• This website is being maintained/upgraded and may have some downtime or errors.

Salafi understanding of Tawheed

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Don't we all disobey Allah from time to time? Makes that us also disbelievers? Look at this hadith:

It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

“The adulterer, at the time he is committing adultery, is not a believer; (the wine drinker) at the time he is drinking, is not a believer; the thief, at the time he is stealing, is not a believer; the plunderer, at the time he is plundering with the people looking on, is not a believer.”
People commit sins due to shortcomings and as long as people acknowledge their wrongdoings and seek forgiveness there's no problem, but when the disobedience is accompanied by the belief that whatever one is doing is right and what Allah commanded is wrong then this is an different matter entirely.

Alot of muslims commit zina, drink alcohol, etc no one says that by committing these sins in and of themselves that they're apostates (This was the belief of the khawarij as they made takfir on muslims for committing major sins) but if they believe that it's halal for them to commit zina, drink alcohol, engage riba then their ruling changes. As they now are making what Allah made haram halal which is an act of kufr.

Iblis refused to prostate to Adam as commanded by Allah due to his pride as he believed he was better. This pride was the downfall of him which is why Allah called him a kafir


Regarding the hadith you posted, it is referring to the 3 levels of faith/islam
1. islam
2. iman
3. ihsan

ihsan is the highest level of faith and when a person reaches this level he/she is called a muhsin, similarly a mumin is when a person has attained the level of iman and lastly a muslim is one who submits and follows islam but has shortcomings in his level of practising the deen ie commits major sins etc

So in the hadith when the Prophet (peace be upon him) refers to them as not being believers, it means that they have dropped in rank with regards to their level of islam( ie went from level 2 to level 1), and not that they've apostatised from the deen.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
And most of them believe not in Allah without associating (other as partners) with Him!

-Surah Yusuf 12:106

Look at what imam tabari says in his tafisr of that ayah

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..” (tafsir at tabari: 12:106)

Which proves that the mushrikun of quraysh did commit shirk in rububiyyah as they considered their idols/gods as rabb besides Allah. Meaning their belief of Allah was one where they associated partners with Him in His lordship and worship.

This was my point all along in this thread, quick recap

1. When people worship other false gods they do so on the belief that their gods have attributes of Lordship ie possess power and ability to grant the worshippers needs.

2. The true Rabb is the True ilah and that the false ilah is the false rabb. So if one believes in an Ilah beside Allah then he/she cannot be free from Shirk ar’Rububiyyah.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
@AdoonkaAlle What's the difference between you and the so called salafis/madkhalis

Basically i don't share their understanding of tawheed and how they've categorised it

1. They claim that the majority of bani adam had tawheed ar rububiyyah. I don't as the Quran disproves this claim, only muslims have this tawheed nobody else.

2. They distinguish between the lordship and worship of Allah, i don't as they're interlinked

3. Tawheed is one it's either you possess it or not, if anyone commits shirk they do not have any tawheed as shirk negates tawheed.

if you have more questions do ask
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
It’s really strange that you created your own aqeedah very confusing
How have i done that when the people you follow are the ones who believe in the following

1. Polytheist who believed in 360 idols as gods and denied Allah's power to resurrect them have tawheed in Allah's Lordship

2. Affirm tawheed of Allah's lordship to christians who believe that Isa ( peace be upon him) is
A). A Lord besides Allah and shares in His divinity​
B) The son of Allah​
Is this the tawheed that Allah demands from us ?
 

Djokovic

Somali Arab
How have i done that when the people you follow are the ones who believe in the following

1. Polytheist who believed in 360 idols as gods and denied Allah's power to resurrect them have tawheed in Allah's Lordship

2. Affirm tawheed of Allah's lordship to christians who believe that Isa ( peace be upon him) is
A). A Lord besides Allah and shares in His divinity​
B) The son of Allah​
Is this the tawheed that Allah demands from us ?
You have not understood properly tell me what is the meaning of la ilaaha illalah
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
You have not understood properly tell me what is the meaning of la ilaaha illalah
You mean to say i've not understood it according to the way salafi understand it ? war qosol badana

i asked you a question before this which you didn't reply to, furthermore you claim i've invented my own aqeedah and now i've not understood the shahaadah properly ?Even though i've brought forth evidence from the Quran to support the points i'm making.

Forget me and just take a look at the ayats that i posted and read their tafsirs and reflect on it nothing more
 

Djokovic

Somali Arab
I
You mean to say i've not understood it according to the way salafi understand it ? war qosol badana

i asked you a question before this which you didn't reply to, furthermore you claim i've invented my own aqeedah and now i've not understood the shahaadah properly ?Even though i've brought forth evidence from the Quran to support the points i'm making.

Forget me and just take a look at the ayats that i posted and read their tafsirs and reflect on it nothing more
This guys acting like he is a scholar u are a layman just like us u have to follow what the scholars say as they are more knowledgeable than us.

have some humility
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
I

This guys acting like he is a scholar u are a layman just like us u have to follow what the scholars say as they are more knowledgeable than us.

have some humility
Don't you find it weird that none of the 4 imams have ever claimed what modern day salafis believe in when it comes to this issue ?

Don't you think that there's a serious problem when people affirm Oneness of Allah's Lordship to christians who believe that Nabi Isa ( peace and blessing be upon him) is a lord and son of Allah ?
Now imagine affirming the same tawheed to polytheists who believed in even more gods/lords than the christians and jews.

It just doesn't make sense and this is my entire point in this thread
 
Don't you find it weird that none of the 4 imams have ever claimed what modern day salafis believe in when it comes to this issue ?

Don't you think that there's a serious problem when people affirm Oneness of Allah's Lordship to christians who believe that Nabi Isa ( peace and blessing be upon him) is a lord and son of Allah ?
Now imagine affirming the same tawheed to polytheists who believed in even more gods/lords than the christians and jews.

It just doesn't make sense and this is my entire point in this thread
If @Djokovic is wrong and you didn't invent your own aqeedah, then show us material from a scholar that lays out your aqeedah. Not a snippet of a quote with your commentary- just show us straight material from a scholar that lays out your aqeedah.

If the four imams are with you and only the Salafis aren't with your one-man sect, then it should be easy for you to meet the challenge.
 

A very insightful critique of the Salafi conception of Tawhid. So much takfir stems from this confused understanding. We've seen the devastating consequences of this in Somalia and indeed across the Somali world
 

A very insightful critique of the Salafi conception of Tawhid. So much takfir stems from this confused understanding. We've seen the devastating consequences of this in Somalia and indeed across the Somali world
That doesn't really belong in this thread to be honest. It sort of piggybacks on the theme of criticizing Salafi aqeedah but that attack is from a different point of view. OP seems to be saying the Salafis aren't Salafi enough while the video is attacking the Salafis based on a claim that Salafis make takfir of Sufis- it's a Sufi viewpoint.

I saw Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem answer a question as to whether the Sufis who pray to saints are thereby apostates. I think he declined to give a definitive answer.

I agree with that approach. I think it is a good, moderate approach. God will decide on how to judge those people. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to takfir.

Now did Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah make takfir of Sufis who pray to saints? I don't know. I have a translation of some material by him where he gives the ruling that it is impermissible to pray to saints ("seeking intercession" according to the Sufis). However, I don't know of him actually making takfir on them. I'm not sure if he did or not.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
If @Djokovic is wrong and you didn't invent your own aqeedah, then show us material from a scholar that lays out your aqeedah. Not a snippet of a quote with your commentary- just show us straight material from a scholar that lays out your aqeedah.

If the four imams are with you and only the Salafis aren't with your one-man sect, then it should be easy for you to meet the challenge.
I've provided you with actual tafsir of ayats from ibn kathir and imam at tabari yet you still claim i came with my own aqeedah. Whatever i comment on is based on these tafsirs and not my own made up ideas etc.

Furthermore when salafis explain their understanding of tawheed (affirming tawheed to mushriks from the quraysh,jews, christians etc) they never quote any of the 4 imams,great scholars of the past( except for ibn taymiyyah and those who followed him in this classification), the salaf, the Prophet ( peace be upon him ) why is that you think ? in fact it never goes beyond their own list of scholars starting from miaw.

What i am trying to explain here is simple actually: when someone believes that the person/deity/idol they are worshipping is their god then they take that god as their lord. Their worship is but a result of the lordship status of their god. None is deserving of worship or being assumed as divine except one who is the Lord. Therefore the true God is the true Lord and the false god is the false lord.

Now what the salafis have done is to separate between god and lord and claim that the polytheist of quraysh, jews , christians all affirmed the Oneness of Allah's Lordship even though they all believed in many gods besides Allah. Meaning they only ascribed Oneness of Lordship to Allah alone and not to their gods, now is this actually true ? It's not, in fact it's a contradiction because believing in a god means to believe that god has power, authority etc ie a lord and it's on this basis that people worship a god. If the worshippers believed that their god lacked the power and ability to grant and fulfil their needs etc they wouldn't worship them at all nor would they consider that deity/being/person to be a god.

So if one believes in an Ilah/god beside Allah then he/she cannot be free from Shirk ar-Rububiyyah. This fact is even conceded by salafis when they say the following


The mushrikeen among whom the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent did not disagree with this aspect of Tawheed, rather they affirmed it in general terms
The fact that the mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah does not mean that they did so in a complete sense. Rather they used to affirm it in a general sense, as Allaah tells us in the verses quoted above. But they had some faults in their beliefs that undermined this concept, such as attributing rain to the stars, and their belief that soothsayers and fortunetellers had knowledge of the unseen, and other forms of shirk concerning the divine Lordship
islamqa website: The real meaning of Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah

Despite accepting that the mushrikeen committed shirk in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship they still nonetheless affirm tawheed rububiyyah to them. is this not a serious issue of concern? Just think about it, since tawheed is about singling out Allah in His Lordship, Worship and Attributes then those who don't do this can not be classified as having tawheed wouldn't you agree? Now why would they then ascribe tawheed to people who haven't fulfilled this condition ask yourself that question, what forces them to do this ?


By the way the references cited are

1.) Tayseer al-‘Azeez al-Hameed book written by Sulaimaan Abdullaah grandson of Muhammad Abdul-Wahhaab

2.) al-Qawl al-Mufeed by Shaykh uthaymin


As you can see i'm not making up my own aqedaah as you and @Djokovic claimed, your own shuyukh and salafi sources confirm that the mushrikeen of quraysh committed shirk in tawheed ar rububiyyah. Where does that leave you ?
 
Last edited:
I've provided you with actual tafsir of ayats from ibn kathir and imam at tabari yet you still claim i came with my own aqeedah. Whatever i comment on is based on these tafsirs and not my own made up ideas etc.

Furthermore when salafis explain their understanding of tawheed (affirming tawheed to mushriks from the quraysh,jews, christians etc) they never quote any of the 4 imams,great scholars of the past( except for ibn taymiyyah and those who followed him in this classification), the salaf, the Prophet ( peace be upon him ) why is that you think ? in fact it never goes beyond their own list of scholars starting from miaw.

What i am trying to explain here is simple actually: when someone believes that the person/deity/idol they are worshipping is their god then they take that god as their lord. Their worship is but a result of the lordship status of their god. None is deserving of worship or being assumed as divine except one who is the Lord. Therefore the true God is the true Lord and the false god is the false lord.

Now what the salafis have done is to separate between god and lord and claim that the polytheist of quraysh, jews , christians all affirmed the Oneness of Allah's Lordship even though they all believed in many gods besides Allah. Meaning they only ascribed Oneness of Lordship to Allah alone and not to their gods, now is this actually true ? It's not, in fact it's a contradiction because believing in a god means to believe that god has power, authority etc ie a lord and it's on this basis that people worship a god. If the worshippers believed that their god lacked the power and ability to grant and fulfil their needs etc they wouldn't worship them at all nor would they consider that deity/being/person to be a god.

So if one believes in an Ilah/god beside Allah then he/she cannot be free from Shirk ar-Rububiyyah. This fact is even conceded by salafis when they say the following






islamqa website: The real meaning of Tawheed al-Ruboobiyyah

Despite accepting that the mushrikeen committed shirk in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship they still nonetheless affirm tawheed rububiyyah to them. is this not a serious issue of concern? Just think about it, since tawheed is about singling out Allah in His Lordship, Worship and Attributes then those who don't do this can not be classified as having tawheed wouldn't you agree? Now why would they then ascribe tawheed to people who haven't fulfilled this condition ask yourself that question, what forces them to do this ?


By the way the references cited are

1.) Tayseer al-‘Azeez al-Hameed book written by Sulaimaan Abdullaah grandson of Muhammad Abdul-Wahhaab

2.) al-Qawl al-Mufeed by Shaykh uthaymin


As you can see i'm not making up my own aqedaah as you and @Djokovic claimed, your own shuyukh and salafi sources confirm that the mushrikeen of quraysh committed shirk in tawheed ar rububiyyah. Where does that leave you ?
Quraysh were mushrikiin this whole debate is pointless because I'm sure they divided it into 3 to make it clearer for the people.
For example a man who asks Jiilaani to help him believes he's muwahid because he believes that God is one. Even tho he's committing shirk
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Quraysh were mushrikiin this whole debate is pointless because I'm sure they divided it into 3 to make it clearer for the people.
For example a man who asks Jiilaani to help him believes he's muwahid because he believes that God is one. Even tho he's committing shirk
No one denies that they were mushrikeen but why were they considered to be mushrikeen ie the reason that lead them to be referred to as mushriks, that's what the contention is about . Salafi claim is that they were deemed so because they only committed shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah. They claim that mushrikeen had tawheed in rububiyyah.

Following quote is from islamqa: Real meaning of tawheed rububiyyah


Thus it is known that affirming the Lordship of Allaah is not sufficient for a person to be a true Muslim, rather he must also affirm that which is implied by that, namely the oneness of the divinity of Allaah and he must devote his worship to Allaah alone

The salafi claim is not correct for the following reasons

1). The mushrikeen had no tawheed rububiyyah as they committed shirk in this aspect of tawheed as well

2). Shirk and tawheed can not coexist together, either you have tawheed or not, it's not possible to compartmentalise tawheed to an extent that it coexists with shirk

3). Uluhiyyah(Godhood) and Rububiyyah(Lordhood) are inclusive of each other not distinct: the true God is the true Lord and the false god is the false lord. None is deserving of worship or being assumed as divine except one who is the Lord. 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.

4). Affirming Lordship of Allah Affirms the Worship of Allah: Having the correct belief when it comes to establishing the Oneness of Allah's Lordship leads to worshipping Allah alone as stated above in point #2 as we only worship those whom we believe to be a lord. Therefore believing in the True Lord leads to worshipping the True Ilah as the one deserving of worship is the Lord and no other.

Allah has said when he took the covenant from all people ‘“Am I not your Lord?” and they replied “Yes”’ (7:172). As we can see from the ayah affirming Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah was sufficient for them and they were not required to accept Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah also. Which proves that the worship of Allah is contained within His Lordship and it is not separate from it.


This understanding of tawheed and shirk is what led to miaw and his followers to declare takfir on muslims and consider their blood and wealth halal. Salafis to this day differ from classical ulama on issues of tawheed and shirk.
 
That doesn't really belong in this thread to be honest. It sort of piggybacks on the theme of criticizing Salafi aqeedah but that attack is from a different point of view. OP seems to be saying the Salafis aren't Salafi enough while the video is attacking the Salafis based on a claim that Salafis make takfir of Sufis- it's a Sufi viewpoint.

I saw Sheikh Assim Al Hakeem answer a question as to whether the Sufis who pray to saints are thereby apostates. I think he declined to give a definitive answer.

I agree with that approach. I think it is a good, moderate approach. God will decide on how to judge those people. I would rather err on the side of caution when it comes to takfir.

Now did Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah make takfir of Sufis who pray to saints? I don't know. I have a translation of some material by him where he gives the ruling that it is impermissible to pray to saints ("seeking intercession" according to the Sufis). However, I don't know of him actually making takfir on them. I'm not sure if he did or not.
How does it not belong here? It was a critical assessment of the Salafi creed. A creed mind you that has led to mass takfir and qaraxes across the Muslim world. Saying that a critique doesn't belong here is absurd.

Shaykh Al Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah was not a najdi Wahhabi. He didn't takfir like them nor did he shed blood like them. He was a rabbani scholar with firasah. Yet he was not infallible. His works leave a lot of room for interpretation. 1 interpretation of it has been the Najdi 1 which as stated earlier has been disastrous
 
How does it not belong here? It was a critical assessment of the Salafi creed. A creed mind you that has led to mass takfir and qaraxes across the Muslim world. Saying that a critique doesn't belong here is absurd.

Shaykh Al Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah was not a najdi Wahhabi. He didn't takfir like them nor did he shed blood like them. He was a rabbani scholar with firasah. Yet he was not infallible. His works leave a lot of room for interpretation. 1 interpretation of it has been the Najdi 1 which as stated earlier has been disastrous
If we accept the premise that Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab was basically a theorist of Sufi genocide, I can understand why the Sufis would be against him.

Did Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab and, as the video claims, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah, make takfir of people who "seek intercession" of saints? I don't know. I haven't confirmed or denied the claim.

I only said that the video wasn't really thread-related to make it understood that the video was part of a Sufi criticism of Salafi aqeedah rather than the OP's criticism that seems to charge Salafis with not being Salafi enough.
 

Trending

Top