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

[AdoonkaAlle]

Brother AdoonkaAlle, at the end of the day these pagans had very anthropomorphist ideas regarding their so called "gods" and regarding the relationship and connection between these so called "gods".
For this reason they could not imagine that one God alone could preserve and control this big and diverse universe.

Paganism is based upon the idea that a being with characteristics of the creation may at the same time have characteristics of divine Lordship, so this means their very foundation is anthropomorphism.

Due to this you will see them having no problem with affirming dependence from one side and independence from another side for the same very being and this even if it does not make any sense.
So they had no problem to affirm that so and so independently harms and brings benefit, but at the same time so and so maybe even stronger than him and this and that aspect.

Think about the mythology of the different groups of pagans. You will see them affirming all types of so called "gods" from "god of the wind" to "god of the oceans" to "god of fertility" and so on. Then you will see them saying things like that the "god" so and so had a relationship with so and so and that this union produced another "god" and that this "god" went to war with another "god" and other such nonsense. Then think about how they would imagine these "gods": 3 dimensional beings with a human-like appearance or with the head of an animal or with 4 arms or three eyes and other than this.

And the Arab pagans were not much better than the rest of the pagans. And even when they mentioned "Allah" they had a completely other idea of Him than what we as Muslims have.
I mean one of the leaders of these pagans even asked one of the companions whether Allah ta'ala is made of gold or silver or what is similar to that, which really shows how far away these people were from knowing Allah ta'ala.
For this reason the whole idea of pagans being somehow "monotheists in the Lordship of Allah ta'ala" is nothing but a joke and only a satan could beautify such an idea in the heads of the people and let them try to establish Tawhid for the pagans and Shirk for the Muslims.

I agree , my contention simply had to do with the misunderstanding surrounding the implications of ascribing divine characteristics of Lordships to other than Allah. The moment one affirms divine Lordship to idols you're by default likening the idols to Allah, so the idols attain the same rank as Allah in those characteristics that the pagans affirmed for them.

So i assumed that this was fairly straightforward which is why i was surprised by the brothers view when he claimed that independence wasn't implied when the pagans ascribed characteristics of Lordship to their gods.

And the Arab pagans were not much better than the rest of the pagans. And even when they mentioned "Allah" they had a completely other idea of Him than what we as Muslims have. I mean one of the leaders of these pagans even asked one of the companions whether Allah ta'ala is made of gold or silver or what is similar to that, which really shows how far away these people were from knowing Allah ta'ala..

Exactly, i wouldn't even compare their belief to that of the christians & jews let alone us muslims. Without a doubt this false belief only purpose is to declare muslims as mushriks nothing else, imagine believing that pagans who insult Allah for their idols are better than muslims.

May Allah forgive us and keep us steadfast in our deen ameen

[Abu Sulayman]

Brother AdoonkaAlle, at the end of the day these pagans had very anthropomorphist ideas regarding their so called "gods" and regarding the relationship and connection between these so called "gods".
For this reason they could not imagine that one God alone could preserve and control this big and diverse universe.

Paganism is based upon the idea that a being with characteristics of the creation may at the same time have characteristics of divine Lordship, so this means their very foundation is anthropomorphism.

Due to this you will see them having no problem with affirming dependence from one side and independence from another side for the same very being and this even if it does not make any sense.
So they had no problem to affirm that so and so independently harms and brings benefit, but at the same time so and so maybe even stronger than him and this and that aspect.

Think about the mythology of the different groups of pagans. You will see them affirming all types of so called "gods" from "god of the wind" to "god of the oceans" to "god of fertility" and so on. Then you will see them saying things like that the "god" so and so had a relationship with so and so and that this union produced another "god" and that this "god" went to war with another "god" and other such nonsense. Then think about how they would imagine these "gods": 3 dimensional beings with a human-like appearance or with the head of an animal or with 4 arms or three eyes and other than this.

And the Arab pagans were not much better than the rest of the pagans. And even when they mentioned "Allah" they had a completely other idea of Him than what we as Muslims have.
I mean one of the leaders of these pagans even asked one of the companions whether Allah ta'ala is made of gold or silver or what is similar to that, which really shows how far away these people were from knowing Allah ta'ala.
For this reason the whole idea of pagans being somehow "monotheists in the Lordship of Allah ta'ala" is nothing but a joke and only a satan could beautify such an idea in the heads of the people and let them try to establish Tawhid for the pagans and Shirk for the Muslims.

[AdoonkaAlle]

Abu Sulayman

Apologies for the late reply


Jazakallah khayr for your input but i believe that the differences between me & the brother are more than just terminologies. Given how he avoided answering tabari's statement regarding the hadith of the black stone and also his attempt to equate our actions to that of mushrikeen had about their idols where they believed their idols could harm & benefit independently.

The brother's main point was that the mushrikeen ascribed independence to their idols only in Will and not in essence. He goes on to say the following

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.

But the mushrikeen did exactly that when they ascribed attributes of Lordship to their idols. Allah is Unique and Independent in all of His attributes of Lordship and the mushrikeen established a partner to Allah meaning they created an equality between Allah and their idols in His attributes of Lordship. If there wasn't an equality being affirmed between Allah and the idols then it wouldn't be classified as shirk.

If their idols were dependent on Allah how could they be rivalling equals with Allah ? Since we're created and dependent on Allah does this mean that when we exercises the power granted to us by Allah we've committed shirk and are now rivalling equals with Allah ?

This is why i believe that it was more than terminologies.

[Abu Sulayman]

To connect this now with our thread here: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) lacked proficiency in 'Ilm al-Balagha and yet Ibn Sahman (d. 1349 AH) acted as if the lack of his knowledge in this important science of the Arabic language does not mean that he's was not proficient in Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir and so on.

This claim of Ibn Sahman is absolutely false with certainity!

Now imagine that today a lot of people have turned IAW's views in creedal issues as a judge upon this Umma (to the degree of being ready to kill Muslims based upon them!) while not taking into consideration that he went against the statement of the classical scholars in general in a lot of issues.

Now let's specify the example even more in regards to the topic of this thread:

According to the teachings of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab the polytheists and disbelievers had the very same beliefs regarding Allah ta'ala as the people of Islam and only differed with the Muslims through directing acts of veneration to the creation.

He reached to this conclusion based upon taking some texts out of their context and completely disregarding hundreds of other texts and this due to him lacking in his knowledge of the Islamic sciences and not knowing his limits.

Is this claim based upon the Shar'ia? No, but it's rather in opposition to it and so it's an evil innovation and therefore leads to the hellfire.

We know for example that the Makkan pagans regarded the angels as "daughters of god" and based upon this they regarded them also as "gods" and as "worthy of worship". So here we have a major difference between our creed and their creed. And this is just one difference out of many.

Based upon this misunderstanding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab started to define Tawhid and Shirk in a false manner until he and his followers came to the rather mindless conclusion that the majority of the Muslims throughout all lands - including the Haramayn al-sharifayn - had become guilty of "Shirk akbar" and this since centuries.

Now is this claim supported by the Shari'a? No, rather the opposite is established!

Read these here:
- The Prophet ﷺ was not afraid that his nation will fall into [greater] polytheism and swore by Allah regarding this!
- The only polytheism that can be found in his nation is the lesser one!
- The Prophet ﷺ informed his nation that satan has despaired to be EVER worshiped on the Arabian peninsula again!
- When will idols be worshiped again in the lands of the Arabs?: When ALL believers die (just before the end of times)!

So going against what our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) stated is an ugly innovation and declaring war against his Umma is an even greater innovation and crime.

[Abu Sulayman]

No it's not

Biddah can be kufr and it can also be not kufr

Ie someone worships a cow thinking he will be rewarded in the sharia this is shirk and is also an innovation thus kufr akbar

Someone believes if you use a microphone for adhaan youl be rewarded extra in sharia this is a biddah but not kufr

(To clarify using a microphone is perfectly fine but the moment you believe their is a specific reward for it in the sharia and that it's from the quran or sunnah it becomes a biddah)

Bro Abu julaybeeb, we already had a little discussion in another thread (HERE), but I did not continue it, because it would have become more off-topic in that thread.

But here in this thread it will be on-topic, so I would like to comment on some points if you don't mind.

Regarding what you stated above regarding Bid'a, then I agree in general. There is just a problem and that is that some people in our time have a rather weird definition of reprehensible Bid'a (innovation) to the degree that even stating "SadaqAllahul 'Adhim" (which is a correct statement without any doubt) after reciting the Qur`an al-karim is as an "evil innovation" in their mind.
Rather an evil innovation is every new matter - whether in belief or in actions - that has no basis in the Shari'a, but rather goes against it. And as you stated correctly: It can reach the level of disbelief, but it can also be less than it.

In this context I would like to give an example, which a lot of people who are obsessed with calling some minor things as an "evil innovation" and completely forget some major innovations which have become widespread in our time:
Acting as a "scholar" and giving lessons to students and giving Fatawa without any clear and systemic foundations and without having mastered the Islamic sciences is a MAJOR and EVIL innovation and yet it's widespread and the people look up to such individuals.

To connect this now with our thread here: Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) lacked proficiency in 'Ilm al-Balagha and yet Ibn Sahman (d. 1349 AH) acted as if the lack of his knowledge in this important science of the Arabic language does not mean that he's was not proficient in Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir and so on. This claim of Ibn Sahman is absolutely false with certainity!

Now imagine that today a lot of people have turned IAW's views in creedal issues as a judge upon this Umma (to the degree of being ready to kill Muslims based upon them!) while not taking into consideration that he went against the statement of the classical scholars in general in a lot of issues.

[Abu julaybeeb]

You need take a step back to understand what I'm saying, real bidah is basically kufr.

No it's not

Biddah can be kufr and it can also be not kufr

Ie someone worships a cow thinking he will be rewarded in the sharia this is shirk and is also an innovation thus kufr akbar

Someone believes if you use a microphone for adhaan youl be rewarded extra in sharia this is a biddah but not kufr

(To clarify using a microphone is perfectly fine but the moment you believe their is a specific reward for it in the sharia and that it's from the quran or sunnah it becomes a biddah)

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

You need take a step back to understand what I'm saying, real bidah is basically kufr.

Always a step back. Playing the 'you don't get it' card doesn't magically make your dumb posts any better.

[TheHaqq]

Stop talking gibberish. You contradicted yourself and playing dumb will only make you look sillier.

You need take a step back to understand what I'm saying, real bidah is basically kufr.

[SkippedPath]

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.

[SkippedPath]

Abu Sulayman jazakallah khayr.

[Abu Sulayman]

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:

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!

[Abu Sulayman]

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.

[SkippedPath]

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.

[SkippedPath]

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.

[AdoonkaAlle]

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

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.