How trustable are Fatwas? And how many are based on Politics instead of Islam?

[cooli3o]

From your article

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Kufr is denial and concealment of the truth, such as one who denies that prayer is obligatory, or that zakaah is obligatory, or that fasting Ramadaan is obligatory, or that doing Hajj when one is able to is obligatory, or that honouring one's parents is obligatory, and so on, or one who denies that zina is haraam, or that drinking intoxicants is haraam, or that disobeying one’s parents is haraam, and so on.

Shirk is devoting acts of worship to something or someone other than Allaah, such as one who seeks the help of the dead, those who are absent, the jinn, idols, the stars, and so on, or who offers sacrifices to them, or makes vows to them. A kaafir may be called a mushrik and a mushrik may be called a kaafir, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

did you read the entire article, or are you just ignoring everything the article clearly stated

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Kufr and shirk may carry the same meaning, which is disbelief in Allaah, may He be exalted, or they may be used separately

The Shaykh (may Allaah have mercy on him) also said:

It is also shirk to worship only something other than Allaah. This is called shirk, and it is called kufr. Whoever turns away from Allaah altogether and devotes his worship to something other than Allaah, such as trees, rocks, idols, the jinn or some of the dead such as those whom they call awliya’ (“saints”), and worship them, pray to them or fast for them, and forget Allaah altogether, this is the worst form of kufr and shirk. We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound. Similarly those who deny the existence of Allaah and say that there is no god, that life is only material, such as the communists and atheists, are the most disbelieving and misguided of people, and the worst in terms of shirk.

he says atheists commit shirk, according to you they only negate Allahs existence and dont worship him, so how are atheists commiting shirk according to you?

The Jews and Christians are both kaafirs and mushrikeen. They are kaafirs because they deny the truth and reject it. And they are mushrikeen because they worship someone other than Allaah.


A kaafir may be called a mushrik and a mushrik may be called a kaafir, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):



“And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allaah, any other ilaah (god), of whom he has no proof; then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely, Al‑Kaafiroon (the disbelievers in Allaah and in the Oneness of Allaah, polytheists, pagans, idolaters) will not be successful”
[al-Mu’minoon 23:117]

here someone who makes due to other than Allah is called a kaafir

33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikoon (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah) hate (it)”

[al-Tawbah 9:32-33]

Here Allaah calls the kuffaar kuffaar, and He calls them mushrikeen. This indicates that a kaafir may be called a mushrik and a mushrik may be called a kaafir. There are many similar verses and ahaadeeth.

 

[cooli3o]

Mushrik and kaafir are interchangable
someone who commits shirk is a kaafir,one who does kufr commits shirk

45:23
أَفَرَءَيْتَ مَنِ ٱتَّخَذَ إِلَـٰهَهُۥ هَوَىٰهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ ٱللَّهُ عَلَىٰ عِلْمٍۢ وَخَتَمَ عَلَىٰ سَمْعِهِۦ وَقَلْبِهِۦ وَجَعَلَ عَلَىٰ بَصَرِهِۦ غِشَـٰوَةًۭ فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِنۢ بَعْدِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ ٢٣

Have you seen ˹O Prophet˺ those who have taken their own desires as their god? ˹And so˺ Allah left them to stray knowingly, sealed their hearing and hearts, and placed a cover on their sight. Who then can guide them after Allah? Will you ˹all˺ not then be mindful?
— Dr. Mustafa Khattab, the Clear Quran

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

If I supplicate to the Sun day and night in a way to mock Allah without believing it can bring benefit or harm to me isn't that Shirk in Ibadah only?

2 issues that needs to be addressed

1. Why will anyone supplicate to the sun, no sane individual will do that without any reason. There's a belief that said individual has about the sun that makes him want to supplicate. In human history there were cultures that believed sun was a deity, others worshipped other heavnly bodies likes the stars etc. In fact some of the mushriks attributed rain to the stars

2. Mocking Allah is kufr as such no way said individual can have emaan in Allah


Worship of any being is tied to attributes of Lordship that people have affirmed for their gods etc. It isn't just mere outward actions that one performs, those actions have a basis in the belief that one has ascribed to the being they worship. This is true for all religions throughout human history.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

The concept of the one in babylonian tradition, the cult of aten, the initial practices of worshiping the one in budhism, the lone monethistic sect in hinduism etc.. I take the opinion that monotheism was taught and restored by the prophets and was the foundation of all religions which the shaytaan via priests corrupted.

From what i know babylonians had more than one deity, aten was about sun worship, buddhism don't believe in a monotheistic god. There has only been 1 true religion all other religions simply had deviations from worshipping Allah to other deities etc. Had their foundations been correct with they wouldn't be a need to send Prophets

 

[Yibir_]

From what i know babylonians had more than one deity, aten was about sun worship, buddhism don't believe in a monotheistic god. There has only been 1 true religion all other religions simply had deviations from worshipping Allah to other deities etc. Had their foundations been correct with they wouldn't be a need to send Prophets

men and their innovations insipired by shaytaan corrupt religion, theres only ever been one religion, everything else is an innovation added onto it. They affirm the existence of the godhead and assign partners to him, the reason why is best explained in the commentary the jews give when they are called to the faith: "Allâh's Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty)." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered. Nay, both His Hands 1 are widely outstretched. He spends (of His Bounty) as He wills. You can observe jinns and other spiritual phenomena but, you cannot observe God directly (only known case is moses). In this perceptive absence of God, knowledgeable men attach themselves to various Jinns in the hopes of alms and bounty in this world which they do recieve at the loss of all spiritual good (there is an ayaat of shaytaans ability to bestow give me a week so I can reread and quote it for you). These men then go out and teach others of their findings, when this happens enough times the very fabric of the religion is changed to accommodate said findings.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Which Salafis said Christians and Jews did not believe their monks are rabbs other than Allah? I'm not familiar with Christian and Jews theology so i cant approve or deny plus its irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Who claimed Allahs lordship is restricted to creating and the other stuff you mentioned they made Shirk in rububiyyah by believing the ahkam of their monks are more appropriate and can bring better results than the Sharia of Allah.

As for the Tawheed of Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah not necessarily being inclusive of each other. Its not najd concept as scholars like Ibn Kathir who is Shami believed and spoke about it centuries before the rise of the Najd dawah.

ولئن سألتهم من خلق السماوات والأرض وسخر الشمس والقمر ليقولن الله ۖ فأنى يؤفكون

Ibn Kathir commenting on this ayah said:

I think that he was trying to refer to the najdi/salafi claim that majority of bani adam have affirmed tawheed rububiyyah. Had salafis not restricted tawheed rububiyyah to a few attributes and affirmed it to the mushriks on this premise we wouldn't be having disagreements. The example of ascribing partners to Allah in His legislation by the jews & christians equally applies to the mushriks of past & present yet this doesn't stop from salafis claiming that mushriks had tawheed rububiyyah.


This problematic theology is being taught by major scholars of the najdi dawah from miaw to the likes of ibn baz etc. Just look at what ibn baz states in the following fatwa

( Part No : 1, Page No: 36)

Now, it becomes clear that the Mushriks did not believe that their deities bring about benefit or cause harm; give life or cause death; provide sustenance or withhold it. Rather, they worshipped them to act as intercessors on their behalf and bring them closer to Allah. Mushriks in the past did not worship AlLat, Al `Uzza, Manat, Jesus, Mary or righteous people because they bring about benefit or cause harm but they worshipped them because they wish for their intercession and that they bring them near to Allah. Nevertheless, Allah described them with Shirk (associating others with Allah in His Divinity or worship) in His saying: And they worship besides Allâh things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allâh.” Say: “Do you inform Allâh of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?” Glorified and Exalted is He above all that which they associate as partners (with Him)! The Ayah of Surah AlZumar reads: Verily, Allâh will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allâh guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever. He called them disbelievers and liars when they claimed that they worship them only that they may bring them near to Allah. Allah stated that they are liars in the claim that their deities bring them near to Allah, and judged them as disbelievers as they dedicate acts of worship, such as slaughtering animals, making vows, seeking relief and the like to them.

Source: Majmoo al fatwa sh ibn baz, download from

https://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/i...atawa_IbnBaz/en_01_Majmoo_alFatawa_IbnBaz.pdf

How can anyone let alone a scholar claim that christians worship jesus just as an intercessor and NOT because they believe that Jesus is able to harm and benefit them. The claim that mushriks simply worshipped others beside Allah just for intercession is so ingrained in najdi theology that they end up making mistakes like the one above.


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.

There's many more ayat where ibn kathir gives similar explanations where the mushriks were guilty of shirk rububiyyah. Yet this is hardly cited, this selective quoting from the books of tafsirs is a common trend among salafis where they would like portray as if their claims represent normative islamic creed that has been taught from the time of revelation until now.

 

[Yibir_]

I think that he was trying to refer to the najdi/salafi claim that majority of bani adam have affirmed tawheed rububiyyah. Had salafis not restricted tawheed rububiyyah to a few attributes and affirmed it to the mushriks on this premise we wouldn't be having disagreements. The example of ascribing partners to Allah in His legislation by the jews & christians equally applies to the mushriks of past & present yet this doesn't stop from salafis claiming that mushriks had tawheed rububiyyah.


This problematic theology is being taught by major scholars of the najdi dawah from miaw to the likes of ibn baz etc. Just look at what ibn baz states in the following fatwa



Source: Majmoo al fatwa sh ibn baz, download from

https://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/i...atawa_IbnBaz/en_01_Majmoo_alFatawa_IbnBaz.pdf

How can anyone let alone a scholar claim that christians worship jesus just as an intercessor and NOT because they believe that Jesus is able to harm and benefit them. The claim that mushriks simply worshipped others beside Allah just for intercession is so ingrained in najdi theology that they end up making mistakes like the one above.


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.

There's many more ayat where ibn kathir gives similar explanations where the mushriks were guilty of shirk rububiyyah. Yet this is hardly cited, this selective quoting from the books of tafsirs is a common trend among salafis where they would like portray as if their claims represent normative islamic creed that has been taught from the time of revelation until now.

Whats your definition of tawhid ar rubabiya? And out of curiosity what is your creed/madhab?
Do you agree with this statement: some sufis are guilty of shirk ar rubabiya - since we both agree that solicitation via others to reach god is impermissible?

I’d also like leave this debate on the terminology of shirkh ar rubabiya vs tawhid ar rubabiya as I can only offer non islamic of sources, quranic ayat and my own personal opinion. Its a terminology issue which can be argued to death in either direction. There is only one god and that god is Allah, admit no one else as partner and worship him alone - that statement is the usool of the salafi creed, something shias and (most) sufis deviate from. It has become trendy to attack “wahaabis” and because of their literalist interpretations of the deen asharis and mutaridis align themselves with those who invent partners in the godhead to score points. To sit on the sidelines and observe this is tiresome especially when both sides froth at the mouth at the mention of one another.

 

[Hamzza]

Yes they did commit shirk in Rububiyyah, if they didn't why did they threaten the Prophet with their idols in 39:36.

How is that Shirk in Rububiyyah? They threatened the prophet with their idols by for example saying: O Mohamed the curse of our idols will happen to you". The Kayfiyah of their threatening of the prophet ﷺ is not clear from this ayah. I don't see Shirk in Rububiyyah there. The Mushrikeen generally believed their idols are loved by Allah which is why they said we worship them hoping hoping to bring us closer to Allah. And I wasn't even arguing for all Mushrikeen having Tawheed Al Rububiyyah, most of them definitely committed shirk in both lordship and Ibadah.

The qadiyanis as you correctly pointed out waa gaalo and no gaalo will ever be able to answer that question of the grave. Laakin najdi theology claims mushriks have tawheed rububiyyah and that their affirmation of tawheed rububiyyah didn't make them muslim because they committed shirk in ulihiyyah.


Now this begs the question if tawheed rububiyyah isn't enough to make one a muslim or that rububiyyah isn't inclusive of uluhiyyah then why are we asked Who our Rabb is in the grave ? Najdi creed makes the absurd claim that what separates us muslims and gaalo/mushriks etc isn't our affirmation of tawheed rububiyyah but tawheed uluhiyyah laakin if that were true we wouldn't be asked who our Rabb is in the grave

The question of who Our Rabb is, completely contradicts najdi understanding of tawheed, the question is proof that rububiyyah & uluhiyyah are inclusive of each other.

This can be again applied to Qadiyans and non-Mushrikeen kuffar, Why are these people(Kafirs) who always acknowledged Allah's lordship and never committed Shirk asked who their Rabb is? This is absurd logic you should abandon it.

No the meaning of Wali in 39:3 is referring to gods not human friends etc. The ayah is talking about mushriks who have taken other than Allah to be their Protector etc. There's other ayat where Allah talks about taking wali in reference to us muslims such as

The believers, both men and women, are wali of one another...... (9:71)

Verily, your Wali (Protector or Helper) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers, - those who perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, and they bow down (submit themselves with obedience to Allah in prayer) (5:55)

In the context where we read Allah telling us not to take other than Him as a wali or reprimands the mushriks for taking other than Him as wali etc . All of these ayat the meaning of Wali is referring to the attribute of Lordship meaning Allah is informing not take or ascribe partners to him in this sifaat of rububiyyah like the mushriks have done with their gods.
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.

But in the context of 9:71, 5:55 the meaning of wali is different, as can be read from the ayat.

I looked at many tafseers of these ayah noone said اتحدت من دون الله أولياء means protectors

{ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا مِنْ دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَاءَ } أي: يتولونهم بعبادتهم ودعائهم، [معتذرين] عن أنفسهم وقائلين: { مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى } أي: لترفع حوائجنا للّه، وتشفع لنا عنده، وإلا، فنحن نعلم أنها، لا تخلق، ولا ترزق، ولا تملك من الأمر شيئا.
​

That is they make them their walis by worshipping them.

You worship something that is close fo your heart.

AL Baqhawi

( والذين اتخذوا من دونه ) أي : من دون الله ، ) ( أولياء ) يعني : الأصنام ، ( ما نعبدهم ) أي قالوا :

Awliya meaning Idols.

2 issues that needs to be addressed

1. Why will anyone supplicate to the sun, no sane individual will do that without any reason. There's a belief that said individual has about the sun that makes him want to supplicate. In human history there were cultures that believed sun was a deity, others worshipped other heavnly bodies likes the stars etc. In fact some of the mushriks attributed rain to the stars

I said mocking استهزاء and جحود aren't humans capable of this

Many tyrants were described in the Quran as عنيد one who denies the truth even though deep down in his heart he knows its Haqq.

2. Mocking Allah is kufr as such no way said individual can have emaan in Allah

Absolutely he is kafir and Mushrik no one denies that but the point is he hasn't committed Shirk in Rububiyyah whilst worshipping other than Allah(the sun in this case)

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

men and their innovations insipired by shaytaan corrupt religion, theres only ever been one religion, everything else is an innovation added onto it. They affirm the existence of the godhead and assign partners to him, the reason why is best explained in the commentary the jews give when they are called to the faith: "Allâh's Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty)." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered. Nay, both His Hands 1 are widely outstretched. He spends (of His Bounty) as He wills. You can observe jinns and other spiritual phenomena but, you cannot observe God directly (only known case is moses). In this perceptive absence of God, knowledgeable men attach themselves to various Jinns in the hopes of alms and bounty in this world which they do recieve at the loss of all spiritual good (there is an ayaat of shaytaans ability to bestow give me a week so I can reread and quote it for you). These men then go out and teach others of their findings, when this happens enough times the very fabric of the religion is changed to accommodate said findings.

When you read up on some of the arrogance displayed in jewish theology regarding their rabbis etc you'll be shocked. There's a story about an oven in the talmud where a debate takes place between the rabbis about it.

Rabbi Eliezer repeatedly invokes divine miracles and even God’s direct intervention to make his point to his colleagues that he is correct about a specific matter of Jewish law. Each time he does this, the other sages reject his methods of proof. Finally, when God declares that Rabbi Eliezer is correct, they respond that since the Torah is no longer in heaven, but given to us on earth, we no longer listen to heavenly authority when we make religious rulings. At the end of the story, Elijah the prophet famously informs the rabbis that God laughed joyously when they rejected God’s arguments, declaring, “My children have defeated Me!”

 

[cooli3o]

non-Mushrikeen kuffar,

there is no such thing, as I have said and mentioned before, shirk and kufr go together, you cannot do kufr without shirk and the other way around, there is no such thing as a kaafir who isnt a mushrik

 

[Yibir_]

When you read up on some of the arrogance displayed in jewish theology regarding their rabbis etc you'll be shocked. There's a story about an oven in the talmud where a debate takes place between the rabbis about it.

Haq. The reasoning behind this deviance is that they were dispersed amongst many polytheistic nations who’s various myths state that the there are struggles within the godhead and posit that man and his cunning can outsmart “the god(s)” and even replace them. The commentary in the quran I can relate to this: Allah has never had ˹any˺ offspring, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what he created, and they would have tried to dominate one another. Glorified is Allah above what they claim!. If you are privy to pagan beliefs you’ll genuinely be surprised at the amount of upheaval in the pantheistic heirachys.

 

[cooli3o]

Why are these people(Kafirs) who always acknowledged Allah's lordship and never committed Shirk asked who their Rabb is? This is absurd logic you should abandon it.

If they truly believed Allah was their only rabb they wouldn't have disobeyed him and commited kufr

 

[Hamzza]

I think that he was trying to refer to the najdi/salafi claim that majority of bani adam have affirmed tawheed rububiyyah. Had salafis not restricted tawheed rububiyyah to a few attributes and affirmed it to the mushriks on this premise we wouldn't be having disagreements. The example of ascribing partners to Allah in His legislation by the jews & christians equally applies to the mushriks of past & present yet this doesn't stop from salafis claiming that mushriks had tawheed rububiyyah.


This problematic theology is being taught by major scholars of the najdi dawah from miaw to the likes of ibn baz etc. Just look at what ibn baz states in the following fatwa

I'm not familiar with Sheikh Ibn Baz رحمه الله teachings, even if we were to assume it's wrong why is it problematic? I mean no one is claiming the Mushrikeen were Muslims and are going to the Jannah. It changes nothing and I can quote scholars from centuries before Ibn Baz saying the same thing.

For example, he is Al Shehrastani an Ashari scholar from the 11th century saying no human aqil believes an idol he created in his hand can create or sustain him, thence affirming Tawheed of lordship to all humanity

وإلا فنعلم قطعا أن عاقلا ما لا ينحت جسما بيده ويصوره صورة ثم يعتقد أنه إلهه وخالقه، وإله الكل وخالق الكل، إذ كان وجوده مسبوقا بوجود صانعه، وشكله يحدث بصنعة ناحته


The whole point of discussion was "you can commit Shirk in Ibadah while still having tawheed in Rububiyyah" and you still haven't disproved that.


You can also commit Shirk in Rububiyyah without committing shirk in Ibadah

A simple example is:


Believing the actions of the Kuffar(G7) can cause apocalypse(Qiyamah) or save the planet from destruction. This is clearly a shirk in Rububiyyah without Ibada(worship).

Allah created this word and made it perfect for us he only knows when the rains will come and draughts will, he only knows الساعة.

 

[Yibir_]

Whats your definition of tawhid ar rubabiya? And out of curiosity what is your creed/madhab?
Do you agree with this statement: some sufis are guilty of shirk ar rubabiya - since we both agree that solicitation via others to reach god is impermissible?

I’d also like leave this debate on the terminology of shirkh ar rubabiya vs tawhid ar rubabiya as I can only offer non islamic of sources, quranic ayat and my own personal opinion. Its a terminology issue which can be argued to death in either direction. There is only one god and that god is Allah, admit no one else as partner and worship him alone - that statement is the usool of the salafi creed, something shias and (most) sufis deviate from. It has become trendy to attack “wahaabis” and because of their literalist interpretations of the deen asharis and mutaridis align themselves with those who invent partners in the godhead to score points. To sit on the sidelines and observe this is tiresome especially when both sides froth at the mouth at the mention of one another.

*(some) sufis

 

[cooli3o]

@Hamzza
which idols did the quraysh worship to get closer to Allah
laat, uzza and manaat?
do you agree?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Whats your definition of tawhid ar rubabiya? And out of curiosity what is your creed/madhab?
Do you agree with this statement: sufis are guilty of shirk ar rubabiya - since we both agree that solicitation via others to reach god is impermissible?

I’d also like leave this debate on the terminology of shirkh ar rubabiya vs tawhid ar rubabiya as I can only offer non islamic of sources, quranic ayat and my own personal opinion. Its a terminology issue which can be argued to death in either direction. There is only one god and that god is Allah, admit no one else as partner and worship him alone - that statement is the usool of the salafi creed, something shias and (most) sufis deviate from. It has become trendy to attack “wahaabis” and because of their literalist interpretations of the deen asharis and mutaridis align themselves with those who invent partners in the godhead to score points. To sit on the sidelines and observe this is tiresome especially when both sides froth at the mouth at the mention of one another.

The following definition given by islamqa is one that i agree with, basically to single out Allah in His actions and essence.

Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah means affirming that Allah is One and Unique in His actions, such as creation, sovereignty, controlling affairs, provision, giving life and death, sending down the rain, and so on. A person’s Tawheed is not complete unless he affirms that Allah is the Lord, Sovereign, Creator and Provider of all things, that He is the Giver of life and death, the One Who brings benefit and causes harm, the only One Who answers prayers, the One Who is in control of all things, in Whose hand is all goodness, the One Who is able to do whatever He wills – which also includes believing in the divine will and decree (al-qadar), both good and bad.

I'm shafici like most somalis laakin i don't subscribe to either asharism or salafism. No i don't agree with that statements as accusing a muslim of shirk is a very serious accusation. Furthermore my understanding what constitutes ibadah differs from yours as you follow najdi understanding of tawheed & ibadah, where ibadah is simply about external actions.

How can sufis be guilty of shirk rububiyyah while believing in Allah alone while mushriks who believe in a plethora of gods aren't ? Something is definitely wrong here sxb no matter how you look at it. What is more believable a sufi who believes Allah as his true Ilah & rabb having tawheed rububiyyah or a pagan mushrik who believes in multiple gods having tawheed rububiyyah ?


People are against najdi/salafi theology for various reasons some valid some not, only way to discern what is true is to look and evaluate the evidence being brough fourth to substantiate the critique one has against the salafi theology. For example what exactly do you find lacking with criticism of najdi creed regarding what we've discussed about mushriks having tawheed rububiyyah ?

 

[cooli3o]

For example, he is Al Shehrastani an Ashari scholar from the 11th century saying no human aqil believes an idol he created in his hand can create or sustain him, thence affirming Tawheed of lordship to all humanity

وإلا فنعلم قطعا أن عاقلا ما لا ينحت جسما بيده ويصوره صورة ثم يعتقد أنه إلهه وخالقه، وإله الكل وخالق الكل، إذ كان وجوده مسبوقا بوجود صانعه، وشكله يحدث بصنعة ناحته

this hasn't got anything to do with the conversation, he is talking about aql, not hawaa, noone who has aql will believe there is an ilaah other than Allah,
but when people follow hawaa, it overcomes their aql
which is the point, everyone deep down knows the truth of 1 ilaah but not everyone believes it
your taking his statement out of context

 

[Qeelbax]

dont go on to those subredits and dont go on reddit

I can and I will. Someone needs to help the real Muslims on there.

 

[Yibir_]

I'm shafici like most somalis laakin i don't subscribe to either asharism or salafism. No i don't agree with that statements as accusing a muslim of shirk is a very serious accusation. Furthermore my understanding what constitutes ibadah differs from yours as you follow najdi understanding of tawheed & ibadah, where ibadah is simply about external actions.

Practice of religion is not limited to just external aesthetics, it must incorporate the inner workings of the nafs (ego) as well. I like kitab-at-tawheed very much, the linguistic semantics around the “vohaabi” trinity was something I’ve only just encountered and as a consequence I removed myself from the debate because I am simply ignorant on the topic. I stand wholeheartedly by the contents of the book and I see no meaningful issues with it: God is one, no partners, no ruqya, no magic (taweez/togasho), no intercession etc… - a no nonsense book of prompts steering you away from shirk.

How can sufis be guilty of shirk rububiyyah while believing in Allah alone while mushriks who believe in a plethora of gods aren't ? Something is definitely wrong here sxb no matter how you look at it. What is more believable a sufi who believes Allah as his true Ilah & rabb having tawheed rububiyyah or a pagan mushrik who believes in multiple gods having tawheed rububiyyah ?

I don’t hold that position. They are both guilty of it, interesting way of constructing the argument I may add; attack an ambiguous concept with the overarching goal of defending grave worshipers. I recused myself of the debate for lack of knowledge on hadith, I saw the implicit as you focused on the semantics of the word instead of the context in which it was written, I’m glad my suspicions were proven true.

People are against najdi/salafi theology for various reasons some valid some not, only way to discern what is true is to look and evaluate the evidence being brough fourth to substantiate the critique one has against the salafi theology. For example what exactly do you find lacking with criticism of najdi creed regarding what we've discussed about mushriks having tawheed rububiyyah ?

Tawhid, the unappealing zelatory of its followers in the way they apply the externals of the deen and the hatred of kalam and more broadly intellectual inquiry.
Again I’m not salafi, the nature of the discourse and their opponents makes me sympathise with them.
Semantics, you can both provide hadiths to hold up your claims and like I’ve stated I recuse myself from debating a topic that is 1) ambiguous 2) I am ignorant on (hadith). I applaud your subtle subterfudge in this discussion.
I’ll simplify my position:
-monotheism good
-pagans/(some) sufis/shias/christians/jews= affirm and deny god via speech/actions = shirk
*(Some) ibn arabi’s/ghazali’s concept unity of being [created by god]can achieve the same if not a better (?) outcome when compared with the neo-platonic/babylonian/magian/eygptian methods which are applied in tariqas. We can dance around this fact but the line of questioning must be discursive and non pertinent.

 

[Qeelbax]

@AdoonkaAlle I already told u about my change in opinion on my other account jazakallah khair for telling me

Dumb this down for me. What are these two tawheeds, is someone accusing a group of muslims of it? If so who? What do salafis have to do with this? And how is this relevant to this thread?