Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yasir Qadhi on Istigatha

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

  • Yasir Qadhi on Istigatha


  • #2


    Abu julaybeeb

    Salam alaykum,

    I'm sure this will interest you brother.

    Comment


    • #3
      TheHaqq

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
        لسلام عليكم

        Seen it bro, I agree with him, it's the conclusion that I also eventually reached after just a little bit of critical thinking and relooking at the texts.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'll watch this when I get a chance in sha Allah

          thanks for sharing JazakAllah khayran

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


            Abu julaybeeb

            Salam alaykum,

            I'm sure this will interest you brother.
            So I've mentioned before, strand 1 as Shaykh Yasir defines it (a and b), are innovators but still Muslims. 1a) are essentially Khawarij. 1b) are closer to us, in the way a Zaidi might be closer to us than a Rawafid.

            Before I talk about my views on strand 2 vs 3, I just want to say something.

            What do I feel in my heart?

            Not that we should take theological issues (well this is half theological, half fiqh) by what we feel in our hearts, but if I went by this, then in the same way I feel an intense repulision in my heart to the views of the Mujassimah/Taymiyyans/Pseudo-Salafi on their Ilahiyyat, I do also feel a similarly strong repulsion to strand 3's position as a whole (although when I get into it/justify certain things, this may disappate a little).

            If I went by that, then I would conclude strand 2 is correct (Note: this is not in anyway how I determine these days whether issues of theology are correct, it isn't even an evidence for me and people should not mistake this for why I have certainty on certain issues).

            This is just myself being honest. Intellectually, when I look at this, this isn't my view, but nevertheless I won't lie to my brothers by hiding what I feel in my heart on these issues.

            My local Imam taught me to take the following Hadith as a rule of thumb:

            And on the authority of Wabisah bin Ma’bad (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said,

            “You have come to ask about righteousness.” I said, “Yes.” He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Consult your heart. Righteousness is that about which the soul feels at ease and the heart feels tranquil. And wrongdoing is that which wavers in the soul and causes uneasiness in the breast, even though people have repeatedly given their legal opinion [in its favour].”

            - Arba'een an-Nawawi Hadith 27
            So because of this, whatever position I take on Istigatha formally, I do not practice it myself.

            This should not be confused with my view on Tawassul, which is very different.

            Anyway to proceed:

            What are my views on the various strands Sh. Yasir has mentioned

            As I said, strands 1 (1a and 1b) are both incorrect and heretical. These will be considered as Bid'ah (innovations). Outside of this issue (where they make Takfir), the followers of that thought tend to hold in their mind the following idea: "It is better to prohibit something permitted than to permit something prohibited out of caution". They are the people who incur Allah's wrath, and prohibit the permitted like the legalistic Jews of old. If you want to be careful in religion, you leave something that you are unsure of, you do not become a legislator and make it prohibited.

            A lot of Sunni scholars I listen to either hold strand 2 or 3 or are in-between. My view is that Strand 2 is definitely a Sunni position, and Strand 3 is a Sunni position, with caveats. Going by Yasir Qadhi's categorisation, I would call my position Strand 2.5 or 2b or something.

            I used to hold position 2 a long time ago, and this was even after rejecting pseudo-Salafi doctrine after learning about their history, their scholars, how they view Allah Azza Wa Jal and after learning about Imam al-Ash'ari, and certain prophecies. In other words I used to be an "Ash'ari" upon position 2 - I reasoned that the same disgust I feel in my heart towards position 3 is the same disgust that led me to reject Taymiyyan theology, so it has to be that position 2 is correct. This is very faulty reasoning, and at that time I didn't even accept Tawassul by the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

            In fact I wasn't even a clear strand 2 at the beginning, more like halfway between 1b and 2 - I thought "Tawassul is Haram and Istigatha is Shirk" and gradually I moved to accepting Tawassul and considering Istigatha Haram unless the intention is to worship (strand 2) - which is a valid Sunni position.

            Tawassul of the dead is not Istighatha

            Let me make something clear - my position has nothing to do with Tawassul (which is frequently confused with Istighatha). Tawassul is to make something a means for yourself, e.g. going to someone who is more pious than you and asking them to make dua for you etc. My own view of Tawassul of the dead e.g. asking Allah that he makes a dead person make dua to Him for you (I.e. the act of worship is addressed to Allah by both yourself and the dead person), is that it is permitted, and recommended in the case of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

            Also coming under this is going up to a dead person/grave and asking them "Make Dua to Allah for me O so-and-so" (by the view that the dead hear if Allah wills). I have no issues with this. This is permitted.

            Also included in this is just a more general asking e.g. making dua to Allah that "O Allah I ask you for that for the sake of your Prophet Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam you grant my wish for x" or mentioning rank etc. However, I take the view it is prohibited to say "O Allah I ask you by the right of(bi-Haqqi) Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam" as according to the view of Imam al-Azam who said none has rights over Allah Azza Wa Jal.

            My issue with the pseudo-Salafi crowd is they generally confuse Tawassul for Istigatha, and when they oppose certain Hadith, they are opposing the Hadith of Tawassul of the dead, not Istigatha.

            Rejecting Tawassul of the dead as prohibited is within the wide scope of Sunni opinion (even though this is a minority view). Saying Tawassul of the dead is Shirk is a reprehensible innovation and one would be classified with the Khawarij depending on how they word that.

            Note: With Tawassul of the dead, by the very nature of it, it is impossible to be Shirk, as the dua is made to Allah, and any request you make (e.g. to the dead) is just to make dua to Allah.

            So one should be clear, Istigatha is not any of the above. Now if someone understands all this very well, they might have gleaned what issues I have with those who support Istigatha.

            What is Istighatha?

            "Ya Muhammad (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam) Madad" (asking the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam for help)

            "Ya Muhammad (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam) grant me X"

            "Ya Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani give me X"

            "Ya Shaykh Foolan destroy X people"

            or going up to a grave and saying:

            "Ya so-and-so, grant me X, Y and Z"

            Now this is where the problems begin.

            Why is Istighatha not always Shirk?

            Intuitively, any Muslim who has been raised on Tawhid, will look at the above and say, "Shirk," and think the issue is clear-cut. After all, we recite in Surah Fatihah that only Allah can help us, right? The issue is not clear cut. It takes understanding and patience to realise why.

            There is a good debate you can watch between Shaykh Asrar Rashid (who holds position 3 by the way) and a pseudo-Salafi (position 1) on this. Here it is (for some reason the pseudo-Salafi has not posted the uncut debate on his channel). Essentially it is very difficult to give a coherent argument for why it is always Shirk, as logically then we would say anyone calling out for help from someone living is Shirk.

            E.g. young Mahmud says, "O teacher help me" Is Mahmud a mushrik? No. Or if someone falls of a boat, they say "O sailers help me" Are they a Mushrik? No. So if someone goes up to a grave with the understanding that the person in the grave cannot actually help them only Allah can help them then it is definitely not Shirk. Allah can create/decree things such that it seems the person in the grave has caused help in the same way he can create/decree that the living helps the person.

            To be clear, my position is very consistent - if someone believes that another person can help them independently of Allah, by causing/creating something for them, this is Shirk whether the person is dead or alive. The one who believes in the philosophical position known as Natural Causation (like the neo-Mu'tazilite Usama Hasan, who once had a debate with Yasir Qadhi on evolution), then that is a belief of Shirk. This is known as Shirk al-Asbab (Shirk of the cause), and is anathema to Islam and belief in Qadar. It is Shirk whether upon the dead or the alive. Allah is the sole cause of all things, as shown in multiple Qur'anic verses and Hadith, which state Allah is the one who decrees everything and that there is no cause but Him.

            - Slight Tangent -

            'Ibn Mas'ud narrated:

            "The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) stood among us and said: 'One thing does not infect another.' So a Bedouin said: 'O Messenger of Allah! If a camel gets mangy glands and we leave it at the resting place of camels, then all of the camels get mange?' The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said: 'Who caused the first to get mange? There is no 'Adwa nor safar. Allah created every soul, so he wrote its life, its provision, and its afflictions.'"

            - Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 4, Book 6, Hadith 2143; Kitab al-Qadar
            From another Riwayah, different Sahabi even:

            It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar said:

            "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'There is no 'Adwa (contagion), no Tiyarah (evil omen) and no Hamah.' A Bedouin man stood up and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what do you think about a camel that suffers from mange and then all other camels get mange?' He said: 'That is because of the Divine Decree. How else did the first one get mange?'"

            - Sunan Ibn Majah Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 86
            All things are by the decree of Allah (Qadar Allah). There is no such thing as nature, the one who worships nature is a Kafir. A camel does not cause infection in another camel, Allah causes infection in camels, from the first to all camels to come. If he so willed he would create the virus in you and still you would not have disease. The virus is itself powerless and only Allah can cause harm.

            So rely on Him alone.

            There is no such thing as "nature" only Allah's Sunnah i.e. the way he has generally created/decreed things. E.g. when you want to jump up generally we observe that it was Allah's decree that you jump in the first place and we observe that it is generally his decree that you come down. From what we observe of Allah's creation we extrapolate scientific laws - these are Sunan of Allah i.e. generally how he creates things. Fire will burn if Allah wills and will not burn if Allah wills.

            If someone goes to shoot a gun, the bullet will go out of the gun if Allah so wills and will stay in the gun if Allah so wills, even if he willed for you to pull the trigger. But he has generally decreed for the bullet to leave the gun, so trust in Allah but tie up your camel!

            A miracle is when Allah has left his Sunnah and has created something in an unexpected way (e.g. Allah creates burning if the human goes into fire, but he has decreed otherwise in the case of Ibrahim Alayhis Salam in the fire.) In this world he has decreed that food shall exit the body, and in Jannah he has decreed something else. There is no such thing as nature, only Allah.

            The Muslim worships only Allah.

            Narrated Abu Huraira:

            Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Allah said, 'The son of Adam hurts me for he abuses Time though I am Time: bi-Yadiy are all things, and I cause the revolution of day and night.'

            - Sahih al-Bukhari 4826; Bi-Yadiy referring to the divine attributes, translated by some as the "in my divine Hands". In the Hadith Allah is saying he literally revolves the night and day.
            Yahya related to me from Malik from Ziyad ibn Sad from Amr ibn Muslim that Tawus al-Yamani said,

            "I found some of the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying 'Everything is by decree.' " Tawus added, "I heard Abdullah ibn Umar say that The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. said, 'Everything is by decree - even incapacity and ability,' (or 'ability and incapacity')."

            - Muwatta Imam Malik Book 46, Hadith 4 and it is Sahihayn; There should be no questioning after this. The Hadith is clear.
            As Yasir Qadhi says, quoting from his video above, "No Muslim is going to reject you when you mention power of Allah and the attributes of Allah," so I do not expect any Muslim to defend Shirk al-Asbab and attack the statements of the layperson, "Insha'Allah" (If Allah wills) or "La Quwwata Illa Billah" (There is no power except with Allah). To do so and defend the likes of Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd is something I hope a person realises is deeply wrong in their heart. (See here for more Hadith evidences)

            To affirm Shirk al-Asbab is Kufr, and (as you can guess) Shirk.

            La Quwwata Illa Billah.

            None has power but Allah.

            Allah is the sole cause of all things, he is al-Muqtadir (the determiner). He is al-Qadeer (the decreer), he is al-Jabbar (the compeller), al-Fatir (the originator), al-Khaliq (the creator), al-Qawiyy (the powerful), al-Muta'ali (the most High), al-Aziz (the almighty), al-Razzaq (the sustainer), al-Qabid (the restrictor), al-Bari (the evolver), al-Musawwir (the shaper), ad-Darr (the one who inflicts harm), ad-Nafi' (the one who gives benefit), al-Muhyi wal-Mumit (the bestower of life and death). There is no god but Him and none take these names or any of the ninety-nine names but Him alone.

            None helps nor harms you but Him alone. Not even the best of creations (the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam) has power to help or benefit you, nor does the worst of the creation have power to harm, or damage you. Allah alone heals and inflicts pain. All things are in Yadullah. However, we trust in Allah but tie up our camels, i.e. we work within his Sunnah (seek medical help etc.) despite knowing only He actually helps.

            If he has decreed the patient will die, then nothing can they do to stop his will and decree. This is also the correct Aqeedah of the Awwam I hear and witness from family members who do not even pray Salah.

            I will not be arguing on this topic, and will ignore anyone who tries questioning the Kufr of Shirk al-Asbab. The Deist is a Kafir. The Jew is a Kafir. Al-Falasifah are Kuffar. The one who affirms natural causation if such a person comes to us and says they are a Muslim (with no other intuitive/obvious Kufr) then we will suspend judgement and leave it to those knowledgeable enough of making such Takfir after investigation, questioning. (Note: It is permitted to talk of cause and effect in common speech despite belief in Qadar as that is what we observe i.e. Sunnahtullah - the way Allah has generally created things e.g. I can say someone helps me despite the fact that in reality only Allah actually helps me. If he wills otherwise, the other person will not help or if he wills the other person will go to help but no benefit will come. The other person has no actual power to help you.)

            - End of Tangent -

            Istigatha is only Shirk therefore if someone intends that other than Allah is the real cause/means/decreer/creator of their benefit, that other than Allah has real power then this would be shirk regardless of whether help was sought from the dead or alive. Included in that also is if the person explicitly thinks the grave/person in it are a god or divine in anyway. Then it is Shirk and the person leaves the fold of Islam.

            The one who does has correct Aqeedah, then according to position 2, he has commited a sin, and according to position 3, he has done something permissible.

            My Issues with those who defend Istighatha

            My main issue is that if we honest, there seems to be no clear-cut evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah supporting Istigatha, e.g. in the manner of Tawassul. In addition, unlike Tawassul I feel Istigatha falls in a grey area where it can be easily confused for Shirk or can lead to that. The Hadith people who support position 3 quote (that are explicit as to the dead), are in reality just evidence for Tawassul of the dead.

            E.g. someone might quote the following:

            Sayyiduna Malik al-Dar, the treasurer of food during the time of Sayyiduna ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiyallahu ‘anhu), reports that once the people had been experiencing a drought in the era of Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu), a man went to the grave of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and said, ‘O Rasulullah, ask for rain on behalf of your ummah, for verily, they are being destroyed.’

            Thereafter this person was instructed in a dream to go to Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu) and tell him that, ‘the rains will soon come and say to him, Be intelligent’, When ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu) was informed of this, he began to cry and he said, ‘O My Lord, I will only leave out what I am unable to do.’

            - Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah 12/31-32; Dala’il Al-nubuwwah of Imam al-Bayhaqi 7/47

            Our Muhaddithun have said that Ibn Kathir has authenticated it in Musnad al-Faruq 1/223 and Hafiz Ibn Hajar has also indicated to its authenticity in Fath al-Bari.
            Now this has no evidence for Istigatha, it is merely Tawassul.

            Yes due to some people, there is some confusion over what the difference is, but clearly in the above, the Sahabi is going to the grave of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and asking RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam to make dua to Allah. The person has not asked RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam to himself grant him anything, so if anything this is evidence against Istigatha.

            People from the Sufi crowd may rely on the fact that people are unaware of the difference between the two (due to a certain group) in order to argue for Istigatha.

            Sayyiduna ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf (radiyallahu ‘anhu) narrates that once a blind person came to Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and said, ‘Oh Rasulullah ! Ask Allah to cure me.’ Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) replied, ‘If you wish I will make du’a or else you could be patient and this is better for you.’

            The man said, O Messenger of Allah! ‘Make du’a instead’,

            Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) then commanded him to make wudu properly and then recite the following du’a, ‘Oh Allah, verily, I ask of you and I turn to you through your prophet, the prophet of mercy, O Muhammad, verily, I have turned to my Lord through you so that my need be fulfilled. Oh Allah, accept his intercession on my behalf.’

            - Musnad Ahmad 4/138
            This only evidences Tawassul, not Istigatha.

            "But he says Ya Muhammad" (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam)

            However this was said in the context of Tawassul, he is making a dua to Allah, and then after he says, "Ya Muhammad" (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam), we notice he immediately mentions Allah and then returns to asking Allah Azza Wa Jal for the intercession to be granted.

            "But many famous scholars have permitted Istighatha"

            This is why I don't fully adopt position 2 either. To say it is Haram when there seems to be no clear evidences of any prohibition (with correct Aqeedah) and when there are classical Ulama - although they tend to be later - permitting it, doesn't seem right to me. Its as if they had evidence we didn't, but ultimately like the Hadith of Jabir, we can only judge what is in front of us. (In fact I seem to recall reading something in Sahihayn where the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam disparages someone who asks him for help and tells him to ask Allah, I can't seem to find it though. Maybe I am misremembering).

            I am sure people will bring up the fact that the Awliyah Allah have Karamat and so in the grave perhaps Allah has made it so we observe a miracle i.e. the one goes to the grave, calls upon the Wali, and then e.g. something good happens.

            To be clear, I am a firm affirmer of the Karamat of the Awliyah, I mean I know of this personally, and even if I didn't, it is in clear Ahadith:

            Suhaib reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) thus said:

            There lived a king before you and he had a (court) magician. As he (the magician) grew old, he said to the king: I have grown old, send some young boy to me so that I should teach him magic. He (the king) sent to him a young man so that he should train him (in magic). And on his way (to the magician) he (the young man) found a monk sitting there. He (the young man) listened to his (the monk's) talk and was impressed by it. It became his habit that on his way to the magician he met the monk and set there and he came to the magician (late). He (the magician) beat him because of delay. He made a complaint of that to the monk and he said to him: When you feel afraid of the magician, say: Members of my family had detained me. And when you feel afraid of your family you should say: The magician had detained me. It so happened that there came a huge beast (of prey) and it blocked the way of the people, and he (the young boy) said: I will come to know today whether the magician is superior or the monk is superior. He picked up a stone and said: O Allah, if the affair of the monk is dearer to Thee than the affair of the magician, cause death to this animal so that the people should be able to move about freely. He threw that stone towards it and killed it and the people began to move about (on the path freely). He (the young man) then came to that monk and Informed him and the monk said: Sonny, today you are superior to me. Your affair has come to a stage where I find that you would be soon put to a trial, and in case you are put to a trial don't give my clue. That young man began to treat the blind and those suffering from leprosy and he in fact began to cure people from (all kinds) of illness...

            (the Hadith is long so I will quote this much)

            - Sahih Muslim 3005; Kitab al-Zuhd wal-Riqaq (Book of Asceticism and Heart Softeners)
            So the argument goes, "Allah Azza Wa Jal has power to do all things, and he has the power to make the person in the grave perform miracles beyond the grave, so we should say "Ya Shaykh Abdul Qadir" and call on him to assist us."

            I just want someone who believes in a clear-cut permissibility/recommendation for Istigatha to think for a moment: Even if it isn't Shirk (with the correct Aqeedah), isn't this coming dangerously close to it? As in a pagan goes to their idol and asks the idol, "Help me by doing this," and the Muslim goes to the grave of the Shaykh and says "Help me by doing this," - outwardly what difference are we seeing?

            I agree the person in the second scenario is not committing Shirk, I agree that asking someone to help you when Allah has decreed for that is not Shirk, and I don't actually deny that Allah Azza Wa Jal if he wants to can make such things happen, my issue is that could the rural laypeople not, over many generations, forget the correct Aqeedah (especially in remote villages in certain areas) and especially if they are living besides non-muslims, could this not precipitate in some of them falling into actual Shirk? I am not making a comment on whether this happens anywhere in particular I am just asking a hypothetical.

            So how can we exactly attack those Ulama who see harm and prohibit something to prevent that Harm? RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam says:

            On the authority of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudree (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

            There should be neither harming (darar) nor reciprocating harm (dirar).

            - Arba'een an-Nawawi Hadith 32; Found in Sunan Ibn Majah etc. Hadith is authentic/sound.
            This is not the same thing as prohibiting something just because you are unsure whether it is permitted/prohibited or not, so you "want to be safe". That is the way of the Jews. This is actually related to a real threat, and is based off of a clear Asl.

            At the same time, group 3 will argue, "But where is the clear Verses or Hadith prohibiting it?" And perhaps the answer is there is none (as I said I seem to remember reading something in Sahihayn on this topic but I can never seem to find it Allahu Alam maybe I am confusing this with something else or maybe it's a false memory).

            So yes I agree that perhaps we shouldn't prohibit something like this without clear Nass, especially if it is done with correct Aqeedah and can benefit the Muslims.

            But neither does it seem right to me to permit it when it is an action which can easily lead to Shirk. And the Hadith of Tawassul if anything seems to argue against Istighatha, as if Istighatha was permitted, why would we need Tawassul? Why add so many words into a Dua, it's as if the Sahabah were being very careful to avoid something.

            So I don't feel comfortable going with the Ulama who prohibit it and calling certain Ulama Mubtadi'yyin, nor do I feel comfortable going with those respectable Ulama who permit it (evidence-wise and also in my heart but that isn't considered). We are not legislators, Allah is the sole legislator. So in absence of any evidence I do not think one way or another. So I reject both position 2 and position 3, and take a position 2.5. This is despite in my heart feeling it is very wrong, and realising I will never do it myself.

            So I respect in particular the fatwa of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam (al-Hanafi), who prohibits it but also recognises that group 3 aren't necessarily deviants:

            Although some scholars may allow these two types of Istighatha (5 and 6) subject to one having a sound belief that it is only Allah who helps in absolute terms, the opinion of many other scholars including most of my teachers (and the position which I hold to be correct) is that such type of Istighatha is an ‘expression’ of Shirk and hence prohibited even if done with a sound belief. Seeking help in a matter not ordinarily in the control of the one whose help is being sought may create a doubt that he is independent in that action, because there is no immediate external reason from Allah’s design in His creation. Since it is a practical expression of Shirk, means to Shirk and resembles the Shirk of the Polytheists (mushrikun), it is forbidden. It is in order to block the means to ‘clear’ Shirk, especially in our times, given the widespread nature of ignorance and corrupt beliefs within the masses.

            - Fatwa
            I.e. Sunnahtullah is that the dead person cannot help you. Yes there are times when Allah breaks his Sunnah, but rather than making those times the rule, those times are an exception. Some people will quote Hadith or cases of Ulama calling to the angels as Ibadullah for help etc. All these times the person makes it clear they are the slaves of Allah and the person in question has impecable Aqeedah. The fear is for those with less than impecable Aqeedah. Similarly for quotations of the mountains etc.

            I know people will start quoting major Ulama etc. I have already said that I have considered that and it is precisely for that reason that I hold the position I do. I do not view either position 2 (those who prohibit Istigatha) nor those who hold position 3 (that Istigatha is permissible) as false positions, I say they are both valid but I hold neither.

            I admit though even I sometimes myself don't feel satisfied with my own arguments for accepting position 3 as reasonable or accepting position 2 in light of certain other evidences, but at the same time I maintain there is no clear-cut example of this being permissible (nor prohibited). I think both have their arguments and ultimately I can't seem to find a clear Nass against Istighatha , nor for it for that matter. (things that some people today quote against it would prohibit other things like asking a living person for help)

            So I adjure people on position 3 to realise the potential danger of this and those on position 2 to at least acknowledge the difference of opinion. Ultimately my final position (2.5) would be:

            Istighatha of the dead is something that I personally avoid. Historically it was permitted by some, with correct and sound Aqeedah. Others prohibited it. It is within reasonable difference of opinion amongst the scholars to permit or prohibit it. It is not within reasonable difference to label it as Shirk - that is Bid'ah.

            So I adopt a position 2.5 and do not object to those scholars holding 2 or 3, but I class as innovation positions 1a and 1b.

            Note: I generally don't comment on differences of fiqhi opinion, and have only done so here as it is related to Aqeedah. It is at a deeper level a matter of fiqh: You should be following a fatwa of a qualified Alim and not making it up as you go along - I am ultimately following my local Imam who I pray behind who recommended me that Hadith in these matters (where it isn't clear).
            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


            • #7
              We accept the relics by the way (e.g. the hairs of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam), are deriving blessing from them, that has nothing to do with this topic.
              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


              • #8
                Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post
                I'll watch this when I get a chance in sha Allah

                thanks for sharing JazakAllah khayran
                No problem. Wa Iyyakum.

                I have been anticipating a video like this where he explicitly states his views ever since the stages of the Najdi Da'wah podcast.

                This is from a post I made in the "Ibn Abdul Wahhab lacks qualifications" thread:

                Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                The inherent flaw of the contemporary Salafi movement is that it was founded on the radical teachings of the 12th century reformist Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Regardless if anyone claims that Salafiyyah is a theoretical Manhaj and not a Firqa based on personalities. The fact of the matter is that the most reputable scholars of the movement were unanimously in favour of MIAW's ideaology. What this means is that it would pratically take a miracle for us to witness an actual reformation of the Salafi Aqeedah. Not only do the Salafis hold their senior scholars in very high-esteem, but the amount of humbe pie the "saved sect" would have to endure might literally be too much to swallow...
                I wonder how much of it is true and whether the Salafi movement can live on after it comes to terms with the fact that their "founding fathers" (Bin Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen and Shaykh al-Albani) were mistaken on the issue of Tawheed and the Najdi Da'wah which was supposed to be their bread and butter. It is highly unlikely that you will see an adequate response to this video and I'm sure the Shaykh will take it a step further in his upcoming book.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                  So I've mentioned before, strand 1 as Shaykh Yasir defines it (a and b), are innovators but still Muslims. 1a) are essentially Khawarij. 1b) are closer to us, in the way a Zaidi might be closer to us than a Rawafid.

                  Before I talk about my views on strand 2 vs 3, I just want to say something.

                  What do I feel in my heart?

                  Not that we should take theological issues (well this is half theological, half fiqh) by what we feel in our hearts, but if I went by this, then in the same way I feel an intense repulision in my heart to the views of the Mujassimah/Taymiyyans/Pseudo-Salafi on their Ilahiyyat, I do also feel a similarly strong repulsion to strand 3's position as a whole (although when I get into it/justify certain things, this may disappate a little).

                  If I went by that, then I would conclude strand 2 is correct (Note: this is not in anyway how I determine these days whether issues of theology are correct, it isn't even an evidence for me and people should not mistake this for why I have certainty on certain issues).

                  This is just myself being honest. Intellectually, when I look at this, this isn't my view, but nevertheless I won't lie to my brothers by hiding what I feel in my heart on these issues.

                  My local Imam taught me to take the following Hadith as a rule of thumb:



                  So because of this, whatever position I take on Istigatha formally, I do not practice it myself.

                  This should not be confused with my view on Tawassul, which is very different.

                  Anyway to proceed:

                  What are my views on the various strands Sh. Yasir has mentioned

                  As I said, strands 1 (1a and 1b) are both incorrect and heretical. These will be considered as Bid'ah (innovations). Outside of this issue (where they make Takfir), the followers of that thought tend to hold in their mind the following idea: "It is better to prohibit something permitted than to permit something prohibited out of caution". They are the people who incur Allah's wrath, and prohibit the permitted like the legalistic Jews of old. If you want to be careful in religion, you leave something that you are unsure of, you do not become a legislator and make it prohibited.

                  A lot of Sunni scholars I listen to either hold strand 2 or 3 or are in-between. My view is that Strand 2 is definitely a Sunni position, and Strand 3 is a Sunni position, with caveats. Going by Yasir Qadhi's categorisation, I would call my position Strand 2.5 or 2b or something.

                  I used to hold position 2 a long time ago, and this was even after rejecting pseudo-Salafi doctrine after learning about their history, their scholars, how they view Allah Azza Wa Jal and after learning about Imam al-Ash'ari, and certain prophecies. In other words I used to be an "Ash'ari" upon position 2 - I reasoned that the same disgust I feel in my heart towards position 3 is the same disgust that led me to reject Taymiyyan theology, so it has to be that position 2 is correct. This is very faulty reasoning, and at that time I didn't even accept Tawassul by the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

                  In fact I wasn't even a clear strand 2 at the beginning, more like halfway between 1b and 2 - I thought "Tawassul is Haram and Istigatha is Shirk" and gradually I moved to accepting Tawassul and considering Istigatha Haram unless the intention is to worship (strand 2) - which is a valid Sunni position.

                  Tawassul of the dead is not Istighatha

                  Let me make something clear - my position has nothing to do with Tawassul (which is frequently confused with Istighatha). Tawassul is to make something a means for yourself, e.g. going to someone who is more pious than you and asking them to make dua for you etc. My own view of Tawassul of the dead e.g. asking Allah that he makes a dead person make dua to Him for you (I.e. the act of worship is addressed to Allah by both yourself and the dead person), is that it is permitted, and recommended in the case of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam.

                  Also coming under this is going up to a dead person/grave and asking them "Make Dua to Allah for me O so-and-so" (by the view that the dead hear if Allah wills). I have no issues with this. This is permitted.

                  Also included in this is just a more general asking e.g. making dua to Allah that "O Allah I ask you for that for the sake of your Prophet Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam you grant my wish for x" or mentioning rank etc. However, I take the view it is prohibited to say "O Allah I ask you by the right of(bi-Haqqi) Muhammad Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam" as according to the view of Imam al-Azam who said none has rights over Allah Azza Wa Jal.

                  My issue with the pseudo-Salafi crowd is they generally confuse Tawassul for Istigatha, and when they oppose certain Hadith, they are opposing the Hadith of Tawassul of the dead, not Istigatha.

                  Rejecting Tawassul of the dead as prohibited is within the wide scope of Sunni opinion (even though this is a minority view). Saying Tawassul of the dead is Shirk is a reprehensible innovation and one would be classified with the Khawarij depending on how they word that.

                  Note: With Tawassul of the dead, by the very nature of it, it is impossible to be Shirk, as the dua is made to Allah, and any request you make (e.g. to the dead) is just to make dua to Allah.

                  So one should be clear, Istigatha is not any of the above. Now if someone understands all this very well, they might have gleaned what issues I have with those who support Istigatha.

                  What is Istighatha?

                  "Ya Muhammad (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam) Madad" (asking the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam for help)

                  "Ya Muhammad (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam) grant me X"

                  "Ya Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani give me X"

                  "Ya Shaykh Foolan destroy X people"

                  or going up to a grave and saying:

                  "Ya so-and-so, grant me X, Y and Z"

                  Now this is where the problems begin.

                  Why is Istighatha not always Shirk?

                  Intuitively, any Muslim who has been raised on Tawhid, will look at the above and say, "Shirk," and think the issue is clear-cut. After all, we recite in Surah Fatihah that only Allah can help us, right? The issue is not clear cut. It takes understanding and patience to realise why.

                  There is a good debate you can watch between Shaykh Asrar Rashid (who holds position 3 by the way) and a pseudo-Salafi (position 1) on this. Here it is (for some reason the pseudo-Salafi has not posted the uncut debate on his channel). Essentially it is very difficult to give a coherent argument for why it is always Shirk, as logically then we would say anyone calling out for help from someone living is Shirk.

                  E.g. young Mahmud says, "O teacher help me" Is Mahmud a mushrik? No. Or if someone falls of a boat, they say "O sailers help me" Are they a Mushrik? No. So if someone goes up to a grave with the understanding that the person in the grave cannot actually help them only Allah can help them then it is definitely not Shirk. Allah can create/decree things such that it seems the person in the grave has caused help in the same way he can create/decree that the living helps the person.

                  To be clear, my position is very consistent - if someone believes that another person can help them independently of Allah, by causing/creating something for them, this is Shirk whether the person is dead or alive. The one who believes in the philosophical position known as Natural Causation (like the neo-Mu'tazilite Usama Hasan, who once had a debate with Yasir Qadhi on evolution), then that is a belief of Shirk. This is known as Shirk al-Asbab (Shirk of the cause), and is anathema to Islam and belief in Qadar. It is Shirk whether upon the dead or the alive. Allah is the sole cause of all things, as shown in multiple Qur'anic verses and Hadith, which state Allah is the one who decrees everything and that there is no cause but Him.

                  - Slight Tangent -



                  From another Riwayah, different Sahabi even:



                  All things are by the decree of Allah (Qadar Allah). There is no such thing as nature, the one who worships nature is a Kafir. A camel does not cause infection in another camel, Allah causes infection in camels, from the first to all camels to come. If he so willed he would create the virus in you and still you would not have disease. The virus is itself powerless and only Allah can cause harm.

                  So rely on Him alone.

                  There is no such thing as "nature" only Allah's Sunnah i.e. the way he has generally created/decreed things. E.g. when you want to jump up generally we observe that it was Allah's decree that you jump in the first place and we observe that it is generally his decree that you come down. From what we observe of Allah's creation we extrapolate scientific laws - these are Sunan of Allah i.e. generally how he creates things. Fire will burn if Allah wills and will not burn if Allah wills.

                  If someone goes to shoot a gun, the bullet will go out of the gun if Allah so wills and will stay in the gun if Allah so wills, even if he willed for you to pull the trigger. But he has generally decreed for the bullet to leave the gun, so trust in Allah but tie up your camel!

                  A miracle is when Allah has left his Sunnah and has created something in an unexpected way (e.g. Allah creates burning if the human goes into fire, but he has decreed otherwise in the case of Ibrahim Alayhis Salam in the fire.) In this world he has decreed that food shall exit the body, and in Jannah he has decreed something else. There is no such thing as nature, only Allah.

                  The Muslim worships only Allah.





                  As Yasir Qadhi says, quoting from his video above, "No Muslim is going to reject you when you mention power of Allah and the attributes of Allah," so I do not expect any Muslim to defend Shirk al-Asbab and attack the statements of the layperson, "Insha'Allah" (If Allah wills) or "La Quwwata Illa Billah" (There is no power except with Allah). To do so and defend the likes of Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd is something I hope a person realises is deeply wrong in their heart. (See here for more Hadith evidences)

                  To affirm Shirk al-Asbab is Kufr, and (as you can guess) Shirk.

                  La Quwwata Illa Billah.

                  None has power but Allah.

                  Allah is the sole cause of all things, he is al-Muqtadir (the determiner). He is al-Qadeer (the decreer), he is al-Jabbar (the compeller), al-Fatir (the originator), al-Khaliq (the creator), al-Qawiyy (the powerful), al-Muta'ali (the most High), al-Aziz (the almighty), al-Razzaq (the sustainer), al-Qabid (the restrictor), al-Bari (the evolver), al-Musawwir (the shaper), ad-Darr (the one who inflicts harm), ad-Nafi' (the one who gives benefit), al-Muhyi wal-Mumit (the bestower of life and death). There is no god but Him and none take these names or any of the ninety-nine names but Him alone.

                  None helps nor harms you but Him alone. Not even the best of creations (the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam) has power to help or benefit you, nor does the worst of the creation have power to harm, or damage you. Allah alone heals and inflicts pain. All things are in Yadullah. However, we trust in Allah but tie up our camels, i.e. we work within his Sunnah (seek medical help etc.) despite knowing only He actually helps.

                  If he has decreed the patient will die, then nothing can they do to stop his will and decree. This is also the correct Aqeedah of the Awwam I hear and witness from family members who do not even pray Salah.

                  I will not be arguing on this topic, and will ignore anyone who tries questioning the Kufr of Shirk al-Asbab. The Deist is a Kafir. The Jew is a Kafir. Al-Falasifah are Kuffar. The one who affirms natural causation if such a person comes to us and says they are a Muslim (with no other intuitive/obvious Kufr) then we will suspend judgement and leave it to those knowledgeable enough of making such Takfir after investigation, questioning. (Note: It is permitted to talk of cause and effect in common speech despite belief in Qadar as that is what we observe i.e. Sunnahtullah - the way Allah has generally created things e.g. I can say someone helps me despite the fact that in reality only Allah actually helps me. If he wills otherwise, the other person will not help or if he wills the other person will go to help but no benefit will come. The other person has no actual power to help you.)

                  - End of Tangent -

                  Istigatha is only Shirk therefore if someone intends that other than Allah is the real cause/means/decreer/creator of their benefit, that other than Allah has real power then this would be shirk regardless of whether help was sought from the dead or alive. Included in that also is if the person explicitly thinks the grave/person in it are a god or divine in anyway. Then it is Shirk and the person leaves the fold of Islam.

                  The one who does has correct Aqeedah, then according to position 2, he has commited a sin, and according to position 3, he has done something permissible.

                  My Issues with those who defend Istighatha

                  My main issue is that if we honest, there seems to be no clear-cut evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah supporting Istigatha, e.g. in the manner of Tawassul. In addition, unlike Tawassul I feel Istigatha falls in a grey area where it can be easily confused for Shirk or can lead to that. The Hadith people who support position 3 quote (that are explicit as to the dead), are in reality just evidence for Tawassul of the dead.

                  E.g. someone might quote the following:



                  Now this has no evidence for Istigatha, it is merely Tawassul.

                  Yes due to some people, there is some confusion over what the difference is, but clearly in the above, the Sahabi is going to the grave of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and asking RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam to make dua to Allah. The person has not asked RasulAllah Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam to himself grant him anything, so if anything this is evidence against Istigatha.

                  People from the Sufi crowd may rely on the fact that people are unaware of the difference between the two (due to a certain group) in order to argue for Istigatha.



                  This only evidences Tawassul, not Istigatha.

                  "But he says Ya Muhammad" (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam)

                  However this was said in the context of Tawassul, he is making a dua to Allah, and then after he says, "Ya Muhammad" (Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam), we notice he immediately mentions Allah and then returns to asking Allah Azza Wa Jal for the intercession to be granted.

                  "But many famous scholars have permitted Istighatha"

                  This is why I don't fully adopt position 2 either. To say it is Haram when there seems to be no clear evidences of any prohibition (with correct Aqeedah) and when there are classical Ulama - although they tend to be later - permitting it, doesn't seem right to me. Its as if they had evidence we didn't, but ultimately like the Hadith of Jabir, we can only judge what is in front of us. (In fact I seem to recall reading something in Sahihayn where the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam disparages someone who asks him for help and tells him to ask Allah, I can't seem to find it though. Maybe I am misremembering).

                  I am sure people will bring up the fact that the Awliyah Allah have Karamat and so in the grave perhaps Allah has made it so we observe a miracle i.e. the one goes to the grave, calls upon the Wali, and then e.g. something good happens.

                  To be clear, I am a firm affirmer of the Karamat of the Awliyah, I mean I know of this personally, and even if I didn't, it is in clear Ahadith:



                  So the argument goes, "Allah Azza Wa Jal has power to do all things, and he has the power to make the person in the grave perform miracles beyond the grave, so we should say "Ya Shaykh Abdul Qadir" and call on him to assist us."

                  I just want someone who believes in a clear-cut permissibility/recommendation for Istigatha to think for a moment: Even if it isn't Shirk (with the correct Aqeedah), isn't this coming dangerously close to it? As in a pagan goes to their idol and asks the idol, "Help me by doing this," and the Muslim goes to the grave of the Shaykh and says "Help me by doing this," - outwardly what difference are we seeing?

                  I agree the person in the second scenario is not committing Shirk, I agree that asking someone to help you when Allah has decreed for that is not Shirk, and I don't actually deny that Allah Azza Wa Jal if he wants to can make such things happen, my issue is that could the rural laypeople not, over many generations, forget the correct Aqeedah (especially in remote villages in certain areas) and especially if they are living besides non-muslims, could this not precipitate in some of them falling into actual Shirk? I am not making a comment on whether this happens anywhere in particular I am just asking a hypothetical.

                  So how can we exactly attack those Ulama who see harm and prohibit something to prevent that Harm? RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam says:



                  This is not the same thing as prohibiting something just because you are unsure whether it is permitted/prohibited or not, so you "want to be safe". That is the way of the Jews. This is actually related to a real threat, and is based off of a clear Asl.

                  At the same time, group 3 will argue, "But where is the clear Verses or Hadith prohibiting it?" And perhaps the answer is there is none (as I said I seem to remember reading something in Sahihayn on this topic but I can never seem to find it Allahu Alam maybe I am confusing this with something else or maybe it's a false memory).

                  So yes I agree that perhaps we shouldn't prohibit something like this without clear Nass, especially if it is done with correct Aqeedah and can benefit the Muslims.

                  But neither does it seem right to me to permit it when it is an action which can easily lead to Shirk. And the Hadith of Tawassul if anything seems to argue against Istighatha, as if Istighatha was permitted, why would we need Tawassul? Why add so many words into a Dua, it's as if the Sahabah were being very careful to avoid something.

                  So I don't feel comfortable going with the Ulama who prohibit it and calling certain Ulama Mubtadi'yyin, nor do I feel comfortable going with those respectable Ulama who permit it (evidence-wise and also in my heart but that isn't considered). We are not legislators, Allah is the sole legislator. So in absence of any evidence I do not think one way or another. So I reject both position 2 and position 3, and take a position 2.5. This is despite in my heart feeling it is very wrong, and realising I will never do it myself.

                  So I respect in particular the fatwa of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam (al-Hanafi), who prohibits it but also recognises that group 3 aren't necessarily deviants:



                  I.e. Sunnahtullah is that the dead person cannot help you. Yes there are times when Allah breaks his Sunnah, but rather than making those times the rule, those times are an exception. Some people will quote Hadith or cases of Ulama calling to the angels as Ibadullah for help etc. All these times the person makes it clear they are the slaves of Allah and the person in question has impecable Aqeedah. The fear is for those with less than impecable Aqeedah. Similarly for quotations of the mountains etc.

                  I know people will start quoting major Ulama etc. I have already said that I have considered that and it is precisely for that reason that I hold the position I do. I do not view either position 2 (those who prohibit Istigatha) nor those who hold position 3 (that Istigatha is permissible) as false positions, I say they are both valid but I hold neither.

                  I admit though even I sometimes myself don't feel satisfied with my own arguments for accepting position 3 as reasonable or accepting position 2 in light of certain other evidences, but at the same time I maintain there is no clear-cut example of this being permissible (nor prohibited). I think both have their arguments and ultimately I can't seem to find a clear Nass against Istighatha , nor for it for that matter. (things that some people today quote against it would prohibit other things like asking a living person for help)

                  So I adjure people on position 3 to realise the potential danger of this and those on position 2 to at least acknowledge the difference of opinion. Ultimately my final position (2.5) would be:

                  Istighatha of the dead is something that I personally avoid. Historically it was permitted by some, with correct and sound Aqeedah. Others prohibited it. It is within reasonable difference of opinion amongst the scholars to permit or prohibit it. It is not within reasonable difference to label it as Shirk - that is Bid'ah.

                  So I adopt a position 2.5 and do not object to those scholars holding 2 or 3, but I class as innovation positions 1a and 1b.

                  Note: I generally don't comment on differences of fiqhi opinion, and have only done so here as it is related to Aqeedah. It is at a deeper level a matter of fiqh: You should be following a fatwa of a qualified Alim and not making it up as you go along - I am ultimately following my local Imam who I pray behind who recommended me that Hadith in these matters (where it isn't clear).
                  I think Qadhi tried to simplify it as much as he could, in reality the issue is much more complicated as you have said.

                  The strangest watered down najdi view I have ever read is that going to the prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and asking him to ask Allah for your forgiveness is haraam and bidah but asking him to allow him to intercide for you with Allah by his permission is suddenly shirk.

                  The mental gymnastics they play just to somehow still agree with the Najdi view is ridiculous.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post

                    No problem. Wa Iyyakum.

                    I have been anticipating a video like this where he explicitly states his views ever since the stages of the Najdi Da'wah podcast.

                    This is from a post I made in the "Ibn Abdul Wahhab lacks qualifications" thread:



                    I wonder how much of it is true and whether the Salafi movement can live on after it comes to terms with the fact that their "founding fathers" (Bin Baz, Ibn Uthaymeen and Shaykh al-Albani) were mistaken on the issue of Tawheed and the Najdi Da'wah which was supposed to be their bread and butter. It is highly unlikely that you will see an adequate response to this video and I'm sure the Shaykh will take it a step further in his upcoming book.

                    True, like I said once before, if they can be so mistaken on these major issues, you start to doubt everything they say on lesser issues.

                    What you have currently is salafis living in complete denial, they cannot accept that their understanding on tahweed and shirk is wrong so they basically shut off their brains and claim others are giving them doubts. I guess it's not easy to change views on such important issues.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Library Chat on the Najdi Da'wah and Istigatha:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                        Library Chat on the Najdi Da'wah and Istigatha:

                        [00:00] Part 1: YQ's journey with the Najdi Da'wah.
                        [40:44] Part 2: The beliefs of the pagan Arabs.
                        [1:36:34] Part 3: Historical aspects of the Najdi Da'wah.
                        [2:36:21] Part 4: Ibn Taymiyyah vs. MIAW.



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Awnism fails harder than Najdism.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                            Library Chat on the Najdi Da'wah and Istigatha:

                            Fixed:

                            [00:00] Part 1: YQ's journey with Najdi theology.
                            [40:44] Part 2: The beliefs of the pagan Arabs.
                            [1:46:34] Part 3: Historical aspects of the Najdi Da'wah.
                            [2:36:21] Part 4: Ibn Taymiyyah vs. MIAW.

                            Further timestamps could be found in the comments section of the video.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              AmantuBillahi this lecture of yasir qadhi is truly one of the most beneficial lectures that summarises the core problems of the najdi dawah. After his initial video regarding istighatha and attempts to refute him, i noticed that they didn't even bother to address the main point he emphasised about the distinction between the belief of the pagans & muslims who practise istighatha.

                              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 mean does it suddenly become shirk only when an individual believes in a god that is independent from Allah ? that it's ok to believe in a god besides Allah as long as that god is dependent, subservient, subordinate, to Allah ? does shirk become valid because one believes that it's happening due to the Will & Qadr of Allah ?

                              Even in their talbiyah when they proclaim that Allah owns both their idols and whatever their idols owned they were lying as Allah informs 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. The things which their idols owned were the things which the pagans brought to them.

                              Another problematic issue about their classification of tawheed is the contradiction that arises of affirming tawheed & shirk to the pagans, since the pagans committed shirk in uluhiyyah how come they still retain tawheed rububiyyah, after all shirk negates tawheed ?




                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X