Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pouring libations for other than Allah

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pouring libations for other than Allah

    Assalamu alaykum

    It appears that YouTube is purposely blocking some of my comments on various channels, so I'll just post this here.



    "Whereas Omar Sulaiman actually performed the liabation of Shirk and Kufr - which is offerings for deities and spirits" [29:04]

    Omar Sulaiman did not actually perform a liabation of Shirk or else we would make Takfir of him. It's not even completely fair to charge him with Kufr because he was under the impression that pouring the water was merely a secular expression of protest.

    A pagan ritual liabation only takes place when the liquid is poured with the intention of making an offering and worshipping a deity other than Allah. Liabations have been used by various faith groups throughout history and the ritual does not belong to a speciifc deity. If the action was performed by a Muslim who is by default considered a Muwahid then it is a Bid'ah with no basis in the Shari'ah.

    The gray area in the case of Omar Sulaiman is that he did not consider this as an act of worship. In this scenario the action might not be labelled as Bid'ah, but only Haram as a way of blocking the means to Shirk.

    What is certain is that Omar Sulaiman did not perform an action of Shirk as Daniel Haqiqajou and Bro Hajji falsely allege.

    Wa Allahu A'lam

  • #2
    Walaykum salam,

    The action that Omar did was wrong in itself, even though he most likely did the wrong action unwittingly because he would've been unaware of the shirk origins of this practice. After the fact, once he found out about this practice, if he admitted that this was something he shouldn't have done due to being a practising Muslim, then that in itself should be accepted by us as a form of correcting himself and repentance and inshaAllah he'd never repeat such a mistake again.

    The problem is not just what Omar did or the way Daniel went about calling him out in such an accusatory way. The problem afterwards was how many Muslim fans of Omar doubled down on this action with retorts like "who are you to judge?" and nonsense like that. It's one thing to respect a practising Muslim role model, it's quite another to follow him in words and deeds even when those deeds turn out to be proven as a form of shirk. That would lead to us becoming like the Ahlul Kitab whom Allah (swt) warned us about in the Quran in the verse that translates as "they followed their priests and rabbis in derogation of Allah". My personal view is I disagree with Daniel's harsh, accusatory and sometimes mocking way of reacting to people but at the same time, I also respect the fact that at least he calls out wrongdoing when he sees it which is something we should all be doing- not making excuses for the wrongdoing or defending it out of love for the person. If we truly loved that person for the sake of Allah (swt) we'd call out their wrongdoing for the sake of trying to save them from hellfire.
    The Lyme Disease pandemic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5u73ME4sVU

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by neelu View Post
      Walaykum salam,

      The action that Omar did was wrong in itself, even though he most likely did the wrong action unwittingly because he would've been unaware of the shirk origins of this practice. After the fact, once he found out about this practice, if he admitted that this was something he shouldn't have done due to being a practising Muslim, then that in itself should be accepted by us as a form of correcting himself and repentance and inshaAllah he'd never repeat such a mistake again.
      This is from the apology he wrote shortly after the contraversy went viral:

      โ€œI was asked recently about a water ritual. Allah is my witness, I hadnโ€™t even recalled that happening because I did not see that as an act of worship but an act as part of the protest (mentioning the names of those who died at the border, not seeking forgiveness or calling upon other deities). I have seen this practice commonly in protests against police brutality and participated in an attempt to be culturally considerate, but I was not aware of any connection of that act to any other ritual (I had never even heard the word โ€œlibationโ€ before, and neither have most people I spoke with about this). But the truth is to be accepted no matter who brings it to you."

      https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/09/21/im...slamic-ritual/

      The problem is not just what Omar did or the way Daniel went about calling him out in such an accusatory way. The problem afterwards was how many Muslim fans of Omar doubled down on this action with retorts like "who are you to judge?" and nonsense like that. It's one thing to respect a practising Muslim role model, it's quite another to follow him in words and deeds even when those deeds turn out to be proven as a form of shirk. That would lead to us becoming like the Ahlul Kitab whom Allah (swt) warned us about in the Quran in the verse that translates as "they followed their priests and rabbis in derogation of Allah". My personal view is I disagree with Daniel's harsh, accusatory and sometimes mocking way of reacting to people but at the same time, I also respect the fact that at least he calls out wrongdoing when he sees it which is something we should all be doing- not making excuses for the wrongdoing or defending it out of love for the person. If we truly loved that person for the sake of Allah (swt) we'd call out their wrongdoing for the sake of trying to save them from hellfire.
      I'm not familiar with too many people who were attempting to defend Omar Sulaiman over these issues. Questioning brother Daniel's credentials is a legitimate concern due to his previous trackrecord of misrepresenting his opponents and attacking qualified Ulama. I certainly wouldn't condone anyone whose first reaction is to justify what is blatantly Haram and inappropriate, but we really need to question why people more qualified than Daniel are remaining silent on these matters. If Daniel was as sincere and serious about eliminating this growing trend of liberalism within the Da'wah, then he should partner up with a group of notable Ulama in the West who will stamp and approve his message. Partnering up with Imran Ibn Mansur (i.e. Dawah Man) doesn't help prove the scholarly integrity of his Da'wah.

      Comment


      • #4
        Lol at people accusing him of kufr and shirk for this.
        You think you know more than my scholar's qiyās? He was more learned than you and all other scholars combined. Yeah, the devil was the greatest scholar too and look where his qiyās of fire being better than tīn got him. Sorry.

        You follow your scholar's qiyās, and I will follow the Qur'ān and Sunnah.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Linkdeutscher View Post
          Lol at people accusing him of kufr and shirk for this.
          This is an excerpt from brother Daniel's Facebook post on September the 19th in response to the apology letter written by Omar Sulaiman linked above:

          He says:

          "I was asked recently about a water ritual. Allah is my witness, I hadnโ€™t even recalled that happening because I did not see that as an act of worship but an act as part of the protest (mentioning the names of those who died at the border, not seeking forgiveness or calling upon other deities). I have seen this practice commonly in protests against police brutality and participated in an attempt to be culturally considerate, but I was not aware of any connection of that act to any other ritual (I had never even heard the word โ€œlibationโ€ before."

          Again, I have no idea what he means with these yaqeenisms. Omar, you didnt remember making that speech in front of the police and then pouring out the water? You didnt remember it? Or you did remember it, but since you don't consider it an act of worship, you conveniently didn't mention it and pretended like we were just lying about it?

          So Omar wants us to believe that he went to an event called a "Faith Protest" led by "Faith Leaders" as he stands next to priestesses, rabbis, hindu guys, buddhists, who are singing about God's love, making big speeches quoting the Bible and Torah, and are loudly announcing "sacred water," "consecrated land," "blessing migrants," "all faith traditions," etc., but Omar doesn't consider this a religious ritual?

          Did he consider the oil ritual a religious ritual? What is the difference between the oil ritual and the water pouring ritual? Both of them were led by priestesses and rabbis reading from the Bible, making ritualistic movements, involving liquids, etc. What's the difference that makes one religious and not the other?

          Importantly, why did he denounce the oil ritual as impermissible worship last week, but he now is claiming that he had no idea the water ritual was also worship?

          The point about not knowing the word libations is irrelevant. I didn't know the word either. I still don't know what the oil anointing thing is called. Knowing the name is not necessary to recognizing it is an act shirk. Seeing other kuffar doing it for police protests in the past is a horribly ignorant excuse for thinking it is ok.
          The problem here is that brother Daniel is really the one pushing the notion of Omar Sulaiman committing an act of Shirk. Instead of approaching this topic with the level of justice and maturity that it truly deserves, he's resorting to slander and disingenuous tactics to drive his point home.

          The difference between the oil ritual and the pouring of libations is obvious to anyone who has watched the original video. One of them is clearly a religious ritual and the other was secular in nature. Anyways, the point of confusion (or intentional deception) is brother Daniel's insistence on referring to what took place as a "pagan ritual". This leaves the audience with the impression that Omar Sulaiman participated in something which necessitates Shirk, when it doesn't.

          Liabations are basically a kin to any general act of worship such as Sajdah or Ruku. When someone makes Sajdah or Ruku we cannot immediately derive from this that the person is worshipping any particular god. It is possible that his Sajdah is dedicates to Allah, Jesus, Zues, Hercules, al-Lat, al-Uzzah, etc. Sajdah doesn't exclusively belong to any particular god in the sense that it is automatically directed to that entity. Similarly, the pouring of liabations would only be considered Shirk if the action was performed with the intention of making an offering to a deity other than Allah. Simply pouring out water on the ground doesn't automatically reach Zues of some other African deity. Had Omar Sulaiman considered this as an act of worship (i.e. offering the libations to Allah as an Ibadah or Tawasul), then it would be a Bid'ah form of worship with no basis in the Shari'ah.

          Comment


          • #6
            Pardon the typos in the last paragraph. The edit function still does not work in this section for some reason.

            I just wanted to readdress this before anyone gets petty and tries to debate me on it:

            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
            When someone makes Sajdah or Ruku we cannot immediately derive from this that the person is worshipping any particular god.
            I should have said "we cannot necessarily derive from this.." instead of immediately. Sure, depending on the situation and context we can derive immediate conclusions based on the default. When a Muslim is seen prostrating and bowing then it is presumed that he is worshipping Allah(swt). However, theoretically speaking it is possible for an individual to offer Sajdah and Ruku for other than Allah.

            Comment


            • #7
              Regarding the issue of Sujud for other than Allah ta'ala:


              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

              As for your first question:

              As already mentioned: It's stated in the Qur`an al-karim - which is the revelation of Allah and His speech - that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to prostrate in front of Adam - peace be upon him - and it's also stated how the parents of Yusuf - peace be upon them - and his brothers fell down in prostration before him. The father of Yusuf is the Prophet Ya'qub, peace be upon both of them.

              Know that this type of prostration (i.e. that of showing respect and not that of worship) was allowed from the Shari'a of Adam - peace be upon him - on until the Shari'a of 'Isa - peace be upon him - and then became forbidden in our Shari'a as mentioned by Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) in his Tafsir.

              As for your second question:

              The following was narrated in Sunan Ibn Majah:

              ุนูŽู†ู’ ุนูŽุจู’ุฏู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ุจู’ู†ู ุฃูŽุจููŠ ุฃูŽูˆู’ููŽู‰ุŒ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ู„ูŽู…ู‘ูŽุง ู‚ูŽุฏูู…ูŽ ู…ูุนูŽุงุฐูŒ ู…ูู†ูŽ ุงู„ุดู‘ูŽุงู…ู ุณูŽุฌูŽุฏูŽ ู„ูู„ู†ู‘ูŽุจููŠู‘ู ู€ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ู€ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ โ€"โ€ ู…ูŽุง ู‡ูŽุฐูŽุง ูŠูŽุง ู…ูุนูŽุงุฐู โ€"โ€ โ€.โ€ ู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ุฃูŽุชูŽูŠู’ุชู ุงู„ุดู‘ูŽุงู…ูŽ ููŽูˆูŽุงููŽู‚ู’ุชูู‡ูู…ู’ ูŠูŽุณู’ุฌูุฏููˆู†ูŽ ู„ุฃูŽุณูŽุงู‚ูููŽุชูู‡ูู…ู’ ูˆูŽุจูŽุทูŽุงุฑูู‚ูŽุชูู‡ูู…ู’ ููŽูˆูŽุฏูุฏู’ุชู ูููŠ ู†ูŽูู’ุณููŠ ุฃูŽู†ู’ ู†ูŽูู’ุนูŽู„ูŽ ุฐูŽู„ููƒูŽ ุจููƒูŽ โ€.โ€ ููŽู‚ูŽุงู„ูŽ ุฑูŽุณููˆู„ู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู€ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ู€ โ€"โ€ ููŽู„ุงูŽ ุชูŽูู’ุนูŽู„ููˆุง ููŽุฅูู†ู‘ููŠ ู„ูŽูˆู’ ูƒูู†ู’ุชู ุขู…ูุฑู‹ุง ุฃูŽุญูŽุฏู‹ุง ุฃูŽู†ู’ ูŠูŽุณู’ุฌูุฏูŽ ู„ูุบูŽูŠู’ุฑู ุงู„ู„ู‘ูŽู‡ู ู„ุฃูŽู…ูŽุฑู’ุชู ุงู„ู’ู…ูŽุฑู’ุฃูŽุฉูŽ ุฃูŽู†ู’ ุชูŽุณู’ุฌูุฏูŽ ู„ูุฒูŽูˆู’ุฌูู‡ูŽุง
              ...

              Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said โ€œWhen Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: 'What is this, O Muadh?' He said: 'I went to Sham and saw them prostrating to their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.' The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands.
              ...
              - end of qoute -

              Know that Mu'adh bin Jabbal - radhiallahu 'anhu - was from among the scholars of the companions and he obviously knew the difference between Tawhid and Shirk. The only thing here was that he assumed that the prostration to show respect is still allowed - as it was in the laws before us -, but the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - prohibited him doing this again, so it became understood that it's not allowed anymore in our Shari'a.

              Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) stated in his book Mu'jam al-Shuyukh:

              ุฃู„ุง ุชุฑู‰ ุงู„ุตุญุงุจุฉ ู…ู† ูุฑุท ุญุจู‡ู… ู„ู„ู†ุจูŠ โ€“ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู…- ู‚ุงู„ูˆุง: ุฃู„ุง ู†ุณุฌุฏ ู„ูƒุŸ ูู‚ุงู„: ู„ุงุŒ ูู„ูˆ ุฃุฐู† ู„ู‡ู… ู„ุณุฌุฏูˆุง ุณุฌูˆุฏ ุฅุฌู„ุงู„ ูˆุชูˆู‚ูŠุฑ ู„ุง ุณุฌูˆุฏ ุนุจุงุฏุฉ ูƒู…ุง ุณุฌุฏ ุฅุฎูˆุฉ ูŠูˆุณู ุนู„ูŠู‡ ุงู„ุณู„ุงู… ู„ูŠูˆุณูุŒ ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ุงู„ู‚ูˆู„ ููŠ ุณุฌูˆุฏ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู… ู„ู‚ุจุฑ ุงู„ู†ุจูŠ ุตู„ู‰ ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุนู„ูŠู‡ ูˆุณู„ู… ุนู„ู‰ ุณุจูŠู„ ุงู„ุชุนุธูŠู… ูˆุงู„ุชุจุฌูŠู„ ู„ุง ูŠูƒูุฑ ุจู‡ ุฃุตู„ุง ุจู„ ูŠูƒูˆู† ุนุงุตูŠุง. ูู„ูŠุนุฑู ุฃู† ู‡ุฐุง ู…ู†ู‡ูŠ ุนู†ู‡ ูˆูƒุฐู„ูƒ ุงู„ุตู„ุงุฉ ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู‚ุจุฑ

              Do you not see that the companions in their excessive love for the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - said: "Should we not prostrate for you?". So he said: "No".
              If he had allowed them to prostrate, they would have prostrated with the prostration of respect and awe and not the prostration of worship just like the brothers of Yusuf - peace be upon him - prostrated for Yusuf.
              Likewise is the statement regarding the prostration of a Muslim for the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in order to show veneration and respect (for the Prophet): He does not become a disbeliever because of this in any way, rather he becomes sinful. It should be known that this has been forbidden, likewise is [the ruling for] the prayer to the grave.

              - end of quote -

              Note that the classical scholars have mentioned that to prostrate to other than Allah ta'ala is a major sin in our law and in some of its forms it becomes disbelief. If it's wished I can post their differentiation regarding this issue. (This issue has been discussed in classical Fiqh books.)
              Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

              If someone is a Muslim, then it's not speculation to assume that he's not intending to worship other than Allah ta'ala, but rather doing this out of ignorance (in this case: that this has been forbidden in the Islamic Shari'a). What happened to assuming the best of other Muslims and finding excuses for them and not rushing towards Takfir?

              Yes if someone were to prostrate in front of an idol or make fun of Islam or insult the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then this is obvious disbelief. But you can't equate these issues with something that was even allowed in prior divine laws.

              There is another thing here: The reason why I concentrated on prostration is because it's quite an extreme case and clearly connected - as an action - to worship in our minds, yet the classical scholars did not simply rush towards making Takfir upon the Muslim who does this out of ignorance.
              This should be enough to show how much their mindset differed with that of the Najdis, who would not just rush towards calling things as disbelief and polytheism and follow it by Takfir, but even went on to do chain-Takfir of people who had never committed these actions!

              (Note: In Taqwiyatul Iman rushing towards calling things as polytheism is also done. As for chain-Takfir, then I don't know the position of the author.)



              Some quotes from classical sources regarding the issue of prostration to other than Allah ta'ala:


              From the Hanafi Fiqh book al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar [by Imam al-Mawsilli (d. 683 AH)]:

              ูˆุชู‚ุจูŠู„ ุงู„ุฃุฑุถ ุจูŠู† ูŠุฏูŠ ุงู„ุณู„ุทุงู† ุฃูˆ ุจุนุถ ุฃุตุญุงุจู‡ ู„ูŠุณ ุจูƒูุฑ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ุชุญูŠุฉ ูˆู„ูŠุณ ุจุนุจุงุฏุฉ ุŒ ูˆู…ู† ุฃูƒุฑู‡ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู† ูŠุณุฌุฏ ู„ู„ู…ู„ูƒ ุงู„ุฃูุถู„ ุฃู† ู„ุง ูŠุณุฌุฏ ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ูƒูุฑ ุŒ ูˆู„ูˆ ุณุฌุฏ ุนู†ุฏ ุงู„ุณู„ุทุงู† ุนู„ู‰ ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุชุญูŠุฉ ู„ุง ูŠุตูŠุฑ ูƒุงูุฑุง

              Kissing the ground before the Sultan or some of his companions is not disbelief, because it's [a form of] greeting and not worship. As for the one who gets forced to prostrate for the king, [then] it's better for him not to prostrate, because it is disbelief, but if he prostrates in front of the Sultan as a form of greeting then he does not become a disbeliever.
              - end of quote -

              From the Shafi'i Fiqh book Rawdhat al-Talibin [by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH)]:

              ูˆู„ูŠุณ ู…ู† ู‡ุฐุง ู…ุง ูŠูุนู„ู‡ ูƒุซูŠุฑูˆู† ู…ู† ุงู„ุฌู‡ู„ุฉ ุงู„ุถุงู„ูŠู† ู…ู† ุงู„ุณุฌูˆุฏ ุจูŠู† ูŠุฏูŠ ุงู„ู…ุดุงูŠุฎ ูุฅู† ุฐู„ูƒ ุญุฑุงู… ู‚ุทุนู‹ุง ุจูƒู„ ุญุงู„ ุณูˆุงุก ูƒุงู† ุฅู„ู‰ ุงู„ู‚ุจู„ุฉ ุฃูˆ ุบูŠุฑู‡ุง ูˆุณูˆุงุก ู‚ุตุฏ ุงู„ุณุฌูˆุฏ ู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ุฃูˆ ุบูู„ , ูˆููŠ ุจุนุถ ุตูˆุฑู‡ ู…ุง ูŠู‚ุชุถูŠ ุงู„ูƒูุฑ ุนุงูุงู†ุง ุงู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ูˆุงู„ู„ู‡ ุฃุนู„ู…

              That which does not belong to it is which is done by many of the ignorant deviants from the prostration in front of the Mashayikh, because this is definitely forbidden (haram qat'an) in every case no matter whether this is done in the direction of the Qibla or other than it and no matter if the intention of the prostration is for Allah ta'ala or if it was [done] thoughtlessly; and in some of its forms it implies disbelief. We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and Allah knows best.
              - end of quote -

              From the Maliki Fiqh book al-Furuq [by Imam al-Qarafi (d. 684 AH)]:

              ุงุชูู‚ ุงู„ู†ุงุณ ุนู„ู‰ ุฃู† ุงู„ุณุฌูˆุฏ ู„ู„ุตู†ู… ุนู„ู‰ ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุชุฐู„ู„ ูˆุงู„ุชุนุธูŠู… ู„ู‡ ูƒูุฑ ูˆู„ูˆ ูˆู‚ุน ู…ุซู„ ุฐู„ูƒ ููŠ ุญู‚ ุงู„ูˆู„ุฏ ู…ุน ูˆุงู„ุฏู‡ ุชุนุธูŠู…ุง ู„ู‡ ูˆุชุฐู„ู„ุง ุฃูˆ ููŠ ุญู‚ ุงู„ุฃูˆู„ูŠุงุก ูˆุงู„ุนู„ู…ุงุก ู„ู… ูŠูƒู† ูƒูุฑุง

              The people are agreed upon that prostration for an idol with submission and veneration for it is disbelief, but if the like of it would happen from the son for his father with submission and veneration or for the Awliya or the scholars then this would not constitute disbelief.
              - end of quote -

              From the commentary of Imam Ibn al-Shatt [al-Maliki] (d. 723 AH) regarding the above statement:

              ุณุฌูˆุฏ ู…ู† ุณุฌุฏ ู„ู„ุฃุตู†ุงู… ู„ู… ูŠุณุฌุฏ ู„ู‡ุง ู„ู…ุฌุฑุฏ ุงู„ุชุฐู„ู„ ูˆุงู„ุชุนุธูŠู… ุจู„ ู„ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ุน ุงุนุชู‚ุงุฏ ุฃู†ู‡ุง ุขู„ู‡ุฉ ูˆุฃู†ู‡ุง ุดุฑูƒุงุก ู„ู„ู‡ ุชุนุงู„ู‰ ูˆู„ูˆ ูˆู‚ุน ู…ุซู„ ุฐู„ูƒ ู…ุน ุงู„ูˆุงู„ุฏ ุฃูˆ ุงู„ุนุงู„ู… ุฃูˆ ุงู„ูˆู„ูŠ ู„ูƒุงู† ุฐู„ูƒ ูƒูุฑุง ู„ุง ุดูƒ ููŠู‡ ูˆุฃู…ุง ุฅุฐุง ูˆู‚ุน ุฐู„ูƒ ุฃูˆ ู…ุง ููŠ ู…ุนู†ุงู‡ ู…ุน ุงู„ูˆุงู„ุฏ ู„ู…ุฌุฑุฏ ุงู„ุชุฐู„ู„ ูˆุงู„ุชุนุธูŠู… ู„ุง ู„ุงุนุชู‚ุงุฏ ุฃู†ู‡ ุฅู„ู‡ ูˆุดุฑูŠูƒ ู„ู„ู‡ ุนุฒ ูˆุฌู„ ูู„ุง ูŠูƒูˆู† ูƒูุฑุง ูˆุฅู† ูƒุงู† ู…ู…ู†ูˆุนุง ุณุฏุง ู„ู„ุฐุฑูŠุนุฉ

              The prostration of the one who prostrates for the idols is not just because of submission and veneration [for it], rather also with the belief that they are gods (Aliha) and partners of Allah ta'ala and if the like (i.e. with this belief) would happen for ones father or a scholar or a Wali, then it would be disbelief without any doubt.
              But if this [prostration] or what is similar in meaning happens for ones father with submission and veneration only and not with the belief that he's a god or a partner of Allah - 'azza wa jall -, then it does not constitute disbelief even if it's forbidden in order to block the means (to disbelief).

              - end of quote -

              From the Hanbali Fiqh book Matalib Uli al-Nuha [by Imam al-Ruhaybani (d. 1243 AH)] which is the explantion of Ghayat al-Muntaha [by Imam al-Karmi (d. 1033)]:

              ุฃูˆ ุณุฌุฏ ู„ุตู†ู… ุฃูˆ ูƒูˆูƒุจ ) ูƒุดู…ุณ ุฃูˆ ู‚ู…ุฑ ุ› ูƒูุฑ ุ› ู„ุฃู†ู‡ ุฃุดุฑูƒ ุจู‡ ุณุจุญุงู†ู‡ ูˆุชุนุงู„ู‰ .( ูˆูŠุชุฌู‡ ุงู„ุณุฌูˆุฏ ู„ู„ุญูƒุงู… ูˆุงู„ู…ูˆุชู‰ ุจู‚ุตุฏ ุงู„ุนุจุงุฏุฉ ูƒูุฑ ) ู‚ูˆู„ุง ูˆุงุญุฏุง ุจุงุชูุงู‚ ุงู„ู…ุณู„ู…ูŠู† ( ูˆุงู„ุชุญูŠุฉ ) ู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ ุจุงู„ุณุฌูˆุฏ ู„ู‡ ( ูƒุจูŠุฑุฉ ) ู…ู† ุงู„ูƒุจุงุฆุฑ ุงู„ุนุธุงู… ุŒ ูˆุงู„ุณุฌูˆุฏ ู„ู…ุฎู„ูˆู‚ ุญูŠ ุฃูˆ ู…ูŠุช

              "Or if one prostrates for an idol or a star" like the sun or the moon [then this is] disbelief, because he has associated [partners] with [Allah] subhanahu wa ta'ala. "What differs is the prostration for the ruler or the dead: [If it is] with the intention of worship [it] is disbelief" by agreement of the Muslims "and [if the intention is] greeting" a created being by prostration for it "[then it is a] major sin" from among the very great sins.
              - end of quote -


              And since we were talking about the subcontinent, let's also quote the famous al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya [which is authored by a number of Hanafi scholars]:

              ู…ู† ุณุฌุฏ ู„ู„ุณู„ุทุงู† ุนู„ู‰ ูˆุฌู‡ ุงู„ุชุญูŠุฉ ุฃูˆ ู‚ุจู„ ุงู„ุฃุฑุถ ุจูŠู† ูŠุฏูŠู‡ ู„ุง ูŠูƒูุฑ ูˆู„ูƒู† ูŠุฃุซู… ู„ุงุฑุชูƒุงุจู‡ ุงู„ูƒุจูŠุฑุฉ ู‡ูˆ ุงู„ู…ุฎุชุงุฑ

              The one who prostrates for the Sultan in order to greet him or kisses the ground in front of him: He does not become a disbeliever, rather he becomes sinful, because he has committed a major sin; and this the preferred [position].
              - end of quote -

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                Regarding the issue of Sujud for other than Allah ta'ala:




                Agree with this post. My use of Sajdah and Ruku is specifically in the context of worship. I fully recognize that it is possible to perform these actions without even intending to worship anything, similiar to how Omar Sulaiman "poured the liabations" without intending an act of worship.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                  Pardon the typos in the last paragraph. The edit function still does not work in this section for some reason.
                  Yikes. I just realized that I've been spelling libations incorrectly this whole time as well. For some reason my phone automatically corrects it to "liabations". Anyways, I've contacted brother Sajid and inshaAllah he will update the thread title.

                  Barak Allah Feekum

                  Comment


                  • #10


                    "You know that video you did the other day on Omar Suleiman and you were talking about how he was pouring liquid, and it turned out that this was actually a pagan ritual that people did as a form of worship for other than Allah, so in other words it was Shirk" [0.03]

                    I challenge anyone who agrees with the sentiment of these brothers to justify how Omar Suleiman is guilty of Shirk in light of what I have presented in this thread. Unfortunately the comments that I leave on their channel are often removed or hidden from the other users.

                    The problem with the logic of these brothers and the Najdi Da'wah in general is that they're extremely liberal in labelling things that are seemingly doubtful or extraordinary as Shirk. Just recently this brothers (Dawahman) was exposed for indirectly accusing the Prophet(saws) of Shirk because he was under the impression that merely talking to the dead constitutes making Du'a (in the sense of worship) to other than Allah.

                    What is incorrect about the statement I quoted is that they are transferring the alleged origins of libations to what Omar Sulaiman was involved in during the border protest. Just because something is typically performed as an act of worship or Shirk doesn't necessitate that it replicates itself in the same manner on every occurrence. The question people need to ask is what is Shirk in the first place? Can you perform an "act of Shirk" without worshipping something other than Allah? What is the name of the entity that Omar Suleiman worshipped when he performed the so-called pagan ritual? How can someone even be condemned for participating in a pagan ritual (i.e. Shirk) when there weren't any gods other than Allah involved in the process? That's not paganism.

                    Libations are typically performed by Mushrikeen as pagan rituals, but they are not necessarily pagan rituals on every occasion. If one of us makes Du'a to Allah and then pours out water to help strengthen the prayer then this could never be Shirk with Allah(swt). Why? Because there weren't any gods or entities other than Allah involved with the act of worship. It doesn't matter where the practice originated or what it is typically ascribed to. Worshipping Allah in this manner is just a Bid'ah with no basis in the Prophetic Sunnah.

                    Wa Allahu Alam

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It looks like Daniel Haqiqatjou has doubled down and re-uploaded the segment of his video accusing Omar Suleiman of participating in a "pagan ritual", so I feel morally justified in sharing this video:



                      Asadullah al-Andalusi's thorough refutation of Daniel Haqiqatjou's inconsistent claims against the authors at Yaqeen Institute:

                      https://asadullahali.com/2020/08/10/...ng-haqiqatjou/

                      Note: I respect brother Daniel's abilities and share a lot of views with him in common, however, I strongly disagree with his approach towards those who are well-established in the Da'wah. It's not that the "celebrity Du'at" are exempt from receiving criticism, but Daniel Haqiqatjou is definitely not fit to be leading the charge. I stand by my second paragraph in post #3.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Shaykh Tahir Wyatt explains his affiliation with Yaqeen Institute and criticizes Daniel Haqiqatjou's lack of intellectual integrity:



                        Note: Shaykh Tahir Wyatt is a Salafi who has studied in Madinah for over 20 years and has even taught in the Prophet's Masjid. The Shaykh is also well connected with the Ulama and Mashayikh in Saudia.

                        May Allah guide brother Daniel and help him utilize his abilities in the right direction.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It seems Abdullah al-Andalusi does Daniels job twice better than him without the angry polemics against Yaqeen lecturers. I initially had more respect for my brother Daniel, but he just attacks and misrepresents people. He's narrow minded and struggles with any nuance - things are black and white for him. May Allah guide him and me.

                          I have respect for Yasir Qadhi even though if I strongly disagree with his theological views. I would liken him to al-Zamakhshari, although perhaps Muqatil bin Sulayman is a better comparison. To my knowledge, YQ's views on the Ahruf are the same as mine.

                          Omar Suleiman is source of knowledge on the development of the Madahib (I cannot tell if he is a true Hanbali or AmantuBillahi's type of "Hanbali"). Perhaps his quietism in matters of Aqeedah and links to Dr Johnathon Brown suggests the former. Allahu Alam.
                          Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                          "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                          Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

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

                          Comment

                          Collapse

                          Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                          Working...
                          X