is still considered to be shirk. So what about believing that their gods had powers and acted on them by the Will of Allah ?

    Believing and affirming gods alongside Allah will always be shirk, it doesn't matter whether one believes the god(s) in question is either independent from or dependent on Allah.


    I also have no idea where you keep on referencing what is ibadah thread as I've never read it , the first time i had a discussion with Abu Sulayman was regarding the topic of rububiyyah.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdoonkaAlle
    replied
    Originally posted by SkippedPath View Post

    @AdoonkaAlle

    Salam alaykum.

    My apologies. I mistook your rhetorical tone as questioning to cast doubt. I also interpreted your statement in wider context of brother Abu Sulayman's statement

    "Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusice in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to ..."

    And now if you read your statement in this context:

    "That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves?"

    It becomes obvious why I thought you was misunderstanding. After you pointed out that you're not Salafi I kind of re-read everything and noted you wrote above specificly in context of text you highlighted and not generally what you quoted. It would have helped if you have referenced 'you' in your statement to specific in your mind because unspecified i.e. 'you' contextually seemed to be directing criticism at brother Abu Sulayman. And after your correction I figured this 'you' is directed toward a person of specific sect, or toward a sect.

    Anyhow fault is mine because I didn't look into context of discussion instead jumped on what i read but all was not at loss because through my mistake I explained brother Abu Sulayman's points which am sure he explained already.

    I will explain why Sunnis (Ashari/Maturidi) theologians charge Mushrikeen of affirming absolute independence for gods in a bit. In fact I do it now. It is because of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Once you attribute Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to a creation, to any creation, then by default even if Mushrik doesn't believe in absolute independence (istiqlal), beginningless, eternalness, Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Muhaal ul-Fana etc. Even in the absence of these beliefs Mushrik is guilty of these because he/she has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for a creation. In other words they have unknowingly, unwillingly, rather stupidly equalled a creation in his Zaat, Sifaat to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). You might question, how come they guilty of this when they don't believe it? Well look at it from another perspective. An atheist who doesn't believe there is a God, or any god, he believes universe came out of nothing, or it always existed. Atheist is technically a Mushrik even though he don't believe in a God, or any god. It is because he has indirectly affirmed for creation an attribute which is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) i.e. self -existance.Inferrence. and methodology of Ahlus Sunnah establishes that Mushrikeen are not only guilty of affirming absolute independence of their gods but d they are also guilty of absolute equality of their gods with Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). The need here is to make distinction between what the Mushrikeen actually believed in regards to their gods and what their belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods warrants in methodology and principles of Ahlus Sunnah.



    Take from my article: Understanding Of Different Types Of Shirk In Islamic Theology.

    This doesn't exactly go with what I stated but it states the principle, if attribute of Allah is given to creation then creation is made Allah. And of creation is believed to be Allah then attributes of Allah are by defaulted warranted in methodology and belief of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. In context, Ilahiyyah warrants absolute independence so Mushrik were guilty of affirming absolute independence even though they did not believe this. We say Christians are affirming three gods and therefore they are Mushriks but they believe they are monotheists because Jesus ghost father are one and the same but distinct. We judge them to be Mushrik based on our methodology and teachings and not what they affirmed. In the same way we say Mushriks were guilty of affirming absolute independence because they affirmed Ilahiyyah for their gods but they didn't affirm it. So what the Quran says in refutation of Mushriks and it indicate they affirmed independence etc. Quran is not stating this is what they beleived but they become gujilty of due to affirming certain Shirki beliefs. So even though they said we dont believe independence Quran establishes they affirmed independence.

    On IslamicAwakening forum in thread, what is Ibadah, vast majority of discussion revolved around inferred absolute equality resulting from affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for false gods which is inclusive of istiqlal (independence). And it revolved around what Mushrikeen actually affirmed with their tongue and believed in their hearts. I did my best to intervene between both Salafi and Sunni side and clarify to both sides what actually issue is but no one paid attention to the idiot telling people to stop and listen.and it is unlikely anyone pay heed to idiot some 9 years later. I have been embroiled in debates discussions for past two and half years and before that I wrote articles explaining methodology of Ahlus Sunnah.

    You wrote:

    "Firstly i think you got me confused as i don't subscribe to the salafi creed never have actually, tbh i'm puzzled why you would think that considering my stance is very explicit. Secondly your analogy of using human action has a very flawed premise in that humans and god(s) are not beings of equal stature. A god possess unique qualities unlike that of humans, one such quality is that of being independent and having the authority and will to carry out any actions without any limitation."

    Brother you're making assumptions about beliefs held by people about their gods. What your ideal of god is not necessarily ideal cherished by Hindus, or Greeks, or Romans, Chineses civilisation. Yes our ideal of God is of total absolute independence. Totally independent of any need to have god/gods partners and independent of His creation. This is our ideal. Why are you assuming our ideal is shared by everyone. Hindus believe their god Rama, or Krishna which ever it was, was tricked to chase a buck/deer and Ravana/demon sneaked in his house house and kidnapped their gods wife and kept her in his residence in what is now Sri Lanka for 11 long years. Their god was unable to rescue his wife so he got help from Hannuman/monkey-god and his monkey army. This monkey god and his army used stones built a land connection to Sri Lanka a great battle ensued and finally their god got his wife back. That demonstrates Mushrikeen had pretty standard folklore about their abilities and inabilities of their gods. How independent does he has to be to actually be able to get his own wife back and have to get help of monkeys to get her back. Not very independent. You need to make distinction between what the Mushriks believed and what they become guilty of from Islamic perspective due to what they beleive.

    You wrote:

    "The mushrikeen believed that their idols could benefit & harm without the Will of Allah and the reason for this was because they believed their idols possessed the quality of being independent to act on their own. Just like the same way we believe that Allah is independent and acts according to His Will, this is what the mushriks believed about their gods. The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi."

    Yes they beleived their gods could benefit harm no denial but they believed they have been given certain independence in decision making. Allamah Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah) major scholar of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah from Pakistan. I am Hanafi, Maturidi, and Barelwi. The Allamah I referenced clearly stated in is Maqalat volume one, page 30, under heading, Zeroorat e Tawheed i.e. The Need Of Tawheed. That Mushriks believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted certain righteous persons Ulluhiyyah. This Allamah is equivlent of Ghumari brothers (Allah be pleased with them) , and equivlent of Shaykh Muhammad Alawi al-Makki (rhaimullah). Shaykh is known due to his learning and is commonly called, [Imam] Ghazali of time i.e. Ghazali e Zaman. Mushrikeen did not believe their gods created themselves, existed from eternity. True or No! Then how can they be affirming absolute independence? Absolute independence requires no dependence of any sort. Mushrikeen believed Laat Uzza Manat as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). How can the Mushrikeen affirm absolute independence when the very notion of being His daughters indicates dependence.You have to judge the belief of Mushrikeen based on what they believed and judge what they became guilty of due to their belief. You have to keep what you deduce in light of Islamic teachings seperate from what the Mushriks actually beleived with their own mouths. Like I said before they affirmed independence of their gods in confines set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Make distinction between what they profess with their tongues like you do with Christians and the judgment you make about their belief in light of Islamic teaching of Tawheed/Shirk. Keep the two seperate.

    You wrote:

    "
    The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi.""

    Can you tell me incidents references in which the Mushrikeen believed their gods went against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), or said they can go against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).

    With regards to following statement of Tabari: "
    So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”" There are two things clear, no Mushrik was stupid enough to believe the stone benefits and harms by itself. I think Tabari was making reference to god which represented the idol. That the Mushrikeen beleived their gods benefitted/harmed by-self. Idols were used was Qibla of worship by some and in belief of other idols were object of worship. Objective in both cases was to get benefit avert harm, or inflict harm get benefit. Once again this is not conclusive. Just as we are bi-zaatihi able to inflict harm and benefit yet ... I have already said this.

    You wrote:

    "How can the pagans believe that their idols possessed independence only in will but not ability? Having an Independent will is a result of having an independent attribute the 2 are connected to each other. Negating Allah's Will/permission automatically establishes independent attributes to the deity one worships, take chrisitians for example they believe that Nabi Isa performed miracles in and of himself not because he carried them out with the permission of Allah like we muslims believe. That's why when people ascribe rububiyyah to other than Allah they automatically negate Allah's authority & will while establishing it to other than Allah"

    I cant figure out how any of this goes against confined independence.

    You wrote:

    "Secondly there's a mistake in your understanding regarding the talbiyah & the verses that you quoted. In the talbiyah there's an obvious contradiction of what they used to chant and in 30:28 Allah uses that parable to address and refute the contradiction. The pagans say that Allah has partners that He owned, in 30:28 Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal. In the parable the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned. Allah is telling them that : None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah? At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’ A slave has no power of his own, owns nothing and is dependent on his master while a partner is independent and can do what he wills with his wealth etc. So one can not be a partner and a slave at the time it's simply a contradiction."

    Of course that is the case, in Hadith it is narrated what the Mushriks beleived and in Ayah their belief is refuted. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is logical and rationally pointing faults in their beliefs.

    You misunderstood my intent why i employed the verse, it was to caroborate what is found in the Hadith i.e. Mushriks believed gods are owned subject to authority of Allah. Even though the verse refutes what they believe it does make reference to what they believed implicitly:
    “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28] “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.”The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] And I was only coroborating Hadith in case you turn around and say Hadith is Daif because Shaykh al-Bani said it. Lol. Point was Mushrikeen beleived independence in confines of dependence. So verses Ahadith which indicate independence should be understood what is established from this Hadith/verse of dependence also. And through these we establish two sides of coin. independence in confine of dependency.

    The statement from imam tabari establishes that the pagans believed their gods were independent bi dhaati. Now this statement of his completely contradicts your claim that they believed their gods had independence only bi ithinihi and not bi dhaati. According to the imam the pagans believed that their gods had the power to benefit and harm independently from Allah meaning the source of their power didn't come from Allah, this is clear cut shirk and i don't understand how you can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point

    Just as we are bi-zaatihi able to inflict harm and benefit yet ... I have already said this.
    According to you pagans believed their gods were independent bi-iznihi ta'ala and this is shirk, what about independence bi zaati ? isn't shirk as well ? how can even draw a similarity between their belief and ours on this point ? It's why i told your analogy was completely flawed by making comparisons between human action and actions of a god.


    Regarding the talbiyah of the pagans , what did their gods own ? The things which their idols owned were the things which the pagans brought to them. Allah tells us In 6:136 that they assigned a portion of what He created of crops and livestock to their gods but what is for their gods does not reach Allah, while what is for Allah reaches their gods. So they were lying when they claimed that Allah owned what their partners owned. Proving that their gods were not dependent on Allah





    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    AdoonkaAlle

    You wrote:

    "One of the counterarguments salafis bring forth to prove that the pagans of quraysh didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods is to show that the pagans believed their worship of their gods happened by the approval and will of Allah. That this recognition which they affirmed for Allah together with their talbiyah proves that they didn't ascribe independent powers to their gods, but the important question that needs answering is this. does believing in a subordinate or an independent god beside Allah negate the shirk of ascribing an ilah to Allah?

    I took your words from, here. You yourself believe Talbiya establishes dependence upon Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and not independence seven months downs the line you're saying Mushrikeen believed in independence of their gods from Allah. Brother I sincerely advise you to withdraw. Save mine and your exchanges. Wait few months. Few weekd if not months, and re-read what I wrote and what you wrote but read what i wrote first and then re-read the entire exchange. Things will become clear. You're confusing yourself. You need to take step back and look from afar not from within the crowd.

    In, What Is Ibadah, thread that i keep referring to, there was 200 some pages and it was going strong. Why? Because everyone was expert at the subject.Brother Abu Sulayman was part of that discussion too. I joined in cause i was told to join by a Sunni. Istiqlal was the core subject Salafis were peddling total complete independence like you said abve and Sunnis were establishing dependence. I have some 35 articles on Tawheed/Shirk some short, some very very comprehensive regarding methodology of establishing Tawheed Shirk of a belief. These would help you a lot. Start systematic study. Don't jump into deep waters without learning the swimming you will drown. I am not saying you don't have knowledge I am saying you havent studied Tawheed Shirk principally. I linked you some articles have read of them, better if you study em.

    After you come back and you still feel the need for discussion on this subject we will go on.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied


    @AdoonkaAlle

    Salam alaykum.

    My apologies. I mistook your rhetorical tone as questioning to cast doubt. I also interpreted your statement in wider context of brother Abu Sulayman's statement

    "Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusice in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to ..."

    And now if you read your statement in this context:

    "That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves?"

    It becomes obvious why I thought you was misunderstanding. After you pointed out that you're not Salafi I kind of re-read everything and noted you wrote above specificly in context of text you highlighted and not generally what you quoted. It would have helped if you have referenced 'you' in your statement to specific in your mind because unspecified i.e. 'you' contextually seemed to be directing criticism at brother Abu Sulayman. And after your correction I figured this 'you' is directed toward a person of specific sect, or toward a sect.

    Anyhow fault is mine because I didn't look into context of discussion instead jumped on what i read but all was not at loss because through my mistake I explained brother Abu Sulayman's points which am sure he explained already.

    I will explain why Sunnis (Ashari/Maturidi) theologians charge Mushrikeen of affirming absolute independence for gods in a bit. In fact I do it now. It is because of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Once you attribute Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to a creation, to any creation, then by default even if Mushrik doesn't believe in absolute independence (istiqlal), beginningless, eternalness, Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Muhaal ul-Fana etc. Even in the absence of these beliefs Mushrik is guilty of these because he/she has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for a creation. In other words they have unknowingly, unwillingly, rather stupidly equalled a creation in his Zaat, Sifaat to Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). You might question, how come they guilty of this when they don't believe it? Well look at it from another perspective. An atheist who doesn't believe there is a God, or any god, he believes universe came out of nothing, or it always existed. Atheist is technically a Mushrik even though he don't believe in a God, or any god. It is because he has indirectly affirmed for creation an attribute which is unique for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) i.e. self -existance.Inferrence. and methodology of Ahlus Sunnah establishes that Mushrikeen are not only guilty of affirming absolute independence of their gods but d they are also guilty of absolute equality of their gods with Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). The need here is to make distinction between what the Mushrikeen actually believed in regards to their gods and what their belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods warrants in methodology and principles of Ahlus Sunnah.

    Being, Attributes And Actions:

    All living creatures have three essentials, Zaat (i.e. physical being - body), Sifat (i.e. attributes – hearing, seeing), and A’faal (i.e. actions). Attributes/Actions cannot exist without and independent of the Zaat but the Zaat can exist without and independent of attributes/actions.[2] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has Zaat [which befits His majestay], Sifaat [which befit His majestay] and A’afal [which befit His majestay] but not like His creation. One cannot legitimately separate the attribute/attributes or action/actions from the being of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). If attribute/action is removed from the Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then Zaat has lacks the removed attribute/action. Attribute/action cannot exist independent of the Zaat and if one believes attribute exists independent of Zaat then automatically that attribute/action is a separate Zaat and no longer part of original. Hence Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) should not be distinguished in a fashion that His attributes/actions become gods independent of Him or existing independent of Him. A mans attributes/actions are actions/attributes of the physical body therefore any increase in strenth of attributes is increase in ability of body. Point is attributes/actions exist in Zaat as such when Shirk in Sifaat or A’faal is warranted then automatically Shirk of Zaat is also warranted.
    ...
    How Shirk Of Zaat Is Warranted:

    Apart from the above mentioned occasions generaly when ever Shirk of Sifaat or Shirk of A’fal occurs Shirk of Zaat is automatically warranted. Suppose y creation is believed to possess attribute of all-seeing – just like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is all-seeing, then one who believes y possesses the all-seeing attribute has committed major Shirk in attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Attributes are part of physical being or Zaat of a creature and if one possesses great attributes then these great attributes also elivate his Zaat by bringing prestiege. Apart from the physical appearance character of a person is juged on merits, qualities and attributes. Better the merits, qualities attributes more superior the Zaat of person will be judged and better the qualities and merits superior the person will be. If a attribute of the God is given to a creation then that merit, quality, attribute will elivate that Zaat to status of god-hood. The attribute of all-seeing maybe the only attribute which one ascribed to the being but fact remains the physical being of y is said to possess the attribute of all-seeing. Hence the physical-being/Zaat of y has also been elivated to status of god-hood due to one godly attribute/quality being attributed to y.
    Take from my article: Understanding Of Different Types Of Shirk In Islamic Theology.

    This doesn't exactly go with what I stated but it states the principle, if attribute of Allah is given to creation then creation is made Allah. And of creation is believed to be Allah then attributes of Allah are by defaulted warranted in methodology and belief of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. In context, Ilahiyyah warrants absolute independence so Mushrik were guilty of affirming absolute independence even though they did not believe this. We say Christians are affirming three gods and therefore they are Mushriks but they believe they are monotheists because Jesus ghost father are one and the same but distinct. We judge them to be Mushrik based on our methodology and teachings and not what they affirmed. In the same way we say Mushriks were guilty of affirming absolute independence because they affirmed Ilahiyyah for their gods but they didn't affirm it. So what the Quran says in refutation of Mushriks and it indicate they affirmed independence etc. Quran is not stating this is what they beleived but they become gujilty of due to affirming certain Shirki beliefs. So even though they said we dont believe independence Quran establishes they affirmed independence.

    On IslamicAwakening forum in thread, what is Ibadah, vast majority of discussion revolved around inferred absolute equality resulting from affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for false gods which is inclusive of istiqlal (independence). And it revolved around what Mushrikeen actually affirmed with their tongue and believed in their hearts. I did my best to intervene between both Salafi and Sunni side and clarify to both sides what actually issue is but no one paid attention to the idiot telling people to stop and listen.and it is unlikely anyone pay heed to idiot some 9 years later. I have been embroiled in debates discussions for past two and half years and before that I wrote articles explaining methodology of Ahlus Sunnah.

    You wrote:

    "Firstly i think you got me confused as i don't subscribe to the salafi creed never have actually, tbh i'm puzzled why you would think that considering my stance is very explicit. Secondly your analogy of using human action has a very flawed premise in that humans and god(s) are not beings of equal stature. A god possess unique qualities unlike that of humans, one such quality is that of being independent and having the authority and will to carry out any actions without any limitation."

    Brother you're making assumptions about beliefs held by people about their gods. What your ideal of god is not necessarily ideal cherished by Hindus, or Greeks, or Romans, Chineses civilisation. Yes our ideal of God is of total absolute independence. Totally independent of any need to have god/gods partners and independent of His creation. This is our ideal. Why are you assuming our ideal is shared by everyone. Hindus believe their god Rama, or Krishna which ever it was, was tricked to chase a buck/deer and Ravana/demon sneaked in his house house and kidnapped their gods wife and kept her in his residence in what is now Sri Lanka for 11 long years. Their god was unable to rescue his wife so he got help from Hannuman/monkey-god and his monkey army. This monkey god and his army used stones built a land connection to Sri Lanka a great battle ensued and finally their god got his wife back. That demonstrates Mushrikeen had pretty standard folklore about their abilities and inabilities of their gods. How independent does he has to be to actually be able to get his own wife back and have to get help of monkeys to get her back. Not very independent. You need to make distinction between what the Mushriks believed and what they become guilty of from Islamic perspective due to what they beleive.

    You wrote:

    "The mushrikeen believed that their idols could benefit & harm without the Will of Allah and the reason for this was because they believed their idols possessed the quality of being independent to act on their own. Just like the same way we believe that Allah is independent and acts according to His Will, this is what the mushriks believed about their gods. The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi."

    Yes they beleived their gods could benefit harm no denial but they believed they have been given certain independence in decision making. Allamah Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah) major scholar of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah from Pakistan. I am Hanafi, Maturidi, and Barelwi. The Allamah I referenced clearly stated in is Maqalat volume one, page 30, under heading, Zeroorat e Tawheed i.e. The Need Of Tawheed. That Mushriks believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) granted certain righteous persons Ulluhiyyah. This Allamah is equivlent of Ghumari brothers (Allah be pleased with them) , and equivlent of Shaykh Muhammad Alawi al-Makki (rhaimullah). Shaykh is known due to his learning and is commonly called, [Imam] Ghazali of time i.e. Ghazali e Zaman. Mushrikeen did not believe their gods created themselves, existed from eternity. True or No! Then how can they be affirming absolute independence? Absolute independence requires no dependence of any sort. Mushrikeen believed Laat Uzza Manat as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). How can the Mushrikeen affirm absolute independence when the very notion of being His daughters indicates dependence.You have to judge the belief of Mushrikeen based on what they believed and judge what they became guilty of due to their belief. You have to keep what you deduce in light of Islamic teachings seperate from what the Mushriks actually beleived with their own mouths. Like I said before they affirmed independence of their gods in confines set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Make distinction between what they profess with their tongues like you do with Christians and the judgment you make about their belief in light of Islamic teaching of Tawheed/Shirk. Keep the two seperate.

    You wrote:

    "
    The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi.""

    Can you tell me incidents references in which the Mushrikeen believed their gods went against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala), or said they can go against the will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).

    With regards to following statement of Tabari: "
    So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”" There are two things clear, no Mushrik was stupid enough to believe the stone benefits and harms by itself. I think Tabari was making reference to god which represented the idol. That the Mushrikeen beleived their gods benefitted/harmed by-self. Idols were used was Qibla of worship by some and in belief of other idols were object of worship. Objective in both cases was to get benefit avert harm, or inflict harm get benefit. Once again this is not conclusive. Just as we are bi-zaatihi able to inflict harm and benefit yet ... I have already said this.

    You wrote:

    "How can the pagans believe that their idols possessed independence only in will but not ability? Having an Independent will is a result of having an independent attribute the 2 are connected to each other. Negating Allah's Will/permission automatically establishes independent attributes to the deity one worships, take chrisitians for example they believe that Nabi Isa performed miracles in and of himself not because he carried them out with the permission of Allah like we muslims believe. That's why when people ascribe rububiyyah to other than Allah they automatically negate Allah's authority & will while establishing it to other than Allah"

    I cant figure out how any of this goes against confined independence.

    You wrote:

    "Secondly there's a mistake in your understanding regarding the talbiyah & the verses that you quoted. In the talbiyah there's an obvious contradiction of what they used to chant and in 30:28 Allah uses that parable to address and refute the contradiction. The pagans say that Allah has partners that He owned, in 30:28 Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal. In the parable the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned. Allah is telling them that : None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah? At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’ A slave has no power of his own, owns nothing and is dependent on his master while a partner is independent and can do what he wills with his wealth etc. So one can not be a partner and a slave at the time it's simply a contradiction."

    Of course that is the case, in Hadith it is narrated what the Mushriks beleived and in Ayah their belief is refuted. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is logical and rationally pointing faults in their beliefs.

    You misunderstood my intent why i employed the verse, it was to caroborate what is found in the Hadith i.e. Mushriks believed gods are owned subject to authority of Allah. Even though the verse refutes what they believe it does make reference to what they believed implicitly:
    “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28] “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.”The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] And I was only coroborating Hadith in case you turn around and say Hadith is Daif because Shaykh al-Bani said it. Lol. Point was Mushrikeen beleived independence in confines of dependence. So verses Ahadith which indicate independence should be understood what is established from this Hadith/verse of dependence also. And through these we establish two sides of coin. independence in confine of dependency.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdoonkaAlle
    replied
    Originally posted by SkippedPath View Post
    So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”

    ----------------

    Brother this statement does not mean Mushrikeen believed their gods were totally completely absolutely independent of Allah. Amr slaps you. I believe he independently slapped you i.e. harmed you. And Bakr comes and puts ice on your bruised face. And I believe Bakr did benefit independently. Do you really believe i believe harm/benefit of Bakr/Amr was independent of Allahs granted power, means and permission?

    Mushrikeen believed in independence for their gods but in confines set by Allah. Just like you're independent but in confines set by Allah. You're independent to do certain things like slaping me, working, sitting standing, running, walking. But are you free to grant paradise and hell and treasures of earth to whom ever you please. Are you indepent enough to make rain?

    The Kamis of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) if it didnt benefit or bring benefit why was it sent to prophet Yaqub? Is it because Allah couldnt restore eye sight without the kamis? Or is it because tabarruqaat of Anbiyah are means of His mercy. Hajr al-Aswad by itself does nothing it is a stone but it is associated with people of worth and due to that association Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) benefits through it - i.e. expiation of sins. Mushrikeen believed benefit harm comes from their idols/gods which is wrong. There is clearly a difference.

    Stop reading everything through pin hole of Wahhabism you will never see the light of day like this. Your hereafter is in your own hand. You have one chance to make it right or blindly follow. Don't put too much faith in Abdullahs Arabic knowledge, elequent speech. There will be 72 sects. All confident they are upon Quran/Sunnah.and guidance because they can speak read write ARabic but will enter in hell. One group of truth has always existed and will continue to exist till the day of judgment. Strive to find it.

    Firstly i think you got me confused as i don't subscribe to the salafi creed never have actually, tbh i'm puzzled why you would think that considering my stance is very explicit. Secondly your analogy of using human action has a very flawed premise in that humans and god(s) are not beings of equal stature. A god possess unique qualities unlike that of humans, one such quality is that of being independent and having the authority and will to carry out any actions without any limitation.

    The mushrikeen believed that their idols could benefit & harm without the Will of Allah and the reason for this was because they believed their idols possessed the quality of being independent to act on their own. Just like the same way we believe that Allah is independent and acts according to His Will, this is what the mushriks believed about their gods. The independence here is absolute otherwise it wouldn't be possible for them to go against Allah's Will, tabari's statement confirms this as he says it was بذاته bi dhaatihi


    How can the pagans believe that their idols possessed independence only in will but not ability ?Having an Independent will is a result of having an independent attribute the 2 are connected to each other. Negating Allah's Will/permission automatically establishes independent attributes to the deity one worships, take chrisitians for example they believe that Nabi Isa performed miracles in and of himself not because he carried them out with the permission of Allah like we muslims believe. That's why when people ascribe rububiyyah to other than Allah they automatically negate Allah's authority & will while establishing it to other than Allah


    Secondly there's a mistake in your understanding regarding the talbiyah & the verses that you quoted. In the talbiyah there's an obvious contradiction of what they used to chant and in 30:28 Allah uses that parable to address and refute the contradiction. The pagans say that Allah has partners that He owned, in 30:28 Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal. In the parable the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned

    Allah is telling them that : None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah?"



    At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’


    A slave has no power of his own, owns nothing and is dependent on his master while a partner is independent and can do what he wills with his wealth etc. So one can not be a partner and a slave at the time it's simply a contradiction.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Typing error - wrong:

    "Islamicly/Muslimicly Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't need dependent or independent gods there are such gods as partners with him.

    Corrected:

    Islamicly/Muslimicly Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't need dependent or independent gods NOR there are such gods as partners with him.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”

    ----------------

    Brother this statement does not mean Mushrikeen believed their gods were totally completely absolutely independent of Allah. Amr slaps you. I believe he independently slapped you i.e. harmed you. And Bakr comes and puts ice on your bruised face. And I believe Bakr did benefit independently. Do you really believe i believe harm/benefit of Bakr/Amr was independent of Allahs granted power, means and permission?

    Mushrikeen believed in independence for their gods but in confines set by Allah. Just like you're independent but in confines set by Allah. You're independent to do certain things like slaping me, working, sitting standing, running, walking. But are you free to grant paradise and hell and treasures of earth to whom ever you please. Are you indepent enough to make rain?

    The Kamis of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) if it didnt benefit or bring benefit why was it sent to prophet Yaqub? Is it because Allah couldnt restore eye sight without the kamis? Or is it because tabarruqaat of Anbiyah are means of His mercy. Hajr al-Aswad by itself does nothing it is a stone but it is associated with people of worth and due to that association Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) benefits through it - i.e. expiation of sins. Mushrikeen believed benefit harm comes from their idols/gods which is wrong. There is clearly a difference.

    Stop reading everything through pin hole of Wahhabism you will never see the light of day like this. Your hereafter is in your own hand. You have one chance to make it right or blindly follow. Don't put too much faith in Abdullahs Arabic knowledge, elequent speech. There will be 72 sects. All confident they are upon Quran/Sunnah.and guidance because they can speak read write ARabic but will enter in hell. One group of truth has always existed and will continue to exist till the day of judgment. Strive to find it.








    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
    Abu Sulayman

    Just wanted to share with you some statements from ibn hajar al asqalani regarding his commentary on the hadith of the black stone. In his explanation of the hadith he cites tabari, who says

    قال الطبري : إنما قال ذلك عمر لأن الناس كانوا حديثي عهد بعبادة الأصنام ، فخشي عمر أن يظن الجهال أن استلام الحجر من باب تعظيم بعض الأحجار كما كانت العرب تفعل في الجاهلية ، فأراد عمر أن يعلم الناس أن استلامه اتباع لفعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، لا لأن الحجر ينفع ويضر بذاته كما كانت الجاهلية تعتقده في الأوثان ،
    al tabari said, “ʿUmar only said this because the people were close to the era of Idol-Worshipping; so he feared that the ignorant ones would think that kissing the Black Stone is one of the acts of reverence for some of the stones, as the Arabs used to do in the Jāhilīyah.

    So ʿUmar intended to teach people that kissing the Black Stone is actually just obeying the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, not that the Stone could benefit or harm in and of itself , as the Mushrikin used to believe about their Idols.”


    عمر رضي الله عنه أنه جاء إلى الحجر الأسود فقبله فقال إني أعلم أنك حجر لا تضر ولا تنفع ولولا أني رأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقبلك ما قبلتك

    `Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said “No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. And had I not seen Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) kissing you I would not have kissed you.”

    قوله : ( لا تضر ولا تنفع ) أي إلا بإذن الله
    Ibn hajar writes : His statement, “You cannot benefit or harm means: except by the permission of Allah.”

    Imam Tabari confirms that the polytheists did indeed believe that their idols were independent and had their own will separate from Allah. If they believed their idols lacked agency of their own then they wouldn't threaten their idols with the Messenger of Allah , or believe that their idols had the power to avert Allah's punishment, power to grant victories etc.

    The fact that the polytheist believed that Allah needed partners to help Him manage His dominion negates Allah's authority and independence and at the same time establishes the independency of their idols. They believed that Allah was dependent on their idols to run His dominion now how can these same idols be under the complete control & will of Allah if He is dependent on them ? More importantly why would Allah who is Independent need dependent gods?

    source: https://islamweb.net/ar/library/inde...2945&idto=2946
    Brother If Mushrikeen believed their gods were not dependent but independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and they believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) was in fact dependent upon the gods to manage affairs of universe then doesn't this prove Mushrikeen were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah according to your Salafi understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah?

    Secondly you wrote:

    "The fact that the polytheist believed that Allah needed partners to help Him manage His dominion negates Allah's authority and independence and at the same time establishes the independency of their idols. They believed that Allah was dependent on their idols to run His dominion now how can these same idols be under the complete control & will of Allah if He is dependent on them? More importantly why would Allah who is Independent need dependent gods?"

    Brother not all independence is absolute independence. You're independent to do as you please but are you independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'laa). Point is we are not totally dependent nor totally independent. Some dependency exists. Did mushrikeen believe their gods created themselves? No! So even though there is independency there also is dependency. Mushrikeen said:

    “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.”The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671]

    Allah's mastery over their gods means they were subordinate and dependent upon Allah in belief of Mushrikeen. You need to step back from discussion that took place on IslamicAwakening forum in thread, "What Is Ibadah?" You all are still flipping revolving around that discussion. Which Salafi side was totally misunderstanding everything being said just like you're misunderstanding what brother Abu Sulayman is saying here. If Mushrikeen believed their gods were totally independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) even in realm of creation of gods then this belief was Shirk on two accounts, on account of absolute independence and affirmation of Ilahiyyah for a creation. And if they believed their gods were dependent they were still guilty of major Shirk on account of attributing Ilahiyyah to a creation.

    Here is a verse:

    “He sets forth for you a parable from your own-selves: Do you have partners among those whom your right hands possess (i.e your slaves) to share as equals in the wealth We have bestowed on you whom you fear as you fear each other? Thus do We explain the signs in detail to a people who have sense.” [Ref: 30:28]

    One whom your right hand possesses is he independent? A god whom Allah possesses how can he be independent? What is Allah insinuating in this verse? That the gods of Mushrikeen are independent or dependent in belief of Mushrikeen?


    “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not.” [Ref: 16:75]

    This is parable of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and gods of Mushirkeen. Mushrikeen attributed dependence upon their gods in some instances and independence in other cases but they did not believe their gods were independent bi-Zaatihi instead they believed their gods were independent bi-iznihi ta'ala. Despite this they were guilty of major Shirk because they had affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods. Even in limited capacity this affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is major Shirk.


    You asked, Why would Allah need dependent gods when he is independent?

    Islamicly/Muslimicly Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) doesn't need dependent or independent gods there are such gods as partners with him. With regards to Mushrikeen. Mushrikeen didn't believe their Allah has to be independent. The total independence from an in-equal god, or equal god is actually belief of Muslims. We believe our Allah is independent. The Mushrikeen believed their god can do with help and it doesn't effect his God-hood thats why they were Kosher in attributing sons, mothers, fathers, daughter,s angels, Jinn as gods. In their believe total absolute independence wasn't essential for Allah's god-hood. In Islam and as Muslims we believe our Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is totally independent of everything He created. It has been roughly ten years since 'What is Ibadah?' discussion and people are still stuck on this topic of dependence and independence. You have to make distinction between Islamic belief of absolute independence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and belief held by polytheists that their gods have limited independence in confines of certain boundaries. And you have to understand that they beleived Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has granted their gods certain liberties to act as they wish. But this does not mean they believed their gods were totatally independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and what He created.

    You need to stop arguing. You're just going round and round and creating more confusion for yourself. Go to this link, and look for the articles on subject of how to establish Tawheed, Shirk. You seriously need to learn methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah to understand what we are tell you. Only way you be able to make sense of things we tell you is if you learn our methodology of determinng Tawheed Shirk. Otherwise there is no hope:


    [EMail.] I Said: Following article briefly explains Tawheed, here. A very important article on subject of Tawheed/Shirk because it explains many things not addressed in articles but which always become part of almost every Sunni/Salafi debate, here. Content wise this article is related to previous one, here. Next article explains methodology and then demonstrates how Ilahiyyah is determined if explicitly has not been affirmed, here. And in context following comprehensively explains and refutes innovated principles often employed to support charge that Muslims are committing Shirk, here.

    I Said: Also following article responds to a misconception about methodology of Ahlus Sunnah; it absolves polytheists of their Shirk, here. In this capacity following article also explains how methodology of Ahlus Sunnat establishes Shirk, here. Fundamentally cause of dispute between Wahhabis and Sunnis is issue of definition of worship, worship, and Shirk of attributes. And what Shirk of attributes is and how it is warranted is issue of contention/dispute. Dispute is over how a attribute/name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is is exclusive to Him alone.

    I Said: Following two articles focus on Sunni and Wahhabi methodologies of determining exclusivity of essence, attributes, and actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And judges which is in accordance with teaching of Quran and Sunnah; basic here, comprehensive here. And lastly following was a debate/discussion on subject of Tawheed/Shirk and it points to flows in their methodology, here. [End of mail.]

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
    That's a short but profound statement that it's completely ignored, how can you believe that Allah is your RABB without believing that the qualities that make Him your Lord aren't divine ? how can Allah's Divinity be dependent on His slaves?
    Brother why can't you comprehend and understand a simple statement of Tawheed? Why are you even arguing on something which you cant understand in the first place? I can assure you if you understood what he is saying you will not dispute/disagree? I will answer your question at the end. First let me explain to you what brother Sulayman wrote.

    "Being a real monotheist regarding the Lordship (Rububiyya) of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala does not just entail to believe that He is exclusive in acts like creating, sustaining and disposing the universe, but it also entails to believe in Him being described with absolute perfection and being necessary or essential in existence and being free of need / flaws / similarity and so on. So your definition is actually lacking and more is needed to be regarded a monotheist in this."

    First lets explain somethings to you: Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Rabb without blemish instead He is Kamil/Akmal (perfect) Rabb. Your Rabb is Wajib ul-Wujud(1) (existence is essential/fundamental requirement). It is essential to believe your, Rabb is Qaim Bil-Zaat (aka Mustaqil biz-zaat), which means to believe your Rabb is source of His own existence. Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Rabb without Likness/Mithl/similarity.

    Here brother Abu Sulayman said to be a Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah it is not enough to just to believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Creator, Sustainer, and Manager of affairs of His creation. But to be Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rubbubiyyah you have to believe your Rabb is first and foremost Wajib ul-Wujud Rabb, Mustaqil bil-Zaat Rabb, Kamil and Akmal Rabb, He was Khaliq, Malik, Raziq before Makhlooq. His Khaliqiyyah and Raziqiyyah, Malikiyyah wasn't effected by, or created when He created His creation. All Rabb's attributes are Qadeem (eternal) just as his Zaat is Qadeem. Therefore His Rububiyyah was even when He hadn't created creation. He was Malik before His Mulk.He was Khaliq before His Khalq. And Raziq before Rizq. He was all this from eternity.Therefore you cannot limit restrict and judge Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) in context of your Rabbs creation. Doing that you miss big chunk of Tawheed. If you judge Allah's Rububiyyah in light of His creation, or after He created creation, which Salafis do, then you ignore the fact that your Lord is Eternal and His attributes are eternal, you ignore the fact that He is Wajib ul-Wujud Rabb, Mustaqil bil-Zaat Rabb, Qadeem Rabb, la-Mahdood Rabb etc. If you judge Rububiyyah in light of His creation, or from the time when He created His creation then by default you will limit Rububiyyah in light of His creation. And that has happened because in your belief just mere belief that Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Creator of all is enough to warrant Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Where as Tawheed al-Rububiyyah requires that you believe your Lord is Qadeem with his Zaat and Sifaat. And to be Muwahid in Rububiyyah it is essential to believe your Lord is Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat because if you do not believe this for Allah Rabbil Aalameen you cannot be Muwahid even if you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is creator, sustainer, manager, punisher of creation because you have negated fundamental requirement of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

    And brother Abu Sualyman is absolutely correct in his accessment that your definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is defective because it establishes Tawheed al-Rububiyyah even in absence of essential beliefs of Tawheed such as Wajib ul-Wujud, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Qadeem, La-Mahdood. And how can someone be upon Tawheed al-Rububiyyah when they don't believe their Lord is source of His own existence, His existence is fundamental requirement for creation to exist. And their Lord is Eternal/Qadeem in His Essence/Zaat and Sifaat/Attributes. How can someone be Muwahid when they don't affirm such fundamental beliefs about their Lord? And how can a definition be Tawheed al-Rububiyyah be correct and be actual definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah when it establishes Tawheed even in absence of such fundamental beliefs of Tawheed?

    Brother Sulayman wrote:

    "As for Divinity (Uluhiyya), then your definition is a CATASTROPHE and the reason is the following: You're making the Divinity of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala DEPENDENT on the actions of His servants and this is is wrong, rather the Divinity of Allah ta'ala is due to Him being exclusive in having the characteristics of Lordship without any partners whatsoever!"

    What he wrote here is connected with what he said previously because Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah and Tawheed al-Rububiyyah are Lazim and Malzum. You cannot take the one out of the other. One is result of other and other is result of one i.e. technically I would say Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah are Lazim and Malzum. Salafis say Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah, in my vocab Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah, is established on basis of worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). And Shirk of Ulluhiyyah on basis of directing actions of worship to His creation. Brother Abu Sulayman says your saying this is wrong and I absolutely agree with brother Abu Sulayman. He states you and Salafi kind are saying Tawheed/Shirk Ulluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is connected with actions of creation i.e. worship of Allah/creation. He says no Tawheed/Shirk of Ulluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is not connected with worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) or worship of creation. Rather Tawheed al-Ulluhiyyah is based on uniqueness/exclusiveness of Zaat and Sifaat of Ilah/Rabb. He again is absolutely correct. Because Salafi Tawheed/Shirk Ilahiyyah is connected with actions of worship. Worship Allah and you're Muwahid in Ilahiyyah and worship creation you're Mushrik in Ilahiyyah. Let me make this simple in two steps.

    Do you agree that belief before action, yes or no? Do you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is the One and the Only Ilah are you Muwahid with this belief or do you need to perform action of worship? You/I believe Rama/Krishna/Uzza/Zeus is your Ilah are you guilty of Shirk in Ulluhiyyah or do you have to actually direct action of worship toward these to be guilty of Shirk in Ulluhiyyah? You will agree in both cases affirming belief, Allah is the one and the only Ilah, is enough to warrant Tawheed, and to believe Zeus/Uzza are Ilahs is enough to warrant Shirk in Ulluhiyyah. Yet Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk Ulluhiyyah require action of worship to declare someone to be Muwahid/Mushirk. Suppose I believe Jesus is my Ilah partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is supreme Deity and I solely direct my actions of worship toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala). Am I Muwahid now? How can such definition be correct that judges Tawheed/Shirk on basis of actions and not belief? Tawheed and Shirk are primarily belief/creed and secondarily of actions (in which Shirki beliefs are affirmed hence association of Shirk with action).

    Brother Abu Sulayman said: "... rather the Divinity of Allah ta'ala is due to Him being exclusive in having the characteristics of Lordship without any partners whatsoever!" This is absolutely correct.Requirement of Tawheed al-Ulluhiyyah is not to whom the actions are directed rather with which belief actions are directed toward Him. If you believe my Ilah is Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and He in his Zaat/Essence and Sifaat/Attributes is Qadeem, Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Wajib ul-Wujud, la-mahdood etc. You have established exclusivity/uniqueness for His Zaat and for His Sifaat. To establish Shirk in Ilahiyyah/Ulluhiyyah mere act of belief there is equal/inequal partner Ilah or Rabb with Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is Shirk. Other way is to establish for a creation characteristics which are unique to Him only. Such as Mustaqil bil-Zaat, Qadeem, Wajib ul-Wujud like Christians do for Jesus. They make Jesus duplicate/twin of Allah's attributes/characteristics hence they are guilty of Shirk on two accounts. They affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, and they affirm attributes which are unqiuely for Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) such as Mustaqil bil-Zaat etc. Note every attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is exclusive/unique to Him including Rauf/Rahim even though Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) said Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) is Rauf and Rahim too.

    Allah is unique Rauf/Rahim because he was so Mustaqbil bil-Zaat meaning he was Rauf/Rahim by His ownself.He was Rauf/Rahim from eternity/Qadeem etc. There are two uniqueness/exclusiveness types, one is Lafzi and other is Manavi. All attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) are unique to Him in Manavi sense i.e. in sense of meaning. Lafzi would be ar-Rahman because Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) only used Rahman for Himself. Rauf/Rahim for Prophet as well but it is still unique for Him as explained.


    @Abu Sulayman

    Brother you're discussing people who aren't grounded in knowledge nor they are familiar with your vocablarly. It is just going above their heads. You're very knowledgable and you should use your knowledge in refuting Salafi/Wahhabi heresies. Don't waste your time do something constructive.

    Notes:

    1 - Wajib ul-Wujud's opposite is Mumkin ul-Wujud. His creation is mumkin ul-Wujud, meaning they can have existence or have no existence, creations existence depends upon Allah's the Wajib ul-Wujud's existance. Mumkin ul-Wujud cannot exist but for Wajib ul-Wujud to not to exist is Muhaal (impossible). In other words Allah's non-existence is impossible.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X