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

  • #91
    Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

    Yes but when we say Salah, we are referring to something that we know has a specific intention behind it.
    You specifically mentioned salah and said performing salah to other than Allah is not automatically shirk. Salah is worship.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

      They can intend the action, but to intend worship means you have a specific belief.
      This is just more word salad. You said salah so beliefs and intentions are clear. Let's not play dumb, eh...

      Comment


      • #93
        Most people who have tried to refute this concept followed by yasir qadhi and also people like muhammed al massari and hatim al awni (though yasir qadhi is a little different to hatim al awni apparently) have failed to give an adequate response

        Though bassam al zawadi in his pdf found on his website does give a good explanation as to why yasir qadhi and the others are wrong

        https://bassamzawadi.medium.com/defi...h-6682e7abaf87

        Bassam translated bits of shaykh Sultan al umayrees work from mafhoom al ibaadah (in arabic) The shaykh will also be publishing a sharh kitab at tawheed where he will go deeper into these issues (probably only available in arabic)

        شيخ سلطان العميري
        Last edited by Abu julaybeeb; 01-03-21, 02:14 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

          You specifically mentioned salah and said performing salah to other than Allah is not automatically shirk. Salah is worship.
          Yes..... Salah as an act alone (your definition) to another creation is not automatically shirk, so if someone went and did ruko and sujood to another person in an organised manner then it would not be major shirk immediately, but haraam...unless it is accompanied by certain beliefs.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

            This is just more word salad. You said salah so beliefs and intentions are clear. Let's not play dumb, eh...
            But I do not believe that Salah is merely an act, this was your definition I was going by.

            I believe Salah is worship because it is an act that is accompanied by certain beliefs and intentions

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

              Yes..... Salah as an act alone (your definition) to another creation is not automatically shirk, so if someone went and did ruko and sujood to another person in an organised manner then it would not be major shirk immediately, but haraam...unless it is accompanied by certain beliefs.
              Here's what you said:

              "...sujood and ruku in an organised manner for another creature and then called it Salah..."

              "...I believe Salah is worship..."

              So you still hold the position that worshipping other than Allah through salah - probably the most unambiguous act of worship there is - is not automatically shirk.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                In a certain context, yes.
                but why do sujood to anyone except Allah swt?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                  but why do sujood to anyone except Allah swt?
                  I don't think he's saying that. No one should make Sujood to anyone except Allah (SWT). It's more of a technical and somewhat pointless issue IMO.

                  Making Sujood itself wouldn't necessarily be classed as shirk. If done with the intention of worship, then it would be. As with the previous nations, it was permitted as mentioned by scholars.

                  So if making Sujood itself to another person was shirk, it would have been shirk for the previous nations too, as shirk doesn't change. So now, the majority view is it's haram to make sujood to whatever without the intention of worship and with the intention of worship, it's shirk.

                  Reason I say pointless, is because no one is arguing that its permitted. Everyone agrees bad but to what degree, haram or shirk.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Fais View Post

                    I don't think he's saying that. No one should make Sujood to anyone except Allah (SWT). It's more of a technical and somewhat pointless issue IMO.

                    Making Sujood itself wouldn't necessarily be classed as shirk. If done with the intention of worship, then it would be. As with the previous nations, it was permitted as mentioned by scholars.

                    So if making Sujood itself to another person was shirk, it would have been shirk for the previous nations too, as shirk doesn't change. So now, the majority view is it's haram to make sujood to whatever without the intention of worship and with the intention of worship, it's shirk.

                    Reason I say pointless, is because no one is arguing that its permitted. Everyone agrees bad but to what degree, haram or shirk.
                    wouldnt it be better just to stay away from oit, as it can be a risky thing?

                    kinda reminds me of the taweez issue in the sense that their belief can change over time

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                      wouldnt it be better just to stay away from oit, as it can be a risky thing?

                      kinda reminds me of the taweez issue in the sense that their belief can change over time
                      You absolutely should NOT make Sajdah to anyone or thing other than Allah (SWT).

                      There's nothing to stay away from ... everyone agrees on that. There is no dispute regarding that.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                        I don't agree with this brother's perspective on these issues but still thought it would be worthwhile sharing.

                        Article on defining Ibadah:
                        https://bassamzawadi.medium.com/defi...h-6682e7abaf87
                        As i stated earlier in the thread the responses to YQ's lecture fail to address the main issue between the belief of the pagans & muslims who practice istighatha. Furthermore in the article even though Bassam acknowledges the mushrikeen ascribed attributes of lordship like ability to harm and benefit to their gods, he never once states this is shirk or a violation of Rububiyyah. Instead he states that what's important is determining whether the mushrikeen believed their gods could harm and benefit independently of Allah’s Will.


                        Now the question that we need to ask ourselves is, does shirk rububiyyah occur only when one believes their gods act (ie harm & benefit) outside of Allah's will ? The mushrikeen worshipped their gods with the belief that it happened by Allah's will but this belief of theirs is still considered shirk. So what about believing that their gods had powers and acted on them by the Will of Allah ? is it not a contradiction to believe that the excuse of Qadr doesn't negate shirk in uluhiyyah but does in shirk rububiyyah ?


                        Using the talbiyah of pagans as evidence to show that they didn't commit shirk in rububiyyah is problematic as Allah in 17:111 explicitly responds to their claim by saying that ; He has no partner in His Dominion proving without a doubt that the pagans did in fact ascribe rububiyyah to their gods and believed that they co-ruled with Allah in His Mulk ( dominion/sovereignty/kingdom )

                        Tafsir ibn kathir

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

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


                        In 6:136 Allah tells us that the pagans 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. In this ayah we clearly see that the portion that belonged to their gods was for them alone meaning what their gods owned was for them only but what Allah owned was to shared with their gods. So when they state that Allah owns whatever their gods own they were lying

                        Believing that Allah has a partner with Him in His Mulk is Shirk, it doesn't matter whether the partner is dependent upon or independent from Him.


                        In Surah 23:91 Allah clearly establishes the reason why there can never be any god alongside Him, in the ayah we learn that belief in multiple gods leads to chaotic situation where each god takes back what it exclusively created and some try to subdue each other so as to be supreme. Notice in the ayah that Allah doesn't say what i created but what each god created indicating that gods are independent. One of the qualities of Lordship is that God is Sovereign and has the power to do what He wills, we clearly see this independent action of the gods in taking back what they created and also in trying to subdue one another.

                        Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any god. [If there had been], then each god would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him]. [23:91]
                        Look at what the brother says

                        So the Qur’an on this reading is not merely saying:

                        “Oh, you believe in another god who is independent? Well, that can’t be the case because…”

                        Rather, it’s saying:
                        Oh, you believe in another god? Well, your concept of god is wrong. Since a true god must have the following features…and since we don’t see those features reflected in your god, your god must not be true.”
                        So on this reading, it’s not only refuting the stance of the pagans, but also pointing out that they have an incomplete and incorrect view of god. This is a more comprehensive refutation of their view, while on the first reading, it’s not correcting their faulty understanding of god, but only refuting the veracity of its existence.

                        23:91, 21:22 these ayat deal with refuting the erroneous belief of there existing gods besides Allah, tbh i was perplexed as to how he came to that understanding.



                        Another mistake many others from the Salafi camp have made is when they would speak in general terms such as “Tawhid ar-Rububiyah” and believe that the only criterion which sufficiently meets this is that one merely believes that Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Rather, this is not the case. To have a true and complete Tawhid in ar-Rububiyah, that Tawhid must be free of all kinds of distorted views of it, whether it may belong to the specific first category or generic second category.

                        There's a big difference between saying the mushrikeen affirmed tawheed rububiyyah in the general sense or in general terms and saying that tawheed rububiyyah itself is a general term.The problem isn't with the definition or meaning of tawheed rububiyyah but in the selectivity when affirming it to the mushrikeen. Salafis define tawheed rububiyyah as signling out Allah alone in His action and no one has problems with it, rather the problem is when they affirm it to the pagans and use it as evidence to claim that this type of tawheed isn't sufficient to make one a muslim

                        The reason why he says the salafi camp have made a mistake here is because he acknowledges that the mushrikeen committed violations in rububiyyah. The salafi claim is that the mushriks commited shirk in Allah's Worship not His Lordship, now since he believes they made a mistake why didn't he explain it further in the article or even in the video response ?


                        Have a listen to this brother giving a talk about shirk, from 25min -28min







                        ......they would say we believe that Allah is one that the creator of the universe is one but we only believe these idols to be intermediaries. They are only intermediaries we don't believe that they are gods, we don't believe that they have divine characteristics that only belong to Allah these were some of the arguments that they used to put forward the same arguments that the grave worshipers and their defenders today put forward and the same thing could be said about other religions of the past and the present.


                        Those who worship isa the christians, those who worship idols from among the hindus and others, they say the exact same thing that we believe that there is only one true supreme being who created everything and who has no true partner in his lordship in him being the god who created everything and who can provide and so on and so forth but we only believe that these idols or these objects of worship that we direct our ibadah to that they can help us in some way they can help us in some way to have our supplications and our duas to be accepted they can help us in some way to benefit us to reach Allah that is the only reason for why we worship them...........
                        What would you say to this ?
                        Last edited by AdoonkaAlle; 01-03-21, 11:44 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                          but why do sujood to anyone except Allah swt?
                          Of course we should not, the question is the ruling of such a person. You may just say it's wrong and move on, but the Najdis chain takfeered and killed muslims over this issue, and today we have the ultra watered down version of the najdis (modern salafis) who call it shirk without looking at ones intention.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                            Here's what you said:

                            "...sujood and ruku in an organised manner for another creature and then called it Salah..."

                            "...I believe Salah is worship..."

                            So you still hold the position that worshipping other than Allah through salah - probably the most unambiguous act of worship there is - is not automatically shirk.
                            Do I believe "worshipping other than Allah through Salah" is not shirk? I would be a kafir myself if I believed worshipping other than Allah is ok, maybe that answers your question.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

                              Do I believe "worshipping other than Allah through Salah" is not shirk? I would be a kafir myself if I believed worshipping other than Allah is ok, maybe that answers your question.
                              Right, so do you retract your earlier position where you said performing salah - which is worship - towards other than Allah is not 'automatically' shirk?
                              Last edited by Abu 'Abdullaah; 03-03-21, 07:39 PM. Reason: typos -_-

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                                Right, so do you retract your earlier position where you said performing salah - which is worship - towards other than Allah is not 'automatically' shirk?
                                Well, which definition of Salah are we going by exactly?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X