Which schools of Aqeedah do you subscribe too?

[AdoonkaAlle]

Al Nasaf was just doing a commentary on al-Maturidi who said this:


I'm pretty sure, this is clear for anyone who reads it and that I'm not projecting my understanding. He explicitly separates association with other than Allah in worship into it's own second category. The Christians did not worship Allah to begin with, as they believe in trinity, so they are worshiping 3 gods at the same time, not Allah alone.


At least you can now admit the second most authoritative Maturidi figure is wrong. Let me show clearly you that al-Maturidi himself believed that the Arabian polytheists, Bani Israel, only committed shirk in worship:

al-Maturidi on Bani Israeli:


If that is not clear, al-Maturidi says in Tafsir of this verse:
And those who take protectors besides Him [say], "We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position.



Ibn Attiya(another Ashari Imam) regarding Bani Israel in his Tafsir:



It's a complete bidah of Yasir Qadhi/hatim al awni, that it's impossible to commit shirk in worship as long as you don't believe they are independent of Allah, nobody has understood Islam like this before.

I can go on...

Imam al-Razi on why pagans are idol worshipers:


Where is this so called shirk in rububiyyah that was committed ?

Pls at least read and review before you ignore and shift the post each time. When Al maturidi states that there exists shirk rububiyyah and shirk in ibadah he isn't arguing that a person can have tawheed rububiyyah but be guilty of shirk in worship, this is a projection on your part and also from that brother who wrote that article.

No one is arguing that shirk is just of one type ie shirk rububiyyah but that worship and lordship are connected, you can't have shirk in rububiyyah & have tawheed in worship at the same time or have tawheed rububiyyah & be guilty of shirk in worship at the same time. Maturidi even says " He made association in Rububiyyah, Uluhiyyah and association in worship same, all of it is Shirk with Allah "

Al nasaf says "" because the Ilaah is the creator and it is the object of worship in reality. Thus Shirk in creation and worship is Shirk in Rububiyyah."

The Christians did not worship Allah to begin with, as they believe in trinity, so they are worshiping 3 gods at the same time, not Allah alone.

Who said they did sxb ? what i said was that christians are guilty of shirk in worship but in al nasaf explanation he only mentioned pagan arabs and i asked since he didn't include christians among those guilty of shirk in worship does it mean that he actually believed they weren't guilty of shirk in worship ?

Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for Allah only. And those who take Auliya’ (protectors and helpers) besides Him (say): “We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah.” Verily, Allah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allah guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever.(39:3 )

In that ayah Allah affirms that the mushriks took their gods as their wali ie protector, helper etc. Al wali is one of the names of Allah and also an attribute of Rububiyyah, so in the ayah itself we can read that the mushriks have committed shirk of rububiyyah by ascribing partners to Allah in His Lordship

In fact the phrase taking a protector (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. In some english translations of 39:3 they translate taking a wali other than Allah as taking a lord other than Allah

The mushriks claim that they worshipped them to get closer to Allah is a false one and a excuse to silence criticism of their worship of others, Allah calls them liars at the end of 39:3. As the quran & hadith we learn that the mushriks used to insult Allah for their idols, rejoice at the mention of their gods over Allah, assign greater portion of their crops & livestock to their idols than to Allah, attributed victory over Allah to their gods. They wouldn't have done if they wanted to get closer to Allah


Do not insult those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge” (6:108).


When Allah is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter recoil with aversion; but when those [worshipped] other than Him are mentioned, immediately they rejoice (39:45)


And they assign to Allah a share of the crops and livestock He created, saying, ‘This much is for Allah’—so they claim!—‘and this much is for our “partners” .’ However, the share of their “partners” never gets back to Allah , while Allah’s share just goes to their “partners” how badly they judge!” (6:136)


In the Battle of Uḥud, when Abū Sufyān said,

“May Hubal be exalted!”

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ asked the Ṣaḥāba to reply to him with, “Allah is more Elevated and Majestic.” To which Abū Sufyān responded, “We Have al-ʿUzzā, while you have no ʿUzzā.” To which the Prophet ﷺ asked the Ṣaḥāba to respond, “Allah is our Helper, while you have no Helper.” (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)



The pagan arabs ascribed daughters to Allah and believe that they were. 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]

They also believed that their gods had the ability to harm like when they threatened the Prophet ﷺ. Ability to harm is a sifat of lordship indicating clearly that they were guilty of shirk rububiyyah.

Is not Allāh sufficient for His Servant [i.e., Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ)]? And [yet], they threaten you with those [they worship] other than Him. And whoever Allāh leaves astray - for him there is no guide. (39:36)

There's so many evidences from quran and hadith to prove without a doubt that the pagan arabs ascribed attributes of rububiyyah to their gods meaning they were guilty of shirk in rububiyyah.

I'll leave you with one last example of shirk rububiyyah that pagan arabs were guilty of and that's to do with Hukm of Allah. They made partners to Allah in His legislation as they didn't rule according to His Hukm thereby taking these idols as their rabb. Even the christians and jews were guilty of this type of shirk

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allāh, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary.And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. (9:31)

 

[Garaad Awal]

the aqeedah of the qadiriyya order in somalia unfiltered. here is macalin maxamuud one of their biggest sheikhs and hes also like 2nd in command of the ASWJ militias. hes literally telling people his sheikh gives life. he has no excuse of ignorance since he is a sheikh. their book is disgusting and has so much kufr.
@Keep it a boqol @World @daljirkadahsoon

The Qadiriyya are very decentralized in terms of their beliefs. For example Qadiriyyah in Gabiley city can have different core beliefs than Qadiriyya in Garissa. They have common features such as group dhikr, seeking blessings from Awliya etc

 

[نور]

2. Again being dead or alive has no bearing on whether an action is classified as shirk, according to your understanding it's shirk to pray to the dead what about praying to the living ? where did you get this from ?


In the Quran the word dua is used in different contexts, some for asking, worship and others just a simple call. For example

Do not make your calling on (dua )the Messenger in the same manner you call on one another (24:63)

And if you call them to guidance, they follow you not. It is the same for you whether you call them or you keep silent ( 7:193)

If all dua is worship then why would Allah tell us to make dua to the Prophet etc , does Allah command shirk here ? The answer is no and no one believes the meaning of dua here refers to worship. So the question is when is dua considered worship such that when it's done for other than Allah it becomes major shirk.

Obviously, not all dua is worship or shirk, no one says that at all. What is shirk and what is meant with the Saying of the prophet that "Dua is worship" is as explained by Al Allamah Al Alusi "Du'a of worship is to invoke that which only Allah is capable of and seeking that from one who is alive or one who is dead."

بل المعلوم بالبداهة أن دعاء العبادة هو النداء بما لا يقدر عليه إلا الله وطلب ذلك من حي وميت "​

We can’t expand on beliefs and we can’t for sure know what is in the hearts of the people, so we judge by the apparent and the apparent meaning/implications of what these Sufis do is shirk

So if a person says "Oh Gilani give us rain" this is shirk akbar. Do you agree?

Furthermore, as you stated Rububiyah and Uluhiyah are interconnected, so when someone asks something from another person he does so by the belief that the person he is asking has the ability to do that thing. At least these are the implications for his dua otherwise it's delusion.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Obviously, not all dua is worship or shirk, no one says that at all. What is shirk and what is meant with the Saying of the prophet that "Dua is worship" is as explained by Al Allamah Al Alusi "Du'a of worship is to invoke that which only Allah is capable of and seeking that from one who is alive or one who is dead."


We can’t expand on beliefs and we can’t for sure know what is in the hearts of the people, so we judge by the apparent and the apparent meaning/implications of what these Sufis do is shirk

So if a person says "Oh Gilani give us rain" this is shirk akbar. Do you agree?

Furthermore, as you stated Rububiyah and Uluhiyah are interconnected, so when someone asks something from another person he does so by the belief that the person he is asking has the ability to do that thing. At least these are the implications for his dua otherwise it's delusion.

The post you quoted was a response to another user who actually believes that ie all dua is worship as he makes no distinction. Furthermore i've asked repeatedly why they ONLY limit it to the dead with regards to calling upon someone yet none has been able to give an adequate explanation why it's shirk with the deceased and not living.

What do you mean by that which only Allah is capable ? if i call upon a doctor with the belief that he's able to cure me, am i guilty of worshipping the doctor ?

We can’t expand on beliefs and we can’t for sure know what is in the hearts of the people, so we judge by the apparent and the apparent meaning/implications of what these Sufis do is shirk

So if a person says "Oh Gilani give us rain" this is shirk akbar. Do you agree?

Furthermore, as you stated Rububiyah and Uluhiyah are interconnected, so when someone asks something from another person he does so by the belief that the person he is asking has the ability to do that thing. At least these are the implications for his dua otherwise it's delusion.

if it's just that apparent then according to you there's no distinction between the prostration of hindus to their idols and that of a muslim to another muslim or better yet prostration of angels to Adam As.

So if a person says "Oh Gilani give us rain" this is shirk akbar. Do you agree?

Furthermore, as you stated Rububiyah and Uluhiyah are interconnected, so when someone asks something from another person he does so by the belief that the person he is asking has the ability to do that thing. At least these are the implications for his dua otherwise it's delusion.

I don't agree as it's dependent on the beliefs of said person. If the person says that while believing that the Jilani is merely a means and not independent of Allah, and that only Allah helps in absolute terms and without Him no one can help then he's not guilty of shirk. Laakin if he believes the opposite then he's guilty of shirk

Not every type of asking is either haram or shirk some eg

Al bukhari in his Adab al-Mufrad narrates a hadith where Ibn ‘Umar’s foot became numb so a man advised him, “Remember the person whom you love the most!”. Upon hearing this Ibn ‘Umar said, “ O Muhammad!” and his foot made an immediate recovery from numbness.

or when imam ahmad acted on the hadith of calling on the slaves of Allah to help guide him when he became lost.

Abdullah the son of Imam Ahmad said: "I heard my father say: 'I performed Hajj five times, twice riding and three times walking, or twice walking and three times riding. I lost my way during one Hajj and I was walking, so I began to call out: O slaves of Allah show me the way. I kept doing that until I found the road.' or as my father had said."

The hadith :

When one loses his means of transport in an open land (desert), he should call: ‘O slaves of Allah! Help me recover (my transport), O slaves of Allah! Help me recover (my transport).’ for there are many of Allah’s attendants on this earth. They will help you recover it.”

Furthermore, as you stated Rububiyah and Uluhiyah are interconnected, so when someone asks something from another person he does so by the belief that the person he is asking has the ability to do that thing. At least these are the implications for his dua otherwise it's delusion.

You're conflating the concept of rububiyyah & worship to the everyday action any human being does. It's true when we ask someone to do anything for us we do so on the basis that said individual has the ability to do just that but this doesn't mean that we're worshipping such an individual. Had that been the case then every single request and action any human being does for another would be classified as shirk but this isn't so for good reason.

Ibadah is islam is an intentional action that is done with an underlying belief towards a being that one has chosen to submit to. It's not a random action that is devoid of belief and intention. This is what i've been trying to make some users understand when they make similarities between actions of mushriks who worships others beside Allah to that of muslims who fall into let's say haram actions.

All those who call upon Jesus and idols do so with the belief that they’re gods meaning they worship them because they’ve ascribed divinity & attributes of lordship to them. This is why dua of mushriks is classified as worship, their actions are based on beliefs they’ve about those they direct these acts of worship to. It doesn’t occur in a vacuum. This is the reason why you can't make a blanket false equivalence between the actions of these mushriks and that of muslims who fall into haram

 

[نور]

What do you mean by that which only Allah is capable ? if i call upon a doctor with the belief that he's able to cure me, am i guilty of worshipping the doctor ?

It's not complicated, is it? things that only Allah is capable of are for example, giving rain, forgiving sins.... etc. If you ask these things from someone other than Allah you are mushrik simple as that.

I don't agree as it's dependent on the beliefs of said person. If the person says that while believing that the Jilani is merely a means and not independent of Allah, and that only Allah helps in absolute terms and without Him no one can help then he's not guilty of shirk. Laakin if he believes the opposite then he's guilty of shirk

There are no ifs. The statement is clear. If he wanted Gilani by means he would've said "oh Gilani ask Allah for us to give us rain". This is a simple language that a 4-year-old child can comprehend

Good. Now I ask you another question can a person insult the prophet SCW verbally by for example calling him bad things and stay a Muslim? can these insults be interrupted in a way that renders the apparent meaning irrelevant and causes the sayer to not be blasphemous against the prophet? Let's see if you stay consistent with your shirk apologism.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

It's not complicated, is it? things that only Allah is capable of are for example, giving rain, forgiving sins.... etc. If you ask these things from someone other than Allah you are mushrik simple as that.


There are no ifs. The statement is clear. If he wanted Gilani by means he would've said "oh Gilani ask Allah for us to give us rain". This is a simple language that a 4-year-old child can comprehend

Good. Now I ask you another question can a person insult the prophet SCW verbally by for example calling him bad things and stay a Muslim? can these insults be interrupted in a way that renders the apparent meaning irrelevant and causes the sayer to not be blasphemous against the prophet? Let's see if you stay consistent with your shirk apologism.

What about healing and curing ? i asked you specifically that question so as to gauge your understanding. Previously you cited the the definition of dua al ibadah as "Du'a of worship is to invoke that which only Allah is capable of and seeking that from one who is alive or one who is dead." With that in mind i wanted to see if you'll still limit it to the dead with the example of the doctor and you did. If someone believes that a dr is able to cure them independently without the will of Allah then this is shirk.


Even in your example of insults towards the prophet ﷺ a person maybe excused if they were either forced to do it or are insane. This is why people shouldn't rush to making accusations of kufr and shirk towards muslims so easily.

 

[World]

x

PART A

You've misinterpreted al-Nasaf's words, he didn't say that. Let me break it down for you:

“Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.”

It is possible (that it is) Shirk in Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah, as there are amongst the polytheists who ascribe partners to Allah in creation like Majus and Christians.

The Christians committed shirk in Rububiyyah directly, he didn't say they were free from shirk in worship as you are claiming.

It is possible (that it is) shirk in ibaadah (worship) as there are among them (polytheists) who ascribed partners in worship like the polytheists among Arabs, like how Allah informs about them:

The pagans of Arabia committed shirk in worship.

“We do not worship them except in order to get closer to Allah in proximity”. And all of it is Kufr of Allah and Shirk in Uluhiyyah,

Both the pagans of Arabia and the Christians have committed kufr and shirk in Uluhiyyah, why?

because the Ilaah is the creator and it is the object of worship in reality.

Because shirk and kufr in Uluhiyyah is when other than Allah is the object of worship.
1) The Christians did not believe Allah alone is the creator but ascribed partners to Allah in creation(first shirk), which meant that Allah was not the object of worship in (shirk again) as Jesus, and the holy spirit is also the object of worship.
2) The pagans of Arabia also ascribed partners in worship to Allah, believing that it will get them closer to Allah, so Allah alone was not the object of worship but their idols were as well. The use of "reality" is key here, because they believed that what they were doing brought them closer to Allah, but in reality they were ascribing partners to him in worship.

Thus Shirk in creation and worship is Shirk in Rububiyyah.

-Notice the word "thus", meaning it is a consequence, a result and follows from what he said before, which is that:
1) They committed shirk in worship
2) Therefore Allah was not only singled out in worship and there is no difference between shirk in worship and shirk in Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah.

And to expand, al Nasaf was doing a commentary on al-Maturidi who said this:

Then His statement “Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” can mean Shirk in belief which is to make other than Allah partner to in His Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah, and second is to make other than Allah partner in His worship,

There are two separate ways to associate with Allah
1) Belief (Rububiyah and Uluhiyah)
2) Worship

and all of this is Shirk with Allah, so there is no difference if someone associates other than Allah in His Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah and if someone associates other than Him in His worship. Do you not see that He says “your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God).” then Allah says “and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.”, He made association in Rububiyyah, Uluhiyyah and association in worship same, all of it is Shirk with Allah.

Allah separated two different ways you can associate him in the Qur'an:
-your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)
-and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.

It doesn't matter which of the two paths you take, it is the same and shirk. There is no difference if you associate him Allah in belief (Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah) or associate with him in worship. Whereas, you are claiming that there is only one path that you can associate other than Allah, and that is in belief, so if you don't associate with him in belief you can't associate with him in worship.

al-Maturidi's tafsir of the following verse:

Those who took protectors besides Allah and worshiped them, they said “We only worship them they they may bring us near to Allah in proximity”. They knew that what they worshiped from the idols and others were not Ilaah in reality and neither did they posses real Uloohiyyah (divinity), and that the real Uloohiyyah (divinity) belongs to Allah, still they named these idols Aalihah (plural of Ilaah) because they used to worship them and every thing that is worshiped was Ilaah according to the Arabs, because the Ilaah is something that is worshiped. And they used to to name every worshiped thing Ilaah, that is why they named these idols Aaliah even while knowing that these things do not possess actual/real Uloohiyyah (divinity) and that is for Allah.

I will break it down into the following 4 points:
1) They knew their idols were not Ilaah in reality nor did their idols possess any real divinity(Uluhiyyah)
2) That the real divinity(Uluhiyyah) belongs to Allah
3) Whatever is worshiped is Ilaah according to Arabs, and that is why their idols were Aaaliah despite knowing they lacked divinity.
4) They only worshiped them to bring them closer to Allah.

To quote again, Allah separated two different ways you can associate him in the Qur'an and they are the same:
"your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)" and "not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone".

The former verse, they believed according to 1) and 2). The latter verse, they violated in 3) and 4). But because whatever is worshiped is an ilaah, and they took their idols as ilaah, their understanding of "your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)" is superficial and in fact violated. So that is why it is the same whether you associate with other than Allah in belief (Rububiyah and Uloohiyyah) or in worship, it is shirk either way.

To continue, al Nasaf's tafsir of al-Fatiha:

Tawhid that is related to Uluhiyyah is that Allah is one in his Dhaat (essence) and Siffaat (attributes), …, and Tawhid that is related to worship, it is that one worships Allah alone and does not make anyone a partner in worship, He singles out Allah as Allah says “and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.’“[18:110]And He(swt) says” And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion”[98:5].

Worship is a separate component of Tawhid, and it is that you should worship Allah alone without making anyone other than Allah a partner in his worship.

And the Shirk of Arabian polytheists was in worship along with their singling out Allah in Uluhiyyah according to what Allah says “And if you asked them, “Who created the heavens and earth?” they would surely say, “Allah.” Say, “[All] praise is [due] to Allah “”[31:25]. And they associated their idols with Allah in worship, as Allah informs about them through their statement “We do not worship them except in order to get closer to Allah in proximity”[39:3].

I broke down al-Maturidi's tafsir previously into 4 points, and what al Nasaf says in his tafsir is simply repeating what al-Maturidi said. Very simply, they singled out Allah in Uluhiyyah and didn't believe their idols possessed real divinity, and were not Ilaah in reality which is what al-Maturidi says in point 1) and 2). And that they associated their idols in worship because they believe it would bring them closer to Allah which is what al-Matudi says in point 4).

And the Shirk of Majus and Wathaniyyah (as opposed to Arabs) was in the Rububiyyah itself, so they believed in two or more (Rabbs).

The Majus on the other hand are Zoroastrians, who believed in more than one Rabb. And Wathaniyyah refers to idol worshipers who believed in more than one Rabb. They were the ones who committed shirk in Rububiyyah directly. So al Nasaf separated the Arabian polytheists into their own group, and they singled out Allah in Uluhhiyah, but associated with Allah in worship by making the idols partners and al Nasaf said they committed shirk by doing this .But the Wathaniyyah on the other hand were idol worshipers who believed in more than one Rabb and associated with him in Rububiyah directly.

@AdoonkaAlle how is that possible? You said that the second most authoritative Maturidi theologian is wrong here:

In the above quote he states that shirk of arabian polytheists was in worship but they single out Allah in His Uluhiyyah, this can't be true as the pagan arabs believed Allah had daughters meaning they didn't single Him out in His Dhaat & Sifat

But it doesn't change the fact that according to al Nasaf, one can commit shirk by associating other than Allah in worship despite singling out Allah in his Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah. The Wathaniyyah and the Arabian polytheists are two separate groups. He never stated that every single Arabian polytheist singled out Allah in Uluhiyyah, rather he is simply talking about a group among them that did.

END OF PART A

 

[World]

PART A

You've misinterpreted al-Nasaf's words, he didn't say that. Let me break it down for you:


The Christians committed shirk in Rububiyyah, he didn't say they were free from shirk in worship as you are claiming.

The pagans of Arabia committed shirk in worship.

Both the pagans of Arabia and the Christians have committed kufr and shirk in Uluhiyyah, why?

Because shirk and kufr in Uluhiyyah is when other than Allah is the object of worship.
1) The Christians did not believe Allah alone is the creator but ascribed partners to Allah in creation(first shirk), which meant that Allah was not the object of worship in (shirk again) as Jesus, and the holy spirit is also the object of worship.
2) The pagans of Arabia also ascribed partners in worship to Allah, believing that it will get them closer to Allah, so Allah alone was not the object of worship but their idols were as well. The use of "reality" is key here, because they believed that what they were doing brought them closer to Allah, but in reality they were ascribing partners to him in worship.

-Notice the word "thus", meaning it is a consequence, a result and follows from what he said before, which is that:
1) They committed shirk in worship
2) Therefore Allah was not only singled out in worship and there is no difference between shirk in worship and shirk in Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah.

And to expand, al Nasaf was doing a commentary on al-Maturidi who said this:

There are two separate ways to associate with Allah
1) Belief (Rububiyah and Uluhiyah)
2) Worship

Allah separated two different ways you can associate him in the Qur'an:
-your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)
-and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.

It doesn't matter which of the two paths you take, it is the same and shirk. There is no difference if you associate him Allah in belief (Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah) or associate with him in worship. Whereas, you are claiming that there is only one path that you can associate other than Allah, and that is in belief, so if you don't associate with him in belief you can't associate with him in worship.

al-Maturidi's tafsir of the following verse:

I will break it down into the following 4 points:
1) They knew their idols were not Ilaah in reality nor did their idols possess any real divinity(Uluhiyyah)
2) That the real divinity(Uluhiyyah) belongs to Allah
3) Whatever is worshiped is Ilaah according to Arabs, and that is why their idols were Aaaliah despite knowing they lacked divinity.
4) They only worshiped them to bring them closer to Allah.

To quote again, Allah separated two different ways you can associate him in the Qur'an and they are the same:
"your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)" and "not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone".

The former verse, they believed according to 1) and 2). The latter verse, they violated in 3) and 4). But because whatever is worshiped is an ilaah, and they took their idols as ilaah, their understanding of "your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)" is superficial and in fact violated. So that is why it is the same whether you associate with other than Allah in belief (Rububiyah and Uloohiyyah) or in worship, it is shirk either way.

To continue, al Nasaf's tafsir of al-Fatiha:

Worship is a separate component of Tawhid, and it is that you should worship Allah alone without making anyone other than Allah a partner in his worship.

I broke down al-Maturidi's tafsir previously into 4 points, and what al Nasaf says in his tafsir is simply repeating what al-Maturidi said. Very simply, they singled out Allah in Uluhiyyah and didn't believe their idols possessed real divinity, and were not Ilaah in reality which is what al-Maturidi says in point 1) and 2). And that they associated their idols in worship because they believe it would bring them closer to Allah which is what al-Matudi says in point 4).

The Majus on the other hand are Zoroastrians, who believed in more than one Rabb. And Wathaniyyah refers to idol worshipers who believed in more than one Rabb. They were the ones who committed shirk in Rububiyyah. So al Nasaf separated the Arabian polytheists into their own group, and they singled out Allah in Uluhhiyah, but associated with Allah in worship by making the idols partners and al Nasaf said they committed shirk by doing this.But the Wathaniyyah on the other hand were idol worshipers who believed in more than one Rabb and associated with him in Rububiyah.

@AdoonkaAlle how is that possible? You said that the second most authoritative Maturidi theologian is wrong here:


But it doesn't change the fact that according to al Nasaf, one can commit shirk by associating other than Allah in worship despite singling out Allah in his Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah. The Wathaniyyah and the Arabian polytheists are two separate groups. He never stated that every single Arabian polytheist singled out Allah in Uluhiyyah, rather he is simply talking about a group among them that did.

END OF PART A

PART B



Abu Shakur Al-Salimi(5th century AH) another Maturidi theologian:

(Arabian) Polytheists are of four types: a type said that angels are daughters of Allah, and a type said that idols are daughters of Allah, and a type said that idols are partners of Allah, and a type said: neither angels or idols are daughters of Allah nor partners of Allah, rather they said that idols are like (heavenly) beings, and they are intercessors with Allah, so if they are happy with us, the supreme God is also happy with us.

So al Nasaf is talking about the fourth group of Arabian polytheists that singled out Allah in his Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah, that believed worshiping these idols would bring them closer to Allah, and were intercessors with Allah.

This is what all classical scholars understood, for example al-Maturidi talking about this fourth group:

It appears as if their (Bani Israel’s) request for an Ilaah that they can worship was not to do kufr of their Rabb or reject their messenger, rather it was when they did not see themselves worthy enough to worship Allah and serve him, due to what they observed from the observable world that only specific chosen people close to a king serve him and those after serve the chosen people of king. Therefore in this manner, they asked Musa for an Ilaah that they can worship when they did not see themselves worthy to worship Allah and serve him, i.e., in order to get close to Allah via worship of these idols.
And likewise was the practice of Arabs that they used to worship idols so that they might get closer to Allah in proximity via worshiping of these idols, and likewise what is narrated about Fir’aun that he made idols for his nations which can be worshiped and bring them (people) closer to him in proximity, so on the same (pattern) was the request of these (Bani Israel) to Musa.

Fakhruddin al-Razi said that this fourth group, were grave worshipers in his time:

The made idols on the images of their prophets and elders, they thought that when they worship these representations, these saints will intercede for them infront of Allah, and an example of it in this time is engaging of many people in venerating graves of saints, with the belief that when they venerate their graves, they would be intercessors with Allah.

Fakruddin al Razi said there is an Ijma among all Prophets that this fourth group are engaged in kufr, regardless of their beliefs:

All Prophets have agreed that worship to to other than Allah is Kufr, no matter if one does it with the belief that this other is God of the universe or if they believe from it that the worship brings them closer to Allah, because worship is peak of veneration and peak of veneration is not deserved except for the on from whom the peak of beneficence and benefit.

Ibn Attiya, another 12th century Ashari Imam who specialized in Tafsir talking about this fourth group, repeating exactly what al-Razi says:

And what is more closer/reasonable (than believing that they requested a separate creator/sustainer) is that they demanded for them images and representations to made, (such that) they get closer with their worship to Allah, and it is described about worship of Idols “We do not worship them except to get closer to Allah in proximity”. And all messengers have agreed by consensus that worship of anyone other than Allah is Kufr, whether it is with the prior belief of considering it the Ilaah of universe or whether the worship is to get closer to Allah

Can you clarify @AdoonkaAlle whether you reject if this fourth group have committed shirk and kufr? Do you believe that this fourth group are Muslims as long as they hold the belief that Allah holds all power, is the creator of the world, and that their "representation" are the creation of Allah and not independent from him?

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

PART A

You've misinterpreted al-Nasaf's words, he didn't say that. Let me break it down for you:





The Christians committed shirk in Rububiyyah directly, he didn't say they were free from shirk in worship as you are claiming.

The pagans of Arabia committed shirk in worship.

Both the pagans of Arabia and the Christians have committed kufr and shirk in Uluhiyyah, why?

Because shirk and kufr in Uluhiyyah is when other than Allah is the object of worship.
1) The Christians did not believe Allah alone is the creator but ascribed partners to Allah in creation(first shirk), which meant that Allah was not the object of worship in (shirk again) as Jesus, and the holy spirit is also the object of worship.
2) The pagans of Arabia also ascribed partners in worship to Allah, believing that it will get them closer to Allah, so Allah alone was not the object of worship but their idols were as well. The use of "reality" is key here, because they believed that what they were doing brought them closer to Allah, but in reality they were ascribing partners to him in worship.

-Notice the word "thus", meaning it is a consequence, a result and follows from what he said before, which is that:
1) They committed shirk in worship
2) Therefore Allah was not only singled out in worship and there is no difference between shirk in worship and shirk in Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah.

And to expand, al Nasaf was doing a commentary on al-Maturidi who said this:

There are two separate ways to associate with Allah
1) Belief (Rububiyah and Uluhiyah)
2) Worship

Allah separated two different ways you can associate him in the Qur'an:
-your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)
-and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.

It doesn't matter which of the two paths you take, it is the same and shirk. There is no difference if you associate him Allah in belief (Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah) or associate with him in worship. Whereas, you are claiming that there is only one path that you can associate other than Allah, and that is in belief, so if you don't associate with him in belief you can't associate with him in worship.

al-Maturidi's tafsir of the following verse:

I will break it down into the following 4 points:
1) They knew their idols were not Ilaah in reality nor did their idols possess any real divinity(Uluhiyyah)
2) That the real divinity(Uluhiyyah) belongs to Allah
3) Whatever is worshiped is Ilaah according to Arabs, and that is why their idols were Aaaliah despite knowing they lacked divinity.
4) They only worshiped them to bring them closer to Allah.

To quote again, Allah separated two different ways you can associate him in the Qur'an and they are the same:
"your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)" and "not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone".

The former verse, they believed according to 1) and 2). The latter verse, they violated in 3) and 4). But because whatever is worshiped is an ilaah, and they took their idols as ilaah, their understanding of "your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God)" is superficial and in fact violated. So that is why it is the same whether you associate with other than Allah in belief (Rububiyah and Uloohiyyah) or in worship, it is shirk either way.

To continue, al Nasaf's tafsir of al-Fatiha:

Worship is a separate component of Tawhid, and it is that you should worship Allah alone without making anyone other than Allah a partner in his worship.

I broke down al-Maturidi's tafsir previously into 4 points, and what al Nasaf says in his tafsir is simply repeating what al-Maturidi said. Very simply, they singled out Allah in Uluhiyyah and didn't believe their idols possessed real divinity, and were not Ilaah in reality which is what al-Maturidi says in point 1) and 2). And that they associated their idols in worship because they believe it would bring them closer to Allah which is what al-Matudi says in point 4).

The Majus on the other hand are Zoroastrians, who believed in more than one Rabb. And Wathaniyyah refers to idol worshipers who believed in more than one Rabb. They were the ones who committed shirk in Rububiyyah directly. So al Nasaf separated the Arabian polytheists into their own group, and they singled out Allah in Uluhhiyah, but associated with Allah in worship by making the idols partners and al Nasaf said they committed shirk by doing this .But the Wathaniyyah on the other hand were idol worshipers who believed in more than one Rabb and associated with him in Rububiyah directly.

@AdoonkaAlle how is that possible? You said that the second most authoritative Maturidi theologian is wrong here:


But it doesn't change the fact that according to al Nasaf, one can commit shirk by associating other than Allah in worship despite singling out Allah in his Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah. The Wathaniyyah and the Arabian polytheists are two separate groups. He never stated that every single Arabian polytheist singled out Allah in Uluhiyyah, rather he is simply talking about a group among them that did.

END OF PART A

sxb you seem not to understand the basis of my argument regarding that statement from al nasaf.

In that quote that you cited, al nasf only lists pagan arabs being guilty of shirk in worship, with that in mind i ask since he didn't include christians here does it mean that christians aren't guilty of shirk in worship ? of course not

I wanted you to understand that just because christians weren't included in that group doesn't establish that they weren't guilty of shirk in worship. Similarly since pagan arabs aren't included in the group who're guilty of shirk in rububiyyah isn't evidence that they were not guilty of shirk rububiyyah.

We've numerous evidences from both the quran and hadith to prove without a doubt that they were indeed guilty of shirk rububiyyah, some of which i included in my previous post. Instead of accepting you just ignored them completely

The example of christians highlights the connection between rububiyyah and worship, it's their shirk in rububiyyah that caused them to commit shirk in worship.


Here's an example of a contradiction between al nasaf and al salimi explanation with regards to pagan beliefs

Al nasaf states : " Tawhid that is related to Uluhiyyah is that Allah is one in his Dhaat (essence) and Siffaat (attributes),....................... And the Shirk of Arabian polytheists was in worship along with their singling out Allah in Uluhiyyah "


Al salimi says : " (Arabian) Polytheists are of four types: a type said that angels are daughters of Allah, and a type said that idols are daughters of Allah, "


Believing that Allah has offspring is shirk in His Dhaat as this implies He has reproduced something like Him. Al salimi says there's was a group among the polytheists who had such a belief but al nasaf says that they singled out Allah in His Uluhiyyah. This is why it's important to examine evidences properly and see if they're in line with the revealed texts. Scholars are human beings who make mistakes and we should be aware of this when citing their work.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

PART B



Abu Shakur Al-Salimi(5th century AH) another Maturidi theologian:

So al Nasaf is talking about the fourth group of Arabian polytheists that singled out Allah in his Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah, that believed worshiping these idols would bring them closer to Allah, and were intercessors with Allah.

This is what all classical scholars understood, for example al-Maturidi talking about this fourth group:

Fakhruddin al-Razi said that this fourth group, were grave worshipers in his time:


Fakruddin al Razi said there is an Ijma among all Prophets that this fourth group are engaged in kufr, regardless of their beliefs:


Ibn Attiya, another 12th century Ashari Imam who specialized in Tafsir talking about this fourth group, repeating exactly what al-Razi says:


Can you clarify @AdoonkaAlle whether you reject if this fourth group have committed shirk and kufr? Do you believe that this fourth group are Muslims as long as they hold the belief that Allah holds all power, is the creator of the world, and that their "representation" are the creation of Allah and not independent from him?

Al nasaf makes no distinction between the pagans in fact as per the previous example he contradicts al salimi who states that some of the pagans were guilty of ascribing offspring to Allah which is shirk in rububiyyah. Where did you get the notion that al nasaf is referring to the group al salimi is talking when al nasaf doesn't separate between the pagans in his explanation ?

Fakhruddin al-Razi said that this fourth group, were grave worshipers in his time:
The made idols on the images of their prophets and elders, they thought that when they worship these representations, these saints will intercede for them infront of Allah, and an example of it in this time is engaging of many people in venerating graves of saints, with the belief that when they venerate their graves, they would be intercessors with Allah.

Fakruddin al Razi said there is an Ijma among all Prophets that this fourth group are engaged in kufr, regardless of their beliefs:
All Prophets have agreed that worship to to other than Allah is Kufr, no matter if one does it with the belief that this other is God of the universe or if they believe from it that the worship brings them closer to Allah, because worship is peak of veneration and peak of veneration is not deserved except for the on from whom the peak of beneficence and benefit.

What you're doing is nothing more than deception as you're using to different statements that have nothing to do with each other so as to impose your own understanding to what's being said. This is very poor from you sxb

I've already addressed your other comment in my previous pls refer to them

 

[World]

sxb you seem not to understand the basis of my argument regarding that statement from al nasaf.

In that quote that you cited, al nasf only lists pagan arabs being guilty of shirk in worship, with that in mind i ask since he didn't include christians here does it mean that christians aren't guilty of shirk in worship ? of course not

I wanted you to understand that just because christians weren't included in that group doesn't establish that they weren't guilty of shirk in worship. Similarly since pagan arabs aren't included in the group who're guilty of shirk in rububiyyah isn't evidence that they were not guilty of shirk rububiyyah.

We've numerous evidences from both the quran and hadith to prove without a doubt that they were indeed guilty of shirk rububiyyah, some of which i included in my previous post. Instead of accepting you just ignored them completely

The example of christians highlights the connection between rububiyyah and worship, it's their shirk in rububiyyah that caused them to commit shirk in worship.


Here's an example of a contradiction between al nasaf and al salimi explanation with regards to pagan beliefs

Al nasaf states : " Tawhid that is related to Uluhiyyah is that Allah is one in his Dhaat (essence) and Siffaat (attributes),....................... And the Shirk of Arabian polytheists was in worship along with their singling out Allah in Uluhiyyah "


Al salimi says : " (Arabian) Polytheists are of four types: a type said that angels are daughters of Allah, and a type said that idols are daughters of Allah, "


Believing that Allah has offspring is shirk in His Dhaat as this implies He has reproduced something like Him. Al salimi says there's was a group among the polytheists who had such a belief but al nasaf says that they singled out Allah in His Uluhiyyah. This is why it's important to examine evidences properly and see if they're in line with the revealed texts. Scholars are human beings who make mistakes and we should be aware of this when citing their work.

Al Nasafi didn't make a mistake, his words are very clear. And he is the one that transmitted the aqeedah after al-Maturidi, so the entire school would also be wrong.

And the Shirk of Majus and Wathaniyyah (as opposed to Arabs) was in the Rububiyyah itself, so they believed in two or more (Rabbs).

Wathaniyyah simply means idol worshipers, like I've stated. And Al Nasafi lists them as being guilty of committing shirk in Rububiyyah. So any Arabian polytheist that committed shirk in Rububiyyah, fell under the category of Wathaniyyah and not among the Arabian polytheists that singled Allah in Uluhiyyah, but committed shirk in worship.

Al Nasafi's definition of Arabian polytheists are those that single Allah in Uluhiyyah but commit shirk by associating idols with Allah in worship, and his definition of Wathaniyyah are idol worshipers that commit shirk in Rububiyyah. This distinction is necessary to explain how one can commit shirk in belief, or in worship.

So according to al-Nasaf:

(Arabian) Polytheists are of four types: a type said that angels are daughters of Allah, and a type said that idols are daughters of Allah, and a type said that idols are partners of Allah,

These three groups would fall under Wathaniyyah.

and a type said: neither angels or idols are daughters of Allah nor partners of Allah, rather they said that idols are like (heavenly) beings, and they are intercessors with Allah, so if they are happy with us, the supreme God is also happy with us.

And this group would fall under Arabian polytheist.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Al Nasafi didn't make a mistake, his words are very clear. And he is the one that transmitted the aqeedah after al-Maturidi, so the entire school would also be wrong.



Wathaniyyah simply means idol worshipers, like I've stated. And Al Nasafi lists them as being guilty of committing shirk in Rububiyyah. So any Arabian polytheist that committed shirk in Rububiyyah, fell under the category of Wathaniyyah and not among the Arabian polytheists that singled Allah in Uluhiyyah, but committed shirk in worship.

Al Nasafi's definition of Arabian polytheists are those that single Allah in Uluhiyyah but commit shirk by associating idols with Allah in worship, and his definition of Wathaniyyah are idol worshipers that commit shirk in Rububiyyah. This distinction is necessary to explain how one can commit shirk in belief, or in worship.

So according to al-Nasaf:

These three groups would fall under Wathaniyyah.


And this group would fall under Arabian polytheist.

What you're saying makes no sense, the pagan arabs were indeed idol worshippers, furthermore the quote below makes it clear that the arabs at least according to the guy who translated it aren't guilty of shirk rububiyyah this is why he puts as opposed to arabs

And the Shirk of Majus and Wathaniyyah (as opposed to Arabs) was in the Rububiyyah itself, so they believed in two or more (Rabbs).

]Wathaniyyah simply means idol worshipers, like I've stated. And Al Nasafi lists them as being guilty of committing shirk in Rububiyyah. So any Arabian polytheist that committed shirk in Rububiyyah, fell under the category of Wathaniyyah and not among the Arabian polytheists that singled Allah in Uluhiyyah, but committed shirk in worship.

Al Nasafi's definition of Arabian polytheists are those that single Allah in Uluhiyyah but commit shirk by associating idols with Allah in worship, and his definition of Wathaniyyah are idol worshipers that commit shirk in Rububiyyah. This distinction is necessary to explain how one can commit shirk in belief, or in worship.

Again the coloured bit contradict each other since arab polytheist were idol worshippers how can nasaf define arab polytheists as those that single Allah in Uluhiyyah when they're already guilty of shirk in ulihiyyah. Take your time inshallah

 

[نور]

Even in your example of insults towards the prophet ﷺ a person maybe excused if they were either forced to do it or are insane. This is why people shouldn't rush to making accusations of kufr and shirk towards muslims so easily.

Obviously a person can be excused for shirk too if he is jahil or even forced, you are missing the point and admit that the words of insults towards the prophet cannot be reinterpreted in a way that renders the apparent meaning irrelevant as you did with the words of shirk(Istighatha).

This was expected as people nowadays are more tolerant of Shirk(tulm against Allah) than they are of blasphemy against the prophet SCW, when they shouldn't tolerate or be apologetic to neither of them

 

[نور]

@Omar del Sur

Istighatha or calling other than Allah(نعود بالله من هدا) is shirk by the consensus of the ulema and not something Sheikhul Islam or Imam ibn Abdul Wahab invented.


What indicates that Istighaatha is shirk is what he(Al Hajjawy) said in Al Iqna and explained in the chapter on apostasy: (And he -i.e, Sheikh al Islam - said)..., or puts intermediaries between him and Allah, that he relies on them and calls upon them and asks them with consensus.) That is, kufr because that is like the action of idol worshipers, saying: {We do not worship them except that they may bring us closer to Allah} [Az-Zumar: 3]


This transmission was mentioned by Ibn Muflih, Al-Hijjawi, and Mar’i Al-Karmi in Al-Ghayah, and Sheikh Mansour al Bahuti in his commentary on Al-Muntaha

Alxamdullilah no amount of mental gymnastics will change our opinion on this

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Obviously a person can be excused for shirk too if he is jahil or even forced, you are missing the point and admit that the words of insults towards the prophet cannot be reinterpreted in a way that renders the apparent meaning irrelevant as you did with the words of shirk(Istighatha).

This was expected as people nowadays are more tolerant of Shirk(tulm against Allah) than they are of blasphemy against the prophet SCW, when they shouldn't tolerate or be apologetic to neither of them

I am not missing the point, it's just that i didn't answer how you were expecting me to answer. You quoted me saying that no one believed me that all dua is worship when that post of mine was a direct response to omar who actually believed that. On top of that he seems to think that shirk is somewhat related to the dead when i ask why ,he isn't able to explain but believes that it's shirk to ask the deceased to make dua for you at their grave. What makes this shirk, he has no idea but he believes it is nonetheless

The problem lies with his understanding of tawheed & ibadah as this is what's forcing him to say all that, just like you because you all subscribe to the najdi dawah. So that's why discussions like this aren't that much fruitful unless we tackle the core of our differences which is our understanding of tawheed, ibadah and shirk

I made a thread a while back which discusses in detail the salafi understanding of tawheed have a read and if you got questions then feel free to ask

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/salafi-understanding-of-tawheed.95570/

 

[نور]

I am not missing the point, it's just that i didn't answer how you were expecting me to answer. You quoted me saying that no one believed me that all dua is worship when that post of mine was a direct response to omar who actually believed that.

No you are running from the question because it exposes your inconsistencies

I said can the words of insults against suubanaha interrupted to mean another thing and your answer was "a person can be excused if he is forced to do that". An irrelevant answer.

The problem lies with his understanding of tawheed & ibadah as this is what's forcing him to say all that, just like you because you all subscribe to the najdi dawah. So that's why discussions like this aren't that much fruitful unless we tackle the core of our differences which is our understanding of tawheed, ibadah and shirk

Your awni understanding of tawheed is revisionism and was throughly refuted by scholars.

I made a thread a while back which discusses in detail the salafi understanding of tawheed have a read and if you got questions then feel free to ask

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/salafi-understanding-of-tawheed.95570/

No thank you. I'm not interested

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

No you are running from the question because it exposes your inconsistencies

I said can the words of insults against suubanaha interrupted to mean another thing and your answer was "a person can be excused if he is forced to do that". An irrelevant answer.


Your awni understanding of tawheed is revisionism and was throughly refuted by scholars.


No thank you. I'm not interested

You interject in a discussion & claim that no one believes all dua is worship ignoring to correct the individual who believes just that.

Then go on ahead to cite an example claiming that we judge by what’s apparent when it relates to making a request to which I respond back giving example of ibn umar a sahabi saying the name of the prophet ﷺ and healing immediately from his numbness. Yet you never to bothered to reply to it. Why is this ? Was this shirk Akbar ?

You lack knowledge and are quick to make hasty judgements just like the other users here. When offered the opportunity to discuss things further you accuse me of being a revisionist just because I refuse to make blanket accusations of shirk & takfir upon muslims. I suggest you stop this for own benefit as come akhirah all those false accusations will have severe consequences

 

[نور]

You interject in a discussion & claim that no one believes all dua is worship ignoring to correct the individual who believes just that.

Then go on ahead to cite an example claiming that we judge by what’s apparent when it relates to making a request to which I respond back giving example of ibn umar a sahabi saying the name of the prophet ﷺ and healing immediately from his numbness. Yet you never to bothered to reply to it. Why is this ? Was this shirk Akbar ?

You lack knowledge and are quick to make hasty judgements just like the other users here. When offered the opportunity to discuss things further you accuse me of being a revisionist just because I refuse to make blanket accusations of shirk & takfir upon muslims. I suggest you stop this for own benefit as come akhirah all those false accusations will have severe consequences

The problem is you don't understand this athar you are citing and they don't definitely support your dangerous erroneous beliefs. I did not respond to them because they were long addressed by our scholars and thoroughly refuted.

How does Abdullahi Ibn Umar saying "O Muhammad(actually he said only "Muhammad" in the correct riwayah) after he was told to remember(not pray to) someone he loves proves the heretical practices of those who invoke beside Allah for help by asking from them and putting their trust on them.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable and have never in my life takfired or accused anyone of shirk so you accusing me of lack of knowledge and your fake ass nasiha means nothing. It's you who needs to stop in engaging these topics for the sake of your akhirah.

Anyway, I will end with this quote from Sheikhul Islam:

"Anyone who puts intermediaries between him and Allah, that he relies on them and calls upon them and asks them has disbelieved"

do you disagree no or yes? No need for jumping to Tawheed Rububiyah and bla bla

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

The problem is you don't understand this athar you are citing and they don't definitely support your dangerous erroneous beliefs. I did not respond to them because they were long addressed by our scholars and thoroughly refuted.

How does Abdullahi Ibn Umar saying "O Muhammad(actually he said only "Muhammad" in the correct riwayah) after he was told to remember(not pray to) someone he loves proves the heretical practices of those who invoke beside Allah for help by asking from them and putting their trust on them.

I don't claim to be knowledgeable and have never in my life takfired or accused anyone of shirk so you accusing me of lack of knowledge and your fake ass nasiha means nothing. It's you who needs to stop in engaging these topics for the sake of your akhirah.

Anyway, I will end with this quote from Sheikhul Islam:

"Anyone who puts intermediaries between him and Allah, that he relies on them and calls upon them and asks them has disbelieved"

do you disagree no or yes? No need for jumping to Tawheed Rububiyah and bla bla

You see when your foundation isn’t sound what tends to happen is that a person ends up contradicting themselves just like what has occurred in your stances

This is what you stated “ We can’t expand on beliefs and we can’t for sure know what is in the hearts of the people, so we judge by the apparent and the apparent meaning/implications of what these Sufis do is shirk

So if a person says "Oh Gilani give us rain" this is shirk akbar. Do you agree? ”

In that statement you explicitly state that we judge by what’s apparent and this is why the example of making such a request above amounted to major shirk. With that in mind I wanted to see if you were going to be to consistent with your claim about judging by what’s apparent in the athar of ibn umar.

Ibn umar calls out the Prophet’s ﷺ name and is healed from his numbness. This action here according to your understanding of judging by what’s apparent and definition of dua al ibadah would be considered as major shirk laakin you didn’t view as major shirk thereby contradicting yourself

In the gilan example the apparent meaning was enough to establish that major shirk has occurred but not with the case of ibn umar because of your subjective assumptions about the former. You couldn’t think of any other reason other than the intention to commit shirk.

This is why when I questioned you about your silence you respond back by comparing it to “ he wasn’t told to pray to ”. The example of gilani and ibn umar had nothing to do with being asked to pray to someone other than Allah as this major shirk

The comparison was about calling out to others not praying to others. I wanted to get a gist of when such an action amounts to major shirk laakin unfortunately you weren’t able to defend nor explain your position at all.

Praying to others and placing intermediaries between yourself and Allah are all major shirk and we both agree on this. Where I disagree with you is your application of this hukm to the actions of muslims.

Due to you subscribing to najdi dawah you end up making false accusations of shirk & takfir on Muslims who commit haram actions and also on things that were never deemed as major shirk.

You claim that you’ve never accused anyone of shirk but weren’t you the one who also claimed that what sufis do was shirk ? It’s better to err on the side of caution than to make a false accusation of shirk so I suggest you stop making hasty judgements.

 

[Haragwaafi]

Tabari says:
The meaning of istiwâ’ in this verse is height (‘uluw) and elevation.

Then he said in that same paragraph:
"but if one claims that this means displacement for Allah, tell him: He is high and elevated over the heaven with the height of sovereignty and power, not the height of displacement and movement to and from."

AND THEN HE SAYS(after u cut it out):
If we did not wish to lengthen the book with what is not of its kind, we would have revealed the corruption of the saying of every person who said something contrary to the saying of the people of truth in this regard. What we have shown is sufficient enough for the person who understands it, God willing.

Istiwa is 'uluw

عن مجاهِدٍ في قَولِه تعالى: ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ [الأعراف: 54] قال: (علا على العَرْشِ)


Ibn Baz:

فالاستواء: هو العلو والارتفاع فوق العرش، وهو معلوم من حيث اللغة العربية، ولكن كيفيته مجهولة، ما نعلم كيف استوى، ولكن نقول: إنه استوى على عرشه وارتفع فوق عرشه ارتفاعاً يليق بجلاله وعظمته لا يشابه الخلق في صفاتهم، لا في الاستواء ولا في غيره؛ لقوله : لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ

Firstly, that is not what Tabari says on verse 11 chapter 41, but from 2:29.

Dude, i dont know if you are low iq, but he is refuting you, not agreeing with you. Can you not read? "if he interprets it in its understood meaning as well - that He only rose and rose after being below it." MEANING IF YOU BELIEVE THAT ALLAH ASCENDED WITH DISPLACEMENT AND MOVEMENT, THEN ALLAH ONLY DONE SO BY FIRST BEING BELOW.

He's refuting the people like you but it seems you have hard understanding what he said as he started in his explanition with this statment:

It is astonishing at the one who denies the understood meaning of the words of the Arabs in interpreting the words of God: “Then He ascended to the heaven,” which means height and elevation,