“What
is Ibadah?”
(Brother Abu Sulayman’s discussion with Wahhabi/"Salafis" on IA Forum)
Thread
titled: (“What is Ibahah?”) from: Page
34-35:
Brother Abu Sulayman said: ↑
Shaykh
Hatim al-'Awni has mentioned a definition for 'Ibadah (worship) which is jami'
and mani' and allows one to make a clear distinction between Tawhid and Shirk:
فـ(العبادة) بمعناها الخاص : هي تعظيمُ الذي بيده الخلقُ أو الملك أو التدبير أو المتصفُ بالكمال المطلق ، وهذه هي خصائص الربوبية
أو قل : العبادة هي : تعظيمك (بالحب والخوف والرجاء) المتصفَ بشيء من خصائص الربوبية
"So 'Ibadah (worship) with it's specific meaning is:
فـ(العبادة) بمعناها الخاص : هي تعظيمُ الذي بيده الخلقُ أو الملك أو التدبير أو المتصفُ بالكمال المطلق ، وهذه هي خصائص الربوبية
أو قل : العبادة هي : تعظيمك (بالحب والخوف والرجاء) المتصفَ بشيء من خصائص الربوبية
"So 'Ibadah (worship) with it's specific meaning is:
The veneration
(Ta'dhim) of the one in whose hands creating (Khalq) or dominion (Mulk) or
disposal (Tadbir) lies or of the one who is characterized with absolute
perfection (Kamal mutlaq).
And [what has been mentioned] are the attributes /
characteristics of lordship (Khasa`is al-Rububiyyah).
Or say: 'Ibadah (worship)
is your veneration with love, fear and hope for the one who is characterized
with anything of the attributes of lordship (Khasa`is al-Rububiyyah)."
Source: العبادة: بوّابةُ التوحيد.. وبوابة التكفير
(Read the article for a better understanding of the definition.)
(Note: It should be obvious that Mulk and Tadbir are only attributes of lordship if they're with Istiqlal (independence).
Conclusion: Any action to venerate a being regarding whom one believes that he has at least some attributes of lordship (even if it is only one such attribute!) is 'Ibadah (worship).
What I would really recommend are the following comments where the correct understanding of the meaning of 'Ibadah is shown (in the last three comments the definitions that the Najdis use are also discussed):
[#42, #43, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51]
These comments can be also found as one pdf-article here:
حقيقة العبادة - بين أهل السنّة والوهابية
Source: العبادة: بوّابةُ التوحيد.. وبوابة التكفير
(Read the article for a better understanding of the definition.)
(Note: It should be obvious that Mulk and Tadbir are only attributes of lordship if they're with Istiqlal (independence).
Conclusion: Any action to venerate a being regarding whom one believes that he has at least some attributes of lordship (even if it is only one such attribute!) is 'Ibadah (worship).
What I would really recommend are the following comments where the correct understanding of the meaning of 'Ibadah is shown (in the last three comments the definitions that the Najdis use are also discussed):
[#42, #43, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51]
These comments can be also found as one pdf-article here:
حقيقة العبادة - بين أهل السنّة والوهابية
----
One
of the links that I posted in the above comment contains an important
statement, which I would like to post also here (because I'm sure that most
people did not read the links):
The Shaykh Salamah al-Qudha'i al-'Azzami al-Shafi'i (d. 1376 AH) said:
إنّ الغلط في تفسير العبادة ، المزلقةُ الكبرى والمزلَّة العظمى ، التي أُستحِلت بها دماءُ لا تحصى ، وانتهكت بها أعراض لا تعد ، وتقاطعت فيها أرحام أمر اللّه بها أن توصل ، عياذاً باللّه من المزالق والفتن , ولاسيما فتن الشبهات.
فاعلم أنّهم فسّروا العبادة بالاِتيان بأقصى غاية الخضوع ، و أرادوا بذلك المعنى اللغوي ، أمّا معناها الشرعي فهو أخصّ من هذا كما يظهر للمحقّق الصبّار على البحث , من استقراء مواردها في الشرع ، فإنّه الاِتيان بأقصى غاية الخضوع قلباً باعتقاد ربوبية المخضوع له ، فإن انتفى ذلك الاعتقاد لم يكن ما أتى به من الخضوع الظاهري من العبادة شرعاً ، في كثير ولا قليل مهما كان المأتي به و لو سجوداً.
ومثل اعتقاد الربوبية اعتقاد خصيصة من خصائصها كالاستقلال بالنفع والضرّ ، و كنفوذ المشيئة لا محالة ولو بطريق الشفاعة لعابده عند الربّ الّذي هو أكبر من هذا المعبود.
و إنّما كفر المشركون بسجودهم لاَوثانهم و دعائهم إيّاهم وغيرهما من أنواع الخضوع لتحقّق هذا القيد فيهم ، وهو اعتقادهم ربوبية ما خضعوا له ، أو خاصة من خواصها كما سيأتيك تفصيله.
ولا يصحّ أن يكون السجود لغير اللّه فضلاً عمّا دونه من أنواع الخضوع بدون هذا الاعتقاد، عبادة شرعاً -كسجود الملائكة لآدم- ، فإنّه حينئذٍ يكون كفراً وما هو كفر فلا يختلف باختلاف الشرائع ، ولا يأمر اللّه عزّ وجلّ به , ((قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لا يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشاءِ)) الاَعراف- 28 , ((وَ لا يَرْضى لِعِبادِهِ الْكُفْر)) الزمر-7 , وذلك ظاهر إن شاء اللّه .
وها أنت ذا تسمع اللّه تعالى قد قال للملائكة: ((اسْجُدُوا لآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلاّ ابلِْيسَ أَبى وَ اسْتَكْبَرَ )) البقرة-34 , وقال: ((أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْهُ)) الاَعراف-12, وقال: ((ءَأَسْجُدُ لِمَنْ خَلْقْتَ طِيناً)) الاِسراء-61 , والقول بأنّ آدم كان قبلة قول لا يرضاه التحقيق ويرفضه التدقيق في فهم الآيات كما ينبغي أن تفهم.
فإن تعسّر عليك فهم هذا -وهو ليس بعسير إن شاء اللّه تعالى- ، فانظر إلى نفسك فانّه قد يقضي عليك أدبك مع أبيك واحترامك له أن لا تسمح لنفسك بالجلوس أو الاضطجاع بين يديه ، فتقف أو تقعد ساعة أو فوقها , و لا يكون ذلك منك عبادة له ، لماذا لاَنّه لم يقارن هذا الفعل منك اعتقاد شيء من خصائص الربوبية فيه , و تقف في الصلاة قدر الفاتحة وتجلس فيها قدر التشهد و هو قدر دقيقة أو دقيقتين فيكون ذلك منك عبادة لمن صلّيتَ له ، و سرّ ذلك هو أنّ هذا الخضوع الممثّل في قيامك و قعودك يقارنه اعتقادك الربوبية لمن خضعتَ له عزّوجل.
وتدعو رئيسك في عمل من الاَعمال أو أميرك أن ينصرك على باغ عليك أو يغنيك من أزمة نزلت بك و أنت معتقد فيه انّه لا يستقل بجلب نفع أو دفع ضر، و لكن اللّه جعله سبباً في مجرى العادة يقضي على يديه من ذلك ما يشاء فضلاً منه سبحانه، فلا يكون ذلك منك عبادة لهذا المدعوّ، و أنت على ما وصفنا، فإن دعوتَه و أنت تعتقد فيه أنّه مستقل بالنفع، أو الضرّ، أو نافذ المشيئة مع اللّه لا محالة، كنت له بذلك الدعاء عابداً، و بهذه العبادة أشركته مع اللّه عزّوجلّ، لاَنّك قد اعتقدت فيه خصيصة من خصائص الربوبية، فانّالاستقلال بالجلب أو الدفع و نفوذ المشيئة لا محالة هو من خصائص الربوبية، والمشركون إنّما كفروا بسجودهم لاَصنامهم و نحوه لاعتقادهم فيها الاستقلال بالنفع، أو الضرّ ونفوذ مشيئتهم لامحالة مع اللّه تعالى، و لو على سبيل الشفاعة عنده، فانّهم يعتبرونه الربّ الاَكبر و لمعبوداتهم ربوبية دون ربوبيته، و بمقتضى ما لهم من الربوبية وجب لهم نفوذ المشيئة معه لا محالة.
ويدل لما قلنا آيات كثيرة كقوله تعالى: ((أَمَّنْ هذَا الَّذِي هُوَ جُنْدٌ لَكُمْ يَنْصُركُمْ مِنْ دُونِ الرَّحمنِ إِنِ الْكافِرونَ إِلاّ في غُرُورٍ)) الملك -20 , و قوله : ((أَمْ لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ تَمْنَعُهُمْ مِنْ دُونِنا لا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ نَصْرَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَ لا هُمْ مِنْها يَصْحَبُونَ)) الاَنبياء-43, و الاستفهام في الآيتين إنكاري على سبيل التوبيخ لهم على ما اعتقدوه.
وحكى اللّه عن قوم هود قولهم له (عليه السلام) : ((إِنْنَقُولُ إِلاّاعْتَراكَ بَعْضُ آلِهَتِنا بِسُوءٍ)) هود-54 , وقوله لهم: ((فَكِيدُوني جَميعاً ثُمَّ لا تُنْظِرُونِ*إِنّي تَوَكَلْتُ عَلَى اللّهِ رَبِّي وَ رَبِّكُمْ)) هود-55ـ56 .
و كقوله تعالى موبخاً لهم يوم القيامة على ما اعتقدوه لها من الاستقلال بالنفع ووجوب نفوذ مشيئتها: ((أَيْنَ ما كُنْتُمْ تَعْبُدُونَ* مِنْ دُونِ اللّهِ هَلْ يَنصُرُونَكُمْ أَوْ يَنْتَصِرُونَ)) الشعراء-92ـ93 , وقولهم و هم في النار يختصمون يخاطبون من اعتقدوا فيهم الربوبية و خصائصها : ((تَاللّهِ إِنْكُنّا لَفِي ضَلالٍ مُبينٍ* إِذْنُسَوِّيكُمْ بِرَبِّ الْعالَمينَ)) الشعراء-97ـ98 , فانظر إلى هذه التسوية التي اعترفوا بها حيث يصدق الكذوب ، ويندم المجرم حين لا ينفعه ندم. فالتسوية المذكورة إن كانت في إثبات شيء من صفات الربوبية فهو المطلوب ، و من هذه الحيثية شركهم و كفرهم ، لاَن صفاته تعالى تجب لها الوحدانية بمعنى عدم وجود نظير لها في سواه عزّ وجلّ.
وإن كانت التسوية في استحقاقها للعبادة فهو يستلزم اعتقاد الاشتراك فيما به الاستحقاق ، وهو صفات الاَُلوهية أو بعضها، و إن كانت في العبادة نفسها فهي لا تكون من العاقل إلاّلمن يعتقد استحقاقه لها كربّ العالمين ، تعالى اللّه عمّا يشركون.
وكيف يُنفى عنهم اعتقاد الربوبية بآلهتهم وقد اتّخذوها أنداداً و أحبوها كحب ّاللّه كما قال تعالى فيهم: ((وَمِنَ النّاسِ مَنْ يَتَّخِذُ مِنْ دُونِ اللّهِ أَنْداداً يُحِبُّونَهُمْ كَحُبِّ اللّهِ)) البقرة-165 , و الاَنداد جمع "ند" وهو على ما قاله أهل التفسير واللغة: المثل المساوي ، فهذا ينادي عليهم أنّهم اعتقدوا فيها ضرباً من المساواة للحقّ تعالى عمّا يقولون
Source: "Furqan al-Qur`an bayna Sifat al-Khaliq wa Sifat al-Akwan" p. 111-114
(Note: He explained the issue of Sujud li ghayrillah a little bit more (p.111-112), but that part has been omitted in the above quote.)
The Shaykh Salamah al-Qudha'i al-'Azzami al-Shafi'i (d. 1376 AH) said:
إنّ الغلط في تفسير العبادة ، المزلقةُ الكبرى والمزلَّة العظمى ، التي أُستحِلت بها دماءُ لا تحصى ، وانتهكت بها أعراض لا تعد ، وتقاطعت فيها أرحام أمر اللّه بها أن توصل ، عياذاً باللّه من المزالق والفتن , ولاسيما فتن الشبهات.
فاعلم أنّهم فسّروا العبادة بالاِتيان بأقصى غاية الخضوع ، و أرادوا بذلك المعنى اللغوي ، أمّا معناها الشرعي فهو أخصّ من هذا كما يظهر للمحقّق الصبّار على البحث , من استقراء مواردها في الشرع ، فإنّه الاِتيان بأقصى غاية الخضوع قلباً باعتقاد ربوبية المخضوع له ، فإن انتفى ذلك الاعتقاد لم يكن ما أتى به من الخضوع الظاهري من العبادة شرعاً ، في كثير ولا قليل مهما كان المأتي به و لو سجوداً.
ومثل اعتقاد الربوبية اعتقاد خصيصة من خصائصها كالاستقلال بالنفع والضرّ ، و كنفوذ المشيئة لا محالة ولو بطريق الشفاعة لعابده عند الربّ الّذي هو أكبر من هذا المعبود.
و إنّما كفر المشركون بسجودهم لاَوثانهم و دعائهم إيّاهم وغيرهما من أنواع الخضوع لتحقّق هذا القيد فيهم ، وهو اعتقادهم ربوبية ما خضعوا له ، أو خاصة من خواصها كما سيأتيك تفصيله.
ولا يصحّ أن يكون السجود لغير اللّه فضلاً عمّا دونه من أنواع الخضوع بدون هذا الاعتقاد، عبادة شرعاً -كسجود الملائكة لآدم- ، فإنّه حينئذٍ يكون كفراً وما هو كفر فلا يختلف باختلاف الشرائع ، ولا يأمر اللّه عزّ وجلّ به , ((قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لا يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشاءِ)) الاَعراف- 28 , ((وَ لا يَرْضى لِعِبادِهِ الْكُفْر)) الزمر-7 , وذلك ظاهر إن شاء اللّه .
وها أنت ذا تسمع اللّه تعالى قد قال للملائكة: ((اسْجُدُوا لآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلاّ ابلِْيسَ أَبى وَ اسْتَكْبَرَ )) البقرة-34 , وقال: ((أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْهُ)) الاَعراف-12, وقال: ((ءَأَسْجُدُ لِمَنْ خَلْقْتَ طِيناً)) الاِسراء-61 , والقول بأنّ آدم كان قبلة قول لا يرضاه التحقيق ويرفضه التدقيق في فهم الآيات كما ينبغي أن تفهم.
فإن تعسّر عليك فهم هذا -وهو ليس بعسير إن شاء اللّه تعالى- ، فانظر إلى نفسك فانّه قد يقضي عليك أدبك مع أبيك واحترامك له أن لا تسمح لنفسك بالجلوس أو الاضطجاع بين يديه ، فتقف أو تقعد ساعة أو فوقها , و لا يكون ذلك منك عبادة له ، لماذا لاَنّه لم يقارن هذا الفعل منك اعتقاد شيء من خصائص الربوبية فيه , و تقف في الصلاة قدر الفاتحة وتجلس فيها قدر التشهد و هو قدر دقيقة أو دقيقتين فيكون ذلك منك عبادة لمن صلّيتَ له ، و سرّ ذلك هو أنّ هذا الخضوع الممثّل في قيامك و قعودك يقارنه اعتقادك الربوبية لمن خضعتَ له عزّوجل.
وتدعو رئيسك في عمل من الاَعمال أو أميرك أن ينصرك على باغ عليك أو يغنيك من أزمة نزلت بك و أنت معتقد فيه انّه لا يستقل بجلب نفع أو دفع ضر، و لكن اللّه جعله سبباً في مجرى العادة يقضي على يديه من ذلك ما يشاء فضلاً منه سبحانه، فلا يكون ذلك منك عبادة لهذا المدعوّ، و أنت على ما وصفنا، فإن دعوتَه و أنت تعتقد فيه أنّه مستقل بالنفع، أو الضرّ، أو نافذ المشيئة مع اللّه لا محالة، كنت له بذلك الدعاء عابداً، و بهذه العبادة أشركته مع اللّه عزّوجلّ، لاَنّك قد اعتقدت فيه خصيصة من خصائص الربوبية، فانّالاستقلال بالجلب أو الدفع و نفوذ المشيئة لا محالة هو من خصائص الربوبية، والمشركون إنّما كفروا بسجودهم لاَصنامهم و نحوه لاعتقادهم فيها الاستقلال بالنفع، أو الضرّ ونفوذ مشيئتهم لامحالة مع اللّه تعالى، و لو على سبيل الشفاعة عنده، فانّهم يعتبرونه الربّ الاَكبر و لمعبوداتهم ربوبية دون ربوبيته، و بمقتضى ما لهم من الربوبية وجب لهم نفوذ المشيئة معه لا محالة.
ويدل لما قلنا آيات كثيرة كقوله تعالى: ((أَمَّنْ هذَا الَّذِي هُوَ جُنْدٌ لَكُمْ يَنْصُركُمْ مِنْ دُونِ الرَّحمنِ إِنِ الْكافِرونَ إِلاّ في غُرُورٍ)) الملك -20 , و قوله : ((أَمْ لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ تَمْنَعُهُمْ مِنْ دُونِنا لا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ نَصْرَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَ لا هُمْ مِنْها يَصْحَبُونَ)) الاَنبياء-43, و الاستفهام في الآيتين إنكاري على سبيل التوبيخ لهم على ما اعتقدوه.
وحكى اللّه عن قوم هود قولهم له (عليه السلام) : ((إِنْنَقُولُ إِلاّاعْتَراكَ بَعْضُ آلِهَتِنا بِسُوءٍ)) هود-54 , وقوله لهم: ((فَكِيدُوني جَميعاً ثُمَّ لا تُنْظِرُونِ*إِنّي تَوَكَلْتُ عَلَى اللّهِ رَبِّي وَ رَبِّكُمْ)) هود-55ـ56 .
و كقوله تعالى موبخاً لهم يوم القيامة على ما اعتقدوه لها من الاستقلال بالنفع ووجوب نفوذ مشيئتها: ((أَيْنَ ما كُنْتُمْ تَعْبُدُونَ* مِنْ دُونِ اللّهِ هَلْ يَنصُرُونَكُمْ أَوْ يَنْتَصِرُونَ)) الشعراء-92ـ93 , وقولهم و هم في النار يختصمون يخاطبون من اعتقدوا فيهم الربوبية و خصائصها : ((تَاللّهِ إِنْكُنّا لَفِي ضَلالٍ مُبينٍ* إِذْنُسَوِّيكُمْ بِرَبِّ الْعالَمينَ)) الشعراء-97ـ98 , فانظر إلى هذه التسوية التي اعترفوا بها حيث يصدق الكذوب ، ويندم المجرم حين لا ينفعه ندم. فالتسوية المذكورة إن كانت في إثبات شيء من صفات الربوبية فهو المطلوب ، و من هذه الحيثية شركهم و كفرهم ، لاَن صفاته تعالى تجب لها الوحدانية بمعنى عدم وجود نظير لها في سواه عزّ وجلّ.
وإن كانت التسوية في استحقاقها للعبادة فهو يستلزم اعتقاد الاشتراك فيما به الاستحقاق ، وهو صفات الاَُلوهية أو بعضها، و إن كانت في العبادة نفسها فهي لا تكون من العاقل إلاّلمن يعتقد استحقاقه لها كربّ العالمين ، تعالى اللّه عمّا يشركون.
وكيف يُنفى عنهم اعتقاد الربوبية بآلهتهم وقد اتّخذوها أنداداً و أحبوها كحب ّاللّه كما قال تعالى فيهم: ((وَمِنَ النّاسِ مَنْ يَتَّخِذُ مِنْ دُونِ اللّهِ أَنْداداً يُحِبُّونَهُمْ كَحُبِّ اللّهِ)) البقرة-165 , و الاَنداد جمع "ند" وهو على ما قاله أهل التفسير واللغة: المثل المساوي ، فهذا ينادي عليهم أنّهم اعتقدوا فيها ضرباً من المساواة للحقّ تعالى عمّا يقولون
Source: "Furqan al-Qur`an bayna Sifat al-Khaliq wa Sifat al-Akwan" p. 111-114
(Note: He explained the issue of Sujud li ghayrillah a little bit more (p.111-112), but that part has been omitted in the above quote.)
---
Abu Sulayman Reply: : Abuz Zubair, you're a good example
how one can completely misunderstand and misuse the book of Allah ta'ala and
the statements of the Ahl al-'Ilm and then present these misunderstandings in a
way that it looks academic to the simple laymen.
(Note: I haven't read all of HH's comments so I don't know whether he also said weird things (like Hindus being not Mushrikin) or whether you've simply misunderstood him.)
Your posts are really long, so I can't comment on all the things you wrote. I'll only pick some points, which I regard as important.
--------------------------
Abu Sulayman said:
The
first issue would be the Talbiyyah of the Arab polytheists, because I've seen how you've [mis]used
it more than once as an evidence for your position:
Here is their Talbiyyah as it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim:
لبيك لا شريك لك إلا شريكا هو لك تملكه وما ملك
"Here I am at your service! You have no partner, except a partner who is yours. You own him along with what he owns." - end of the qoute -
Look how they explicitly attributed a partner (Sharik) to Allah ta'ala.
Here is their Talbiyyah as it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim:
لبيك لا شريك لك إلا شريكا هو لك تملكه وما ملك
"Here I am at your service! You have no partner, except a partner who is yours. You own him along with what he owns." - end of the qoute -
Look how they explicitly attributed a partner (Sharik) to Allah ta'ala.
How is it possible for
anyone to claim that the Arab polytheists would not ascribe partners to Allah
subhanahu wa ta'ala in his essence, attributes or actions after knowing the
above statement?
Did these Arab polytheists not know the meaning of the word Sharik?
As for their statement "you own him along with what he owns" which you think shows that the polytheists believed in the dependence of their false gods upon Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala:
What do you intend with "dependence"?:
- If you mean the sort of dependence that is between ministers/princes upon their king or the sort of dependence that is between sons/daughters upon their father, then you're correct! (Believing in this kind of dependence is obviously still Shirk and believing in this kind of relationship between the "Supreme god" and the "lower gods" is quite typical for people who are guilty of Shirk al-Taqrib (polytheism as a means of drawing close).)
- If you however mean the sort of dependence that is between a servant and his Creator, who has created him and his actions, then this is NOT what they believed.
Now, may Allah guide you, that the belief that Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala is completely independent from everything else in the existance, while everything else is completely dependent upon Him is a belief that is special to Muslims. This also includes believing that none has real influence (Ta`thir) on the creation except Allah ta'ala and that the actions of the servants are all created by Him subhanahu wa ta'ala.
But as for the the polytheists, they clearly believed that the will of their false gods may bring real effects. There are more than enough proofs in the Qur`an al-karim and the statements of the Mufassirun are also clear regarding this.
An example:
{ وَٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ آلِهَةً لِّيَكُونُواْ لَهُمْ عِزّاً }
{ They have taken gods other than Allah, so that they may be a source of might for them. }
[19:81]
Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) said in his Tafsir regarding the above Ayah that they believed that these [false] gods may protect them from the punishment of Allah:
قوله تعالى: { وَٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ آلِهَةً لِّيَكُونُواْ لَهُمْ عِزّاً } يعني مشركي قريش. و«عِزًّا» معناه أعواناً ومنعة؛ يعني أولاداً. والعِزّ المطر الجُودُ أيضاً؛ قاله الهروي. وظاهر الكلام أن «عِزًّا» راجع إلى الآلهة التي عبدوها من دون الله. ووحد لأنه بمعنى المصدر؛ أي لينالوا بها العز ويمتنعون بها من عذاب الله
- end of the qoute -
Let us understand what it means that the
Arab polytheists would view the relationship between Allah ta'ala and their
false gods like the relation between a king and his ministers/princes/advisers:
A king needs ministers, princes, advisers, soldiers etc. in order to rule a land and that is because his own power is not sufficient. He has not knowledge regarding everything that his ministers do and his own decisions can be influenced by these ministers.
Now let everyone ask himself whether this is the 'Aqidah of the people of Tawhid and Tanzih regarding the
These are some of the beliefs of the Arab polytheists:
They believed in the existance of many gods, who are needed for the preservation of the creation:
{ وَعَجِبُوۤاْ أَن جَآءَهُم مٌّنذِرٌ مِّنْهُمْ وَقَالَ ٱلْكَافِرُونَ هَـٰذَا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ }
{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }
{ They (the pagans) wonder that a warner has come to them from among themselves. And the disbelievers say, “This is a magician, a sheer liar. }
{ Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:4-5]
We know that polytheists from different regions of the world believed in things like a "river god" or a "rain god" and so on. And from the above statement that Allah ta'ala narrates from the Arab polytheists, we see that they were not much different in their way of thinking than the rest of the polytheists.
Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the above Ayah that they did not regard it as possible that one god alone could listen and know the prayers of all of his worshippers:
وقوله: { أجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلهاً وَاحِداً } يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: مـحمد ساحر كذّاب: أجعل مـحمد الـمعبودات كلها واحداً، يسمع دعاءنا جميعنا، ويعلـم عبـادة كل عابد عبدَه منا { إنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجابٌ
- end of the qoute -
And Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the same Ayah that they believed that the existance of many gods is necessary for the preservation of such a diverse world:
وقالوا: { أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وٰحِداً وَأَنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْء عُجَابٌ } أي بليغ في التعجب وأقول منشأ التعجب من وجهين الأول: هو أن القوم ما كانوا من أصحاب النظر والاستدلال بل كانت أوهامهم تابعة للمحسوسات فلما وجدوا في الشاهد أن الفاعل الواحد لا تفي قدرته وعلمه بحفظ الخلق العظيم قاسوا الغائب على الشاهد، فقالوا: لا بد في حفظ هذا العالم الكثير من آلهة كثيرة يتكفل كل واحد منهم بحفظ نوع آخر
- end of the qoute -
They doubted the knowledge of Allah ta'ala and that He's All-hearing:
{ وَمَا كُنتُمْ تَسْتَتِرُونَ أَن يَشْهَدَ عَلَيْكُمْ سَمْعُكُمْ وَلاَ أَبْصَارُكُمْ وَلاَ جُلُودُكُمْ وَلَـٰكِن ظَنَنتُمْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَعْلَمُ كَثِيراً مِّمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ }
{ وَذَلِكُمْ ظَنُّكُمُ ٱلَّذِي ظَنَنتُم بِرَبِّكُمْ أَرْدَاكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ مِّنَ ٱلُخَاسِرِينَ }
{ And you had not been hiding your selves (when committing sins) from your ears and your eyes and your skins that would bear witness against you, but you thought that Allah did not know much of what you did. }
{ This thought of yours that you conceived about your Lord brought you to ruin, and you became among the losers. } [41:22-23]
And this here is a Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, where we get to know the reason behind the revelation of these Ayat:
حَدَّثَنَا الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا مَنْصُورٌ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي مَعْمَرٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ قَالَ اجْتَمَعَ عِنْدَ الْبَيْتِ ثَقَفِيَّانِ وَقُرَشِيٌّ، أَوْ قُرَشِيَّانِ وَثَقَفِيٌّ، كَثِيرَةٌ شَحْمُ بُطُونِهِمْ قَلِيلَةٌ فِقْهُ قُلُوبِهِمْ فَقَالَ أَحَدُهُمْ أَتَرَوْنَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَسْمَعُ مَا نَقُولُ قَالَ الآخَرُ يَسْمَعُ إِنْ جَهَرْنَا وَلاَ يَسْمَعُ إِنْ أَخْفَيْنَا وَقَالَ الآخَرُ إِنْ كَانَ يَسْمَعُ إِذَا جَهَرْنَا فَإِنَّهُ يَسْمَعُ إِذَا أَخْفَيْنَا. فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى {وَمَا كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَتِرُونَ أَنْ يَشْهَدَ عَلَيْكُمْ سَمْعُكُمْ وَلاَ أَبْصَارُكُمْ وَلاَ جُلُودُكُمْ} الآيَةَ
"Narrated `Abdullah:
Two person of Bani Thaqif and one from Quarish (or two persons from Quraish and one from Bani Thaqif) who had fat bellies but little wisdom, met near the Ka`ba. One of them said, "Did you see that Allah hears what we say? " The other said, "He hears us if we speak aloud, but He does not hear if we speak in stealthy quietness (softly)." The third fellow said, "If He hears when we speak aloud, then He surely hears us if we speak in stealthy quietness (softly)." So Allah revealed the Verse:-- 'And you have not been screening against yourselves, lest your ears, and your eyes and your skins should testify against you..." (41.22)" - end of the qoute -
They doubted that Allah ta'ala is All-Powerful and that he's able to make them alive after they die:
{ أَوَلَمْ يَرَ ٱلإِنسَانُ أَنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ }
{ وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلاً وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَن يُحيِي ٱلْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ }
{ قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا ٱلَّذِيۤ أَنشَأَهَآ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ }
{ Did man not see that We have created him from a drop of semen? Then suddenly he stood as an open adversary (to Us). }
{ He has set up an argument about Us and forgot his creation. He said, “Who will give life to the bones when they are decayed?” }
{ Say, “These will be revived by the same One who had created them for the first time, and who is fully aware of every creation, } [36:77-79]
Imam al-Tabari mentioned in the Tafsir of the above Ayah that these people were rejecting the power (Qudrah) of Allah ta'ala to revive them after their death:
فتأويـل الكلام إذن: أو لـم ير هذا الإنسان الذي يقول: { مَنْ يُحْيِـي العِظامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيـمٌ } أنا خـلقناه من نطفة فسوّيناه خـلقاً سَوِيًّا { فإذَا هوَ خَصِيـمٌ } يقول: فإذا هو ذو خصومة لربه، يخاصمه فـيـما قال له ربه إنـي فـاعل، وذلك إخبـار لله إياه أنه مُـحْيـي خـلقه بعد مـماتهم، فـيقول: مَنْ يحيـي هذه العظام وهي رميـم؟ إنكاراً منه لقُدرة الله علـى إحيائها
- end of the qoute -
And Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala has clarified in his book that it's easy for Him to revive the dead:
{ زَعَمَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوۤاْ أَن لَّن يُبْعَثُواْ قُلْ بَلَىٰ وَرَبِّي لَتُبْعَثُنَّ ثُمَّ لَتُنَبَّؤُنَّ بِمَا عَمِلْتُمْ وَذَلِكَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ }
{ The disbelievers claim that they will never be raised again (after death). Say, “Why not? By my Lord, you will be raised again, and then you will be told about what you did. That is so easy for Allah.”} [64:7]
One could easily keep on mentioning much more Ayat, but the above should be enough for one to see that acting as if the polytheists would affirm the attributes of lordship completely for Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and without any partners is pure ignorance.
ALL polytheists ascribe a partner (Sharik) or partners (Shuraka`) to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala in his essence (Dhat), attributes (Sifat) or actions (Af'al). Saying otherwise is clearly wrong according to revelation and reason.
And insha`Allah we will also see how the Mukhalif distorted the statements of the scholars and how he added things to their statements that they didn't say.
--
---------------------
Logic lover said: Abu Sulayman said: ↑ ALL polytheists ascribe a partner (Sharik) or partners (Shuraka`)
to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala in his essence (Dhat), attributes (Sifat) or
actions (Af'al). Saying otherwise is clearly wrong according to revelation and
reason.
Abu Sulayman! There is no disagreement in the above. But, what
needs to be proved is that they designated independence (istiqlal) of their
gods (aliha) in terms of rububiyya or certain aspects of it. True! They
denied certain aspects of rububiyya from Allah (it is expected from the
disbelievers anyway). So far, you have failed to prove that. I don't think, you
can do so and there is no need for you to make any attempt as you are not the
one presenting 'the new approach' to ibadah.
Remember, they worshiped them in various ways (like taking them as intercessors with Allah, which is not an aspect of rububiyya). What we can say is that if it can be proven in a single instance that people can worship someone or something without designating any rububiyya to the object or person - then the 'new definition' becomes either deficient or nullified. Take the worshiping of Satan for example. How does the worshiper designate rububiyya with istiqlal in his belief?
Remember, they worshiped them in various ways (like taking them as intercessors with Allah, which is not an aspect of rububiyya). What we can say is that if it can be proven in a single instance that people can worship someone or something without designating any rububiyya to the object or person - then the 'new definition' becomes either deficient or nullified. Take the worshiping of Satan for example. How does the worshiper designate rububiyya with istiqlal in his belief?
----------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
--------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
Abu Sulayman! There is no disagreement in the above
--------------------
Are
you sure?
Shirk = Ascribing a partner to Allah ta'ala [in his essence, attributes or actions] = Ascribing an attribute/characteristic of lordship to other than Allah
Do you agree?
Shirk = Ascribing a partner to Allah ta'ala [in his essence, attributes or actions] = Ascribing an attribute/characteristic of lordship to other than Allah
Do you agree?
-------------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
But, what needs to be proved is that they designated independence
(istiqlal) of their gods (aliha) in terms of rububiyya or certain aspects
of it.
-----------------------
Brother
it seems that you're misunderstanding what "independence" and
"dependence" in this context even means. The issue of independence
is only important in order to be able to differentiate whether something is an
attribute of lordship/divinity or not.
An example: We know that the Mala`ikah (angels) have some quite extraordinary abilities. But are these abilities attributes of lordship? No. Why? Because angels are created by Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and their actions are also created by Him and they can not make anything except if Allah ta'ala has willed it. (And this is true regarding all created beings!)
If however one would believe that the angels are daughters of god - and this is among the beliefs of Arab polytheists as it is clear from the book of Allah - or that god somehow needs these angels to regulate the universe or that they can influence Allah or similar beliefs, then one has ascribed to them attributes of lordship and this is Shirk.
An example: We know that the Mala`ikah (angels) have some quite extraordinary abilities. But are these abilities attributes of lordship? No. Why? Because angels are created by Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and their actions are also created by Him and they can not make anything except if Allah ta'ala has willed it. (And this is true regarding all created beings!)
If however one would believe that the angels are daughters of god - and this is among the beliefs of Arab polytheists as it is clear from the book of Allah - or that god somehow needs these angels to regulate the universe or that they can influence Allah or similar beliefs, then one has ascribed to them attributes of lordship and this is Shirk.
------------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
So far, you have failed to prove that.
-----------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Please read my last post
again:
It contains the Ayah 38:5, where Allah ta'ala narrated the statement of the
Arab polytheists who disbelieved in the message* of the Prophet, sallallahu
'alayhi wa sallam:
{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }
{ Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:5]
(*And that is: "La ilaha illa Allah"/"There is no God other than Allah")
And we saw that Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) explained that they regarded it as impossible for one god alone to be able to listen and to know the prayers of all his worshippers. And Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) said regarding the same Ayah that they believed that there have to exist many gods for the preservation of this diverse universe, because the knowledge and power of one god does not suffice.
Do you understand what this means? It means that they accepted some attributes of lordship for Allah and at the same time they also ascribed some attributes of lordship to many other beings. So for them Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala was a god among many gods.
{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }
{ Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:5]
(*And that is: "La ilaha illa Allah"/"There is no God other than Allah")
And we saw that Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) explained that they regarded it as impossible for one god alone to be able to listen and to know the prayers of all his worshippers. And Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) said regarding the same Ayah that they believed that there have to exist many gods for the preservation of this diverse universe, because the knowledge and power of one god does not suffice.
Do you understand what this means? It means that they accepted some attributes of lordship for Allah and at the same time they also ascribed some attributes of lordship to many other beings. So for them Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala was a god among many gods.
---------------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
True! They denied certain aspects of rububiyya from Allah (it is
expected from the disbelievers anyway).
----------------------------
It's good that you're
admitting this.
And now please start thinking logical:
If they did not accept all attributes of lordship for Allah, what does it mean?
If they did not accept all attributes of lordship for Allah, what does it mean?
It
means that according to their understanding Allah alone can not regulate and
preserve the universe and needs partners and helpers.
--------------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
I don't think, you can do so and there is no need for you to make
any attempt as you are not the one presenting 'the new approach' to ibadah.
--------------------------
My understanding of
'Ibadah is the following:
Worship ('Ibadah) is the veneration (Ta'dhim) or the showing of submission/humiliation (Khudu') towards something with the belief that it has [at least some] attributes of lordship (Khasa`il al-Rububiyyah).
And this understanding is a classical one. That's why you will see that the scholars made a distinction between Sujud al-Tahiyyah (prostration of greeting) and Sujud al-'Ibadah (prostration of worship).
And the reason why I mentioned that there must be the belief of ascribing an attribute of lordship to that being that one shows some sort of submission/humiliation/veneration, is because otherwise many normal actions or even actions which are commanded in our religion would also become Shirk.
Worship ('Ibadah) is the veneration (Ta'dhim) or the showing of submission/humiliation (Khudu') towards something with the belief that it has [at least some] attributes of lordship (Khasa`il al-Rububiyyah).
And this understanding is a classical one. That's why you will see that the scholars made a distinction between Sujud al-Tahiyyah (prostration of greeting) and Sujud al-'Ibadah (prostration of worship).
And the reason why I mentioned that there must be the belief of ascribing an attribute of lordship to that being that one shows some sort of submission/humiliation/veneration, is because otherwise many normal actions or even actions which are commanded in our religion would also become Shirk.
-------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
Remember, they worshiped them in various ways (like taking them as
intercessors with Allah, which is not an aspect of rububiyya).
------------------
Believing in intercession itself is not Shirk, but these polytheists had already Shirki
beliefs regarding these so called intercessors
[and the way how they will intercede].
The problem with people who are influenced by the Najdi lack of understanding of intercession is that they mix up the intercession that the Muslims believe in and the intercession that the polytheists believe in and try to make look both like Shirk, while we know that the type of intercession that Muslims believe in is correct according to the religion of Allah.
As for the understanding of intercession of Muslims: We believe that it is allowed to ask created beings to supplicate for one to one's Lord. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala may accept such a supplication or not. This means there is no Shirk whatsoever involved in our understanding of intercession.
The problem with people who are influenced by the Najdi lack of understanding of intercession is that they mix up the intercession that the Muslims believe in and the intercession that the polytheists believe in and try to make look both like Shirk, while we know that the type of intercession that Muslims believe in is correct according to the religion of Allah.
As for the understanding of intercession of Muslims: We believe that it is allowed to ask created beings to supplicate for one to one's Lord. Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala may accept such a supplication or not. This means there is no Shirk whatsoever involved in our understanding of intercession.
An example: There is a narration which is mentioned in the Sahihayn where it is
mentioned that the people on the day of judgement will go to different Prophets
- peace be upon them - and ask them for intercession by saying "intercede
for us to your Lord" (اشفع لنا إلى ربك), but none of them will intercede. At the end they will go
to our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and ask him for intercession,
then he will fall in prostration until he'll be given the permission to
intercede.
As for the Arab polytheists: They worshipped other than Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and some of them claimed that they were doing this so that these [false] gods can bring them nearer to Allah (this is what some classical scholars would call as Shirk al-Taqrib). (See Ayah 39:3.)
As for the Arab polytheists: They worshipped other than Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala and some of them claimed that they were doing this so that these [false] gods can bring them nearer to Allah (this is what some classical scholars would call as Shirk al-Taqrib). (See Ayah 39:3.)
This was based upon their understanding that Allah ta'ala is like a king or
a father and that their [false] gods are like his ministers/princes or
sons/daughters.
I
would recommend you to read the following article: "Answering MIAW’s second principle of Shirk - hornofsatan"
Conclusion: They were also ascribing attributes of lordship to these so called intercessors.
An example: The Arab polytheist regarded Lat, Manat and 'Uzza as daughters of Allah (and this means that they regarded them as divine like their "father") and based upon this belief they worshipped them and regarded them as intercessors.
--------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
What we can say is that if it can be proven in a single instance
that people can worship someone or something without designating any rububiyya
to the object or person - then the 'new definition' becomes either deficient or
nullified.
--------------------
I've already mentioned
my understanding of 'Ibadah. What is
yours?
And: It has already been proven that the Arab polytheists would ascribe attributes of lordship to other than Allah.
And: It has already been proven that the Arab polytheists would ascribe attributes of lordship to other than Allah.
Shirk
= Ascribing a partner to Allah ta'ala [in his essence, attributes or actions] =
Ascribing an attribute/characteristic of lordship to other than Allah
Here
are some proofs for the above understanding:
From Sahih al-Bukhari:
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُرَحْبِيلَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ سَأَلْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَىُّ الذَّنْبِ أَعْظَمُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ قَالَ " أَنْ تَجْعَلَ لِلَّهِ نِدًّا وَهْوَ خَلَقَكَ ". قُلْتُ إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَعَظِيمٌ. قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىّ قَالَ " ثُمَّ أَنْ تَقْتُلَ وَلَدَكَ تَخَافُ أَنْ يَطْعَمَ مَعَكَ ". قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىّ قَالَ " ثُمَّ أَنْ تُزَانِيَ بِحَلِيلَةِ جَارِكَ
"Narrated `Abdullah:
I asked Allah's Messenger (S) "What is the biggest sin in the sight of Allah?" He said, "To set up rivals unto Allah though He alone created you." I said, "In fact, that is a tremendous sin," and added, "What next?" He said, "To kill your son being afraid that he may share your food with you." I further asked, "What next?" He said, "To commit illegal sexual intercourse with the wife of your neighbour.""
- end of the quote -
Look at the word that Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - used: Nidd.
And look what Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says:
From Sahih al-Bukhari:
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُرَحْبِيلَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ سَأَلْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَىُّ الذَّنْبِ أَعْظَمُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ قَالَ " أَنْ تَجْعَلَ لِلَّهِ نِدًّا وَهْوَ خَلَقَكَ ". قُلْتُ إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَعَظِيمٌ. قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىّ قَالَ " ثُمَّ أَنْ تَقْتُلَ وَلَدَكَ تَخَافُ أَنْ يَطْعَمَ مَعَكَ ". قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىّ قَالَ " ثُمَّ أَنْ تُزَانِيَ بِحَلِيلَةِ جَارِكَ
"Narrated `Abdullah:
I asked Allah's Messenger (S) "What is the biggest sin in the sight of Allah?" He said, "To set up rivals unto Allah though He alone created you." I said, "In fact, that is a tremendous sin," and added, "What next?" He said, "To kill your son being afraid that he may share your food with you." I further asked, "What next?" He said, "To commit illegal sexual intercourse with the wife of your neighbour.""
- end of the quote -
Look at the word that Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - used: Nidd.
And look what Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala says:
{ ٱلَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ ٱلأَرْضَ فِرَٰشاً وَٱلسَّمَاءَ بِنَآءً وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَآءً فَأَخْرَجَ بِهِ مِنَ ٱلثَّمَرَٰتِ رِزْقاً لَّكُمْ فَلاَ تَجْعَلُواْ للَّهِ أَندَاداً وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ }
{ He is the One who made the earth a bed for you, and the sky a roof, and sent down water from the sky, then brought forth with it fruits, as a provision for you. So, do not set up rivals to Allah when you know. }[2:22]
The word that is used here is Andad and it's the plural form of Nidd. There are many other Ayat where this word is also used (see 2:165, 14:30, 34:33, 39:8, 41:9).
The meaning of al-Nidd is rival, peer, match, equal or something that is similar.
{ He is the One who made the earth a bed for you, and the sky a roof, and sent down water from the sky, then brought forth with it fruits, as a provision for you. So, do not set up rivals to Allah when you know. }[2:22]
The word that is used here is Andad and it's the plural form of Nidd. There are many other Ayat where this word is also used (see 2:165, 14:30, 34:33, 39:8, 41:9).
The meaning of al-Nidd is rival, peer, match, equal or something that is similar.
----------------------
Die for Allah said: ↑
@Abu Sulayman, the idol worshipers at the time of
Ibrahim alayhi salam accepted that their idols do not harm or benefit yet their
devotion of them is described as being shirk in the book of Allah, what say you
about that?
----------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
This is not correct. They ran away from
answering the questions of Sayyidina Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - and said that
they found their forefathers worshipping idols.
But even if they would have said that their idols do not harm or benefit, then you should know that idol can refer to two things:
1) The statue/stone itself
2) That which this statue/stone represents
Regarding 1): The polytheists usually knew - with the exception of the very very idiotic ones among them - that the statue/stone itself could not harm or benefit, because these statues were formed by their own hands.
Regarding 2): The polytheists believed that these statues represented things like heavenly bodies (i.e. the sun, the moon and the stars), angels, jinn, prophets, etc., whom they ascribed divinity and of course they believed that they may bring benefit and harm.
But even if they would have said that their idols do not harm or benefit, then you should know that idol can refer to two things:
1) The statue/stone itself
2) That which this statue/stone represents
Regarding 1): The polytheists usually knew - with the exception of the very very idiotic ones among them - that the statue/stone itself could not harm or benefit, because these statues were formed by their own hands.
Regarding 2): The polytheists believed that these statues represented things like heavenly bodies (i.e. the sun, the moon and the stars), angels, jinn, prophets, etc., whom they ascribed divinity and of course they believed that they may bring benefit and harm.
There are also polytheists (like for example Hindus) who believe that some sort of divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
All of this is Shirk.
And by the way: We know that the people with whom Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - was discussing viewed the heavenly bodies as divine beings.
---------------------
Die for Allah said: ↑
It is also shirk to obey in halal and haram people in those matters
which oppose what Allah azza wa jal made halal and haram, those who obey their
priests and rabis do not ascribe lordship to them, they follow them in that
which they make halal for them and what they make haram for them, this shows
that shirk can occur without necessarily ascribing attributes of lordship to
other than Allah, what say you?
---------------------------
The
right of making something halal or haram is that of Allah ta'ala alone. Giving
this to other than Allah is like taking that being as a lord besides Allah
ta'ala and therefore Shirk. That's why for example secularism is Shirk.
(Note: In The Ayah that you're alluding to it's mentioned that they took their rabbis and priests as Arbab besides Allah ta'ala. Arbab is the plural form of Rabb.)
(Note: In The Ayah that you're alluding to it's mentioned that they took their rabbis and priests as Arbab besides Allah ta'ala. Arbab is the plural form of Rabb.)
---------------------
@Abu Sulayman - If you admit you haven't read my
argument because it is too long, it doesn't give you the right to regurgitate
the comments that have been sufficiently responded to, and clutter the thread.
---------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
------------------------
Die for Allah said: ↑
Your response does not make sense, if they accepted their idols
could not benefit or harm what difference does it make whether they meant the
actual idols themselves or that which they represent? Why didn't they tell
Ibrahim alayhi salam that their idols represent heavenly bodies or angels etc
and that they had divine qualities and that is why they worshiped them? Yes
they had shirki beliefs but here we are speaking specifically about the
exchange that took place between them and Ibrahim alayhi salam which Allah azza
wa jal made mention of in the Quran,
-----------------------------
You've basically no idea
what you're talking about. May I ask how it's allowed for you to interprete the Qur`an
al-karim by yourself? Is this a guessing game to you?
And are you honestly trying to tell us that these people believed that the things that these idols represented did not harm nor benefit? And you're saying all this after admitting that they had Shirki beliefs?
Allah ta'ala says:
{ وَحَآجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ قَالَ أَتُحَٰجُّوۤنِّي فِي ٱللَّهِ وَقَدْ هَدَانِ وَلاَ أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَشَآءَ رَبِّي شَيْئاً وَسِعَ رَبِّي كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْماً أَفَلاَ تَتَذَكَّرُونَ }
{ His people argued with him. He said, “Do you argue with me about Allah while He has already led me to the right path? I do not fear that which you associate with Him, (because it cannot harm me), unless, of course, something is willed by my Lord. My Lord encompasses everything with His knowledge. Would you, then, take no lesson? } [6:80]
Go look into some Tafsir books to know why Sayyidina Ibrahim - 'alayhi salatu was salam - said { I do not fear that which you associate with Him, }.
And are you honestly trying to tell us that these people believed that the things that these idols represented did not harm nor benefit? And you're saying all this after admitting that they had Shirki beliefs?
Allah ta'ala says:
{ وَحَآجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ قَالَ أَتُحَٰجُّوۤنِّي فِي ٱللَّهِ وَقَدْ هَدَانِ وَلاَ أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَشَآءَ رَبِّي شَيْئاً وَسِعَ رَبِّي كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْماً أَفَلاَ تَتَذَكَّرُونَ }
{ His people argued with him. He said, “Do you argue with me about Allah while He has already led me to the right path? I do not fear that which you associate with Him, (because it cannot harm me), unless, of course, something is willed by my Lord. My Lord encompasses everything with His knowledge. Would you, then, take no lesson? } [6:80]
Go look into some Tafsir books to know why Sayyidina Ibrahim - 'alayhi salatu was salam - said { I do not fear that which you associate with Him, }.
-----------------------
Die for Allah said: ↑
I was going by the previous translation posted in the other thread
--------------------
Allah
subhanahu wa ta'ala revealed the Qur`an in Arabic and NOT in English.
--------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
Let me now address the issue of the Arab mushrikeen ascribing
daughters to Allah and then seeking their intercession.
---------------------
If one would want to be more accurate one could
say: They seeked their intercession by worshipping them (and that is because
their understanding of intercession differs from that of Muslims).
--------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
There is no disagreement that they committed shirk. As to what type
of shirk that was, is the matter of contention.
--------------------
Ascribing daughters to Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala
is Shirk. Believing in the way of intercession in that they believed is also
Shirk.
It's not correct to say that a person with such beliefs is accepting the lordship of Allah ta'ala completely and without any partners.
It's not correct to say that a person with such beliefs is accepting the lordship of Allah ta'ala completely and without any partners.
--------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
I suggest that their shirk was not solely upon rububiyya with
istiqlal (lordship with independence from Allah's authority).
-------------------
Brother I've already told you that you've
misunderstand the issue of "independence" and why it was mentioned. It
was mentioned in order to be able to differentiate when an action or
ability/power can be regarded as an attribute of lordship and when not.
It seems to me that the only "independence" you mean is that of gods which are completely independent from each other. This would be for example what the Majus believed.
But as for the majority of the polytheists: They believed in the existance of many gods who may influence each other and each one of them has some attributes of lordship. That's why you will see them believing in things like a "rain god", "river god", "mountain god" etc.
It seems to me that the only "independence" you mean is that of gods which are completely independent from each other. This would be for example what the Majus believed.
But as for the majority of the polytheists: They believed in the existance of many gods who may influence each other and each one of them has some attributes of lordship. That's why you will see them believing in things like a "rain god", "river god", "mountain god" etc.
---------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
What if I say that they might well have believed that their gods had
authority from Allah to do things for them (thus dismissing the notion of
'rububiyya with istiqlal' and nullifying the new definition)?
---------------------
If
someone ascribes lordship/divnity to other than Allah, then it's not important
what a kind of justification he uses. It remains Shirk.
But let me answer what you mentioned:
First I remind you that those who committed Shirk al-Taqrib were believing that the relationship between Allah ta'ala and their [false] gods is that of a king to his ministers/princes (or a similar relationship).
Since a king has not enough knowledge nor enough power he needs his ministers and princes in order to rule his lands. So if a king authorises one of the princes to rule over one of his lands, then will he know everything that this prince will do there? No.
Does that prince rule by his own power or by the power of the king? By his own power, because otherwise the king would not be in need of him.
(And the above contains a form of independence.)
If you say: "What is your proof that they (Arab polytheists) believed that the power of their [false] gods causes real effects and is not connected to Allah's Qudrah in every moment?"
My answer is: It has been already shown that the Arab polytheists believed that the existance of many gods are necessary for the preservation of this world. The only way how this statement could be true [by their point of view] is if they believe that the power of their gods cause real effects, because otherwise they would've believed that Allah ta'ala alone can regulate and preserve the world.
But let me answer what you mentioned:
First I remind you that those who committed Shirk al-Taqrib were believing that the relationship between Allah ta'ala and their [false] gods is that of a king to his ministers/princes (or a similar relationship).
Since a king has not enough knowledge nor enough power he needs his ministers and princes in order to rule his lands. So if a king authorises one of the princes to rule over one of his lands, then will he know everything that this prince will do there? No.
Does that prince rule by his own power or by the power of the king? By his own power, because otherwise the king would not be in need of him.
(And the above contains a form of independence.)
If you say: "What is your proof that they (Arab polytheists) believed that the power of their [false] gods causes real effects and is not connected to Allah's Qudrah in every moment?"
My answer is: It has been already shown that the Arab polytheists believed that the existance of many gods are necessary for the preservation of this world. The only way how this statement could be true [by their point of view] is if they believe that the power of their gods cause real effects, because otherwise they would've believed that Allah ta'ala alone can regulate and preserve the world.
---------------------
Logic lover said: ↑
We don't have any proof of such belief of that particular
group of people. As you say that they ran away from answering the question
(as to whether the idols caused benefit or harm) by merely saying, 'we found
our forefathers doing so (ie worshiping the idols)'. This was possibly a form
of 'shirk of imitation' - one of the categories put forward by Imam Sanusi?
--------------------
Please brother try to
think logically and don't deny established facts.
- As for Shirk al-Taqlid: Yes it is among the types of Shirk that Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) mentioned. But what does it mean? It means to make Taqlid in Shirk, i.e. to believe in the same Shirkiyyat as one's forefathers but without knowing the philosophical foundations and the so called "proofs" for those beliefs.
Imam al-Sanusi has explained all six types of Shirk in his "Sharh al-Muqaddimat" (see p. 90-110 of the book or p. 95-115 of the pdf) (see p. 97-98/102-103 of the book/pdf; it's regarding Shirk al-Taqlid).
- It's a fact that the polytheists believe that idols represent something [like an angel, a heavenly body, a jinn, a prophet, etc.] whom they regard as divine and/or they believe that some divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
- It's also a fact that the polytheists worship these idols because they believe that the things that these idols represent can bring benefit and harm. Or do you think that these statues were simply normal stones to them who don't represent anything and that they were calling upon them and putting all their trust upon them and fight for them just for fun?
- As for Shirk al-Taqlid: Yes it is among the types of Shirk that Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) mentioned. But what does it mean? It means to make Taqlid in Shirk, i.e. to believe in the same Shirkiyyat as one's forefathers but without knowing the philosophical foundations and the so called "proofs" for those beliefs.
Imam al-Sanusi has explained all six types of Shirk in his "Sharh al-Muqaddimat" (see p. 90-110 of the book or p. 95-115 of the pdf) (see p. 97-98/102-103 of the book/pdf; it's regarding Shirk al-Taqlid).
- It's a fact that the polytheists believe that idols represent something [like an angel, a heavenly body, a jinn, a prophet, etc.] whom they regard as divine and/or they believe that some divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
- It's also a fact that the polytheists worship these idols because they believe that the things that these idols represent can bring benefit and harm. Or do you think that these statues were simply normal stones to them who don't represent anything and that they were calling upon them and putting all their trust upon them and fight for them just for fun?
From Thread Page 36:
--------------
-----------------------
Show me the verse please, where it is confirmed, the people questioned by Ibrahim a.s. believed that their idols could cause
benefit or harm.
----------------------
----------------------
Here are some tafaaseer on these ayaat, إن شاء الله we can
come to some kind of agreement.
Here is what al-Baghawi رحمه الله said about these verses:
( قالوا بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون) معناه : إنها لا تسمع قولا ولا تجلب نفعا ، ولا تدفع ضرا ، لكن اقتدينا بآبائنا . فيه إبطال التقليد في الدين .
Here is what al-Tabari رحمه الله said:
وقوله : ( أو ينفعونكم أو يضرون ) يقول : أو تنفعكم هذه الأصنام ، فيرزقونكم شيئا على عبادتكموها ، أو يضرونكم فيعاقبونكم على ترككم عبادتها بأن يسلبوكم أموالكم ، أو يهلكوكم إذا هلكتم وأولادكم ( قالوا بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) . وفي الكلام متروك استغني بدلالة ما ذكر عما ترك ، وذلك جوابهم إبراهيم عن مسألته إياهم : ( هل يسمعونكم إذ تدعون أو ينفعونكم أو يضرون ) فكان جوابهم إياه : لا ما يسمعوننا إذا دعوناهم ، ولا ينفعوننا ولا يضرون ، يدل على أنهم بذلك أجابوه . قولهم : ( بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) وذلك رجوع عن مجحود ، كقول القائل : ما كان كذا بل كذا وكذا ، ومعنى قولهم : ( وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) وجدنا من قبلنا ، ولا يضرون ، يدل على أنهم بذلك أجابوه ، قولهم من آبائنا يعبدونها ويعكفون عليها لخدمتها وعبادتها ، فنحن نفعل ذلك اقتداء بهم ، واتباعا لمنهاجهم .
Here is what Ibn Kathir رحمه الله said:
يعني : اعترفوا بأن أصنامهم لا تفعل شيئا من ذلك ، وإنما رأوا آباءهم كذلك يفعلون ، فهم على آثارهم يهرعون .
As we can see, here are three of the GIANTS of tafseer agreeing that Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people admitted their idols did not benefit nor harm them and rather they did this because they found their forefathers doing so. Now, of course this does not negate that they thought these gods represented other gods, but nowhere in Allah’s condemnation of their shirk do we see this mentioned. In fact, Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people did not say, “these idols don’t benefit us, rather what benefits us are the gods they represent.” As such, while anyone who claims that any other gods have استقلال/independence is obviously shirk, the majority of people, both based on Qur’aanic evidence and everyday experience, will deny that they believe actually has qualities of ربوبية. The conclusion then is obvious, belief in the استقلال of a god is not the only cause for an act to be labeled shirk.
والله أعلم
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is what al-Baghawi رحمه الله said about these verses:
( قالوا بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون) معناه : إنها لا تسمع قولا ولا تجلب نفعا ، ولا تدفع ضرا ، لكن اقتدينا بآبائنا . فيه إبطال التقليد في الدين .
Here is what al-Tabari رحمه الله said:
وقوله : ( أو ينفعونكم أو يضرون ) يقول : أو تنفعكم هذه الأصنام ، فيرزقونكم شيئا على عبادتكموها ، أو يضرونكم فيعاقبونكم على ترككم عبادتها بأن يسلبوكم أموالكم ، أو يهلكوكم إذا هلكتم وأولادكم ( قالوا بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) . وفي الكلام متروك استغني بدلالة ما ذكر عما ترك ، وذلك جوابهم إبراهيم عن مسألته إياهم : ( هل يسمعونكم إذ تدعون أو ينفعونكم أو يضرون ) فكان جوابهم إياه : لا ما يسمعوننا إذا دعوناهم ، ولا ينفعوننا ولا يضرون ، يدل على أنهم بذلك أجابوه . قولهم : ( بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) وذلك رجوع عن مجحود ، كقول القائل : ما كان كذا بل كذا وكذا ، ومعنى قولهم : ( وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) وجدنا من قبلنا ، ولا يضرون ، يدل على أنهم بذلك أجابوه ، قولهم من آبائنا يعبدونها ويعكفون عليها لخدمتها وعبادتها ، فنحن نفعل ذلك اقتداء بهم ، واتباعا لمنهاجهم .
Here is what Ibn Kathir رحمه الله said:
يعني : اعترفوا بأن أصنامهم لا تفعل شيئا من ذلك ، وإنما رأوا آباءهم كذلك يفعلون ، فهم على آثارهم يهرعون .
As we can see, here are three of the GIANTS of tafseer agreeing that Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people admitted their idols did not benefit nor harm them and rather they did this because they found their forefathers doing so. Now, of course this does not negate that they thought these gods represented other gods, but nowhere in Allah’s condemnation of their shirk do we see this mentioned. In fact, Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people did not say, “these idols don’t benefit us, rather what benefits us are the gods they represent.” As such, while anyone who claims that any other gods have استقلال/independence is obviously shirk, the majority of people, both based on Qur’aanic evidence and everyday experience, will deny that they believe actually has qualities of ربوبية. The conclusion then is obvious, belief in the استقلال of a god is not the only cause for an act to be labeled shirk.
والله أعلم
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
----------------------
Abu Sulayman said: ↑
Please brother try to think logically and don't deny established
facts.
- As for Shirk al-Taqlid: Yes it is among the types of Shirk that Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) mentioned. But what does it mean? It means to make Taqlid in Shirk, i.e. to believe in the same Shirkiyyat as one's forefathers but without knowing the philosophical foundations and the so called "proofs" for those beliefs.
Imam al-Sanusi has explained all six types of Shirk in his "Sharh al-Muqaddimat" (see p. 90-110 of the book or p. 95-115 of the pdf) (see p. 97-98/102-103 of the book/pdf; it's regarding Shirk al-Taqlid).
- It's a fact that the polytheists believe that idols represent something [like an angel, a heavenly body, a jinn, a prophet, etc.] whom they regard as divine and/or they believe that some divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
- It's also a fact that the polytheists worship these idols because they believe that the things that these idols represent can bring benefit and harm. Or do you think that these statues were simply normal stones to them who don't represent anything and that they were calling upon them and putting all their trust upon them and fight for them just for fun?
- As for Shirk al-Taqlid: Yes it is among the types of Shirk that Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) mentioned. But what does it mean? It means to make Taqlid in Shirk, i.e. to believe in the same Shirkiyyat as one's forefathers but without knowing the philosophical foundations and the so called "proofs" for those beliefs.
Imam al-Sanusi has explained all six types of Shirk in his "Sharh al-Muqaddimat" (see p. 90-110 of the book or p. 95-115 of the pdf) (see p. 97-98/102-103 of the book/pdf; it's regarding Shirk al-Taqlid).
- It's a fact that the polytheists believe that idols represent something [like an angel, a heavenly body, a jinn, a prophet, etc.] whom they regard as divine and/or they believe that some divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
- It's also a fact that the polytheists worship these idols because they believe that the things that these idols represent can bring benefit and harm. Or do you think that these statues were simply normal stones to them who don't represent anything and that they were calling upon them and putting all their trust upon them and fight for them just for fun?
----------------------
The tafaaseer contradict what you say brother. They admitted their gods don't benefit or harm as per the
majority of the mufassreen.
I think your problem is youre trying to make sense out of shirk when in reality, you should know better than anyone else that there is no logic behind shirk and ilhaad
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think your problem is youre trying to make sense out of shirk when in reality, you should know better than anyone else that there is no logic behind shirk and ilhaad
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
---------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
-----------------------
Quote:
Here are some tafaaseer on these ayaat, إن شاء الله we can
come to some kind of agreement.
-----------------------
I already
know that there are different interpretations of the Ayah among the Mufassirun,
but none of these Tafasir disproves my point and that is when they used to worship
their [false] gods and seeked their help they did this with the belief that
they can help them.
Why else were they asking them for help? Just for fun?
If we accept the Tafsir that their statement "bal" means an affirmation that the idols indeed do not harm or benefit, it just means that they admitted this AFTER Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - had refuted their false Madhhab and they did not know how to respond.
This has been already discussed in another thread (see here: "Did the People of Ibrahim have Shirk in Rububiyyah?"), so there is no point to repeat all that. The brothers Justabro and Nazeelu have already clarified the issue in that thread.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why Sayyidina Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - said the following to his people: { وَلاَ أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ } / { I do not fear that which you associate with Him, } [6:80].
(See also what is written in Tafsir books.)
Why else were they asking them for help? Just for fun?
If we accept the Tafsir that their statement "bal" means an affirmation that the idols indeed do not harm or benefit, it just means that they admitted this AFTER Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - had refuted their false Madhhab and they did not know how to respond.
This has been already discussed in another thread (see here: "Did the People of Ibrahim have Shirk in Rububiyyah?"), so there is no point to repeat all that. The brothers Justabro and Nazeelu have already clarified the issue in that thread.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why Sayyidina Ibrahim - 'alayhis salam - said the following to his people: { وَلاَ أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ } / { I do not fear that which you associate with Him, } [6:80].
(See also what is written in Tafsir books.)
-----------------------
the majority of people, both based on Qur’aanic evidence and
everyday experience, will deny that they believe actually has qualities of ربوبية.
----------------------
This
is soo wrong.
So christians deny that 'Isa bin Maryam - 'alayhis salam - has qualities of lordship?
And the Hindus deny that some beings - who have qualities of lordship - indwell in their idols when they worship them?
And the Arab polytheists who ascribed daughters to Allah, believed in the existance of many gods who are needed for the preservation of this world, maybe even cursed Allah when one cursed their [false] gods, where they not ascribing attributes lordship to many beings?
What about the Majus?
What about the ancient Egyptians?
What about the ancient Greeks?
What about those so called "earth religions"?
What about all those who ascribed lordship to heavenly bodies?
Should I keep on?
So christians deny that 'Isa bin Maryam - 'alayhis salam - has qualities of lordship?
And the Hindus deny that some beings - who have qualities of lordship - indwell in their idols when they worship them?
And the Arab polytheists who ascribed daughters to Allah, believed in the existance of many gods who are needed for the preservation of this world, maybe even cursed Allah when one cursed their [false] gods, where they not ascribing attributes lordship to many beings?
What about the Majus?
What about the ancient Egyptians?
What about the ancient Greeks?
What about those so called "earth religions"?
What about all those who ascribed lordship to heavenly bodies?
Should I keep on?
----------------------
Now, of course this does not negate that they thought these gods
represented other gods, but nowhere in Allah’s condemnation of their shirk do
we see this mentioned. In fact, Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people
did not say, “these idols don’t benefit us, rather what benefits us are the
gods they represent.”
----------------------
Your statement would
mean that
Allah ta'ala only refuted them from one side and this is not correct.
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala refuted idolatry from all sides.
First of all: Idolatry is idiotic. If they wanted to worship a star or an angel, what's the point of making a statue that represents these beings and to treat these idols as if they were these very beings? (And this is what they did!)
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala clarified that these idols where nothing but lifeless stones which could not harm or benefit one:
{ أَلَهُمْ أَرْجُلٌ يَمْشُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ أَيْدٍ يَبْطِشُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا قُلِ ٱدْعُواْ شُرَكَآءَكُمْ ثُمَّ كِيدُونِ فَلاَ تُنظِرُونِ }
{ Do they have legs to walk with? Or do they have hands to grasp with? Or do they have eyes to see with or do they have ears to hear with? Say, “Call to your associate-gods, then, plot against me and allow me no respite. } [7:195]
{ وَلاَ تَدْعُ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُكَ وَلاَ يَضُرُّكَ فَإِن فَعَلْتَ فَإِنَّكَ إِذاً مِّنَ ٱلظَّالِمِينَ }
{ And do not invoke, other than Allah, what neither benefits you nor harms you, for, if you do so, then you will surely be one of the unjust. } [10:106]
As for the things that they claimed that it represents: Allah ta'ala clarified that these names were just invented by them and their forefathers:
{ إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ أَسْمَآءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أَنتُمْ وَآبَآؤُكُم مَّآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ ٱلظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى ٱلأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَآءَهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ }
{ These are nothing but names you and your fathers have invented; Allah has sent down no authority attached to them. They are following nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, while guidance from their Lord has surely reached them. } [53:23]
And if the polytheists were to say "what about angels? don't you believe in their existance", then Allah ta'ala has clarified that they're his servants and not divine beings as they claimed:
{ وَقَالُواْ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ وَلَداً سُبْحَانَهُ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّكْرَمُونَ }
{ لاَ يَسْبِقُونَهُ بِٱلْقَوْلِ وَهُمْ بِأَمْرِهِ يَعْمَلُونَ }
{ يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَلاَ يَشْفَعُونَ إِلاَّ لِمَنِ ٱرْتَضَىٰ وَهُمْ مِّنْ خَشْيَتِهِ مُشْفِقُونَ }
{ They said, “The All-Merciful has taken children for Himself.” Pure is He (from having children). They are but (His) honored servants. }
{ They do not precede Him in speech, and only under His command they act. }
{ He knows what is in front of them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves, and in awe of Him they are fearful. } [21:26-28]
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala refuted idolatry from all sides.
First of all: Idolatry is idiotic. If they wanted to worship a star or an angel, what's the point of making a statue that represents these beings and to treat these idols as if they were these very beings? (And this is what they did!)
Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala clarified that these idols where nothing but lifeless stones which could not harm or benefit one:
{ أَلَهُمْ أَرْجُلٌ يَمْشُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ أَيْدٍ يَبْطِشُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا قُلِ ٱدْعُواْ شُرَكَآءَكُمْ ثُمَّ كِيدُونِ فَلاَ تُنظِرُونِ }
{ Do they have legs to walk with? Or do they have hands to grasp with? Or do they have eyes to see with or do they have ears to hear with? Say, “Call to your associate-gods, then, plot against me and allow me no respite. } [7:195]
{ وَلاَ تَدْعُ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُكَ وَلاَ يَضُرُّكَ فَإِن فَعَلْتَ فَإِنَّكَ إِذاً مِّنَ ٱلظَّالِمِينَ }
{ And do not invoke, other than Allah, what neither benefits you nor harms you, for, if you do so, then you will surely be one of the unjust. } [10:106]
As for the things that they claimed that it represents: Allah ta'ala clarified that these names were just invented by them and their forefathers:
{ إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ أَسْمَآءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أَنتُمْ وَآبَآؤُكُم مَّآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ ٱلظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى ٱلأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَآءَهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ }
{ These are nothing but names you and your fathers have invented; Allah has sent down no authority attached to them. They are following nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, while guidance from their Lord has surely reached them. } [53:23]
And if the polytheists were to say "what about angels? don't you believe in their existance", then Allah ta'ala has clarified that they're his servants and not divine beings as they claimed:
{ وَقَالُواْ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ وَلَداً سُبْحَانَهُ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّكْرَمُونَ }
{ لاَ يَسْبِقُونَهُ بِٱلْقَوْلِ وَهُمْ بِأَمْرِهِ يَعْمَلُونَ }
{ يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَلاَ يَشْفَعُونَ إِلاَّ لِمَنِ ٱرْتَضَىٰ وَهُمْ مِّنْ خَشْيَتِهِ مُشْفِقُونَ }
{ They said, “The All-Merciful has taken children for Himself.” Pure is He (from having children). They are but (His) honored servants. }
{ They do not precede Him in speech, and only under His command they act. }
{ He knows what is in front of them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves, and in awe of Him they are fearful. } [21:26-28]
------------------------
The reality is these acts (prostrating, bowing, sacrificing,
supplicating) are acts of shirk when done to other than Allah, however, the
person can only be a mushrik if these acts accompany a belief that negates
Tawhid.
------------------------
To say that prostrating to other than Allah is
Shirk is wrong, because it would mean that Allah ta'ala has commanded the
angels to commit "Shirk" (and this is impossible). And that Ya'qub -
'alayhis salam - committed "Shirk" when he prostrated in front of his
son Yusuf, 'alayhis salam. It is forbidden in our Shari'ah, but it was allowed
in the law of the earlier prophets.
(To prostrate for an idol or the sun or the moon etc. is Kufr.)
As for supplicating? What does that mean? If you mean Du'a` al-'Ibadah, then I agree.
If however you mean Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah with the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah, then I completely disagree.
(To prostrate for an idol or the sun or the moon etc. is Kufr.)
As for supplicating? What does that mean? If you mean Du'a` al-'Ibadah, then I agree.
If however you mean Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah with the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah, then I completely disagree.
-----------------------
As far as Hindus, then we have already had the discussion that
according to Hatim al-Awni’s madhhab (and apparently yours, please correct me
if I’m wrong بارك الله فيك), that Hindus would NOT be mushrisks because their belief is
nothing like you are presenting. Here is a sample:
“Allegory is a key element of Hindu religion. Each attribute of the God as imagined by the devotee is depicted in form of a deity such as purity and potency in linga, fierce ruthlessness towards evil in durga, cosmic force in Vishnu, amenable kindness and auspiciousness in Ganesha, extreme and indomitable power and pride in Murugan, power in Hanuman. The multiple heads or limbs of Lord Vishnu or goddess Durga often seen in Hindu art, for example, would be intended to represent divine omniscience and omnipotence, whereas the use of an animal icons for vehicle would seek to allegorically represent particular abstract qualities associated with that animal/bird such as astuteness, agility or power. Gestures (mudra) the hand or the holding of a certain object are also heavily weighted with meaning. Certain tenets such as non-violence and search for God in all beings living and non-living led to depiction of several other forms.”
Notice how they believe that their idols represent Allah or His Attributes نعوذ بالله. Apparently, this would not be shirk since they don’t believe their idols are independent gods.
“Allegory is a key element of Hindu religion. Each attribute of the God as imagined by the devotee is depicted in form of a deity such as purity and potency in linga, fierce ruthlessness towards evil in durga, cosmic force in Vishnu, amenable kindness and auspiciousness in Ganesha, extreme and indomitable power and pride in Murugan, power in Hanuman. The multiple heads or limbs of Lord Vishnu or goddess Durga often seen in Hindu art, for example, would be intended to represent divine omniscience and omnipotence, whereas the use of an animal icons for vehicle would seek to allegorically represent particular abstract qualities associated with that animal/bird such as astuteness, agility or power. Gestures (mudra) the hand or the holding of a certain object are also heavily weighted with meaning. Certain tenets such as non-violence and search for God in all beings living and non-living led to depiction of several other forms.”
Notice how they believe that their idols represent Allah or His Attributes نعوذ بالله. Apparently, this would not be shirk since they don’t believe their idols are independent gods.
-----------------------
Abu Sulayman Reply:
Look brother, you can repeat the word
"independent" thousand times, but it will not help us in the
discussion, because it still seems that none of you wants to understand why the
issue of independence was even mentioned. I won't repeat myself regarding that.
As for the above beliefs: How exactly is that Tawhid? These people believe in a god who has many forms and they believe in hulul (indwelling) and other than that.
If this is Tawhid, then what is Shirk?
As for the above beliefs: How exactly is that Tawhid? These people believe in a god who has many forms and they believe in hulul (indwelling) and other than that.
If this is Tawhid, then what is Shirk?
---
