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

  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post


    Abu Sulayman

    How do the Ash'aris explain the Shirk in 45:23?
    Click, here, then scroll down to 40.2 and read onwards upto 45.3 and to reach natural end upto 46.8. It deals with subject in depth. It was a discussion between me and now a former Salafi. There is more coming on this verse but I am struggling to civilize that discussion for readers. Same verse was discussed from another perspective and both comprehensively prove the verse doesnt say what Salafis believe it says.
    Last edited by SkippedPath; 4 days ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • SkippedPath
    replied
    Aaah, Shaykh Yasir Qadhi is going through same trial which I went through nearly 17/18 years ago. My run ins with Nadir Ahmad Salafi now calls himself Nadir Ahmad ... back then Salafi was integral part of his existance. What he said after i left Salafiyyah. Moshrek. your blood has become halal for us. and so many other crazy stuff. But I stuck with my guns even after torrents of abuse Takfir, and wala and bara put in practice ... lol ... . I still have Shaykh Yasir Qadhi's expanation of Qawaid al-Arba from those days. I was accused of marrying a Mushrik woman for whom I left Salafiyyah. Others said no, no, he was born in Sufi family, lure of Sufism was too strong, others said no no his family forced him, and others said his Salafiyyah wasn't good and Waswas from Shaytan caused him to deviate, it was also say this is why we dont debate with Ahlul Biddah because shaytan misguides. Shaykh Yasir Qadhi must be enjoying his invalid Nikkah in edicts. lol. Thats what i was told your Nikkah is invalid you're Zani in ideal state we would petition scholars to issue hadd on u for apostasy and zina with muslim woman. Lol. How I endured and toughened up ... had it not been of these trials I prolly would have gone the way of Sufis, peace tolerances roses harm no one daisies doves but those trials made me what I am today. Stood tall in face of adversity and still standing. O just to let u guys know, brother Bassam Zawadi (Salafi) debated David Wood, it was his first or second debate, I helped him prepare for it via MSN Messenger. Damn that was long ago. And back then Shaykh Jalal Abulrab (about whom i thought was young lad and I was wrong) he was involved in my Takfir too. Yasir Qadhi you're late comer welcome to brotherhood of tortured.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdoonkaAlle
    replied
    Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post

    وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
    Sorry for the delayed response. Thank you for letting me know, it's appreciated. Jazakum Allahu khayran.
    ,

    No need to apologize sister, Wa iyyakum.

    Leave a comment:


  • aMuslimForLife
    replied
    Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post

    وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
    Sorry for the delayed response. Thank you for letting me know, it's appreciated. Jazakum Allahu khayran.
    @AmantuBillahi
    Abu Jafar al Hanbali has re-released several titles that you may be interested.

    The Divine Texts by Imam Mustafa Ash-Shatti al Hanbali

    The Salafi Call has been preached in earnest to Orthodox Muslims for more than 200 years. But what is this call? And what does it mean? Who is Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab and should Muslims be concerned for themselves or their children? The author, Imam Mustafa Ash-Shatti, answers these questions and gives well rounded answers. And with more than 300 footnotes, the common Muslim will accurately be able to assess Salafiyyah's goals and what side he or she should be on.

    The Well Balanced Way in Creed by Imam `Abdul Ghani Al-Maqdisi al Hanbali

    This is an intermediate text on Hanbali-Athari Aqida. The Well Balanced Way in Creed, authored by the grand Imam `Abdul Ghani ibn `Abdul Wahid Al-Maqdisi (d. 600), may Allah have mercy upon him, which shall have both Arabic and English text. He was a contemporary of Imam Ibn Qudamah

    The Life and Times of Abu `Umar Al-Maqdisi By Imam Diya' ud-Din Al-Maqdisi

    This is a work that deals with the principles of Ihsan, also known as Tasawwuf, the practices of these people, their nearness to Allah and their relation to the Shaikh, `Abdul Qadir Al-Jilani.

    The Creed and Way of Muslim Orthodoxy by Abu Jafar al Hanbali

    This text contains three text on Aqida, Illumination of the Creed by Imam Muwaffaq ud-Din Ibn Qudamah, Nasafi's Creed by Imam Abu Hafs An-Nasafi, The Splendid Pearl of the Orthodox Creed by Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad Ad-Dardir, Translated by Al-Hajj Abu Ja`far Al-Hanbali

    These books can be purchased at www.lulu.com


    Leave a comment:


  • BintFulaan
    replied
    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post




    Just wanted to inform you that the first edition of the book has been re-released, you can order it online from amazon.

    AmantuBillahi
    وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته
    Sorry for the delayed response. Thank you for letting me know, it's appreciated. Jazakum Allahu khayran.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdoonkaAlle
    replied
    Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post

    Assalamu alaykum,

    If you ever happen to find the translation, could you perhaps post it insha'Allah? There are some people I'd like to share the book with who are not well versed in Arabic. I haven't been able to find any English translation. Jazakum Allahu khayran.



    Just wanted to inform you that the first edition of the book has been re-released, you can order it online from amazon.

    AmantuBillahi

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

    That cleared things up, what a fruitful discussion we had
    How many definitions of salah do you have?

    Leave a comment:


  • TheHaqq
    replied
    Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

    Don't be such a weasel.
    That cleared things up, what a fruitful discussion we had

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    Originally posted by TheHaqq View Post

    Well, which definition of Salah are we going by exactly?
    Don't be such a weasel.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheHaqq
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abu 'Abdullaah
    replied
    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 -_-

    Leave a comment:


  • TheHaqq
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheHaqq
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdoonkaAlle
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fais
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X