Sheikhul Islam Imam Mohammad Ibn Abd Al Wahhab and his view on Tawassul and Istighatha

[Hamzza]

The supplication that is done in our time is of three different types:

1. supplication to God alone, without a partner; this is what the prophet ﷺ was sent for.

2. that he supplicates to Allah, and supplicates with him a prophet, or a saint, and says: I want his intercession, otherwise I know only Allah brings benefits and harms. But I am guilty, and I ask this righteous person in the hope that he may intercede for me{ (believing his intercession is always accepted or he has a right on Allah}. This is what the polytheists did, and the Messenger of God, ﷺ, fought for them until they left it, and didn't call upon anything other than Allah, not for intercession, nor benefit.

3. The third type is to say; O Allah I seek nearness (Tawassul) towards you by the status of your Prophet ﷺ or the Prophets or the Righteous, then this is not shirk nor do we forbid the people from; But what is mentioned from Abu Hanifah and Abi Yusuf and other than them is that they disliked it, but it is not what we and others differ in.

 

[Hamzza]

2. that he supplicates to Allah, and supplicates with him a prophet, or a saint, and says: I want his intercession, otherwise I know only Allah brings benefits and harms. But I am guilty, and I ask this righteous person in the hope that he may intercede for me{ (believing his intercession is always accepted or he has a right on Allah}. This is what the polytheists did, and the Messenger of God, ﷺ, fought for them until they left it, and didn't call upon anything other than Allah, not for intercession, nor benefit.

What the classical scholars said about this type of Istighaatha:

Imam al Razi(d: 1210) said in his tafseer of Surah Yonis Ayah 18:

. ورابعها : أنهم وضعوا هذه الأصنام والأوثان على صور أنبيائهم وأكابرهم ، وزعموا أنهم متى اشتغلوا بعبادة هذه التماثيل ، فان أولئك الأكابر يكونون شفاء لهم عند الله تعالى ، ونظيره في هذا الزمان اشتغال كثير من الخلق بتعظيم قبور الأكابر ، على اعتقاد أنهم إذا عظموا قبورهم فانهم يكونون شفعاء لهم عند الله​

Fourthly: that they placed these idols and statue's on the images of their prophets and greats, and claimed that when they engaged in worshiping these statues, those saints will intersect with God Almighty on their behalf, and their counterpart in this time is the preoccupation of many people with the veneration of the graves of the greats, believing that if they venerate their graves, they will be intercessors for them with God.

Imam Abdul Ghani Al Labbadi said:

ثانيها : أن يسأله لكونه أقرب إلى الله منه ليشفع له في هذه الأمور ، وهذا من جنس قول المشركين (ومَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى) [الزمر: 3] .
​

Secondly: he asks him due to him being nigher to Allah than him to be a mediator for him in these issues, then this is from the type of speech of the Mushrikeen: "We do not worship them except for them to bring us closer to Allah".​

Allamah Mansur ibn Yunus al-Bahuti (d: 1641) stated in Kashaf al-Qina' chapter regarding Murtad:

وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا انتهى) أي كفر لأن ذلك كفعل عابدي الأصنام قائلين : {ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى.​

"He (Ibn Taymiyyah) said: or he made between him and Allah intermediaries on whom he places his trust and to whom he supplicates and asks. By consensus.) (al Bahuti commented) i.e. it is kufr (infidelity); Because that is like the deeds of idol worshipers who say: {We do not worship them except for them to bring us near to Allah.}.

 

[Hamzza]

@AdoonkaAlle

While browsing this website's old posts, I have seen you straw-manning Imam MIAw and Najdis' positions and accusing them of what they have not done, based on your narrow understanding of their works. You seem to not know the difference between Tawassul, Tashaftu(asking the dead to make dua for you), and Istighaatha(asking the dead for help), that's why you conflate them and come to erroneous conclusions.

For example, here you accuse Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab of twisting the third Ayah of surah of Zumr,

In surah 39:3 and elsewhere in other ayah Allah tells us that the mushrikeen took awliya (protectors/guardians) besides Him. Al wali (awliyah plural) is one of the attributes of Lordship that belongs to Allah and in these ayat Allah affirms that the mushrikeen affirmed it to others beside Him ie affirmed it to their gods whom they worshipped.

Miaw completely twists this and somehow uses this as proof for him, ignoring the fact that mushriks believed their gods had the ability to protect, guard, support etc and this is why they sought intercession from their gods while the muslims who seek intercession of either the Prophet peace be upon Him or righteous muslims don't believe this nor do they believe in gods beside Allah.

Will you now accuse, Ibn Taymiyyah, al Mardawi, Al Labadi, Al Hajjawi, Ibn Muflih, Al Buhuti, and co of twisting the ayah, or admit that you've completely misunderstood it?

Honestly, I've looked for all the works of Miaw and Najdis on these grave activities issues and haven't come across anywhere where they disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah or the Mut'amad of the Hanbali madhab. The problem with you and others(who criticize the Salafis) is that you put too much trust in polemic works against the Salafi Dawah. Many of the claims thrown here are completely baseless.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

@AdoonkaAlle

While browsing this website's old posts, I have seen you straw-manning Imam MIAw and Najdis' positions and accusing them of what they have not done, based on your narrow understanding of their works. You seem to not know the difference between Tawassul, Tashaftu(asking the dead to make dua for you), and Istighaatha(asking the dead for help), that's why you conflate them and come to erroneous conclusions.

For example, here you accuse Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab of twisting the third Ayah of surah of Zumr,



Will you now accuse, Ibn Taymiyyah, al Mardawi, Al Labadi, Al Hajjawi, Ibn Muflih, Al Buhuti, and co of twisting the ayah, or admit that you've completely misunderstood it?

Honestly, I've looked for all the works of Miaw and Najdis on these grave activities issues and haven't come across anywhere where they disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah or the Mut'amad of the Hanbali madhab. The problem with you and others(who criticize the Salafis) is that you put too much trust in polemic works against the Salafi Dawah. Many of the claims thrown here are completely baseless.

I am going to ask you the same question that i posed to that brother in that thread. Did you even bother to read the excerpt from kashf shubuhat ?

In that statement from kash shubuhat miaw equates the seeking of intercession done by muslims to that of the pagan quraysh. He states that the pagan quraysh had tawheed rububiyyah just like the muslims he makes takfir of and says what the muslims are doing by seeking intercession with the prophet or righteous muslim is exactly the same as that of pagan quraysh.

He cites the ayah from surah zumar as evidence to back his claims

«And those who take awliyaa (protector/guardian) besides Him (say), “We worship them only so that they may bring us close to Allaah!”»

The ayah informs us that these mushriks have taken other than Allah as their awliya. Al wali (awliyah plural) is one of the attributes of Lordship that belongs to Allah and in these ayat Allah affirms that the mushrikeen affirmed it to others beside Him ie affirmed it to their gods whom they worshipped.

Now what the ayah states contradicts the claim of miaw that these mushriks had tawheed rububuiyyah. Miaw and all those who adhere to his creed always ignore this part of ayah " And those who take awliyaa (protector/guardian) besides Him " and end up misconstruing the actual beliefs of these pagans.

How can people who take protectors/guardians/supporters etc other than Allah have tawheed rububiyyah ?

As you can see i've not twisted anything at all, miaw claims pagans have tawheed rububuiyyah while the ayah states that these pagans have affirmed an aspect of rububiyyah ( Wali) to other than Allah. Were you not the one who was refusing to accept the meaning of wali in the ayah due to your misunderstanding in the other thread ?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

In kashf shubuhat this is what miaw has to say about asking intercession from the Prophet

If he then says, “The Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) has been given the right of intercession and I merely ask him from that which he has been given”.

Then the answer is that Allaah has indeed given him the right of intercession but He has forbidden you from this (i.e. asking the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) for it). So He, the Most High, said, “And do not call upon anyone besides Allaah”. (Jinn 72:18).

So if you were to call upon Allaah [asking Him] that He should make him (i.e. the Prophet) intercede for you, then you have obeyed Him in His saying, “And do not call upon anyone besides Allaah”. (Jinn 72:18).

Kashf shubuhat pg 16 link: https://download.ilmussalaf.com/Books/Kashfush-Shubhaat-Eng.pdf


In the above statement miaw equates asking intercession from the Prophet to calling upon other than Allah ie major shirk. According to his understanding asking for intercession from the Prophet especially at his grave was considered to be major shirk, both miaw & his followers made takfir on this issue for asking intercession. It's only in our times that some of the salafi scholars deemed it to be a bidah etc.

In fact miaw's 2nd nullifier of islam is about this, you made a thread about it

Second: Whoever takes intermediaries between him and Allah, invokes, and asks them for intercession with Allah and puts his trust in them has committed Kufr (disbelief) according to the Ijma` (consensus) of scholars.

Asking for intercession from the Prophet at his grave is one the acts that was not only allowed but recommended by scholars from all 4 madhabs, laakin to miaw & his followers they considered it to be major shirk.

Imam Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi [al-Hanbali] (d. 620 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ


He said in his famous al-Mughni 3/478 - 488 (or see HERE) the following in the context of the visitation (he mentioned in the beginning of the section that the visitation of the Prophetic grave is desirable ("وَيُسْتَحَبُّ زِيَارَةُ قَبْرِ النَّبِيِّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ")):

اللَّهُمَّ إنَّك قُلْت وَقَوْلُك الْحَقُّ: {وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا} [النساء: 64] . وَقَدْ أَتَيْتُك مُسْتَغْفِرًا مِنْ ذُنُوبِي، مُسْتَشْفِعًا بِك إلَى رَبِّي، فَأَسْأَلُك يَا رَبِّ أَنْ تُوجِبَ لِي الْمَغْفِرَةَ، كَمَا أَوْجَبْتهَا لِمَنْ أَتَاهُ فِي حَيَاتِهِ، اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ أَوَّلَ الشَّافِعِينَ، وَأَنْجَحَ السَّائِلِينَ، وَأَكْرَمَ الْآخَرِينَ وَالْأَوَّلِينَ، بِرَحْمَتِك يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِينَ

O Allah, You spoke and your saying is the truth: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
So I've come to you, asking [my Lord] for forgiveness for my sin and seeking intercession through you unto my Lord. So I ask you, o Lord, that you grant me forgiveness just like you granted it to the one who came to him during his life.

O Allah, grant to him that he be the first of the intercessors, the most successful of those who ask, and the most honorable of the first and the last, through Your Mercy - o Most Merciful of the Merciful!.


Imam Ibn Qudama recommends acting upon the Hadith of the blind man when in need!

He said in his Wasiyya (p. 46-48) under the chapter of asking for a need (translation taken from here: "The Blazing Star in Defence of a Narration from Malik al-Dar" (p. 391):

وإذا كانت لك حاجة إلى الله تعالى تريد طلبها منه فتوضأ ، فأحسن وضوءك ، واركع ركعتين ، وأثن على الله عز وجل ، وصلَ على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، ثم قل : لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ الله الحَلِيمُ الكَريمُ، سُبحَانَ رَبِّ العَرشِ العَظيمِ الحَمْدُ للهِ رَبِّ العَالمِينِ، أَسأَلُكَ مُوجِبَاتِ رَحمَتِكَ وَعَزَائمَ مَغفِرَتِكَ وَالغَنيمَةَ مِنْ كُلِّ بِرٍّ، وَالسَّلامَةَ مِنْ كُلِّ إِثْمٍ، لا تَدَعْ لي ذَنباً إِلاَّ غَفَرْتَهْ وَلا هَمَّاً إِلاَّ فَرَّجْتَهْ، وَلا حَاجةً هِيَ لَكَ رِضاً إِلاَّ قَضَيتَهَا يَا أَرحَمَ الرَّاحمين

وإن قلت : اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فيقضي لي حاجتي، وتذكر حاجتك

وروي عن السلف أنهم كانوا يستنجحون حوائجهم بركعتين يصليهما ثم يقول : اللهم بك أستفتح وبك أستنجح ، وإليك بنبيك محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أتوجه ، اللهم ذلل لي صعوبة أمري ، وسهل من الخير أكثر مما أرجو ، واصرف عني من الشر أكثر مما أخاف

If you need something from Allah, exalted is He, and want to seek it from Him, do wudu and do it well, perform two rak’ahs, and praise Allah, mighty and majestic is He, bless the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and then say: ‘There is no god but Allah, the Ever-Forbearing, the Generous. Glory is to Allah, the Lord of the immense Throne. Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. O Allah, I ask You for what obliges Your mercy and the firm resolution (to obtain) Your forgiveness, the obtainment of every act of piety and safety from every wrongdoing. O Allah, do not leave me any wrong action but that You forgive it nor any care but that You relieve it nor any need that is pleasing to You but that You settle it, O Most Merciful of the merciful.

O Allah, I ask You and turn to You by Your Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet of mercy. O Muhammad, I turn by you to My Lord and your Lord, mighty and majestic is He, for Him to settle my need for me.’ Then he should mention what he needs.

It is related that the early Muslims (Salaf) used to seek to have their needs fulfilled by praying two rak’ahs and then saying: ‘O Allah, I seek opening by You and success by You. I turn to You by Your Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). O Allah, make the difficulty in my business easy for me, ease my hardship for me, make smooth for me good than I hope for and avert from me more evil than I fear.’

Imam Nawawi on tawassul

Then he (i.e. the one visiting the grave of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) should return to his original position facing the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, and he should make him a mean for himself and seek intercession through him unto his Lord subhanahu wa ta'ala.
And the best what can be said [here] is what al-Mawardi (d. 450 AH) and al-Qadhi Abu al-Tayyib (d. 450 AH) and the rest of our [Shafi'i] companions narrated from al-'Utbi and they regarded it as good. He said:

"As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." His book Al adkhar pg 206

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Now lets take a look at what bin baz says about seeking intercession

Ruling on seeking intercession from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)​

Question​

Many people say “Ash-shafaa‘ah ya Muhammad (intercession, O Muhammad.” Is this is shirk?

Answer​

Praise be to Allah.
Seeking intercession from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) or anyone else among the dead is not permissible, and it constitutes major shirk according to the scholars, because after he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, he has no power to do anything...........


Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him).
Fataawa Noor ‘ala ad-Darb (1/392)

Link: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/132...phet-blessings-and-peace-of-allah-be-upon-him

Question: Do the Wahhabites reject the intercession of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam)?

Answer: It is clear to anyone who has studied the life of Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab and his followers, that they are innocent of this charge, because the Imam (may Allaah have mercy on him) has confirmed in his books - especially Kitab At-Tawhid and Kashf Ash-Shubuhat - (the belief in) the intercession of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) for his people on the Day of Resurrection. From this it is clear that the Imam and his followers did not reject belief in the intercession of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) and that of other Prophets, angels and believers, rather they confirm it, as Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) have confirmed it. This is what our righteous ancestors followed, acting upon from the Book (of Allaah) and the Sunnah. From this it should be clear to you that what has been transmitted regarding the Shaikhs rejection of the intercession of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam) is the falsest of statements, a deviation from the path of Allaah and a lie upon those who follow him. The Shaikh (may Allaah have mercy on him) and his followers only rejected seeking intercession from the dead and such like.We ask Allaah that He protect and save us and you from all that invokes His wrath. And Allaah is the Granter of Success.

Shaykh `Abdul-`Azeez Bin Baz

Fatawa Islamiyah Vol. 1 Page 331

source: http://www.fatwaislam.com/fis/index.cfm?scn=fd&ID=1123

In the above fatwa bin baz confirms that miaw affirmed intercession of the Prophet ﷺ on the day of resurrection but rejected it with the deceased. Meaning miaw doesn't accept intercession of the Prophet ﷺ after his death.

To miaw and his follwers seeking intercession from the deceased at the grave was major shirk and this is why they deemed anyone who did that during their life time to be mushrik. Miaw is very explicit about this in his book removal of doubts and equates the actions of pagan quraysh to that of muslims who seek intercession. He says their action are the same and they're both mushriks.


How can actions that were recommended by classical scholars from the 4 schools be suddenly major shirk, i mean do scholars such as ibn qudamah not know what shirk is but miaw & bin baz do ? whose understanding should we take here sxb ?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Honestly, I've looked for all the works of Miaw and Najdis on these grave activities issues and haven't come across anywhere where they disagreed with Ibn Taymiyyah or the Mut'amad of the Hanbali madhab. The problem with you and others(who criticize the Salafis) is that you put too much trust in polemic works against the Salafi Dawah. Many of the claims thrown here are completely baseless.

if the claims were baseless then it would be easy to refute laakin you're not able to. There are major creedal problems with najdi/salafi theology as it pertains to the understanding of tawheed,shirk & worship. Their understanding led to the mass takfir of muslims and shedding their blood, taking their wealth etc yet when the same actions are done by groups like al shabab etc you consider them to be khawarij laakin for miaw & his followers they were spreading tawheed.

Did you not boastfully share the fatwa from abdurahman hassan the grandson of miaw , where he refrained from making judgment as to whether any muslim land outside the jazira is dar islam or dar kufr simply because there might be people in it who follow miaw because he's heard there were people like that in somalia & afghanistan

Imagine believing that your ancestors during the 18th century weren't muslim simply because the najdi dawah hadn't reached them or that they were not under najdi control. The equivalent to that would be claiming that a person isn't a muslim because he/she doesn't live in saudi or the salafi dawah hasn't reached them etc

Out of curiosity do you believe that a person who rejects the salafi dawah is a muslim ? if you don't then know that this is exactly what the najdi dawah was about. Rejecting it amounts to rejecting islam

source : https://aalmoalim.com/2022/02/11/the-methodology-of-the-najdi-dawah-in-takfeer-and-qitaal-1/


Just have a read of that blog to understand what exactly the najdi dawah was about. it's based on a lecture series called Manhajkii A'immadii Dacwa Najdiyah which was done by sh xassan xussein. He also has another lecture called Dhibaatooyinka Gaalaysiinta Bulshooyinka in it he mentions in detail what the najdis & their scholars believed like

1. Not living in their land was tantamount to kufr
2. Rejecting the dawah was also kufr
3. Those the najdi dawah didn't reach were like the ahlu fatra they're neither muslims or kafir

Mind you that shaykh agrees with najdi dawah & is a salafi himself. Other salafis distance themselves from him as they view him to be an extremist/takfiri etc laakin he's simply teaching & saying what the miaw & his followers preached

 

[Hamzza]

I am going to ask you the same question that i posed to that brother in that thread. Did you even bother to read the excerpt from kashf shubuhat ?

In that statement from kash shubuhat miaw equates the seeking of intercession done by muslims to that of the pagan quraysh. He states that the pagan quraysh had tawheed rububiyyah just like the muslims he makes takfir of and says what the muslims are doing by seeking intercession with the prophet or righteous muslim is exactly the same as that of pagan quraysh.

He cites the ayah from surah zumar as evidence to back his claims

«And those who take awliyaa (protector/guardian) besides Him (say), “We worship them only so that they may bring us close to Allaah!”»

The ayah informs us that these mushriks have taken other than Allah as their awliya. Al wali (awliyah plural) is one of the attributes of Lordship that belongs to Allah and in these ayat Allah affirms that the mushrikeen affirmed it to others beside Him ie affirmed it to their gods whom they worshipped.

Now what the ayah states contradicts the claim of miaw that these mushriks had tawheed rububuiyyah. Miaw and all those who adhere to his creed always ignore this part of ayah " And those who take awliyaa (protector/guardian) besides Him " and end up misconstruing the actual beliefs of these pagans.

How can people who take protectors/guardians/supporters etc other than Allah have tawheed rububiyyah ?

As you can see i've not twisted anything at all, miaw claims pagans have tawheed rububuiyyah while the ayah states that these pagans have affirmed an aspect of rububiyyah ( Wali) to other than Allah. Were you not the one who was refusing to accept the meaning of wali in the ayah due to your misunderstanding in the other thread ?

Yes, I've read that excerpt from Kashf Al Shubuhat and found it to be in line with the past scholarship before Miaw and not as controversial as you are trying to portray it. Now I ask you the same question, did you read the interesting quotes from the scholars that I shared in the second post of the thread?

The Ayah 39:3 doesn't state that the pagans have affirmed an aspect of Rububiyyah. Merely taking awliya(idols) besides Allah is not an affirmation of Attributes of lordship for their false gods, otherwise the Mushrikeen would have not said the only benefit we want from our idols is to bring us closer to Allah. Why would someone who takes guardians beside Allah say I want nothing from them except to bring us closer to Allah when his idols already protect him, besides God? The Ayah becomes incoherent or the pagans are lying if we take your flawed interpretation.

It's funny, how you ignored the opinions of the ulema who classed this act as kufr similar to the Shirk of the pagans of Qureys citing as proof the same Ayah in Surah Zumr. Now you're in a difficult position; either you accuse Al Hajjawy, Al Razi Al Mardawi, Al Labadi, Al Buhuti, and the others of not understanding what Tawheed and Shirk are as you first arrogantly claimed with Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab or admit you are wrong.

As I already said Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab didn't invent anything new and his works are in line with the Mu'tamad of the Hanbali madhab.

In kashf shubuhat this is what miaw has to say about asking intercession from the Prophet



Kashf shubuhat pg 16 link: https://download.ilmussalaf.com/Books/Kashfush-Shubhaat-Eng.pdf


In the above statement miaw equates asking intercession from the Prophet to calling upon other than Allah ie major shirk. According to his understanding asking for intercession from the Prophet especially at his grave was considered to be major shirk, both miaw & his followers made takfir on this issue for asking intercession. It's only in our times that some of the salafi scholars deemed it to be a bidah etc.

In fact miaw's 2nd nullifier of islam is about this, you made a thread about it


Asking for intercession from the Prophet at his grave is one the acts that was not only allowed but recommended by scholars from all 4 madhabs, laakin to miaw & his followers they considered it to be major shirk.

Miaws 2nd nullifier happens to be a Nullifier of Islam for nearly all the muta'khiriin Hanabilah let us look:

Hajjawy said in his book al Iqna the chapter of apostasy:

وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم الشفاعة إجماعا. انتهى​

Ibn Muflih said in his book al Furoo in the chapter on apostasy:

قال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم

Al Mirdawi said in his book Al Insasf in the chapter on apostasy:

قال الشيخ تقي الدين رحمه الله: وكذا الحكم لو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا

So is the ruling(kufr) for the person who puts intermediaries between himself and god, relying on them asking from them. By consensus(i.e. it's Kufr by Ijma).

Al Bahuti said:

وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا انتهى) أي كفر لأن ذلك كفعل عابدي الأصنام قائلين: {ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى)​

Mari' Al Karmi said in his book Qaya al Muntaha:

أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم كفر إجماعا​

Or he puts intermediaries between himself and God, he disbelieved by Ijma

Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab said in Nawaqid al Islam:

من جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يدعوهم ويسألهم الشفاعة ويتوكل عليهم فقد كفر إجماعا".
ودليل ذلك قوله تعالى : ( وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلا يَنْفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَؤُلاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِنْدَ اللَّه )​

Look at what Fakhruddin al Razi Al Ashari Al Shafi said

. ورابعها : أنهم وضعوا هذه الأصنام والأوثان على صور أنبيائهم وأكابرهم ، وزعموا أنهم متى اشتغلوا بعبادة هذه التماثيل ، فان أولئك الأكابر يكونون شفعاء لهم عند الله تعالى ، ونظيره في هذا الزمان اشتغال كثير من الخلق بتعظيم قبور الأكابر ، على اعتقاد أنهم إذا عظموا قبورهم فانهم يكونون شفعاء لهم عند الله​

Fourthly: that they placed these idols and statue's on the images of their prophets and saints, and claimed that when they engaged in worshiping these statues, those saints will intersect with God Almighty on their behalf, and their counterpart in this time is the preoccupation of many people with the veneration of the graves of the greats, believing that if they venerate their graves, they will be intercessors for them with God.

Al Labbadi:

he asks him due to him being nigher to Allah than him to be a mediator for him in these issues, then this is from the type of speech of the Mushrikeen: "We do not worship them except for them to bring us closer to Allah".

 

[Hamzza]

Did you not boastfully share the fatwa from abdurahman hassan the grandson of miaw , where he refrained from making judgment as to whether any muslim land outside the jazira is dar islam or dar kufr simply because there might be people in it who follow miaw because he's heard there were people like that in somalia & afghanistan

Imagine believing that your ancestors during the 18th century weren't muslim simply because the najdi dawah hadn't reached them or that they were not under najdi control. The equivalent to that would be claiming that a person isn't a muslim because he/she doesn't live in saudi or the salafi dawah hasn't reached them etc

You're twisting things as always, the Sheikh was asked a hypothetical question and he answered perfectly.

This was the hypothetical question:

in a certain country, there are idols that are being worshipped besides God, and there was no condemnation of this, can it be argued that it is a land of disbelief or a land of Islam?

Now tell me where it says, can the Muslim lands outside of the Jazira(whether idols/saints are worshipped or not) be Considered Dar al Kufri or Islam?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Yes, I've read that excerpt from Kashf Al Shubuhat and found it to be in line with the past scholarship before Miaw and not as controversial as you are trying to portray it. Now I ask you the same question, did you read the interesting quotes from the scholars that I shared in the second post of the thread?

The Ayah 39:3 doesn't state that the pagans have affirmed an aspect of Rububiyyah. Merely taking awliya(idols) besides Allah is not an affirmation of Attributes of lordship for their false gods, otherwise the Mushrikeen would have not said the only benefit we want from our idols is to bring us closer to Allah. Why would someone who takes guardians beside Allah say I want nothing from them except to bring us closer to Allah when his idols already protect him, besides God? The Ayah becomes incoherent or the pagans are lying if we take your flawed interpretation.

It's funny, how you ignored the opinions of the ulema who classed this act as kufr similar to the Shirk of the pagans of Qureys citing as proof the same Ayah in Surah Zumr. Now you're in a difficult position; either you accuse Al Hajjawy, Al Razi Al Mardawi, Al Labadi, Al Buhuti, and the others of not understanding what Tawheed and Shirk are as you first arrogantly claimed with Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab or admit you are wrong.

As I already said Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab didn't invent anything new and his works are in line with the Mu'tamad of the Hanbali madhab.

Since you claim those statements from miaw is in line with past scholarship i want you to bring actual statements from classical scholars confirming that pagans had tawheed rububiyyah & were only guilty of shirk in worship.

Having said that i want you to give me an explanation as to how one can have tawheed rububiyyah while being guilty of kufr in rububiyyah. In your statement you affirm that the pagans denied Allah's ability to resurrect the dead laakin miaw says their kufr was due to their devotion to other than Allah ie worshipping others

Opposite of Tawheed is Shirk, yes they denied Allah's ability to resurrect the dead but they didn't ascribe them to their idols is the point.

“And that which I have mentioned to you – that Allaah the Most High has mentioned that the mushriks affirm ruboobeeyah, and that their kufr was due to their devoting themselves to the angels and the prophets and the awliyaa (beloved servants of Allaah) with their statement: «These are our intercessors with Allaah!»26 - then this is a muhkam clear matter, whose meaning no one can change!

How is it you an average muslim affirm that the pagans committed kufr in rububiyyah laakin miaw claims otherwise ? yet despite this contradiction you nonetheless claim that miaw was in line with past scholarship


Indeed, sincere devotion is due ˹only˺ to Allah. As for those who take other awliya (protector/guardian/supporter) besides Him, ˹saying,˺ “We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allāh." Indeed, Allāh will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allāh does not guide whoever persists in lying and disbelief. 39:3


In the ayah Allah tells us that the mushriks, took wali(s) besides Him and called them liars. Taking a wali besides Allah in the context of ayah is shirk, my question to you is what type of shirk is it ? Al Wali is one of the names & attributes of Allah affirming it to others besides Him as in the context of the ayah is shirk rububiyyah.

In fact the phrase taking a wali other than Allah is repeated in numerous ayat like in 6:14, where tabari says the following

" قل أغير الله أتخذ وليًّا " ، قال: أما " الولي"، فالذي يتولَّونه ويقرّون له بالربوبية .

Say, shall i choose as a supporter/ protector someone other than Allah. He said, as for
Al Wali He's the one whom they take and affirm rububiyyah for him.

The reason why i didn't bother with those statements is simply because you were selectively quoting, imposing your understanding on what's being said. Take for instance that ayah of surah younus

And they worship other than Allāh that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, "These are our intercessors with Allāh." Say, "Do you inform Allāh of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?" Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him.

In the ayah itself we read that these mushriks were worshipping other than Allah, now how is this similar to a muslim who seeks intercession from the Prophet ﷺ ? have you ever seen any muslim claiming they're actually worshipping those at the graves ?

Look at what imam razi has to say about the intercession of the mushriks

Imam al-Razi, in his Quranic commentary for the verse 40:18, writes:

إن القوم كانوا يقولون في الأصنام إنها شفعاؤنا عند الله وكانوا يقولون إنها تشفع لنا عند الله من غير حاجة فيه إلى إذن الله، ولهذا السبب رد الله تعالى عليهم ذلك بقوله
{ مَن ذَا ٱلَّذِى يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلاَّ بِإِذْنِهِ }[البقرة: 255]

He (rahimahullah) explains (roughly) that the polytheists say their idols are an intercessor to Allah and that they intercede with Allah without requiring the permission of Allah and it is for this reason that Allah says: “Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission?“[2:255]

Thereafter Imam al-Razi continues:

{فهذا يدل على أن القوم اعتقدوا أنه يجب على الله إجابة الأصنام في تلك الشفاعة، وهذا نوع طاعة، فالله تعالى نفى تلك الطاعة بقوله { مَا لِلظَّـٰلِمِينَ مِنْ حَمِيمٍ وَلاَ شَفِيعٍ يُطَاعُ

He says, this indicates that those people believed Allah must answer those idols intercession, and this is a kind of obedience. Allah Almighty has denied that obedience by saying {For the wrongdoers there will be no devoted friend and no intercessor [who is] obeyed.} [Quran 40:18]

So the following matters are addressed here with regards to the intercession as believed by the polytheists:

1) They took idols as an intercessor.

2) They believed these idols will intercede without requiring any permission of Allah.

3) They believed that Allah must obey and answer to the intercession of these idols.


How many muslims do you know of that have such beliefs as the above ?

Miaws 2nd nullifier happens to be a Nullifier of Islam for nearly all the muta'khiriin Hanabilah let us look:

Hajjawy said in his book al Iqna the chapter of apostasy:

وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم الشفاعة إجماعا. انتهى​

Ibn Muflih said in his book al Furoo in the chapter on apostasy:

قال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم

Al Mirdawi said in his book Al Insasf in the chapter on apostasy:

قال الشيخ تقي الدين رحمه الله: وكذا الحكم لو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا

So is the ruling(kufr) for the person who puts intermediaries between himself and god, relying on them asking from them. By consensus(i.e. it's Kufr by Ijma).

Al Bahuti said:

وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا انتهى) أي كفر لأن ذلك كفعل عابدي الأصنام قائلين: {ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى)​

Mari' Al Karmi said in his book Qaya al Muntaha:

أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم كفر إجماعا​

Or he puts intermediaries between himself and God, he disbelieved by Ijma

Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab said in Nawaqid al Islam:

من جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يدعوهم ويسألهم الشفاعة ويتوكل عليهم فقد كفر إجماعا".
ودليل ذلك قوله تعالى : ( وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلا يَنْفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَؤُلاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِنْدَ اللَّه )​

Look at what Fakhruddin al Razi Al Ashari Al Shafi said



Al Labbadi:

View attachment 284327

he asks him due to him being nigher to Allah than him to be a mediator for him in these issues, then this is from the type of speech of the Mushrikeen: "We do not worship them except for them to bring us closer to Allah".

The problem with miaw 2nd nullifier is his understanding of tawheed & ibadah that forces to him to make takfir of actions that were allowed. Miaw considers asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ to be major shirk yet this is something that has been recommended by classical ulama throughout islamic history.

No scholar in history a part from him & his follower has ever claimed that seeking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ is major shirk and amounts to making him an intermediary like the pagans did with their gods. Due to his deviation in tawheed etc he fails to distinguish between actions carried out by mushriks & those done by muslims hence the takfir

This is the problem with citing quotes without their proper context and understanding. More than that it's very dangerous to super impose one's own understanding to those statements when you know that they don't share your views.

Modern day salafis attach themselves to the hanabilah insofar as they reflect their own views, the moment they differ with them they adhere to miaw's teaching etc like in the case of seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

View attachment 284386

You're twisting things as always, the Sheikh was asked a hypothetical question and he answered perfectly.

This was the hypothetical question:



Now tell me where it says, can the Muslim lands outside of the Jazira(whether idols/saints are worshipped or not) be Considered Dar al Kufri or Islam?

I thought that it was fairly obvious, let me ask you why in the world does he reference najd and talk about the call emerging from there and spreading ? What's the relevance of najd do you think ?

 

[Hamzza]

Since you claim those statements from miaw is in line with past scholarship i want you to bring actual statements from classical scholars confirming that pagans had tawheed rububiyyah & were only guilty of shirk in worship.

Having said that i want you to give me an explanation as to how one can have tawheed rububiyyah while being guilty of kufr in rububiyyah. In your statement you affirm that the pagans denied Allah's ability to resurrect the dead laakin miaw says their kufr was due to their devotion to other than Allah ie worshipping others

Ahmed bin Ali Al Maqrisi al Shafi'i(d: 845H)

ولا ريب أن توحيد الربوبية لم ينكره المشركون ، بل أقروا بأنه سبحانه وحده خالقهم وخالق السماوات والأرض ، والقائم بمصالح العالم كله​

And there is no doubt that the polytheists didn't deny the Tawheed of Rububiyyah, rather they affirmed that he alone is their creator and the creator of the heavens and Earth and the one who looks after the affairs of all of the universe.

Ibn Kathir

وكثيرا ما يقرر تعالى مقام الإلهية بالاعتراف بتوحيد الربوبية . وقد كان المشركون يعترفون بذلك ، كما كانوا يقولون في تلبيتهم : " لبيك لا شريك لك ، إلا شريكا هو لك ، تملكه وما ملك​

Allah often establishes His divinity by referring to their acknowledgement of His Unique Lordship, because the idolators used to acknowledge His Lordship, as they said in their Talbiyah (during Hajj and `Umrah): "At Your service, You have no partner, except the partner that You have, and You possess him and whatever he has.''

Tbh, I wasn't arguing for Pagans having Tawheed Rububiyyah, my point was that you can commit Shirk in worship while not committing Shirk in Rububiyyay and vice versa. But I will not be surprised if some of them actually affirmed resurrection and all the Attributes of Allahs' lordship.

The reason why i didn't bother with those statements is simply because you were selectively quoting, imposing your understanding on what's being said. Take for instance that ayah of surah younus

And they worship other than Allāh that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, "These are our intercessors with Allāh." Say, "Do you inform Allāh of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?" Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him.

In the ayah itself we read that these mushriks were worshipping other than Allah, now how is this similar to a muslim who seeks intercession from the Prophet ﷺ ? have you ever seen any muslim claiming they're actually worshipping those at the graves ?

Look at what imam razi has to say about the intercession of the mushriks

Imam al-Razi, in his Quranic commentary for the verse 40:18, writes:
He (rahimahullah) explains (roughly) that the polytheists say their idols are an intercessor to Allah and that they intercede with Allah without requiring the permission of Allah and it is for this reason that Allah says: “Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission?“[2:255]

Thereafter Imam al-Razi continues:


He says, this indicates that those people believed Allah must answer those idols intercession, and this is a kind of obedience. Allah Almighty has denied that obedience by saying {For the wrongdoers there will be no devoted friend and no intercessor [who is] obeyed.} [Quran 40:18]

So the following matters are addressed here with regards to the intercession as believed by the polytheists:

1) They took idols as an intercessor.

2) They believed these idols will intercede without requiring any permission of Allah.

3) They believed that Allah must obey and answer to the intercession of these idols.


How many muslims do you know of that have such beliefs as the above ?

This is a massive cope sxb. You deflected from the main point, I brought this quote because al Razi compared this practice you have now very well explained to the grave veneration activities done by the Muslims in his time. You didn't address this last point.

Now I ask you, why did Al Razi label Muslims Mushriks? Do you think Qubooris at the time of al razi proudly declared to be worshipping the graves of the saints and the Quboris at the time of Miaw didn't do that?

I looked at the article in Islamqa about intercession(Shafa'h) in depth and it is mainly talking about Istighaatha. Asking for intercession as you know is a packed thing and can encompass many things, so it needs to be explained with context. It can imply Istighaatha and tashaffú(asking the dead to make dua for you) but never tawassul(seeking nearness to allah by your good deeds or the status of the prophet or saint).

The problem with miaw 2nd nullifier is his understanding of tawheed & ibadah that forces to him to make takfir of actions that were allowed. Miaw considers asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ to be major shirk yet this is something that has been recommended by classical ulama throughout islamic history.

No scholar in history a part from him & his follower has ever claimed that seeking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ is major shirk and amounts to making him an intermediary like the pagans did with their gods. Due to his deviation in tawheed etc he fails to distinguish between actions carried out by mushriks & those done by muslims hence the takfir

This is the problem with citing quotes without their proper context and understanding. More than that it's very dangerous to super impose one's own understanding to those statements when you know that they don't share your views.

Modern day salafis attach themselves to the hanabilah insofar as they reflect their own views, the moment they differ with them they adhere to miaw's teaching etc like in the case of seeking intercession with the Prophet

Another massive cope.

Miaws statements are worded the same as those of the other Hanabila and have the same meaning

Modern Salafism is the union of many different groups, so you will find some of them saying we are la madhabi and follow only the Quran and Sunnah. This is mainly foreign influence to the najd dawah from Ahl Hadith in India and Al shawkanis movement in Yemen. The original Wahabbis always claimed(in their letters and books) to follow the Hanbali madhab.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Ahmed bin Ali Al Maqrisi al Shafi'i(d: 845H)

ولا ريب أن توحيد الربوبية لم ينكره المشركون ، بل أقروا بأنه سبحانه وحده خالقهم وخالق السماوات والأرض ، والقائم بمصالح العالم كله​

And there is no doubt that the polytheists didn't deny the Tawheed of Rububiyyah, rather they affirmed that he alone is their creator and the creator of the heavens and Earth and the one who looks after the affairs of all of the universe.

Ibn Kathir

وكثيرا ما يقرر تعالى مقام الإلهية بالاعتراف بتوحيد الربوبية . وقد كان المشركون يعترفون بذلك ، كما كانوا يقولون في تلبيتهم : " لبيك لا شريك لك ، إلا شريكا هو لك ، تملكه وما ملك​

Allah often establishes His divinity by referring to their acknowledgement of His Unique Lordship, because the idolators used to acknowledge His Lordship, as they said in their Talbiyah (during Hajj and `Umrah): "At Your service, You have no partner, except the partner that You have, and You possess him and whatever he has.''

Tbh, I wasn't arguing for Pagans having Tawheed Rububiyyah, my point was that you can commit Shirk in worship while not committing Shirk in Rububiyyay and vice versa. But I will not be surprised if some of them actually affirmed resurrection and all the Attributes of Allahs' lordship.

Let's look at that statement from Al Maqrisi, now what he says there can't be true and i'll give you an easy explanation. The pagans as you affirm have denied Allah's ability to resurrect the dead meaning they committed kufr in rububiyyah. So how can people who've committed kufr in rububiyyah have tawheed rububiyyah ?

The pagans of arabia ascribed daughters to Allah, they believed they were angels

“Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [17:40] “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male child, and for Him, the female?” [53:19/21]


Allah tells us that they took these angels as Lords besides Him

And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [3:80]


Look at what ibn kathir says

وكانوا يصرون ) أي : يصممون ولا ينوون توبة ( على الحنث العظيم ) وهو الكفر بالله ، وجعل الأوثان

والأنداد أربابا من دون الله
They would persist meaning they would insist and not intend to repent from the great sin that is disbelief of Allah and making the idols and rival LORDS besides Allah (56:46)



Also ibn kathir

They mushriks know Allah, most high is the giver of them (favours). And He is the bestower of that upon them yet despite that they deny it and worship other than Him and attribute victory & provisions to other than Him. (16:83)



يعرفون نعمة الله ثم ينكرونها ) أي : يعرفون أن الله تعالى هو المسدي إليهم ذلك ، وهو المتفضل به عليهم ، ومع هذا ينكرون ذلك ، ويعبدون معه غيره ، ويسندون النصر والرزق إلى غيره

In the ayah ibn kathir that the mushriks attributed victory and provisions to other than Allah meaning they ascribed partners to Allah in these attributes of Rububiyyah.

Tabari explanation of 12:106


وهم به مشركون في عبادتهم الأوثان والأصنام واتخاذهم من دون الله أربابا وزعمهم أن له ولد

“They are Mushrikūn, in their worship of statues and idols, and adopting them as rabbs besides Him, and their belief that He has children..


Tawheed and shirk can not coexist together, how come the shirk they commit in worship doesn't negate their supposed tawheed rububiyyah ? Shirk is the antithesis of tawheed and negates it completely, so how they retain their tawheed rububiyyah after commiting shirk

Furthermore if you weren't arguing for pagans having tawheed rububiyyah then why do you continue to defend miaw on this point ?

This is a massive cope sxb. You deflected from the main point, I brought this quote because al Razi compared this practice you have now very well explained to the grave veneration activities done by the Muslims in his time. You didn't address this last point.

Now I ask you, why did Al Razi label Muslims Mushriks? Do you think Qubooris at the time of al razi proudly declared to be worshipping the graves of the saints and the Quboris at the time of Miaw didn't do that?

I looked at the article in Islamqa about intercession(Shafa'h) in depth and it is mainly talking about Istighaatha. Asking for intercession as you know is a packed thing and can encompass many things, so it needs to be explained with context. It can imply Istighaatha and tashaffú(asking the dead to make dua for you) but never tawassul(seeking nearness to allah by your good deeds or the status of the prophet or saint).


Another massive cope.

Miaws statements are worded the same as those of the other Hanabila and have the same meaning

Modern Salafism is the union of many different groups, so you will find some of them saying we are la madhabi and follow only the Quran and Sunnah. This is mainly foreign influence to the najd dawah from Ahl Hadith in India and Al shawkanis movement in Yemen. The original Wahabbis always claimed(in their letters and books) to follow the Hanbali madhab.

It's not a copout as you still don't understand what's being referenced here sxb. Ar razi states that the pagans worshipped their idols believing that they would intersect for them now does any muslim say that they're worshipping the graves ? on what grounds are claiming that a similarity between them ?

Furthermore he says "many people" is he referring to people in general or just muslims ?

Like i stated before you make hasty judgements and super impose your own understanding. You took miaw's statement ( if that's even his, don't know where you got it from no citation etc) and used ar razi's explanation of 10:18 as evidence to back it up

Now the problem is miaw's claim that asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ amounts to major shirk is baatil as it's an act that has been recommended by scholars across the 4 schools. The ayah is talking about pagans who believe and worship gods besides Allah , you can't use the ayah to derive hukm that any muslim who asks intercession be it from the Prophet ﷺ is guilty of shirk just like the ayah the context are completely different


If your understanding is correct then according to you ibn qudamah was promoting major shirk when he recommended muslims to seek intercession with the Prophet ﷺ

Miaws statements are worded the same as those of the other Hanabila and have the same meaning

If that's true please bring statements from the major hanbali scholars confirming that asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ is major shirk.

 

[Hamzza]

Let's look at that statement from Al Maqrisi, now what he says there can't be true and i'll give you an easy explanation. The pagans as you affirm have denied Allah's ability to resurrect the dead meaning they committed kufr in rububiyyah. So how can people who've committed kufr in rububiyyah have tawheed rububiyyah ?

The pagans of arabia ascribed daughters to Allah, they believed they were angels

“Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [17:40] “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male child, and for Him, the female?” [53:19/21]


Allah tells us that they took these angels as Lords besides Him

And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [3:80]


Look at what ibn kathir says

وكانوا يصرون ) أي : يصممون ولا ينوون توبة ( على الحنث العظيم ) وهو الكفر بالله ، وجعل الأوثان

والأنداد أربابا من دون الله
They would persist meaning they would insist and not intend to repent from the great sin that is disbelief of Allah and making the idols and rival LORDS besides Allah (56:46)



Also ibn kathir

They mushriks know Allah, most high is the giver of them (favours). And He is the bestower of that upon them yet despite that they deny it and worship other than Him and attribute victory & provisions to other than Him. (16:83)



يعرفون نعمة الله ثم ينكرونها ) أي : يعرفون أن الله تعالى هو المسدي إليهم ذلك ، وهو المتفضل به عليهم ، ومع هذا ينكرون ذلك ، ويعبدون معه غيره ، ويسندون النصر والرزق إلى غيره

In the ayah ibn kathir that the mushriks attributed victory and provisions to other than Allah meaning they ascribed partners to Allah in these attributes of Rububiyyah.

Tabari explanation of 12:106


وهم به مشركون في عبادتهم الأوثان والأصنام واتخاذهم من دون الله أربابا وزعمهم أن له ولد

“They are Mushrikūn, in their worship of statues and idols, and adopting them as rabbs besides Him, and their belief that He has children..

The problem with you sxb, is that you presume the pagans of Qureysh to be monolithic and their beliefs uniform, that's why you assume the quote from Ibn Kathir that I shared to contradict his other statements, this couldn't be further from the truth as its clear from the Quran and the Sunnah that the pagans had differences in their beliefs.

To illustrate this, look no further than the report of the Talbiyah of the polytheists from Saheeh Muslim that Ibn Kathir quoted as evidence for the pagans in Ayah 62 of Surah Ankabot having Rububiyyah, and compare it to the pagans who were insulting Allah when their idols were insulted and assigned the greater portion of their crops and livestock to their idols when compared to Allah ﷻ. Do you think they are the same pagans?

Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) reported that the polytheists also pronounced (Talbiya) as:

Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you). They used to say this and circumambulate the Ka'ba.

Sahih Muslim 1185 - The Book of Pilgrimage - كتاب الحج - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) in English and Arabic

sunnah.com

Tawheed and shirk can not coexist together, how come the shirk they commit in worship doesn't negate their supposed tawheed rububiyyah ? Shirk is the antithesis of tawheed and negates it completely, so how they retain their tawheed rububiyyah after commiting shirk

They affirmed Allah's Rububiyyah and didn't commit Shirk in it doesn't mean they have good deeds and will be rewarded for it hereafter. If a Kafir prays and gives Sadaqah we will say he prayed and gave Sadaqah. Shirk and Kufr negate the reward that would've resulted from these good deeds in Aakhirah, not the actions themselves, as they're apparent for all to see.

Furthermore if you weren't arguing for pagans having tawheed rububiyyah then why do you continue to defend miaw on this point ?

What do you mean by this? This thread was about Istighaatha and Tawassul. I'm showcasing that his stances on this issue were not isolated as you and others have falsely claimed and were in line with the opinions of the other Hanabilah namely Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his students.

You keep quoting from Ibn Kathir even though he has clearly different views from you on the division of Tawheed.

Now the problem is miaw's claim that asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ amounts to major shirk is baatil as it's an act that has been recommended by scholars across the 4 schools. The ayah is talking about pagans who believe and worship gods besides Allah , you can't use the ayah to derive hukm that any muslim who asks intercession be it from the Prophet ﷺ is guilty of shirk just like the ayah the context are completely different


If your understanding is correct then according to you ibn qudamah was promoting major shirk when he recommended muslims to seek intercession with the Prophet ﷺ

I urge you to make further research on this. As I have previously said in this thread these issues need to be explained with context. Some people when they face distress in life say "Intercession O Rasulullah" to be freed from these difficulties, this is clearly Istighaatha and what Ibn Baz was explaining

Now I haven't looked deep into Ibn Qudamas statement and the context behind so I can't give a verdict if it's an intercession similar to the one Ibn Baz and others declared Shirk.

If that's true please bring statements from the major hanbali scholars confirming that asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ is major shirk.

This was in response to your criticism of Miaws second nullifier and I have brought explicit evidence for it in post #8 of this thread. Refer back to it.

As for your request to bring a scholar who said intercession with the prophet is Shirk, here it is.


Al Labadi said in his Hashiyah on Minhaj Al Ahmed by Qudumi:

Now that Istighaatha with a saint or prophet doesn't go beyond three points:

1. That he asks from them(saints, prophets) what only Allah is capable of like guidance...
2. That he asks them(saints, prophets) to intercede for him in these issues because they are closer to God than him; this is from the type of the speech of the Mushrikeen, "we do not worship them except to bring us closer to Allah"

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

The problem with you sxb, is that you presume the pagans of Qureysh to be monolithic and their beliefs uniform, that's why you assume the quote from Ibn Kathir that I shared to contradict his other statements, this couldn't be further from the truth as its clear from the Quran and the Sunnah that the pagans had differences in their beliefs.

To illustrate this, look no further than the report of the Talbiyah of the polytheists from Saheeh Muslim that Ibn Kathir quoted as evidence for the pagans in Ayah 62 of Surah Ankabot having Rububiyyah, and compare it to the pagans who were insulting Allah when their idols were insulted and assigned the greater portion of their crops and livestock to their idols when compared to Allah ﷻ. Do you think they are the same pagans?

That's not my point at all, what i am saying is that rububiyyah and worship are connected and can not be separated from each other. Anyone who worships others beside Allah is guilty of shirk rububiyyah as it's their shirk in rububiyyah that led them to worship Allah. We do not worship except those who we believe to be a lord that benefits and harms and thus worship is but a result of lordship.

If someone singles out Allah alone in His rububiyyah then he/she will worship alone, the fact that they worship others is an indication that they have not singled out Allah in His rububiyyah. As a muslim why is that you would never worship anyone besides Allah ? what is it that ONLY makes Allah worthy of your worship ? It is His Rububiyyah, if an atheist asks you why do you believe in and worship Allah ? your answer again will be based on His rububiyyah.

Sax the pagans had differences in their beliefs laakin what does not change is that ALL of them are guilty of Shirk rububiyyah. The pagans affirmed different attributes of rububiyyah to the gods their worshipped

Let's take a look at the talbiyah of the pagans, look at what ibn kathir has to say in 17:111
قال ابن جرير : حدثني يونس ، أنبأنا ابن وهب ، أخبرني أبو صخر ، عن القرظي أنه كان يقول في هذه الآية : ( وقل الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا ) الآية ، قال : إن اليهود والنصارى قالوا : اتخذ الله ولدا ، وقال العرب : [ لبيك ] لبيك ، لا شريك لك ؛ إلا شريكا هو لك ، تملكه وما ملك . وقال الصابئون والمجوس : لولا أولياء الله لذل . فأنزل الله هذه الآية : ( وقل الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك في الملك ولم يكن له ولي من الذل وكبره تكبيرا )

Ibn Jarir recorded that Al-Qurazi used to say about this Ayah,

( وَقُلِ ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ ٱلَّذِى لَمۡ يَتَّخِذۡ وَلَدً۬ا)

(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:

﴿ وَقُلِ ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ ٱلَّذِى لَمۡ يَتَّخِذۡ وَلَدً۬ا وَلَمۡ يَكُن لَّهُ ۥ شَرِيكٌ۬ فِى ٱلۡمُلۡكِ وَلَمۡ يَكُن لَّهُ ۥ وَلِىٌّ۬ مِّنَ ٱلذُّلِّ‌ۖ وَكَبِّرۡهُ تَكۡبِيرَۢا ﴾

(And say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has not begotten a son, and Who has no partner in (His) dominion, nor is He low to have a supporter. And magnify Him with all magnificence.'') End of Tafsir Surah Subhan (Surat Al-Isra'). And to Allah be the praise and blessings.


In the explanation we learn that Allah rejects a partner in His Mulk (dominion/sovereignty) as response to the pagans talbiyah indicating that these pagans are guilty of shirk rububiyyah.

They affirmed Allah's Rububiyyah and didn't commit Shirk in it doesn't mean they have good deeds a will be rewarded for it hereafter. If a Kafir prays and gives Sadaqah we will say he prayed and gave Sadaqah. Shirk and Kufr negate the reward that would've resulted from these good deeds in Aakhirah, not the actions themselves, as they're apparent for all to see.

Shirk cancels out tawheed in it's entirety meaning it's not possible to have "any" or "some parts" of tawheed after committing shirk. The salafi claim is that pagans are guilty of shirk in worship, my question is that after committing shirk in worship how do these pagans still retain their supposed tawheed rububiyyah ? After all they're in fact called mushriks ie people who associate others with Allah ie they reject tawheed.

Shirk and kufr negates all the actions does, they render them null and void. Meaning they negate not just the reward but the good deeds including beliefs as well. Christians do believe in Allah laakin due to their shirk all their good deeds and beliefs they have of Allah are negated. Their sadaqah, worship all of it is cancelled out by their shirk, this is why we don't affirm tawheed to them

What do you mean by this? This thread was about Istighaatha and Tawassul. I'm showcasing that his stances on this issue were not isolated as you and others have falsely claimed and were in line with the opinions of the other Hanabilah namely Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his students.

You keep quoting from Ibn Kathir even though he has clearly different views from you on the division of Tawheed.

I was asking why were you continuously defending miaw regarding his claim about pagans having tawheed rububiyyah even though you stated that you weren't arguing for pagans having tawheed Rububiyyah. Miaw wasn't arguing that pagans didn't have tawheed rububiyyah he uses his claim of pagans affirming tawheed rububiyyah to equate their actions and that of muslims when it relates to seeking intercession

I urge you to make further research on this. As I have previously said in this thread these issues need to be explained with context. Some people when they face distress in life say "Intercession O Rasulullah" to be freed from these difficulties, this is clearly Istighaatha and what Ibn Baz was explainingView attachment 284774

Now I haven't looked deep into Ibn Qudamas statement and the context behind so I can't give a verdict if it's an intercession similar to the one Ibn Baz and others declared Shirk.

I have done research sxb and this is why i hold my positions while you on the other hand seem to only take from modern salafism sxb. Ibn qudama is one of the major scholars of the hanbali school sxb and according to ibn baz position ibn qudama is promoting shirk. Now this is major problem here sxb. Like stated before najdi theology considers actions that were recommended by scholars from the 4 schools to be major shirk and this is a result of their deviated understanding of tawheed & shirk.

This was in response to your criticism of Miaws second nullifier and I have brought explicit evidence for it in post #8 of this thread. Refer back to it.

As for your request to bring a scholar who said intercession with the prophet is Shirk, here it is.


Al Labadi said in his Hashiyah on Minhaj Al Ahmed by Qudumi:

View attachment 284775

Now that Istighaatha with a saint or prophet doesn't go beyond three points:

1. That he asks from them(saints, prophets) what only Allah is capable of like guidance...
2. That he asks them(saints, prophets) to intercede for him in these issues because they are closer to God than him; this is from the type of the speech of the Mushrikeen, "we do not worship them except to bring us closer to Allah"

Like i stated before i used the case of miaw labelling asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ as shirk an action that was recommended by major scholars from the 4 schools as an example to highlight his extreme understanding of what constitutes as taking an intermediary & asking for intercession.

You went ahead and brought statements from some hanbali scholars as evidence to back miaw's understanding as if they were in agreement with his position regarding seeking intercession ﷺ. Now i ask you where did they explicitly state that ie that asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ is major shirk or that this what they meant when they talked about placing intermediaries between a person and Allah ? Do you even know if ibn muflih position of intercession ?

What you did there was just impose your own understanding on what those statement meant so as to free miaw from blame.

Coming to the statement of Al Labadi, he came after miaw, so there's is a possibility that he followed him with this regard. Was he a najdi scholar yes or no ?

Now wanted to expand more on the following point

That he asks them(saints, prophets) to intercede for him in these issues because they are closer to God than him; this is from the type of the speech of the Mushrikeen, "we do not worship them except to bring us closer to Allah"

How's a muslim asking for the Prophet's intercession similar to a pagan who says that they Only worship their gods to get closer to Allah ? Muslims don't worship anyone to draw nearer to Allah, so how can a similarity be established here ?

Furthermore on judgement day muslims will seek out the Prophet ﷺ so that he can intercede for us with Allah. In fact we as muslims ask others who we believe are more pious than us to make dua for as this has a higher possibility of the dua being accepted.

 

[Hamzza]

That's not my point at all, what i am saying is that rububiyyah and worship are connected and can not be separated from each other. Anyone who worships others beside Allah is guilty of shirk rububiyyah as it's their shirk in rububiyyah that led them to worship Allah. We do not worship except those who we believe to be a lord that benefits and harms and thus worship is but a result of lordship.

If someone singles out Allah alone in His rububiyyah then he/she will worship alone, the fact that they worship others is an indication that they have not singled out Allah in His rububiyyah. As a muslim why is that you would never worship anyone besides Allah ? what is it that ONLY makes Allah worthy of your worship ? It is His Rububiyyah, if an atheist asks you why do you believe in and worship Allah ? your answer again will be based on His rububiyyah.

Sax the pagans had differences in their beliefs laakin what does not change is that ALL of them are guilty of Shirk rububiyyah. The pagans affirmed different attributes of rububiyyah to the gods their worshipped

I firmly believe a person can commit Shirk in Rububiyyah without necessarily committing Shirk in Uluhiyyah and vice versa

I will bring a simple example of this from the books of Figh

تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله ورسوله لا يجوزة لأن هذا نكاح لم يحضره شهود، ومن أبي القاسم الصفار رحمه الله أنه قال: يكفر من فعل هذا لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله عليه وسلم عالم الغيب​

Marrying a woman with the testimony of Allah and his prophet is not valid. because that is a marriage with no witnesses, it was narrated from At Qasim al Safār that he said: the one who does this(taking Allah & the prophet as witnesses) is a kafir because he believed that the prophets knows the unseen

المحيط البرهاني في الفقه النعماني 3/29

Now, why is the one who ascribes the knowledge of Ghayb to other than Allah a kafir? Because he committed Shirk in Rububiyyah with no worship no? This totally disproves your claim of Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah being interconnected

I asked you a question similar to this in another thread and this was your response

What are you on about too, this is just ridiculous, now you're claiming that people are taking countries as their lords, tell us why are they not worshipping them if they believe they can cause Qiyama ? i suggest you take your time in reviewing what I've stated so far instead of rejecting them outright

Ascribing an exclusive attribute of Allah to other than him is Shirk whether it be bringing rain, Qiyamah or the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow. There are massive holes in your understanding of Shirk & Tawheed sxb

Like i stated before i used the case of miaw labelling asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ as shirk an action that was recommended by major scholars from the 4 schools as an example to highlight his extreme understanding of what constitutes as taking an intermediary & asking for intercession.

As I said previously (I don't know why you ignoring this), asking for intercession can mean many things. The intercession of Ibn Qudamah and what Ibn Baz declared Shirk are not similar in any sense

You went ahead and brought statements from some hanbali scholars as evidence to back miaw's understanding as if they were in agreement with his position regarding seeking intercession ﷺ. Now i ask you where did they explicitly state that ie that asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ is major shirk or that this what they meant when they talked about placing intermediaries between a person and Allah ? Do you even know if ibn muflih position of intercession ?

I brought the statements of the Hanbali scholars to show that they agree with the 2nd nullifier, not as evidence of seeking intercession being a Shirk. Review the convo again. Nevertheless, these statements still contradict your principles as they clearly label anyone who puts intermediaries between himself and God(without necessarily admitting to worshipping these intermediaries) a kafir. You on the other hand believe for Shirk to happen people must explicitly declare they are worshipping graves.

Coming to the statement of Al Labadi, he came after miaw, so there's is a possibility that he followed him with this regard. Was he a najdi scholar yes or no ?

Now wanted to expand more on the following point


How's a muslim asking for the Prophet's intercession similar to a pagan who says that they Only worship their gods to get closer to Allah ? Muslims don't worship anyone to draw nearer to Allah, so how can a similarity be established here ?

Al Labadi was from Palestine and I'm not aware of any connection he had with Najdis. It's better to ask this question to Al Bahuti and others because they clealy compared Istighaatha to the actions and sayings of the polytheists of Qureysh:

وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا انتهى) أي كفر لأن ذلك كفعل عابدي الأصنام قائلين : {ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى.

"He (Ibn Taymiyyah) said: or he made between him and Allah intermediaries on whom he places his trust and to whom he supplicates and asks. By consensus.) (al Bahuti commented) i.e. it is kufr (infidelity); Because that is like the deeds of idol worshipers who say: {We do not worship them except for them to bring us near to Allah.}.

You have an understanding of Shirk which is completely different from that of the classical scholars, that's why you accuse me of imposing my understanding onto other scholars' statements when I bring crystal clear statements from them saying similar things to Mlaw. This is a poor attempt at Isolating Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wanhab from the other Hanabila and the 2nd nullifier is proof for that.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

I firmly believe a person can commit Shirk in Rububiyyah without necessarily committing Shirk in Uluhiyyah and vice versa

I will bring a simple example of this from the books of Figh

تزوج امرأة بشهادة الله ورسوله لا يجوزة لأن هذا نكاح لم يحضره شهود، ومن أبي القاسم الصفار رحمه الله أنه قال: يكفر من فعل هذا لأنه اعتقد أن رسول الله عليه وسلم عالم الغيب​

المحيط البرهاني في الفقه النعماني 3/29

Now, why is the one who ascribes the knowledge of Ghayb to other than Allah a kafir? Because he committed Shirk in Rububiyyah with no worship no? This totally disproves your claim of Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah being interconnected

I asked you a question similar to this in another thread and this was your response



Ascribing an exclusive attribute of Allah to other than him is Shirk whether it be bringing rain, Qiyamah or the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow. There are massive holes in your understanding of Shirk & Tawheed sxb



As I said previously (I don't know why you ignoring this), asking for intercession can mean many things. The intercession of Ibn Qudamah and what Ibn Baz declared Shirk are not similar in any sense

Sxb you're mistaken, if you're guilty of shirk in rububiyyah then you're automatically guilty of shirk in worship. In surah 9:31 Allah responds to the jews & christians action of shirk in rububiyyah (ie taking a rabb besides Him) by saying "even though they were commanded to worship none but One God" Why is this if rububiyyah was not connected to worship ?

Just for arguments sake how is it possible for a person who is guilty of shirk rububiyyah be able to have tawheed in worship ? doesn't shirk not negate tawheed entirely ?


Knowledge of the unseen is divided into 2 types, one where Allah ONLY knows about it & one where Allah has revealed some things to the Prophets. Life of the barzakh, punishment in the grave, major & minor signs of the yawmul qiyamah, details of what will happen in yawmul qiyamah etc all of it is knowledge of the unseen that was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ

Now i want you to explain it to me how taking the Prophet as a witness amounts to claiming that the Prophets know of the unseen the type ONLY which is known by Allah? i don't understand what the connection between the 2 is sxb


Bin baz is very explicit in that fatwa as he states that one can not seek intercession from the deceased as they lack the power to intercede, offer supplication or anything else. Yet the statements of ibn qudama contradicts this as his recommending one to seek intercession with the Prophet ﷺ as means to seek forgiveness with Allah while visiting his grave and also through dua when a person has a need.

I brought the statements of the Hanbali scholars to show that they agree with the 2nd nullifier, not as evidence of seeking intercession being a Shirk. Review the convo again. Nevertheless, these statements still contradict your principles as they clearly label anyone who puts intermediaries between himself and God(without necessarily admitting to worshipping these intermediaries) a kafir. You on the other hand believe for Shirk to happen people must explicitly declare they are worshipping graves.



Al Labadi was from Palestine and I'm not aware of any connection he had with Najdis. It's better to ask this question to Al Bahuti and others because they clealy compared Istighaatha to the actions and sayings of the polytheists of Qureysh:



You have an understanding of Shirk which is completely different from that of the classical scholars, that's why you accuse me of imposing my understanding onto other scholars' statements when I bring crystal clear statements from them saying similar things to Mlaw. This is a poor attempt at Isolating Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wanhab from the other Hanabila and the 2nd nullifier is proof for that.

Miaw includes asking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ in His 2nd nullifier yet this was an action that has been recommended by scholars. How in the world are they in agreement sxb ?

I asked you a very simple question regarding those statements and ayah from surah yunus that were citing from those scholars yet you couldn't even answer how it relates to muslims ? An ayah that states that mushriks are worshipping their gods to get closer to Allah, how can this be applied to a muslim who asks for intercession from the Prophet ﷺ and worships Allah alone ?

On what basis are they comparing and equating the actions of those mushriks and that of muslims when it relates to seeking intercession from the Prophet ﷺ ?

All what you're doing in this thread is selectively citing statements from scholars without understanding and knowing their positions on issues relating to tawhid, shirk, intercession etc.

Had your understanding of shirk been in line with the classical scholars then you wouldn't have a problem in explaining how pagans after committing shirk in worship are able to retain their supposed tawheed in rububiyyah or how a person who commits shirk rububiyyah is able to have an alleged tawheed in worship.

You acknowledge that pagans are guilty of kufr in rububiyyah yet continue to defend miaw who states the complete opposite ie pagans affirmed tawheed rububiyyah. How is it you as a common muslim is able to affirm that pagans were guilty of kufr in rububiyyah yet miaw wasn't able to ? if he's mistaken on this point what's the possibility that he's mistaken elsewhere ?

 

[Hamzza]

Sxb you're mistaken, if you're guilty of shirk in rububiyyah then you're automatically guilty of shirk in worship. In surah 9:31 Allah responds to the jews & christians action of shirk in rububiyyah (ie taking a rabb besides Him) by saying "even though they were commanded to worship none but One God" Why is this if rububiyyah was not connected to worship ?

Just for arguments sake how is it possible for a person who is guilty of shirk rububiyyah be able to have tawheed in worship ? doesn't shirk not negate tawheed entirely ?


Knowledge of the unseen is divided into 2 types, one where Allah ONLY knows about it & one where Allah has revealed some things to the Prophets. Life of the barzakh, punishment in the grave, major & minor signs of the yawmul qiyamah, details of what will happen in yawmul qiyamah etc all of it is knowledge of the unseen that was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ

Now i want you to explain it to me how taking the Prophet as a witness amounts to claiming that the Prophets know of the unseen the type ONLY which is known by Allah? i don't understand what the connection between the 2 is sxb

Horta firstly, the connection was made by a Hanafi scholar, not me. You seem to disregard the statements of the scholars and follow your desires.

Secondly, I know some of the Ghayb may be revealed to prophet by way of wahyi(revelation). But taking the prophet as a witness necessitates that you believe the prophet scw is omniscient and this is Shirk as Allah only is the all-knowing.

The Ayah you shared is addressing specific people and the prophet ﷺ has explained how they worshipped their rabbis when one of the Sahaba said: "but they didn't worship them"

Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.

The Ayah does not in any shape connect Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah and The fact that the Sahabi asked how they worshipped their rabbis and at the onset didn't see any worship proofs that there can be Shirk with no worship.

I want you to explain to me how the person who Attributes the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow to other than God is worshipping that person? I ask you this question because I think we agree that the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow is something Allah made exclusively for himself and didn't reveal to anyone.

{Indeed, Allah [Alone] has knowledge of the Hour and sends down the rain and knows what is in the wombs. And no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives in what land it will die.} Luqman 31:34

 

[Hamzza]

I didn't respond to the rest of your paragraphs, because it's you repeating yourself and returning to points we already addressed

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Horta firstly, the connection was made by a Hanafi scholar, not me. You seem to disregard the statements of the scholars and follow your desires.

Secondly, I know some of the Ghayb may be revealed to prophet by way of wahyi(revelation). But taking the prophet as a witness necessitates that you believe the prophet scw is omniscient and this is Shirk as Allah only is the all-knowing.

The Ayah you shared is addressing specific people and the prophet ﷺ has explained how they worshipped their rabbis when one of the Sahaba said: "but they didn't worship them"



The Ayah does not in any shape connect Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah and The fact that the Sahabi asked how they worshipped their rabbis and at the onset didn't see any worship proofs that there can be Shirk with no worship.

I want you to explain to me how the person who Attributes the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow to other than God is worshipping that person? I ask you this question because I think we agree that the knowledge of what will happen tomorrow is something Allah made exclusively for himself and didn't reveal to anyone.

Which hanafi scholar stated that rububiyyah & uluhiyyah aren't connected ?

Taking the prophet ﷺ as witness becomes shirk when said individual beliefs that he's independent what if the individual states that Allah swt makes him aware of it just like in the case when we send salutation to the Prophet ﷺ

Yes there's is a connection as the hadith states


Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah;


﴿ ٱتَّخَذُوٓاْ أَحۡبَارَهُمۡ وَرُهۡبَـٰنَهُمۡ أَرۡبَابً۬ا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ ﴾

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah). `Adi commented, "I said, `They did not worship them.'''

The Prophet said,
« بَلَى إِنَّهُمْ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمُ الْحَلَالَ وَأَحَلُّوا لَهُمُ الْحَرَامَ فَاتَّبَعُوهُمْ فَذَلِكَ عِبَادَتُهُمْ إِيَّاهُم »
(Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.)


Why would the sahabi reply they didn't worship them as response to the ayah when it states they took them as Rabbs ?

They ayah itself is explicit between the connection between taking a rabb and worshipping it

They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate ˹with Him˺! (9:31)

Taking a rabb means you become it's worshipped sxb it's simple as that.