A Dialogue With Wahhabi On Shirk Of Attributes.

[MuhammedAli]

Background:

I went to my local shop to purchase a can of Redbull. While I was paying for the drink a friend of mine whom I had very good frienship in college days entered the shop with his young daughter and son. After customary greetings we stood outside the shop to catch-up with lattest news of each others life. He noticing my beard enquired if I have continued my studies of comparative religion. Told him that I had given up on it very long time ago due to uncertaintities of my own aqeedah and due to it I wanted to devote more time to learning of aqeedah. During discussing about Hadhrat Ali’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) dispute with Hadhrat Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) I used the word Mawla (Master, Supporter, Protector)  with Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). He seemed to be surprised that I used this word for him and indirectly hinted that the word I used is Shirk by saying; brother Ali we must not use all the words we hear cause some words if used even unitentionally can make a believer guilty of Shirk. At that moment I could not make connection between the word I used and his comment. So I assumed its one random comment which doesn’t have anything to with what I have said and I aknowledged that the we should use words which may make a Muslim polytheist. At that moment he began to fill me up with his brand of Wahhabism.

Round One – Advantage To Wahhabi:

Wahhabi Said: The word Mawla is unique title of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) and you have granted a exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to a creation. No where the word Mawla has been used for a creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) in Quran or Hadith. The Arabs of Jahiliyyah also attributed to their idol gods exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) like you attributed the exclusive attribute of Mawla to Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu). [Then really symphathetically and sincerely said] Brother this is Shirk and be aware of commiting such Shirk because this is the only sin which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not forgive. You should repent my brother othewise you will be with the Mushrikeen on day of judgement and those whom you associate with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not be able to help you in anyway.[1]

I Said: According to you, use of title Mawla for a Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is Shirk because you believe it is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). There are many narrations which quote the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) which he used for Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “Whoever I am a Mawla (i.e. master, supporter) for, then Ali is his Mawla.”[2]

Wahhabi said: Brother this hadith is extremely weak so it cannot be used as evidence.[3]

I Said: Okay, if the hadith is weak then certainly it cannot be used as evidence and I have nothing to contest in this regard but I do have number of questions. Is Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) a momin? What proof do you have that Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?[4]

Wahhabi Said: Yes, ofcourse he is a Momin. We Salafi’s believe that he was fourth rightly guided Caliph of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Anyone who has a even a seed worth of hate for him such a person is a munafiq. [On and on …][5]

Round Two – Wahhabi Dazed & Stumbling:

[Note: In the evening as expected my Wahhabi friend called after Isha and wished to bring his friends with him. Which was polite of him but I had to refuse his request to bring all his friends along. Reason I explained to him that house I live in was council built property hence there are no solid walls and these card board type walls carry sound uninterrupted to the entire house. Thus having too many people will result in typical shouting which is inherent part of such discussions and it will disturb my uncle and aunty who are quite old. Which he was gentleman about and agreed to come with one of his friends who was driver. When he reached outside my house he called, I greeted, seated him and his friend in the guest room.  Skip …]

I Said: What is the proof that Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?[6]

Wahhabi Said: The following verses of Quran prove Mawla is unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala):
 “… our Lord! Put not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Pardon us and grant us Forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are Mawlana( our Mawla) and give us victory over the disbelieving people.” [Ref: 2:284] “Say: "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us: He is our Mawla and on Allah let the Believers put their trust.” [Ref: 9:51] Both of these verses clearly prove that Mawla is attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you know that if a attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is given to a creation then its Shirk.

I Said: You do know that the Mawlana is used as a title in subcontinent for the scholars by Deobandi’s, Wahhabi’s and even by Sunni’s.Yet no one from amongst them has issued fatwa of Shirk. Accepting that you question the aqeedah of Tawheed of Sunni’s and Shia’s but even the Pakistani Wahhabi’s have not issued edict of Shirk on its use.I cannot vouch for any other faction but as far as I know the scholars of Ahle Sunnat. They are very principled and would not practice favourtism on such serious issue of Shirk instead they would level the charge of Shirk if it was so.[7]

Wahhabi Said:  People do not associate the word Mawla with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) because its use has been associated with scholars of deen from past generations therefore its use poses no danger to one's aqeedah of Tawheed. When the word Mawlana is popularly associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in subcontinent then its use for any creation would be Shirk.[8]

I Said: The principle used by you to determine Shirk is; any attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) affirmed creation is Shirk. Based on this principle, the excuse for not making takfir of all parties is invalid because according to your principles of determining exclusivity. You believe the word Mawla is uniquely, exclusively, used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in the Quran and the word Mawla has been associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in Quran by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) Himself. You criteria to judge Shirk is based on exclusivity lafzi on evidence of Quran, Hadith, not if creation of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has associated a word with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) or not. It is established unquestionably that in the Quran word Mawla has been used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hence in your methodology there is no valid reason to not to consider use of Mawla for creation to be major Shirk. This establishes that in your methodology of determining Shirk, exclusivity itself is not enough to judge major Shirk but other factors may alter the verdict. On the basis of your statement; when a attribute is commonly used for creation and is not associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) it is not Shirk. Can we infere the fallowing principle; when a title is commonly used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and not associated with creation then if it is used for a creation, it is Shirk? Can you answer this question now, please so I can continue.

Wahhabi Said: Well, brother if there is evidence for it then it cannot be Shirk even if it was commonly associated with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[9]

I Said: This leads to problematic aspect of application of reverse infered principle; even though Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is Rauf, Raheem but because commonly Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is stated to be Rauf, Raheem and the words are asscicated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hence to believe Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) is Rauf, Raheem is Shirk. If your principle; when a attribute is commonly used for creation and is not associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) it is not Shirk.’ is correct then my reverse inferred principle is also correct.[10]

Wahhabi-2 Said: You have commited kufr by saying; anyone who believes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is Rauf, Raheem is committing Shirk, because we believe that any attribute which is proven for a creation cannot be Shirk if a creation is equated with this attribute. He went on to say; in Saudi Arabia the Islamic court would have judged my statement to be kufr which would have earned you death sentence due to kufr being apostacy.

I Said: Your principle of determining Shirk states; any attribute of Allah affirmed for creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or Hadith. So you are upset that I did not employ; except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or hadith, in giving your Wahhabi verdict. Employing it would mean that since the attributes of Rauf, Raheem are affirmed for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) they are not Shirk in Wahhabism. In reality your brother ignored the first part of the principle; exclusive (i.e. Mawla) attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk, to exonerate a bunch of people from Shirk. Then your brother here went on to present his case; word Mawla is used for creation but its not associated with Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) hence its not Shirk to adress creation of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala). So if anyone committed kufr according to your own system is your friend here and if anyone deserves death sentence for legalizing major Shirk its your friend here not me. I merely went to the opposite extreme to demonstrate the error of my friends principle. Based on his princple I reverse inferred the following position; when a attribute is popularly used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and not associated with creation then if it is used for a creation, then it will warrant Shirk.To establish a fault in such concocted principles I argued that popularly the words Rauf, Raheem are used for Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and are not associated with Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) hence it is Shirk to use them for Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam).Your friend ignored this part of the principle; exclusive (i.e. Mawla) attribute of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) attributed to a creation is Shirk, to lift the sword of takfir from the necks of Ahle Hadith of subcontinent. I on other hand ignored the second part of your own principle; except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or hadith in order to justify takfir of those who do use Rauf, Raheem as titles of Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam). You was selectivly applying your principle of Shirk but when I bent your rules you was unhappy about it. This relaxing of  rules of determining Shirk by you and me is without set guidelines. So anyone can relax any part of the principle or mint a new rule to justify a position. The danger of your methodology of determining Shirk is that it can be used to legalise what in your understanding should be major Shirk, like it has happened in this case. It also can be altered at will and utilised to demonise and hereticate the established believes of Quran. You are a slightly sober Wahhabi who understands the enormity of firing takfir nuclear bomb and you comprimised the principle to allow some bad Wahhabi apples to be with the good apples. You didn’t go as far as declaring these apples are no longer apples but they are vegetables. This rare show of tolerance only has surfaced because you are aware that your own Wahhabi brethren would become vegetables with your edict of takfir and not for love of truth or fear of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala).[11]

[Note: After repeating bits and pieaces of above few times the penny dropped with them that they have made a mistake by comprimising their principle of Shirk; any attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) affirmed for creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or Hadith and then decided to hold to it in whole. I then went to get some refreshments for them and well deserved cup of tea for my self. I had very bad head ache after banging my head against two walls of stupidity for an hour and fifteen minutes.]

Round Three – Wahhabi Down & Out:

I Said: I demanded proof which proves that Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not Mawla being attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I agree with you that Mawla is attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but I disagree that Mawla is exclusive and unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore furnish me with evidence which proves Mawla is exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi Said: Let me quote yo verses of Quran:“Nay, Allah is your Mawla and He is the Best of helpers.” [Ref: 3:150] “And if they turn away, then know that Allah is your Mawla (what) an Excellent Mawla, and (what) an Excellent Helper!” [Ref: 8:40] “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Mawla and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.” [Ref: 62:2] There are many verses of Quran which prove that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), our Lord, our Creator is Mawla yet there is not a single verse of Quran or authentic hadith which proves a creation is Mawla. Now brother tell me if Mawla is exclusive attribute or not in light of these facts.

I Said: You are correct to state that attribute of Mawla is unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) …[12]

Wahhabi Said: Well this proves our point. You just have demolished your own position and validated our argument.[13]

I Said: Yes you are right that Mawla is a unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but not in the meaning which you believe it to be unique attribute. You believe that Mawla hasn’t been used for a creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran or Hadith therefore it is unique attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This belief is heretical because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Mawla of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as well as Saleh Momineen, and angles: “If you two turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined but if you help one another against him, then verily, Allah is his Mawla, and Jibrael, and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.” [Ref: 66:4] Therefore in your methodology Mawla cannot be unique, exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). On the basis of this fault you have accused me of committing major Shirk as well as in principle agreed to make takfir of those who use word Mawla for creation. Now coming to how I believe Mawla is unique, exclusive attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I believe these attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are unique, exclusive in meaning of;  zaati (i.e. personnel), qadeemi (i.e. eternal), ghair izni (i.e. requiring no permission), qulli (i.e. absolute), la mahdood (i.e. unlimited), ghair-makhlooq (i.e. uncreated), and haqiqi (i.e. intrinsic). If one does not believe attributes which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) shared with creation to be unique, exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then the person has committed major Shirk. Therefore it is essential to believe all attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are unique and exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Any principle which produces result contrary to this infact has legalised major Shirk. Your principle teaches; only those attributes which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not share with his creation are unique, exclusive attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore the principle which legalises major Shirk cannot be valid but its heretical and I dare to say kufr. Coming to Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being Mawla. If you remember earlier today you conceded that Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is Momin and the verse of Quran says: “... Allah is his Mawla, and Jibrael, and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.” Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is amongst the Saleh ul Momineen (i.e. pious believers) therefore your denial of his being Mawla is atleast at present heretical if not kufr. Also the charge of Shirk which you levelled against me returns to you and its essential that you re-affirm you faith in Islam with Shahadah.

[Note: My this response changed the battlefield completely. Now instead of debating with me they were more concerned about how to make a honorable retreat and recover some lost ground. After few half hearted attempts both of them came to realize there is no point in debating further; the mud will only dry in the heat and their chance of getting out safely would increasingly be slimmer. So they resorted to apeasement and promised that they will return to learn more about the aqeedah of Tawheed as well as Shirk. Between the discussion and writing of this note it’s been about three and half years. I am still waiting for the day they visit me again for some ear bashing.]

Conclusion:

We realise the three important aspects of Wahhabi methodology of determining Shirk; one, the Wahhabi principles of Shirk are incomplete even in their invalid state. Two; the justification for abstaining from Takfir is batil because exclusivity in their methodology is determined exclusively on textual proofs and not on usage of words by creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) for another creation. Finally three; Wahhabi'ism is belief system equale to; pay as you go, eat as you go, and now make wahhabi'ism as you go. Had his methodology, understanding and application of principles of Shirk been correct they would not have had to ignore any part of their principles nor reverse inference would have contradicted anything of their belief.

Muhammed Ali Razavi
Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen

Footnotes:

- [1] With his unflinching, uncomprimising and take no prisoner attitude I was taken aback. Being unsure how to respond to him. The choices were two; be my rude, agressive self or for the guidance maintain respectful, tolerant as well as professional decorum. Sense prevailed, I decided to bottle in the rage which all Pakistani’s feel discussing religious issues with someone who disagrees with them and resort to shouting, screaming to get their point across.

- [2] Before I could actually fully explain my point view comprehensively his quarter pint paitence glass was full and he interjected with his two shillings worth of knowledge. Which made my blood boil and I was inches away from blasting him with verbal Tiger Fist but self reminder; Ali breath-in and ignore.

- [3] I usually take word of people when they term a hadith weak or forged because no Muslim in sane mind would deliberately term a actual Sahih hadith; a statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as weak or fabricated. Upon hearing his insolent interjection I decided not to press on with the authenticity of the hadith but decided to drop the issue. Continuing it would not have produced any result because situation would have been; my words against his, my source scholars against his source scholars. I wasn’t entirely sure about the hadith being weak but the thought; he may possibly quote traditional scholarship in defence of his position, was enough to deter me from getting involved into un-ending debate about authenticity of a hadith. I later investigated the subject from Sunni, Wahhabi, Deobandi, and even Shia sources and found that there are some narrations which have defects in them but some have reached level of Hassan as well as Sahih.

- [4] He seemed to be surprised that I asked him Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being Momin. I think he assumed; I [Muhammed Ali Razavi] have concluded he is a Khariji and based on his this assumption he answered my first question.

- [5] He went on praising Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu), highlighting his qualities for quite bit of time. It was the first time while mentioning Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he used honourable (i.e. Hazrat) has a prefix to name of Hadhrat Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and used customary dua; Allah be pleased with him. I couldn’t hold my peace for much longer and to rest is guilty concious I had to tell him that I do not believe he is a Khariji just because he declared a hadith as daeef. By the time I managed to rest his guilty concious quite bit of time had passed so I asked him if he would like to visit me and we then will continue from where we left off. To which he agreed, we exchanged  phone numbers and he promised he will call before he visits. But before he left I repeated my second question and asked him if he could bring sources for his position, he replied he would.

- [6] Hearing this question he began to sift through the printed papers which he had brought along with him and then adressed me; If you like to varify any verse I quote you can use the translation of the Quran. I just acknowledged that if need arised I would and told him to present his evidence. Note he would quote the Arabic verse then quoted the and he quoted full verses.

- [7] I was of opinion that if I hit him with common sense right between his eyes and above the nose he will concede that he has made a mistake. I was hoping that he will realize that Ahle Hadith who hold to same concept of Tawheed in subcontinent as he does in England. Would have denounced the use of Mawlana as Shirk if it violated anything in Tawheed but he was not willing to accept anything less then him being right and Ahle Hadith being wrong. When I pressed him to issue edict of Shirk upon the Ahle Hadith of subcontinent he made excuse for them.

- [8] With this huge brush he tried to sweep the issue of takfir of Ahle Hadith under the carpet and under the floor boards. I could have easily responded with and end the discussion; well, I do not associate the word Mawla or Mawlana with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), but I decided why do it the easy way when I can do it the hard way.

- [9] Quoted him the evidence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) being rauf ur raheem from Quran: “Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He is anxious over you for the believers he is rauf ur raheem ( kind and mercifu).” [Ref: 9:128] and asked him if use of Rauf and Raheem for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) be Shirk? To which he replied in negative.

- [10] At this stage my friend’s colleuge could not tolerate my innovation and he was visibly angry.

- [11] After repeating bits and pieaces of above few times the penny dropped with them that they have made a mistake by comprimising their principle of Shirk; any attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) affirmed for creation is Shirk except what is affirmed for a creation in Quran or Hadith and then decided to hold to it in whole.

- [12] Once again my friend could not keep his peace and didn’t let me complete my sentence and interjected. With a bright smile on the face, as if he has conquered mount Everest.

- [13] I had to plead both of them to be quite so I can complete my statement and present my evidence to refute their none sense. And after having to listen to some stinging rebukes i.e. only stupid person would continue to argue against our position. When they both finally agreed to listen to me I proceeded.

Edited 28 اگست 2013 by MuhammedAli