Discussions On Subject Of Istighathah And On Hadith, O Servants Of Allah Help Me.

[MuhammedAli]

Discussions On Subject Of Istighathah And On Hadith, O Servants Of Allah Help Me.

Introduction:

Istighathah is an act in which a believer requests help from living righteous servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or from soul of deceased righteous servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Commonly only the second aspect of Istighathah, seeking help of deceased Awliyah, is debated and seeking help from living, some, might not even consider it Istighathah but it is Istighathah. In both cases intention is to act on Ahadith which teach servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) should be asked for assistance when no other help is available. Hence belief is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed angels, righteous living servants and has granted power, authority, ability to souls of Awliyah to provide help. Wahhabis consider this practice, even though it is established from Ahadith, as major Shirk and say practice of it warrants expulsion from Islam and legitimises murder of anyone practicing it. In their Wahhabis killed tens of thousands of Sunni Muslims in Arabia. They have acted on murderous teaching and continue to do so ever since they have appeared in Najd. Shaykh al-Najd deemed entire population of Arabia and world other than his own followers as Mushrikeen. Here let a disgruntled Wahhabi tell you the barbarity and whole sale expulsion of Muslims from Islam and their murder, here. Abusing a Muslim is Fisq (i.e. act of disobedience) and killing him is act of disbelief and unjustly charging Muslim of disbelief is act of disbelief. Sunni scholarship of past going back to companion and present judged Istighathah as permissible. At odds are not just Wahhabis and Sunnis, and at stake is not just practice of Istighathah, life, property, Iman, Islam of Muslims but also two corner stones of Islam. Tawheed and Shirk. To make Istighathah Shirk and against Tawheed Wahhabis invented their own versions Tawheed and Shirk, and their own methodology to determine each. In this discussion Wahhabi version of Tawheed/Shirk and their methodology has been exposed and established there is no Tawheed in their definition Tawheed and there is no Shirk in their definition of Shirk. And it is established beyond shadow of doubt Wahhabism has no evidence in Quran/Sunnah to support their methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk. In a subsequent discussion nearly a decade later Wahhabi brother Umar repented, here. Third discussion on the same topic took place between me and brother Umar’s closest friend brother Abdullah, here.

The Initial Discussion And Background Information About It:

Quite a while back in 2011 I quite regularly frequented PalTalk Islamic public Rooms for exchange of ideas. During one of the visit, I heard a Wahhabi (i.e. brother Umar) making Takfir of Muslims due to practice of Istighathah. After waiting for bit of time, I raised my hand in the Room, and eventually had chance to speak on microphone. There I categorically stated Istighathah is not Shirk and only the Khawarij or those influenced by them charge the Muslims of committing Shirk. He challenged saying; there was not a single verse of Qur’an or a Hadith which proves practice of Istighathah. I responded, I would be under the burden of establishing Istighathah with explicit evidences from Qur’anic or Hadith IF I had stated/claimed Istighathah was commanded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Qur’an or it is Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I merely believe Istighathah is not Shirk and those who engage in this practice are Muslims. I said since you made the claim Istighathah is Shirk please quote me a single verse of the Qur’an or a single Hadith which establishes Istighathah is Shirk.

Second Chance And His Best Effort To Establish His Allegation:

This time around he attempted to justify his Takfir with arguments bereft of textual proofs:  (1) dead cannot help therefore it is Shirk, (2) asking from a creation what is not in power of creation is Shirk, (3) asking the dead to help you is Dua, Dua is worship, worship directed to creation is Shirk. After waiting for about ten minutes I took the microphone again and I asked; where is the proof from Qur’an and Ahadith that Istighathah is Shirk, one Ayat or Hadith. Also where did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say in Qur’an or Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said which is recorded in Hadith that dead cannot help therefore seeking their help is Shirk? Can I have evidence from Qur’an and Hadith which establishes that asking from creation what is not in power of creation is Shirk? Lastly, where did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says asking the dead to help you is Dua? Isn’t asking the living Dua as well? Do you not ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Living for your needs and is that not Dua? Asking the living to give you something is also in linguistic sense Dua (i.e. calling) of help. You believe calling the dead to help is Shirk because it is Dua yet the calling the living to help is also Dua so why will you not make Takfir of those who call the living to help?

Last Attempt To Establish His Stance Ends In Failure:

He took the microphone again but did not answer the four points. Instead he tried to justify why he does not make Takfir of those who call the living to help. He said something in line with, help sought and provided is from living and by living is in means available to creation therefore neither seeking help, nor granting help warrants Shirk. Eventually I took the microphone and repeated the demand of evidence and answer to my questions. And informed him and the listeners that the principles on which Wahhabi is judging Muslims to be polytheists are without a basis in religion of Islam. They are reprehensible innovations which have no backing of book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And in regards to his defence that seeker seeks and giver provides help of type which is available to creation therefore it is not Shirk: I said his defence is totally irrelevant and does not remove actual Shirk. Tawheed/Shirk is judged on basis of ascribing Ilah/Rabb partners. Once Ilahiyyah, or Rububiyyah is affirmed for a creation then even IF help sought from that creation and help given is according to means available to help giver still Shirk has been committed. Shirk isn’t determined on what type of help has been sought but equality with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, and His Asma Wal Sifat warrants Shirk. And seeking of natural or supernatural help from any creation believed as a non-Ilah, non-Rabb entity in anyway does not establish required equality in Ilahiyyah, or Rububiyyah, or in Asma Wal Sifat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to warrant charge of major Shirk.

Admin Team Intervenes And Saves The Day For Wahhabism:

(i) Room I was discussing was controlled by Wahhabis and the embarrassment he caused them and to himself forced the Admin team to intervene. I cannot recall correctly IF he was part of Admin/Mod team, or he just was prominent member of PalTalk group. They red-dotted me and my Wahhabi opponent (i.e. took away the access to microphone) on the pretext of both of us were hogging the microphone and preventing others from engaging in constructive dialogue. My Wahhabi opponent contacted me via private-message wishing to continue our dialogue to which I agreed but requested the dialogue should be in written format but with certain conditions. (ii) The PalTalk discussion narrated above is enough to demonstrate absence of evidence for his belief that Istighathah is Shirk and Takfir. Yet this method of argumentation limits/restricts discussion from developing into meaningful dialogue so I decided to abandon this methodology of refutation by establishing lack of evidence. Instead I opted to target the principles of Wahhabism on which the belief and Takfir was based on and to do this I needed to break connection with PalTalk discussion.

Implemented Rules And Controls For Healthy Discussion:

Sunni: Discussion format agreed was cross-examination style. There were certain rules suggested by me in order to keep the discussion limited. One will examine other and other will respond than roles will be reversed. One will question and other will answer. Given answer will be brief and direct to the point. Answer will not contain any direct quotes but evidences must be paraphrased unless evidence is asked for. Every question asked must be answered. One being cross-examined is under no obligation to answer any question immediately but three days will be given or else he will have to accept advice/Nasihah on how to answer the question. Discussion will not proceed until question is answered IF cross-examiner judges so. Cross-examiner can offer conclusion based on questions but cross-examined will not be permitted to rebut the conclusion. When citing evidence no referring to opinion of scholars but instead evidence from Quran/Sunnah. Tafsir of Quran with Quran and Hadith is to be preferred. Tafsir of Mufassireen can be utilized as back-up when interpretation of verse is disputed. Preference to a particular interpretation over another commentator’s Tafsir is not allowed. An interpretation of verse/Hadith by any commentator can only be rejected IF it contradicts clear explicit text of Quran and Hadith. Any principle not agreed upon both sides needs to be supported with evidence IF demand is made. Tafsir of verse/verses which is norm in Tafasir will be valid evidence even IF it seems to go against apparent text. Already agreed upon principles by both Sunni and Salafi scholarship will not be brought into dispute and when this happens party will have to return to principles held by his Jammah unless there is disagreement. Not allowed to quote evidence to merely contradict quoted evidence of opposing party but both sets of evidences have to be harmonised with each other according to conventions. Rare infringement of rules will be tolerated. Interjections which contribute material not related to discussions can be omitted IF material is posted internet. No content will be altered in a fashion which alters the meaning. Other alterations such as spelling/punctuation allowed. Names or others details which might assist to identify the individuals involved will be withheld unless permission is secured or revealing own personal information.

Wahhabi: I agree with these rules but you will cross-examine Salafi creed than I will do likewise.

Some Insight Regarding Why Wahhabi Chose To Be Cross Examined First:

Salafi brother wished to be cross-examined first because I he wanted to cross-examine Sunni beliefs to be cross-examined last. This is preferred by seasoned debaters and works well in conventional debate formats but in regular conversation type discussion/debate I am not too sure how it would have benefitted him. His motive behind examining Sunni creed regarding Istighathah I assume was that he will control discussion. And he will be able to conclude after questioning but I will not be able to respond to his conclusions hence readers would have his say the last thing on their minds. We did not fix how long the examination of first party will last which meant examination can continue indefinitely as it happened. I cross-examined his creed and teachings for nearly six months and end was not in sight. Discussions and turns to speak should be limited by minutes, or hours, or sessions, or meetings and some way. Even IF he had chance to cross-examine Sunni teachings it wouldn’t have made any difference because I would have denied him the conclusion he wanted to reach by answering questions in accordance with Quran/Sunnah. That would have prevented him from concluding in accordance with teaching of Wahhabism.

Something About Earlier Versions Of Discussions Accounts:

Original discussion took place near the end of November 2010 and ended around May 2011. The earliest version was published in the same year of discussion. Objective was that most important and relevant content to subject of Istighathah will be given priority. Over time incremental additions will made until entire discussion is published than all discussion will be structured in order of development. Work on first stage continued to till the end of 2013 but sometime in January of 2014 PC’s Hard Disk Drive data was corrupted which I mentioned, here. I had to format HDD and reinstall windows. As a consequence all unpublished content stored including discussion on Istighathah was lost. In 4^th August 2015 all content spread in many posts was compiled together, given appropriate headings and published, here. Some content of discussion as stored on USB and it was published a year later in 1^st and 18^th August 2016. Recently a very close and a dear friend of mine took interest in learning about Tawheed, Shirk, Istighathah, and Wahhabi and Sunni teachings about each of these topics. And I encouraged him to read the discussion during Ramadhan March 2022. As he is new learning about Islam I went through the entire discussion with him spelling out meanings of technical jargon and drawing his attention to various parts so he can understand discussion better. As we were reading the discussion I realized quite a lot of content has been lost. And as I was once again in contact with brother Umar because we had second discussion on the same subject, here, I enquired IF he had contents of our original discussion saved. He came back saying raw copy of discussion is in his possession. I have used the raw copy provided by brother Umar to compile this account of discussion. Nothing of original discussion is being omitted except contents related to attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentioned in section 24 of this discussion. This leaves me with, why didn’t you ask brother Umar earlier IF he has got copy saved? There is no doubt he/I saved and shared copies of discussions with each other the problem was how this discussion ended, very badly. And not badly as I and him abusing each other but way worse than this. Read sections 89 to 92 than section 99 to 100. As a result of what transpired I had completely broken all contact with brother Umar and could not and did not contact him again until he did so. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Never will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female.” [Ref: 3:195]

01 - The Hadith Which Started This Discussion:

(i) “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon. [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam Al Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] (ii) “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697] (iii) “Musa Ibn Ishaq related to us from Manjab Ibn Al-Harith, Hatim Ibn Isma’il related to us from Usamah Ibn Zayd from Aban Ibn Salih from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call “Assist (me) O slaves of Allah.”’ [Ref: Musnad al-Bazzar, Volume 11, Musnad Ibn Abbas, H4922, Page181, here, scribd here.] This last Hadith from Musnad al-Bazzar was employed by my than Wahhabi opponent in section 55 of this discussion except he referenced it from Shuayb ul-Iman. At the time I did not know but all the narrators of this Hadith are Thiqa i.e. trustworthy. Visit scribd link to see what Muhaditheen have said about it. Details about third Hadith are being added, 4^th May 2022.

02 - Discussion On Authenticity Of Hadith Of Servant Of Allah:

He said: I do not want to discuss the Hadith until its Sanad is authenticated. The Hadith you presented is Daif.

I said: Are you referring to the following Ahadith: “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon. [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam Al Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469]

Wahhabi: Yes!

Sunni: I acknowledge Hadith has weakness in Sanad but there are few important points which you have noted considered. Imam Hakim in his Mustadrak - [1/320] – and Imam Bayhaqi in his Sunan Al Kubra - [3/52] - stated; when a Hadith is acted upon [by a Muhaddith, Mujtahid, Mujaddid, Muhaddith, and Mufassir] then Marfu Hadith is strengthened and is elevated to status of Hassan. In this case, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal has been reported to have acted on this Hadith: “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697]

Sunni: According to Muhaditheen, a weak Hadith elevated to status of Hassan Li’Ghayrihi IF it is corroborated from authentic Ahadith. In this regard we have Hadith from Sahih Bukhari. Seeking help from servants of Allah is corroborated from following Hadith: “When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) took oath from Prophets that they will aid Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) : “And when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him." [Allah] said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." [Ref: 3:81]

Sunni: As a fulfilment of the promise made to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) aided Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from reducing the prayers from fifty to five. This also corroborates the Hadith of, servants of Allah, and establishes the servants of Allah are not just the angels. In addition to this, Muhaditheen have stated, a Hadith reaching the status of Talaqqi Bil Qubul is authentic - because Ummah will not agree upon error. According to another rule, multiple chains of narration, even if weak, together elevate the strength of a Hadith because it is unlikely all lied, or made same mistake. And we have multiple chains available. Scores of jurists have utilised and employed these Ahadith in their commentaries despite criticising the Isnad of these Ahadith. And according to the principles laid by Muhaditheen, we have good ground to argue these Ahadith are Hassan (i.e. fair, good) and actable.

Wahhabi: Brother the Isnad of these Ahadith are weak then how can these be acted on?

Sunni: I do not want to reason. IF you can provide evidence of contradiction – meaning the Muhaditheen have stated, Hadith doesn’t become Hassan Li’Ghayrihi even if this condition is fulfilled, isn’t actable even IF Talaqqi Bil Qubul, multiple chains do not elevate the strength of Hadith, Muhaditheen acting upon weak Ahadith do not strengthen them, then present it. Otherwise your protest alone is not worth considering.

Wahhabi: This needs to be investigated and I do not have the means to verify all these details. Therefore I will have to say, we have to agree to disagree to these principles.

Sunni: So be it.

03 - Brother Is Reluctant To Discuss Text Of Hadith Of Servants Of Allah:

Sunni: Shall we proceed to discuss the Matan (i.e. text) of the Hadith?

Wahhabi: There is no need to discuss the text of the Hadith when it is agreed that Hadith is weak.

Sunni: Have not commentators explained countless Ahadith which they deemed Daif? Is it not practice of scholars to classify a Hadith as Daif yet still comment on its text? We have scholarly precedent to do so.

Wahhabi: That is fine by me but whatever is established from this Hadith it cannot be acted upon nor it would be evidence against me.

Sunni: Decision would be yours.

04 - What’s Shirk In Wahhabism, Belief, Action Or Both, And Refutation:

Sunni: What is your position on this Hadith?

Wahhabi: The Hadith is for desert and help sought from angels therefore it’s not Shirk.

Sunni: Suppose a Wahhabi loses his way in desert. (i) Seeks help from the angel. Is he monotheist or polytheist?

Wahhabi: A monotheist!

Sunni: (ii) What IF he seeks help from the angel believing the angel is god-partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Is he polytheist or monotheist?

Wahhabi: Polytheist because he takes angel as partner in God-hood!

Sunni: Is he polytheist due to belief or action?

Wahhabi: Action and belief!

Sunni: Which action made him polytheist?

Wahhabi: He invoked the angel for help and this is worshipping therefore Shirk.

Sunni: OK!

Wahhabi: He is polytheist for action of worship and guilty of Shirk for attesting to belief of god-hood for an angel. Do you agree?

Sunni: I agree that he is polytheist due to belief and his action. I want to contextualize what we discussed.

Sunni: In the scenario (i) the angel wasn’t taken as a god hence his request for help from angel wasn’t worship but in scenario (ii) the angel was taken as a god therefore the request of help was interpreted to mean worship.

Sunni: What was the primary factor which polluted Tawheed the action or belief?

Wahhabi: Both.

Sunni: What is primary factor which nullified belief of Tawheed?

Wahhabi: I said belief and action.

Sunni: I am asking about fundamental cause of Shirk.

Wahhabi: I don’t know what you mean.

Sunni: The primary factor of Shirk was belief in god-hood of angel and it was this factor which leads them to action of seeking help from angel-god – into worship and into Shirk.

05 - What IF Shirki Aspects Of Belief Were Removed From Actions:

Sunni: What IF the polluting factor was removed will it then be Shirk?

Wahhabi: No! I see no reason for it to be Shirk.

Sunni: What IF belief of Tawheed is not changed as it was the case of seeking help from angel with Tawheedi belief but the place, the servant, and the help sought is different? Then will he be monotheist or polytheist?

Wahhabi: I don’t understand what you’re intending to say.

Sunni: The servant from whom the help is sought is Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). The place is city of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and the help sought is regarding loss of a shoe. Will the person be polytheist or monotheist?

Wahhabi: Polytheist!

Sunni: In the scenario it was explicitly stated that Tawheed is not changed but; the servant, the help, and the place, are changed yet you declared it Shirk. One seeks help from a servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) upholding Tawheed and he is still polytheist, this makes no sense.

Sunni: Is he polytheist because he sought help from a deceased human or polytheist due seeking help out of desert and in city Madinah, or polytheist for asking for the shoe?

Wahhabi: Polytheist due to seeking help from a dead person and polytheist due to seeking a shoe from dead person.

Sunni: What about his seeking help in Madinah, Shirk or not?

Wahhabi: It’s an innovation.

Sunni: Why is it an innovation?

Wahhabi: Because help is sought outside of legislated and permitted area.

Sunni: So help from Ibadullah (i.e. servants of Allah) should only be sought when in the desert?

Wahhabi: Yes!

Sunni: Coming back to the topic of Shirk. Why is the person polytheist?

Wahhabi: He will be polytheist because he seeks shoe from someone who has no power to grant him or aid him to find it.

Sunni: Even IF one believes help given is with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Wahhabi: Polytheist even if one believed the help is with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Thanks for helping me understand your point of view better. Few minutes ago you said person is polytheist because he seeks help from dead, and also polytheist due to seeking shoe from dead, and you also said, it is Shirk because he seeks help from one who does not have power to help: “Polytheist due to seeking help from a dead person and polytheist due to seeking a shoe from dead person.” I quote: “He will be polytheist because he seeks shoe from someone who has no power to grant him or aid him to find it.” What Qur’anic proof do you have that these are two criteria’s of determining Shirk?

06 - Unable To Substantiate His Claim Wahhabi Questions My Knowledge:

Wahhabi: You said you are an ex-Wahhabi but your question is making me doubt you were. You don’t even know Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. How can you claim you were a dedicated Wahhabi when your knowledge of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is so weak? I doubt your claim of Wahhabiyyah but suppose you were then clearly you didn’t know Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. You still don’t know any better. Had you known Tawheed al-Rububiyyah you would have understood the reason behind it.

Sunni: My understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is very refined. Thank you very much.

Wahhabi: There is not point discussing with you when an essential requirement for this discussion isn’t known to you.

Sunni: I didn’t ask you for evidence for you to turn around and say, you’re asking for evidence, you don’t know Tawheed. Just because you’re in tough spot you’re acting out.

Wahhabi: What conclusion is I supposed to derive from your question slash demand?

Sunni: Nothing! You were supposed to comply with the demand and substantiate your claim with evidence of Quran/Sunnah, and make no other judgment.

Wahhabi: I agree, I kind of hit a weird note but what am I supposed think when your questions indicate lack of basic knowledge of Tawheed.

Sunni: I have told you that you have no reason to question my knowledge based on my demand that you substantiate your position with evidence of Quran/Sunnah.

Wahhabi: Brother it is hard to not to question your knowledge of Tawheed when you’re asking me something which you should know without asking me.

Sunni: I asked for explicit evidence not deductive and evidence which isn’t controversial itself.

Wahhabi: What you mean it is controversial?

Sunni: Your definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah itself is controversial so how can it solve the problem when it is part of the problem. Also to judge on your principles they need to be established and supported by Quran and Sunnah.

Sunni: I want evidence of your principles clearly mentioned in Quran and Sunnah. And I want evidence of principle which you judge an XMan is guilty of major Shirk and therefore Mushrik because he sought help from someone [dead] who doesn’t have power to help. The demand of evidence is for principles on which the judgement is made.

Wahhabi: Do you know what Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is?

Sunni: This is your principle and you judge Tawheed and Shirk with it than you are liable to provide proof. That is IF you want me, or anyone else to accept your position. We Muslims are instructed to judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and refer to Him and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in our disputes. And we are instructed to reject which is not from Him and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet said: “Aisha reported Allah's Messenger as saying: He who innovated things in our affairs which is not part of it and these are to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266, here.] You substantiate your principle, or you are instructed to reject and I have already rejected.

Wahhabi: I asked you earlier IF you understand Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but you didn’t answer. Do you?

Sunni: Why my demand of evidence translates to mean Muhammed Ali does not know Tawheed al-Rububiyyah? Your logic has escaped my very rational minds grasp. IF you want to make a deduction about my knowledge it should be; Muhammed Ali does and did not know the evidences of principles on basis of which I judge Tawheed/Shirk and he wants evidence for it. I know your version of Tawheed and Shirk and I am capable of making judgments about matters being Tawheed/Shirk in light of your methodology.

Sunni: I can only judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed, and accept and judge by principles which are derived out of Quran/Sunnah. Your principle, asking the dead for help is Shirk because dead do not have any power of help, needs support of Quran/Sunnah. Once it is established I will judge by it and hold to anything which it proves.

Wahhabi: Why don’t you prove you know Tawheed al-Rububiyyah, bro?

Sunni: I can only judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed, and accept and judge by principles which are derived out of Quran/Sunnah. Your principle, asking the dead for help is Shirk because dead do not have any power of help, needs support of Quran/Sunnah. Once it is established I will judge by it and hold to anything which it proves.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is our creator, sustainer, giver of help, remover of adversity, gives life, takes life, keeper of balance; in universe, nature, and in bodies of living creatures. He is possessor of all treasures; be it health, wealth, food resources, grains, vegetables, and fruits. He instructs air, directs waters, nothing that moves, or exist is out of His control. This is your version of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and in reality of al-Rububiyyah.

07 - Tawheed al-Rububiyyah Doesn’t Support Principle, Seeking Dead’s Help Is Shirk:

Wahhabi: Thank You. You do know Tawheed al-Rububiyyah then. Try to understand to give share characteristics of His Rububiyyah to creation is Shirk! Istighathah is indeed Shirk in Rububiyyah as well as in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah.

Sunni: What has your version of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah got to do with the principles you employed, seeking help from dead is Shirk, and you figure this out than tell me. While you’re at it have a look what you said: “Polytheist due to seeking help from a dead person and polytheist due to seeking a shoe from dead person.” And answer my following question: “What Qur’anic proof do you have that these are two criteria’s of determining Shirk?”

Wahhabi: It does support the principles because when you ask something from dead it means you have attributed characteristics of Rububiyyah to that creation and this is Shirk.

Sunni: In that case asking the living also contradicts Tawheed al-Rububiyyah even IF you ask them for something which is available to them. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) al-Hayy (i.e. the Living) and He is manager of natural and super natural. He is giver of natural and supernatural, remover of all calamities as our Rabb. In this light you can see that to seek anything from anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) contradicts your version of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and establishes Shirk even IF you ask for a glass of water from someone sitting right next to you. The logic you applied to dead also equally applies to living because when you ask something from living it means you have attributed characteristics of Rububiyyah to that creation and this is Shirk. That would be Shirk according to your definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Wahhabi: What are you on about brother? Asking the living for anything that is in their power is not Shirk and not against Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. You’re confused about Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) our Rabb is ar-Razzaq (i.e. the provider). His Rububiyyah encompasses His Razzaqiyyah [in other words Razzaqiyyah is a sub-characteristic of Rububiyyah]. Our Rabb provides Rizq (i.e. sustenance). This Rizq takes form of bread, water, Pizza, Biryani, SFC Chicken, Donner Kebab, Sheesh, and many other edible items?

Sunni: I am asking does your Rabb provide you with these items of Rizq and more or not?

Wahhabi: He does indeed.

Sunni: When you ask for Pizza, water, or anything else from creation how are you not committing Shirk in your version of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah? You have partially ascribed a component of Rububiyyah (i.e. Razzaqiyyah) to a creation. This is indeed Shirk isn’t it? Yet we both believe this is not Shirk.

Wahhabi: You’ve got me good.

Sunni: How can you support your principles on basis of your version of Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah when each in itself is a problem and produces erroneous result? I will come back to the demand I made before. You said practitioner of Istighathah is Mushrik for two reasons: “Polytheist due to seeking help from a dead person and polytheist due to seeking a shoe from dead person.” I asked: “What Qur’anic proof do you have that these are two criteria’s of determining Shirk?” I want clear explicit and emphatic evidence in support of these principles. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) perfected religion of Islam and revealed it to His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Tawheed/Shirk was explained by Him and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and IF they didn’t need your principles to explain/demonstrate Tawheed and Shirk than clearly we do not either. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Aisha reported Allah's Messenger as saying: He who innovated things in our affairs which is not part of it, these are to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4266, here.]

Wahhabi: I will be honest with you. I, like everyone I know, have always taken these principles for granted and I have never asked for evidence. I have discussed with many Barelwis before but I have never been challenged to produce evidence in support of these principles so you can guess I am under prepared. Its first time I have been compelled to think; maybe what I believed were incontestable principles to determine Tawheed/Shirk, are not so incontestable. I will need time to research on this development.

Sunni: You agree there are no evidences in support of principles than?

Wahhabi: I cannot say there are not evidences in support of these principles but I will say I don’t know any.

Sunni: This admission is enough of my objectives and readers. Unlikely you will ever manage to support your principles. Been there and know it better.

Wahhabi: Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.

08 - Shirk Primarily Is Warranted Due To Affirmed Beliefs And Not Actions:

Sunni: Before our discussion got side tracked we discussed, what warranted Shirk belief, or action, or both, and then we started the topic if Shirk was removed from actions then will actions be Shirk? Do you remember that discussion?

Wahhabi: Not exactly but it led to discussion about you demand proofs of principle on which we [Wahhabi] determine what is Tawheed/Shirk.

Sunni: Correct. You basically judged Shirk on basis of action and this was something which I wanted to look into now and respond to it. You will be OK with me responding to that part here?

Wahhabi: I don’t have any objections brother.

Sunni: I have already established [in section 04] that Shirk is warranted primarily due to polytheistic belief. Suppose belief contains polytheistic element then the action of seeking help will be interpreted to mean worship which would amount to Shirk. Therefore seeking help from Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) to find the shoe in Madinah cannot be Shirk because the belief was not polluted with Shirk. Seeking help from him is in same category as seeking help from an angel.

Wahhabi: Can I respond to this?

Sunni: There is no need to respond to that because it was just a recap of what transpired before.

Wahhabi: You saying you proved something which you haven’t. How can I remain silent on that?

Sunni: When I exposed your error [in section 04] you had nothing to say in response. I considered that as, I proved my point.

Wahhabi: I don’t know what you referring to so I cannot comment on your claim.

Sunni: I will share with you the chat logs of discussions this far after that please save them. You should be saving them because you will need to look back into them to keep track of discussion and keep idea of context.

Wahhabi: I will do in future.

Sunni: Scenario. Suppose one seeks help believing soul of Shaykh and angel is servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Angel and soul of Shaykh will help be with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Soul of Shaykh and angle is not partner in Uluhiyyah, Rububiyyah, or in Asma Wal Sifat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then how can this be Shirk?

Wahhabi: It is Shirk. XMan is guilty of worshipping the dead Shaykh by asking him for his help for which there is no proof, nor there is proof the dead can hear the call of help.

Sunni: Is he polytheist for seeking help from deceased Shaykh, or engaging in action for which there is no proof?

Wahhabi: Both.

Sunni: What is the Qur’anic proof that asking the dead Shaykh for help for which there is no evidence is Shirk?

Wahhabi: “And the false deities are unable to (give) them help, nor can they help themselves.“ [Ref: 7:192]

Sunni: I have already informed you that we do not we did not take angle/Shaykh as an Ilah/deity. This verse states the false deities of polytheists are not able to help polytheists nor they can help their own selves against one who wishes to inflict harm upon them. We the Muslims do not take the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities but polytheists took their idols as deities partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore this verse cannot be applied to Muslims who profess Tawheed and openly say; there is no deity except Allah.

Sunni: This verse is not proof for the following statement and your principle; seeking help for which there is no proof is Shirk. You cannot even loosely apply it to that principle.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Are the Awliyah not from fold of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? You will agree they’re so the instruction to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is inclusive of angels, Jinn and souls of Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from Bani Adam (alayhi salaam). Hence one who seeks help from any of them without polytheistic creed has done nothing wrong.

Wahhabi: What is that polytheistic creed?

Sunni: To believe there is another Ilah and Rabb beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or to believe a creation possesses fundamentally essential attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk.

Wahhabi: What are these fundamentally essential attributes? I genuinely don’t know what attributes you’re referring to.

Sunni: Uncreated, Limitless, the First, the Last, Eternal, and Immutability etc. Trinitarian Christians affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and all these characteristics and more for Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) hence they are Mushrikeen on two accounts.

09 - Dua, Invocation Directed To A Deity Is Worship:

Wahhabi: You said seeking aid from soul of dead is not wrong. How can seeking aid from dead not be wrong! Seeking aid of the living is not Shirk, like angels and Jinn, but the people seek aid from the residents of graves is Shirk and very wrong.

Sunni: What proof do you have for this being Shirk?

Wahhabi: “And those they invoke other than Allah create nothing, and they (themselves) are created. They are (in fact) dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.” [Ref: 16:21] The dead cannot hear and one who invokes other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) forgets that they are dead not alive. As such they invoke them and make them equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: This verse was revealed regarding the polytheists of Arabian Peninsula. The verse is explained by another: “Yet have they taken mindu’nillah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] The verse states polytheists invoked upon their idol gods which create nothing but they are themselves created and they are dead and not alive. Invoking any deity requesting anything from one who is believed to be deity is worship of that deity. Therefore their invoking of their idol gods translates to worship but the primary reason of Shirk was; they invoked their idols believing them to be gods. Hence according to the verses quoted Shirk of polytheists was twofold, one they believed the idols to be gods and second they worshipped them.

Sunni: This verse does not apply to Muslims because we the Muslims do not believe the Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be gods. In context of our discussion the people do not seek aid of the deceased Awliyah-Allah believing them to be gods nor we the Muslims worship them hence there is no Shirk in belief and nor our actions.

Wahhabi: Invoking a dead expecting them to hear your call of help is worship because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said invocation is worship: “Narrated An-Nu'man Ibn Bashir: The Prophet said: Supplication (Dua) is itself the worship. (He then recited) "And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you." (40:60).” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1474, here.] You have heard the Hadith, haven’t you?

Sunni: Yes I am familiar with Hadith, invocation is worshiped.

Wahhabi: Shirk you guys engage in makes it hard to believe you have even read a verse of Quran.

Sunni: I am equally perplexed that you claim Islam and have read Quran and Hadith but you still don’t know basics such as how Shirk is to be determined.

 Wahhabi: It is not like you guys know Tawheed, or Shirk. You’re in no position to judge us.

Sunni: Suppose XMan calls a dead person without expecting the dead to hear his call then will the call to help be worship or not?

10 - Why Ask Dead, IF You Believe They Cannot Hear Your Call:

Wahhabi: Why would they call dead if they believe dead cannot hear?

Sunni: This is a hypothetical question. I want to examine your principles in context of different scenarios in order to better understand them.

Wahhabi: Question still stands even in context this hypothetical scenario.

Sunni: Oh, so you’re asking me a question?

Wahhabi: It isn’t question as per se but rather a rhetorical device to force you to think but IF you can elaborate with an example that would be good too.

Sunni: They might believe the angels take the report of incident to them. Hadith says Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appointed His servants for purpose of help. To be able to help His servants need to hear help is being requested. His servants are inclusive of His Awliyah, the living and the deceased. Both groups need to know request of help is made and they either hear directly/personally, or have to be informed by angels. Ahadith record Salam is conveyed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) by angels: "It was narrated that Abdullah said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Allah has angels who travel around on Earth conveying to me the Salams (i.e. salutations) of my Ummah.'" [Ref: Nisaee, B13, H1283, here.] This prophetic statement is proof that people who have departed from this earthly life can be informed of what the living have done. All I am saying is that it is theoretically possible for angels to convey the message.

Wahhabi: Is there clear evidence which states deceased can be informed of what the living are doing on earth?

Sunni: I don’t know. I asked you, suppose one calls a dead person’s soul without expecting the dead’s soul to hear his call then will the call to help be worship or not?

Wahhabi: It won’t be worship in that case.

Sunni: Will the XMan become guilty of Shirk?

Wahhabi: No!

Sunni: That means you agree that according to your methodology Istighathah is not Shirk.

Wahhabi: Istighathah is Shirk.

Sunni: How can Istighathah be Shirk when asking the dead to help with belief angels will convey the message to them is not worship according to your methodology?

Wahhabi: It is still worship.

Sunni: Can you be bit more expressive and share your reasons as well. You mean to say; belief angel will convey the request of help to the soul of deceased Wali, results in worship of Wali?

11 - Supplication Is Worship, I Make No Distinction, Salam Conveyed Is Shirk:

Wahhabi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said supplication is worship he made no Takhsees/distinction and I will not either.

Sunni: I say; as-salamu alayka ya RasoolAllah wa sallam alayka ya Rahmata lil-Aalameen. Angels convey my salutation to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and I am Mushrik. I have got that right?

Wahhabi: I wouldn’t say Mushrik but your action would be Shirk.

Sunni: What about; as-salamu alayka ayyuha al-Nabiyyu wa rahmatullah wa barakaat?

Wahhabi: This is in Salah how can that be Shirk?

Sunni: Because your principle and methodology of Tawheed and Shirk establishes it is Shirk.

Wahhabi: We will discuss this aspect another time.

12 - Belief Of Ilahiyyah And Intentions Makes Dua Worship:

Sunni: We went about the long way but at the end we reached our destination and came to conclusion that in your methodology calling dead to help with belief they can and cannot hear is worship and therefore Shirk in both scenarios. Would you agree?

Wahhabi: Yes!

Sunni: That’s all I was trying to figure out.

Sunni: In your belief call is worship and [belief in] hearing and not hearing of dead does not affect it?

Wahhabi: Yeah!

Sunni: I want to address what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said regarding Dua in the Hadith.

Wahhabi: You’re welcome.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Dua is worship and that is only when a Dua directed toward a Deity/deity. You agree that Ilah means one that is worshipped?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: When one invokes an Ilah, implores an Ilah, beseeches an Ilah, requests an Ilah, asks an Ilah, or when one praises an Ilah, glorifies an Ilah, or exalts an Ilah, and then such invocation is worship. For Dua to be worship, one has to believe the one to whom the Dua is directed at is an Ilah (i.e. one deserving of worship). IF a supplication is directed toward non-Ilah entity then Dua is not worship.

Wahhabi: What is your evidence [for belief that Dua directed to non-Ilah entity is not worship]?

Sunni: I am getting to that stage. Wait.

Sunni: Evidence for this is verse do not make the calling of Prophet as calling of one another: “Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest Fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.” [Ref: 24:63] In this verse the companions are told; when they call Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from his house they should not treat the Dua/calling of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as if they are calling out one another – as they called each other: O Muhammad! Come out! Rather observe proper manners which show respect, reverence and which are befitting the status of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In this verse the word Dua has been used to mean calling in general sense and not in sense of worship.

13 - Protest Ali You Have Misconstrued Meaning Of Verse:

Wahhabi: You have misconstrued rather distorted the meaning of following part of verse: Do not make the calling of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The verse means that Dua of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is not of a common person but he is held in esteem by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence the Dua will be accepted.

Sunni: This [interpretation of yours] is a valid interpretation of said verse.

Wahhabi: Then your claim that Dua is not always worship is refuted.

Sunni: I have agreed with the validity of interpretation because the nature of Qur’an is that it is short expression wide in meaning hence I accept and hold to both interpretations.

Wahhabi: Is that a Hadith?

Sunni: "Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Messenger saying, "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim , and I was made victorious with awe (cast into the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the earth were brought to me and were put in my hand." Muhammad said, Jawami'-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet." [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141, here.]

Wahhabi: Hadith doesn’t matter because none from the classical scholars interpreted the verse as you have interpreted it.

Sunni: Would you like me to quote the evidence of Mufassireen which establishes my interpretation?

Wahhabi: Only non-Sufi Mufassireen.

Sunni: We did not agree that Tafsir of non-Sufis will be utilized.

Wahhabi: OK. Quote Sufi Tafsir but it has to be backed by non-Sufi Mufassireen.

Sunni: Again this was not condition stated in rules but any how I had no intention to quoting Sufi Mufassireen. Rather Mufassireen who are acceptable to you will be quoted to establish interpretation. Give me bit of time and I will find them.

Wahhabi: I need to make a phone call.

14 - Tafasir Of Shaykh Ibn Kathir, Imam Suyuti, And Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

Sunni: Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Tafsir has this: “Make not the calling of the messenger among you …” Do not call the Prophet (peace be upon him) by his name saying: O Muhammad. “… as your calling one of another.” by name. You should rather respect him, show deference towards him, and honour him by saying: ‘O Prophet of Allah.’, or ‘O Messenger of Allah.’, or ‘O Abu'l-Qasim’. “Allah knowest those of you who sneak away …” from the mosque, (hiding themselves) the hypocrites used to leave the mosque without permission when no one could see them.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Q24:63, here.] Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti’s (rahimullah) Tafsir agrees with Tafsir Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) - here: “’Do not among yourselves consider the calling of the Messenger to be like your calling of one another.’ By saying: ‘O Muhammad. But say ‘O Prophet of God.’ Or ‘O Messenger of God!’ Gently respectfully and in a low voice. ‘Verily God knows those of you who slip away surreptitiously.’ That is those who leave the mosque secretly during the sermon without asking leave hiding behind something …” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q24:63, here.] Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) which is likely what you read supports my view point as well as yours: "Make not the calling of the Messenger among you as your calling one of another.” When you address him, do not say: `O Muhammad,' or `O son of `Abdullah'; rather honor him and say, `O Prophet of Allah,' or, `O Messenger of Allah.' “Make not the calling of the Messenger among you as your calling one of another." A second view concerning the meaning of the Ayah is that it means `do not think that if he prays against you it is like when anyone else prays against you, because his prayers will be answered; so beware lest he prays against you and you will be doomed.' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this from Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri and `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi. And Allah knows best." [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q24:63, here.]

Wahhabi: Then this evidence is inconclusive due to contradiction.

Sunni: There is no contradiction between two interpretations. Both are valid and if there was a contradiction you think someone like Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) wouldn’t have realized.

Wahhabi: I am struggling to accept that a verse might have multiple meanings.

Sunni: Hadith: “… and were put in my hand." Muhammad said, Jawami'-al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet." [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141, here.]

Sunni: These two interpretations establish that according to commentators of Quran and linguists word Dua is sometimes used in Shar’ri sense where it is associated with worship. Sometimes it is used in linguistic meaning of call without warranting worship.

Wahhabi: You do agree that word Dua in the Hadith is used to mean invocation/call in context of worship?

Sunni: I need to complete what I started.

Sunni: Duas/calls which companions called Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were/are not worship because belief [of Ilahiyyah] and intention [of worship] required to make their calls worship is missing. Whereas the Dua which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directs to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is based on belief that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Ilah/Rabb and intention is to worship Him. You’re refusing to make distinction between different two types of Dua, linguistic, and Shar’ri.

Sunni: In your literalism companions were worshipping Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said don’t worship him as you worship each other with your supplications. You have to make distinction between types of Duas on basis of belief and intention otherwise you’re in danger dying a Kafir.

15 - Why Verse Q24:63 Employed, And How It Helps Istighathah:

Sunni: You asked: “You do agree that word Dua in the Hadith is used to mean invocation/call in context of worship?” How can I deny that the word Dua in Hadith is used in meaning of call of worship! Denying the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would be outrageously stupid.

Wahhabi: You have established there are two different types of Duas. How does this prove Istighathah is not Shirk? The evidence of Hadith I quoted, supplication is worship, still stands because you agreed Hadith uses Dua in meaning of call-of-worship.

Sunni: I didn’t present the evidence of verse [Q24:63] to prove Istighathah is not Shirk. Nor I said this verse proves Istighathah is not Shirk because supplication is of Shar’ri type and Lughvi (i.e. linguistic) type. You made that assumption.

Wahhabi: Why else would you quote it then?

Sunni: You said [in section 11] that I make no distinction between Duas because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said supplication is worship. Your argument in wider context of discussion was Istighathah is a Dua therefore worship and Shirk. I wanted to prove you wrong and establish that we have to make distinction between different types of Duas and this is where verse [Q24:63] in discussion came into discussion.

Sunni: With it I have established we have to make distinction between Dua of Istighathah [which is a Dua in linguistic sense], and Dua mentioned in the Hadith [is of Shar’ri sense, in meaning of supplication of worship]. They are two different types of Duas and we cannot understand one in light of evidences of other because that will distort Deen. It [the verse Q24:63] was never quoted to prove Istighathah is not Shirk but the validation it provides support to understanding Istighathah is not worship of creation, and not Shirk.

Wahhabi: I couldn’t remember how this started.

Sunni: It is strange you argued you make no distinction between types of Duas because I know you do; calling living for help isn’t Shirk, calling dead for help is Shirk. What is that if not Takhsees (i.e. distinction)? Yet for some reason you become rigid on topic of Istighathah and you want to judge it strictly on statement in Hadith; supplication is worship. You give no quarter even though practitioner of Istighathah does not believe one whom he calls for help is Ilah/Rabb, nor intends to worship him.

Sunni: The Ayah in discussion clearly and explicitly states companions directed Duas/calls to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but you still would make excuse for them, and not apply Hadith on them. In contrast absolutely none out of practitioners of Istighathah would actually say; we directed Dua of Istighathah to Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahimullah). Yet you apply Shar’ri meaning of Dua on them.

Wahhabi: How would you remove Shar’ri application of Dua from companions regarding whom verse Q24:63 was revealed?

Sunni: I have already partly answered this question [at the end of section 14 in the last two paragraphs]. Shar’ri application only is warranted if the belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah was affirmed by those who called Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and had intention of worship. A general call/Dua: O Ali come out, help me. Your dog has got me cornered come quickly, save me. Wouldn’t warrant Shar’ri application of Dua because one calling me out doesn’t believe I am an Ilah, neither does he intended to worship me. He only has called me out for help because he knows I have control and built a relationship with my dog. Dog won’t harm me as I am the owner and leader of pack so I will be able to control my dog.

Sunni: Is there anything else you wish to discuss with regards to the verse [Q24:63] of Qur’an?

He replied: Nothing at the moment.

16 - Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah Is Same As Tawheed/Shirk al-Ibadah:

Wahhabi: Brother you have consistently repeated: We don’t believe Shaykh is an Ilah, we call without intention of worship and therefore we commit no Shirk. To believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One Ilah you must worship Him only. To worship anyone other beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is to disbelieve he is One Ilah. Belief in Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is conjoined with worship. This is the first thing you should have learnt in Kitab at-Tawheed of Shaykh ul-Islam [Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab] yet you make distinction between belief in Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah and actions of Tawheed/Shirk al-Ibadah. To say we believe in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is same as saying we only worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).  Belief in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah is action of worship.

Sunni: You’re basically saying Ilah means worship because you said believe in Ilah is to engage in worship. This notion is against these and other similar Ayaat: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no Ilah except one Ilah. And if they do not desist ...” [Ref: 5:73] “Say: ‘I am only a warner, and there is not any Ilah except Allah, the One, the Prevailing.’” [Ref: 38:65] Suppose I take your meaning than there is no worship except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Does this sound correct and right to you?

Wahhabi: I didn’t say that brother.

Sunni: What did you say then brother?

Wahhabi: I made it clear that Tawheed and Shirk Uluhiyyah are defined as worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and worship of others beside Him.

Sunni: What does al-Uluhiyyah mean in linguistic sense of word?

Wahhabi: Linguistically it denotes meaning of, deserver of worship, worthy of worship but translated to mean the God-hood.

Sunni: You would than agree al-Uluhiyyah is in same meaning these words then al-Ilahiyyah and al-Ma’budiyyah (i.e. worthy of worship)?

Wahhabi: I got it brother. You know Arabic too. I am impressed. Now get to the point.

Sunni: How come your definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah goes against the meaning of word al-Uluhiyyah? You know what al-Uluhiyyah means, worthy of worship, yet you have deducted part of its meaning and defined Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah as, worthy of worship? I purpose your definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah is defective and deliberately distorted. Belief is to entertain a concept, idea, and notion in the mind after it has been adopted. Meaning of Uluhiyyah is, worthy of worship, or deserving of worship, and this understanding of, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worthy of worship occurs as a notion, idea, concept, and creed in the mind. When it is realized and adopted, internalized it has become a belief than this belief compels to engage in actions of worship. How can you conflate Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah with Ibadah? Belief of Ilahiyyah brain and mental activity related and actions of worship are body and physical actions related. Your problem is your defective understanding of Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah. Your understanding and definitions are contradicted and refuted by these verses: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the third of three." And there is no Ilah except one Ilah. And if they do not desist ...” [Ref: 5:73] “Say: ‘I am only a warner, and there is not any Ilah except Allah, the One, the Prevailing.’” [Ref: 38:65] You cannot make a definition of a concept based on a word which doesn’t accurately represent the definition. IF you have something to say in response you’re welcome otherwise I am done and I want to return to where I left off.

17 - Every Dua Is Not Worship Is Agreed By Both Parties:

Sunni: Has that [discussion in sections 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15] not convinced you every Dua/calling is not worship?

Wahhabi: I concede that every call is not worship.

Sunni: Then which Dua (i.e. call) is worship?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Brother Dua directed to a dead person is worship or directed to deity worship?

Wahhabi: To both!

Sunni: What makes the call to dead person an act of worship if every Dua is not worship?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I can understand calling upon an Ilah/Deity is worship because one is calling on something which is believed by person to be an Ilah (i.e. one deserver of worship). I see no reason for calling of dead to be worship. What is your take on this?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: OK. Brother, provide evidence for your principle that calling dead is worship.

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: IF calling upon dead was worship then in every prayer you recite: “As-salamu alayka ayyu han-Nabiyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat.” Ayyu is Harf of Nida (i.e. call), so you are saying; “Peace be upon you O Prophet …” In addition to this you read in the Qur’an; ya ayyu ar ‘Rasool, ya ayyu an’Nabi, ya ayyu al Muzammil and Mudassir. All these phrases begin with Harf of Nida hence each time you perform Salah and recite Qur’an you are invoking Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) who had departed from this world. Are you guilty of Shirk or not?

Wahhabi: Brother these are proven from Qur’an and Hadith hence their usage is not Shirk.

Sunni: Did you not say [in section 05] calling of the dead is Shirk? What prevents you from declaring these as Shirk? IF you abstain from declaring them Shirki then you contradict your principle and IF you declare them to be polytheistic you will become a Kafir. A polytheistic practice cannot become Tawheedi proven, or not. It will remain polytheistic but will only divide Shirk to permitted Shirk and prohibited Shirk.

Wahhabi: …

18 - Khariji Implied The Belief Of Ilahiyyah From Actions:

Sunni: Today I want to start our discussion by completing point I intended to make [which begins with last sentence of section 12]. You interjected [with comment in the beginning of section 13] and direction was changed but I want to share what I intended to say.

Wahhabi: What was the discussion about?

Sunni: It is [the contents of sections 12/13 are] bit long but you read while I make a cup of tea. I am back.

Wahhabi: Still bit to go but I got gist of it so you can make your point.

Sunni: Consider the following content as continuation of from where I left: In this verse the word Dua has been used to mean calling in general sense and not in sense of worship.

Sunni: So [in conclusion] Calling can be worship and can be just a call and both are determined by creed and intention. Suppose XMan believes one whom he/she is calling is an Ilah/Deity (i.e. worthy of worship) and intends to worship then calling of that deity is worship. IF one does not believe one who he is calling is an Ilah and does not intend to worship the Ilah then calling is not worship. Yet you believe calling upon a dead servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is automatically worship even if the person does not believe the one being called is an Ilah (i.e. worthy of worship) nor one intends to worship with the call of help.

Wahhabi: IF one does not believe a dead person to be a God/Ilah (i.e. worthy of worship) and a Rabb partner besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then why would they call the dead person for help!

19 - Judging Creed By Affirmation Of Tongue Or Actions:

Sunni: One calls the dead Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for help in time of difficulty on the basis of this you deduced it must be that they believe in the deceased Wali Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be  an Ilah and Rabb?

Wahhabi: It is so obvious.

Sunni: What is so obvious?

Wahhabi: That they take the deceased Wali to be Ilah like the polytheists took their Awliyah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities.

Sunni: So you judge the creed based on the actions and not the actions based on the creed?

Wahhabi: I judge based on the creed. Those who invoke others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) do so believing their Awliyah are deities besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Bear with me for a little while, while I establish your inconsistencies.

Sunni: First of all, Muslims call the deceased Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for help because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed; to ask help from the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore your saying; asking the deceased Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can be for no other reason than taking Ilah/Rabb is absolutely Batil (i.e. false). We the Muslims do not take the Awliyah as Ilahs/Rabbs besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) neither we believe worship of them is permissible, nor we worship them. Coming to your claim that you judge creed of Tawheed based on creed but before I get to that stage I have to ask some questions.

20 - Judging Creed By Actions And Not By Tongue:

Sunni: My creed do you know or I know?

Wahhabi: You really know what you believe. I only know about your creed due to what you tell me.

Sunni: Thank you! Do you have knowledge of Ghayb?

Wahhabi: Now you are being ridiculous!

Sunni: You agree you don’t have knowledge of Ghayb?

Wahhabi: No. I don’t. I don’t see how this is related to the discussion.

Sunni: Brother bear with me, I see it is related to discussion. You don’t have knowledge of Ghayb so you cannot know the Ghayb, the creed in my heart. You only know of my creed what I tell you. So when I declare to you; I do not believe in a Deity other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and I believe none has the right to be worshiped except for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then why do you not believe me that this is indeed my creed?

Wahhabi: You act contrary to what you claim to believe. On the basis of this I am forced to reject what you declare to me.

Sunni: Which action is contrary to my belief?

Wahhabi: Well, you invoke the dead for help, this indicates you take the deceased Wali to be an Ilah (i.e. worthy of worship), and hence your call of help is interpreted to mean worship.

Sunni: Thank you very much! You have established that you judge creed based on actions and not based on what tongue affirms. Yet in Islam what the tongue affirms and what one state’s with his tongue is considered his belief.

21 - Actions Do Not Reflect The Creed Of Person:

Sunni: It is recorded Hadith in which it is recorded a companion killed a person who had recited the Shahadah but the companion had killed him despite this. He made assumption that the person has pretended his conversion to Islam. He informed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about what he has done and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) repeatedly said to him, you killed him when he said; there is no god but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He repeated this question so many times until the companion felt so ashamed of himself that he wished he had not accepted Islam before that day.

Wahhabi: I don’t know any Hadith of this type.

Sunni: "It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle. The Messenger of Allah said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa'd said: By Allah …" [Ref: Muslim, B1, H176, here.]

Sunni: In Islam the belief is what the tongue affirms and unless there is no clear, explicit evidence which establishes contrary to what the person claims you cannot negate the belief of a Muslim based on actions. You invalidated my belief based on pure speculative knowledge. You believe one can only seek aid for the deceased Wali if he believes the Wali is an Ilah.

Sunni: In Islam an action is not proof of what person believes but you do believe action is proof of what one believes. Muslim drinks alcoholic beverages. What do we assume about him and his creed? I will assume he is sinful Muslim and those who have good nature of giving benefit of doubt will assume, maybe he doesn’t know about it being haram.

Sunni: We don’t automatically assume he considers these alcoholic drinks as Halal according to clear, explicit teaching of Qur’an and Hadith. Do we? Of course we do not make such assumptions. We know the actions do not reflect the creed of person. We cannot invent reasons based on dubious speculation, reasoning, and then attribute invented creed to an individual who categorically rejects it.

Sunni: XMan faces Kabah, intends to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), prostrates in the direction of Kabah, obviously he is worshiping the Kabah because y believes Kabah is representation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or XMan is a Muslim, he was seen in going to a pub, in the pub he was seen holding a pint of beer, he was seen drinking the beer, he believes beer is Halal according to the teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).  Or XMan knows the beer is Haram but XMan believes he is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in the flesh. Thus possesses the authority to abrogate all injunctions of Qur’an and Hadith. Do make such assumptions on regarding creed of Muslims? You don’t do this ordinarily but Istighathah you have made exception.

Sunni: Your methodology of invalidating creed of Muslims based on their actions due to your dubious speculations is evidence of nothing less than your heretical ways. We have no authority to invent creed of people based on their actions, then attribute to them, and force them to accept it. We simply cannot weave a sectarian perspective around an action and creed of person and then take that invented sectarian perspective to be the gospel truth.

22 - I Say You Are An Anthropomorphist:

Sunni: I want to ask you a question. Do you believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possesses a Hand?

Wahhabi: Yes, He does have a Hand but Hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is nothing like His creation. Hand of Allah is Haqiqi (i.e. literal) and not as Asharis claim that hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is metaphorical expression.

Sunni: Do you believe in Yad of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or do you believe in Hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: Yad is Arabic for hand.

Sunni: Yes, I am familiar with Yad being English equivalent of Hand but I was insinuating do you relegate the Yad or Hand?

Wahhabi: Well Yad means Hand so I relegate the meaning of Hand.

Wahhabi: You believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) in His image. Is this what you believe?

Sunni: Yes the Hadith attests to this so I believe it.

Sunni: This tells me that you believe the Hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is like the hand of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created him in His image. Is this correct deduction of your creed my brother?

Wahhabi: I have already stated I do not believe in the Hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being anything like His creation. Instead I believe meaning of Yad is known but the interpretation isn’t known. This phrase is from the ambiguous verses of Qur’an whose meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only knows. Also the image and form of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not like Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam). He is nothing like His creation.

Sunni: Brother, you believe Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) was created in the image of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This indicates you believe in human-ness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Yet you say the image of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) is not like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). What I deduce is that you believe in human-ness, Adami-ness of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but you are concealing your polytheistic belief.

Sunni: Brother what I deduced is not your creed regarding this subject?

Wahhabi: No.

Sunni: Even though I justly deduced a conclusion from what you stated. Yet you have rejected it and you have indirectly stated that you do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possessing hand like hand with four fingers, one thumb, nails, bones, muscle, skin, veins, arteries and blood. Would I be justified IF I charge you of Kufr on account that you attribute a human male hand to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Wahhabi: Well how is your Takfir justified when I do not believe in what you are attributing to me.

Sunni: You are saying my deduction is incorrect?

Wahhabi: Of course it is Batil (i.e. falsehood).

Sunni: Why is it invalid?

Wahhabi: Your deduction is based on false interpretation of Hadith. You have made assumption, words his image, mean His image, and not his image i.e. image of Adam (alayhis salam).

Sunni: That is interpretation of Ahlus Sunnah Jammah. The Ashari and Maturidi scholarship explained the Hadith in this way. Wahhabi scholarship actually holds it is His image i.e. in image of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but His image is unique to Him and not like His creation and His image is in accordance with Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Majesty.

Wahhabi: IF you can cite a reliable source I will reconsider.

Sunni: I don’t want you to reconsider your understanding of Hadith so I am dropping the subject. I rather be a liar [by not quoting evidence of my claim] then become a party in your misguidance.

Wahhabi: I rest my case.

Sunni: Here you go, here. I will return to the real issue.

23 - Drawing Result From Exchange:

Sunni: Should I abandon my investigated position because you deny what was deduced?

Wahhabi: I certainly do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) having male hand therefore it makes no difference to me so you can do as you please.

Sunni: Brother, you attributed to Muslims that they take the Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Ilahs besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We have categorically been refuting and rejecting this charge but you have consistently stated we the Muslims take the Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Ilahs besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and charged that we worship them.

Sunni: I have attempted to explain that the actions of people are not evidence of what they believe; rather their creed is what they affirm with tongue and believe in heart. You, on other hand have warped methodology of determining what a Muslim believes. You judge belief by looking at action - in this context from action of Istighathah. Just as what I attribute to you regarding Yad of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cannot be what you actually believe about the Yad of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In the same manner, what you falsely attribute to us Muslims regarding us taking Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Ilahs besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cannot be true representation of our creed. Its value is nothing but a Khariji sectarian narrative weaved around an innocent action until it becomes repugnant little monster of Shirk. We the Muslims do not judge the creed of Muslims from their actions this was the methodology of the Khawarij. We believe the creed of Muslim is based on iqrarum bil lisaani wa tasdeequm bil qalb (i.e. affirmation with tongue and confirmation from heart).

24 – Why Stance Against Istighathah Justified, Why We Not Anthropomorphist’s:

Wahhabi: Asharis and Maturidis charge that we Salafis are branch of anthropomorphist sects Hashawiyyah, and Karamiyyah [popularly referred to as Mujassimah, Mushabbihah]. We have nothing common with Hashawiyyah, or Karamiyyah because we do not believe in corporeality of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) where has both these sects did. We assign to Him attributes which are in accordance with His Majesty. We say nothing more than what Quran/Hadith record about His attributes and we do not say anything less than what is recorded Quran/Hadith.

Wahhabi: Content omitted …

Wahhabi: You keep saying that Barelwis/Sufis don’t believe Awliyah are Ilahs/deities but truth is to engage in worship of creation warrants affirmation of belief in Uluhiyyah by default. Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah which you call Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah is to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is to worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Part of worship is Dua because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said supplication is worship. Istighathah is supplication to others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by its very nature therefore it is worship of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: Had you thought about it you would have realized that believing in Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah is same engaging in worship. This is why we don’t make distinction between belief and worship. You’re unaware of proper understanding and definition of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah. We judge you Mushrik due to practice of Istighathah on basis correct and proper understanding of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah.

Sunni: Wama alayna ilal balagh ul-mubeen.

25 - Incident Of Bani Jadhima Narrated In Ahadith:

Wahhabi: Earlier you made the point [in section 23] that creed is what tongue professes and what heart confirms. This is not true. Actions which contradict Tawheed (such as Istighathah) have to be judged on the apparent. Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) killed a members of Bani Jadhima because they openly did not profess Islam by saying, aslamna (i.e. we submitted to Allah in Islam), instead they said, saba’na (i.e. we change our religion) so this action was contrary to norm of accepting Islam and against command issued by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “The Bedouins say: "We believe." Say: "You believe not but you only say, 'We have surrendered (in Islam),' for Faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not decrease anything in reward for your deeds. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Ref: 49:14] He therefore took their words as denial of accepting Islam even though they seemed to be professing Islam and ordered them to be killed. Similarly those who profess Islam but they act contrary to teaching of Islam we have right to judge them to be disbelievers like Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) doubted the conversion of members of Bani Jadhima.

Sunni: I am not aware of the incident you’re referring to. Can you provide referrence?

Wahhabi: Sure. You will have to wait a bit.

Sunni: Not an issue.

Wahhabi: “Narrated Salim's father: The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H628, here.]

Sunni: That is strange Hadith because killing captives is not allowed especially when they seem to be professing conversion to Islam. It contradicts prophetic guidance indicated here: "It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle. The Messenger of Allah said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa'd said: By Allah …" [Ref: Muslim, B1, H176, here.] We simply have no right to kill anyone who professes Islam, or seems to attest Islam. I will need time to investigate Sanad of this Hadith and look for other versions to see they shed light onto the incident. I will get back to you with regards to Hadith of Banu Jadhima after investigating event narrated.

26 - Investigating To Determine Intentions And Motives Of Wahhabi:

Sunni: How did you encounter this Hadith?

Wahhabi: I discussed with a brother on issue of permissibility/impermissibility of killing captives and he quoted this Hadith reason Islam allows killing of captives.

Sunni: Brother Islam does allow killing of captives in certain conditions this is not a disputed issue. Killing is allowed IF a captive has committed action before/after capture which warrants Shar’ri capital punishment. Had indiscriminate killing been part of Islam than day of conquest of Makkah would have meant blood bath and slaughter of entire population of Makkah. What we saw is greatest act of zero-retribution upon people who had inflicted senseless violence upon Muslims. What inspired this discussion

Wahhabi: Discussion I had brother was in regards to killing captives even if they haven’t committed any crime. He quoted this Hadith in an attempt to justify this stance. Discussion started because of Syrians rising against Assad’s regime.

Sunni: Have you read the entire Hadith record incident of Banu Jadhima?

Wahhabi: I haven’t but isn’t what I quoted entire Hadith?

Sunni: It isn’t. Reason I asked you how you became aware of this Hadith is because I suspected you deliberately concealed the contents but your contextualization how you encountered reveals you wasn’t.

Wahhabi: Wallahi bro I did not conceal anything and passed on what came to me.

Sunni: I believe you brother but you should have checked the referrence. IF you recall you quoted [in section 25] this Hadith: “Narrated Salim's father: The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H628, here.] You reasoned since the members of Banu Jadhima did not properly profess conversion to Islam and acted against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) their claim to Islam was rejected by Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and thus he ordered them killed. You went on to say: “Similarly those who profess Islam but they act contrary to teaching of Islam we have right to judge them to be disbelievers like Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) doubted the conversion of members of Bani Jadhima.” Sorry I had pre-written this content to reduce the wait.

Wahhabi: Not to worry bro.

27 - Establishing Wahhabi’s Understanding Based On Selected Portion:

Sunni: Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) indeed carried out the killings and did not accept their conversion to Islam but in the same Hadith, when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was informed of his actions Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did say: "O “Narrated Salim's father: The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive. I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H628, here.] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) disapproved of his, attempt of forced conversion, murder of innocent people, and disapproved of his act of discrediting the acceptance of Islam by members of Bani Jadhima. There was and is no compulsion in religion of Islam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, la iqra fid-deen (i.e. there is no compulsion in religion) therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) rejected his compulsion.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) validated the Islam of persons whom companion [Khalid Ibn Walid radiallah ta’ala anhu] killed. Proving that once words which denote meaning, acceptance of Islam are used by anyone then their Islam is to be accepted. Members of Bani Jadhima did use words which denoted their conversion [but not what verse instructs i.e. Aslamna, we submitted]. There was no reason for the Bedouins to use word Aslamna because the verse quoted by you [in section 25] was instructing the Muslims to use words Aslamna not non-Muslim. The Bedouins were non-Muslims to expect them to know the instruction of Ayah is way too much. I didn’t even know the verse existed until you quoted it. Therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) disproved the actions of Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Killing of anyone professing Islam is forbidden and therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) rejected his actions. This is not valid evidence of your position because the methodology of judgement employed by Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was rejected by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and is rejected by me also.

Wahhabi: …

28 - Three Ahadith Prohibiting Killing Of One Who Professes Tawheed/Islam:

Sunni: Earlier in our discussion [section 21 and 25] I quoted following Hadith: "It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid that the Messenger of Allah sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: There is no god but Allah, I attacked him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to the Apostle. The Messenger of Allah said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa'd said: By Allah …" [Ref: Muslim, B1, H176, here.] The objective was to prove one who professes Islam with his tongue his claim is to be upheld even IF it seems his conversion to Islam is due to ulterior motives. We are commanded to accord him same rights and provide same as other Muslims. I want to share some more content with you in this regard if that is OK with you.

Wahhabi: IF it is something you want to say than I rather not hear it.

Sunni: I won’t add much but the Ahadith are important to our discussion so I would rather share.

Wahhabi: OK.

Sunni: “It was narrated that An-Nu'man bin Bashir said: "We were with the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and a man came and whispered to him. He said: 'Kill him.' Then he said: 'Does he bear witness to, there is none worthy of worship except Allah?' He said: 'Yes, but he is only saying it to protect himself.' The Messenger of Allah said: 'Do not kill him, for I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and if they say it, their blood and their wealth are safe from me, except for a right that is due, and their reckoning will be with Allah.'” [Ref: Nisaee, B37, H3984, here.]

Sunni: “They (Azraqi Kharijis) said: ‘Did you (really) hear it from the Messenger of Allah?’ He (Imran Bin Hussain) said: ‘Yes. I was with the Messenger of Allah and he had sent an army of the Muslims to the idolaters. When they met them they fought them fiercely, and they (the idolaters) gave them their shoulders (i.e., turned and fled). A man among my kin attacked an idolater man with a spear, and when he was defeated he said: “I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, I am a Muslim.” But he stabbed him and killed him. He came to the Messenger of Allah and said: “O Messenger of Allah, I am doomed.” He said one or two times, “What is it that you have done?” He told him what he had done. The Messenger of Allah said to him: “Why didn’t you cut open his belly and find out what was in his heart?” He said: “O Messenger of Allah, I wish I had cut open his belly and could have known what was in his heart.” He (Messenger of Allah) said: “You did not accept what he said, and you could not have known what was in his heart!” The Messenger of Allah remained silent concerning him (that man), and a short while later he died. We buried him, but the following morning he was on the surface of the earth. They said: “Perhaps an enemy of his disinterred him.” So we buried him (again) and told our slaves to stand guard. But the following morning he was on the surface of the earth again then we said: ‘Perhaps the slaves dozed off.’ So we buried him (again) and stood guard ourselves, but the following morning he was on the surface of the earth (again). So we threw him into one of these mountain passes.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3930, here.]

Sunni: “There got up a man with sunken eyes, raised cheek bones, raised forehead, a thick beard, a shaven head and a waist sheet that was tucked up and he said, "O Allah's Messenger! Be afraid of Allah." The Prophet said, "Woe to you! Am I not of all the people of the earth the most entitled to fear Allah?" Then that man went away. Khalid bin Al-Walid said, "O Allah's Messenger! Shall I chop his neck off?" The Prophet said, "No, for he may offer prayers." Khalid said, "Numerous are those who offer prayers and say by their tongues (i.e. mouths) what is not in their hearts." Allah's Messenger said, "I have not been ordered (by Allah) to search the hearts of the people or cut open their bellies." Then the Prophet looked at him (i.e. that man) while the latter was going away and said, "From the offspring of this (man there will come out (people) who will recite the ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H638, here.]

Sunni: These Ahadith establish once someone professes Islam either by saying I am Muslim, or by saying there is none worthy of worship except Allah, or by performing Salah than we have no right to harm him. His life, property, and dignity including of his wives, and daughters is protected under Islam. Wahhabis on other hand totally disregard the teaching of these Ahadith and consequence is that Muslims were/are being killed with total disregard injunctions of Shari’ah.

29 - Wahhabi To Me, You’re Concealing Part Of Hadith, It Refutes Propaganda:

Wahhabi: You only quoted selected portion second Hadith. Why didn’t you quote all of it?

Sunni: Because I didn’t need entire Hadith and because the point I was making was found in quoted part. It is for the same reason I didn’t quote the third Hadith in full.

Wahhabi: You concealed that part of Hadith because it quoted Ayah which exposes your propaganda against Salafiyyah. I will quote the Ayah and then the Hadith.

Sunni: Quote the Hadith first and then the Ayah which you allege I concealed. I am waiting.

Wahhabi: “It was narrated from Sumait bin Sumair, that ‘Imran bin Husain said: “(The leader of Azraqi Kharijis) Nafi Bin Azraq and his (Khariji) companions came. And said: ‘You are doomed, O Imran!’ He (Imran) said: ‘I am not doomed.’ They said: ‘Yes you are.’ I said: ‘Why am I doomed?’ They said: ‘Allah says: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will be all for Allah Alone.” (Q8:39) He (Imran Bin Hussain) said: ‘We fought them (the Mushrikeen of Arabia) until they were defeated and the religion was all for Allah Alone. If you wish, I will tell you a Hadith that I heard from the Messenger of Allah.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3930, here.] “And fight them (the Mushrikeen of Arabia) until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will be all for Allah Alone.” [Ref: 8:39]

Sunni: What is your point on this part of Hadith/Ayah? Why was I concealing it? It has to have some kind of detrimental effect on Sunni position due to which I must have concealed and it must somehow prove something you believe.

Wahhabi: Sufi Arabs were engaged in same practices of major Shirk which Barelwis are taking part in. The Ayah establishes killing of non-Muslims is allowed until there is no more Fitnah. Fitnah in this Ayah is referrence to Shirk. Hence fighting Mushrikeen is allowed until they become Muslim. Jihad waged Shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab waged against Shirk was justified and we don’t care who he killed as long as they were Mushrikeen.

Sunni: I need to do some research on the verse and I will come back to you after I am ready.

Wahhabi: You haven’t heard of this verse before and you claim you were Salafi.

Sunni: In the Ayah Fitnah means oppression, fighting/war, Shirk/Kufr, tribulation, rebellion. These are five valid interpretations of this verse I am aware and each I can backup with evidences of Quran/Hadith but I need to get them which is time consuming. You haven’t thought about the content of Hadith and how it restricts application of Ayah you quoted. Hadith actually has checkmated your argument but I will get to that later.

30 - Demonstrating Fitnah Means Fighting/War, Oppression And Shirk/Kufr:

Sunni: You quoted following verse to justify the killings of Muslims by Wahhabis: “And fight them until there is no Fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease then indeed, Allah is seeing what they do.” [Ref: 8:39] You argued killing of Mushrikeen is permitted until they are upon Shirk. I and my kind are Mushriks hence killing was justified.

Sunni: It has been a week so I want to make sure you remember you said this.

Wahhabi: I do remember.

Sunni: I will begin with presenting you an overall view of how exact variation of word Fitnah was used in the Quran, Fitnatun.

Wahhabi: Please don’t turn it into an essay.

Sunni: Same as above verse is repeated in the following in verse Q2:193 and in both places Fitnah is used in meaning of; fight, Shirk/Kufr, oppression. Fitnah has also been used in of tribulation and trial in following verses, Q5:71, Q8:28, Q24:63, and Q39:49. In the following verse 8:73 word Fitnah is used as a synonym of word Fasad (i.e. tyranny, corruption).

Sunni: Here is a contextual analysis of verse based on what preceded verse 39. I wrote it in advance so you don’t have to wait around.

Sunni: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reveals Fitnah Mushrikeen are engaged in: “Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert (people) from the way of Allah. So they will spend it; then it will be for them (source of) regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved - unto Hell they will be gathered.” [Ref: 8:36] Mushrikeen spent their wealth to prevent people from converting to Islam and to turn the Muslims away from Islam. In response to their Fitnah Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And fight them until there is no Fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease then indeed, Allah is seeing what they do.” [Ref: 8:39]

Sunni: (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Say to those who have disbelieved (that) if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return (to hostility) then the precedent of the former (rebellious) peoples has already taken place.” [Ref: 8:38] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said there will be forgiveness for Mushrikeen. Just abstaining from fighting Muslims doesn’t warrant forgiveness that will bind the Muslims to stop fighting them. Yet the verse says, stop, will earn them forgiveness and that can only be granted on condition of acceptance of Islam and rejection of Shirk. Hence the Ayah is saying IF the Mushrikeen end their fighting, repent and accept Islam there will be forgiveness for them but IF they don’t than instruction is: “And fight them until there is no Fitnah (fight) and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Ref: 8:39] “And fight them until there is no Fitnah (Shirk) and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Ref: 8:39]

31 - Commentators Of Quran And Meaning Of Fitnah:

Wahhabi: I don’t want to know what you have to say on this verse but what the Salaf and mainstream scholarship has said about this verse. Plus none of this refutes what I had argued. Instead your second Tafsir validates my position and provides legitimacy to actions of Shaykh ul-Islam.

Sunni: Why do I need to quote you content which is readily available to you online? Brother you can do that in your own time.

Wahhabi: Anything you say on these verses has no value to me so I rather pursue content of scholars whose content I value.

Wahhabi: You can read the Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah....'' Ibn Umar said: "We did that during the time of the Messenger of Allah, when Islam was weak and the man would be tried in religion, either tormented to death or being imprisoned. When Islam became stronger and widespread, there was no more Fitnah.'' […] Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "Ibn `Umar came to us and was asked, "What do you say about fighting during Fitnah'' Ibn `Umar said, "Do you know what Fitnah refers to Muhammad fighting against the idolaters, and at that time, attending (or residing with) the idolaters was a Fitnah (trial in religion). It is nothing like what you are doing, fighting to gain leadership!'' […] Ad-Dahhak reported that Ibn `Abbas said about the Ayah: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah ...” It means: "So that there is no more Shirk.'' Similar was said by Abu Al-Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi bin Anas, As-Suddi, Muqatil bin Hayyan and Zayd bin Aslam. Muhammad bin Ishaq said that he was informed from Az-Zuhri, from Urwah bin Az-Zubayr and other scholars: “… until there is no more Fitnah.” The Fitnah mentioned here means, until no Muslim is persecuted so that he abandons his religion.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q8:39, here.]

Sunni: Shaykh Ibn Kathir has explained word Fitnah is used in meaning of persecution, oppression, Shirk, and war. You haven’t read it or IF you have only part that interested your views.

Wahhabi: I genuinely believed Fitnah in the verse is exclusively about Shirk.

Sunni: “And fight them …” Meaning: The disbelievers of Mecca. “… until Fitnah …” Meaning: Disbelief, idolatry, idol worship and fighting against Muhammad in the Sacred Precinct. “… is no more, and religion …” Meaning: In the Sacred Precinct as well as worship (is all for Allah) such that none remains except the Religion of Islam. “But if they cease …” Meaning: Disbelief, idolatry, idol worship and fighting the Prophet. “… then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” of good and evil.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 8:39, here.] According to Tafsir Ibn Abbas Fitnah is inclusive of, idolatry, idol-worship, and fighting against Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in Masjid al-Haram.

Sunni: “And fight them until sedition, idolatry exists no more and religion is all for God alone none other being worshipped; then if they desist from unbelief surely God sees what they do and will requite them for it.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q8:39, here.] According to Tafsir of two Jalal’s Fitnah means idolatry and rebellion/sedition.

32 - Fighting Due To Fitnah, Demonstrating Set Limits By Allah And Messenger:

Sunni: Your argument, Arabs during Shaykh al-Najd’s time were guilty of major Shirk therefore killing them due Shirk was allowed until they repented, was actually refuted in Tafsir (ii).

Wahhabi: I don’t understand how you can say that the verse supports your view point.

Sunni: I have wider perspective on the Ayah and belief that Quran is Jawami al-Kalim.

Wahhabi: Maybe but meanings you’re deducing are not in the Ayah.

Sunni: My understanding is part of Ayah but you cannot grasp it so instead let me deal with it in light of Hadith I have mentioned. I will first paste what I wrote earlier.

Sunni: (i) It is recorded: “The Messenger of Allah said: 'Do not kill him, for I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and if they say it, their blood and their wealth are safe from me, except for a right that is due, and their reckoning will be with Allah.'” [Ref: Nisaee, B37, H3984, here.] This Hadith is proof of no fighting/killing of a person who has professed and demonstrated his Islam. Islam of Dhul Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi was known this was why his killing was disallowed even though insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Kufr and warrants capital punishment but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not invalidate his Islam due to an action. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stopped Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) because of Ayah: “And fight them until there is no Fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Ref: 8:39]

Sunni: (ii) Following Hadith establishes that war against non-Muslims is allowed until they are upon Fitnah i.e. Fighting and Shirk/Kufr: “The Messenger of Allah said: Did he profess" There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him? I said: Messenger of Allah, he made a profession of it out of the fear of the weapon. He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Did you tear his heart in order to find out whether it had professed or not? And he went on repeating it to me till I wished I had embraced Islam that day. Sa'd said: By Allah …" [Ref: Muslim, B1, H176, here.] Killed man had stopped fighting and this warranted end of all violence planned against him. He also professed, there is no Ilah except Allah, and this was another reason violence against should have stopped because he had entered in protection of Islam. Hence killing anyone one who enters Islam even in pretend isn’t allowed because of Ayah: “And fight them until there is no Fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Ref: 8:39]

Sunni: I have more to say, a lot more to say to be honest so permit to write it in your absence.

Wahhabi: Bro you made rule that answers won’t exceed five lines yourself and now you’re changing it.

Sunni: It is solely needed. Please.

Wahhabi: OK.

33 - Exposing Carnage Wahhabis Imposed On Muslims:

Sunni: This establishes killing anyone who professes I am Muslim, or recites Shahadatayn, or performs Salah isn’t allowed. The Ahadith I quoted above demonstrated that one who recited Shahadah even in pretend due to fear of being killed has entered into protection offered by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In one Hadith even act of pick up arms against Muslims expels from being part of best of Ummah in mankind: “It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever bears weapons against us is not one of us.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B20, H2575, here.] Yet your theological ancestors unsheathed their swords, aimed their arrows, pointed their British rifles and canons against Muslims and killed them. In another Hadith it is recorded Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) expressly said one who kills righteous and zealous practitioners of Islam is not from amongst us:"... and whosoever from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower)." [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4557, here.] What did the Wahhabis do? Killed all Muslims indiscriminately and didn’t spare even on account of Shahadatayn, or Salah, or anything else.

Sunni: How lost does one has to be to engage in killing of Muslims, support one who has engaged in killing Muslims and then apply verse revealed regarding Mushrikeen upon Muslims to justify criminal actions? IF you take into account the prohibition of bearing weapons, killing anyone who remotely demonstrates belief in Islam than you would realize this Ayah cannot be applied to Muslims of any sectarian persuasion. Muslims demonstrate their Islam in many more ways than man who professed; there is no Ilah except Allah, under the shadow of falling sword. And if this statement in that context protected his life than …

Sunni: … one who lives Islam, pronounces la ilaha il-Allah Muhammadur RasoolAllah, loves Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), performs Salah, gives Zakat, performs Hajj, recites Quran, Fasts in month of Ramadhan, is hurt when Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insulted, feels the pain of Muslims when they are suffering, slaughters in the name of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), partakes in the festivals of Islam, supplicates to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), preaches Tawheed, prohibits Shirk, performs Tawaf and does way more in peace and security of his home …

Sunni: … than what that man uttered under shadow of sword and due to fear of death. Yet your kind will not grant them the security which one statement should have granted. And you apply upon them Hukm of a verse which doesn’t even begin to apply to them because they professed and acted all which prohibits fighting against them. It says: “And fight them until there is no Fitnah and (until) the religion, all of it, is for Allah.” [Ref: 8:39] How can you fight those people who engage so much of Islam and when they have no Fitnah in them to begin with? Any misapprehensions you developed should have been removed by their profession of la ilaha il-Allah and adherence to practices of Islam. Even IF you didn’t believe in Islam of Muslims you should have stopped and considered the prophetic teaching. Yet you and your Wahhabis completely removed the limits of Shari’ah and engaged in slaughter of Muslims and you’re justifying and supporting Shaykh al-Najd. By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! You and your kind did not any right to kill us but you did and you will be responsible for it on the judgement day.

34 - Wahhabi Brothers Admission And Fairness:

Wahhabi: Why you saying I killed someone? I didn’t kill anyone.

Sunni: I didn’t mean actual killing. It is a metaphoric expression mentioned in Hadith.

Wahhabi: What Hadith?

Sunni: I read it in some Urdu book. Making Takfir of and abusing a Muslim is as IF one has killed them: “Imran Ibn Husain reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a man declares his brother to be an unbeliever, it is as if he has killed him. Cursing a believer is like killing him.” [Ref: Musnad Bazzar, Vol2, P448, Ha3138, here.]

Wahhabi: Quote me the reference of Hadith?

Sunni: I am totally blanked with regards to where I read it when I recall I will share it.

Wahhabi: Please do share it. It is something important to know.

Sunni: I will. Can you comment on what I wrote in response?

Wahhabi: I will be honest with you. I am in no position to challenge what you have argued above. This is scholarly level content and only qualified scholar will be able to respond.

Sunni: Do you really believe what I wrote can be refuted?

Wahhabi: Maybe I don’t believe that but someone might bring Ahadith which might add another dimension to what you wrote.

Sunni: Well, n good.

35 - Explaining Hadith Of Azraqi Kharijis, Incident Imran Bin Hussain:

Sunni: I still need to address the Hadith which you alleged I concealed the content of. Can I start?

Wahhabi: Nothing long brother.

Sunni: Azraqiyyah, or Azraqa were a sect of Kharijis and they were the most extreme out of all Khariji sects. They killed all men, women, children, young, old, combatants, and non-combatants, no one was spared. They accused companions of committing major Shirk. Nafi Bin Azraq controlled an area of Iraq called Ahwaz and later they controlled large part of Iran and Iraq.

Sunni: The leader of Azraqa and his followers came to the companion: “It was narrated from Sumait bin Sumair, that ‘Imran bin Husain said: “(The leader of Azraqi Kharijis) Nafi Bin Azraq and his (Khariji) companions came. And said: ‘You are doomed, O Imran!’ He (Imran) said: ‘I am not doomed.’ They said: ‘Yes you are.’ I said: ‘Why am I doomed?’ They said: ‘Allah says: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will be all for Allah Alone.” They said to him that he is doomed indicating they are about kill him due to Shirk. When they cited the verse of Quran trying to justify why killing him is permitted he explained to them how the verse is supposed to be understood: “He (Imran Bin Hussain) said: ‘We fought them (the Mushrikeen of Arabia) until they were defeated and the religion was all for Allah Alone. If you wish, I will tell you a Hadith that I heard from the Messenger of Allah.’ They (Azraqi Kharijis) said: ‘Did you (really) hear it from the Messenger of Allah?’ He (Imran Bin Hussain) said: ‘Yes.” He argued that the verse is not applicable to him because it was with regards to Mushrikeen of Arabia whom he fought against. He then offers to narrate them a Hadith which would refute their understanding of verse and become instrumental in saving his life.

Sunni: He narrates: “I was with the Messenger of Allah and he had sent an army of the Muslims to the idolaters. When they met them they fought them fiercely, and they (the idolaters) gave them their shoulders (i.e., turned and fled). A man among my kin attacked an idolater man with a spear, and when he was defeated he said: “I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, I am a Muslim.” But he stabbed him and killed him. He came to the Messenger of Allah and said: “O Messenger of Allah, I am doomed.” He said one or two times, “What is it that you have done?” He told him what he had done. The Messenger of Allah said to him: “Why didn’t you cut open his belly and find out what was in his heart?” He said: “O Messenger of Allah, I wish I had cut open his belly and could have known what was in his heart.” He (Messenger of Allah) said: “You did not accept what he said, and you could not have known what was in his heart!” The Messenger of Allah remained silent concerning him (that man), and a short while later he died. We buried him, but the following morning he was on the surface of the earth. They said: “Perhaps an enemy of his disinterred him.” So we buried him (again) and told our slaves to stand guard. But the following morning he was on the surface of the earth again then we said: ‘Perhaps the slaves dozed off.’ So we buried him (again) and stood guard ourselves, but the following morning he was on the surface of the earth (again). So we threw him into one of these mountain passes.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3930, here.]

Sunni: He tells them that a man killed a person who professed Islam just as he was about to be killed but the killer did not stop and killed him despite the words of acceptance of Islam. Killers excuse was that conversion to Islam was just to save his life and killed had no real intentions of becoming Muslims. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was displeased with this killing and accepted no excuse. Killer died sometime after the killing, he was buried but earth rejected his body, and eventually he was thrown in some valley. This narrating Hadith saved life of Imran Ibn Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu) because it established to them that IF killing someone who had just accepted Islam outwardly was prohibited and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) punished the killer than killing Imran Ibn Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is way more worse than that because his knowledge, Taqwa, and Islam was established.

36 - Kharijis Apply Verses Revealed For Disbelievers Upon Believers, and Wahhabis:

Sunni: Now I have question to ask you.

Wahhabi: Sure.

Sunni: What did I conceal that was beneficial to you and detrimental to my position?

Wahhabi: I can’t even remember what your position was. What was it?

Sunni: This discussion on Ahadith started when I argued [in sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 25] belief is what is professed by tongue and confirmed in heart of individual. You argued if actions make belief suspect than belief is rejected and you quoted Hadith of Banu Jadhima. This added another dimension to already discussed point; IF it permissible or impermissible to kill one who professes Islam in anyway.

Sunni: I ask again, what did I conceal of Hadith that was helping your cause and refuting mine?

Wahhabi: I have nothing to say.

Sunni: I left the Ayah out and you applied the Ayah upon us Muslims and justified our killing through it just like Azraqa applied it upon companion Imran Ibn Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and insinuated to him he is about to be killed. Just like him I explained to you that this Ayah is not applicable Muslims. And just like Imran Ibn Hussain’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) explained I explained to you killing one whose Islam is established is worse, way worse that one who converts to Islam under the shadow of falling sword. Imran Ibn Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu) established that belief is what is professed by tongue and we have to respect it and proved that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) accepted words of belief uttered with tongue without questioning them. In the same way I established and reasoned what a Muslim professes with his tongue has precedence over what we deduce and his belief is what Muslim professes with his tongue.

Sunni: What did I hide that was beneficial to your cause?

Sunni: This is the part of Hadith I allegedly concealed: “It was narrated from Sumait bin Sumair, that ‘Imran bin Husain said: “(The leader of Azraqi Kharijis) Nafi Bin Azraq and his (Khariji) companions came. And said: ‘You are doomed, O Imran!’ He (Imran) said: ‘I am not doomed.’ They said: ‘Yes you are.’ I said: ‘Why am I doomed?’ They said: ‘Allah says: “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will be all for Allah Alone. He (Imran Bin Hussain) said: ‘We fought them (the Mushrikeen of Arabia) until they were defeated and the religion was all for Allah Alone. If you wish …” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3930, here.] Looking at the omitted part it is clear that Kharijis applied the verse upon him to argue killing him is permissible because he was upon Fitnah/Shirk. They applied a verse revealed for disbelievers upon a Muslim. Which you shouldn’t be surprised is exactly what Wahhabis have been doing and you just did. Your trait is to apply verses revealed for Mushriks upon Muslims like Azraqa did and following is what Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had to say about you: "And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Book 88, Book Apostates, Chapter 6:Killing al-Khawarij and Mulhideen, here, scribd here.]

Sunni: Did I wrong you by omitting it initially or benefit you? I wronged you but not because what you think. I wronged you because I disregarded something which could have been beneficial for you.

Wahhabi: May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you for the good. I have to leave.

Sunni: Salam Alaykum.

Edited 25 ستمبر 2022 by MuhammedAli
Updated 26th Sept 2022.

[MuhammedAli]

37 - Hadith Of Three Fundamental Roots Of Faith:

Sunni: I want to continue our discussion in light of Hadith about what is belief. I have a very important Hadith which you will find helpful but before that I have a question.

Wahhabi: Your questions are always a setup for something. Anyway ask away.

Sunni: On an issue for which there is no authentic Hadith available but only a Weak Hadith is available. Would it be better to adopt a position derived via Qiyas or adhere to weak Hadith?

Wahhabi: IF the Hadith is not against creed of Tawheed then I have no objection following the injunctions derived from the Hadith even IF it is based on Weak Hadith.

Sunni: I agree! Is that rule of all Ahadith not relating to issue of Tawheed or just some?

Wahhabi: All.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated there are three things foundation of Iman, to refrain from killing anyone who profess first part of Shahadatayn, not to declare a Muslim as Kafir for his sins, and not to invalidate Islam of a Muslim for his actions.

Wahhabi: There is no such a Hadith about actions and sins. You’re inventing this Hadith and you will reference it to some unknown book so your deception is not found out.

Sunni: Deception is strong word brother. You were liable of it but I gave you pass [in section 26] even though I had right to and certainly could say you lied because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “… on authority of Abī Hurayrah, he said, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah upon him, said: ‘It is enough of a lie for a man to narrate everything he hears.’” [Ref: Muslim, Introduction, H6, here.] This prophetic statement applied to you but I didn’t. We have had a very good discussion this far and beneficial so don’t start slinging mud at me when you have no reason to. We are moving on.

Wahhabi: Jazakallah Khayr for Nasihah.

Sunni: The Hadith I was talking about is from one book out of six authentic books of Ahadith. It is was narrated by: “Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet who said: Three things are the roots of faith: To refrain from (killing) a person who says: (i) “There is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah” (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his actions.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170, here.] I leave you to decide.

Wahhabi: I need to check the referrence and see what the scholars have said about it.

Wahhabi: Allahu Akbar!

Sunni: Take note of the third root of Iman which you violate. You declare a Muslim out of Islam for his [sinful and sometimes totally blameless] actions and but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not permit this. Second root of Iman, which you violate relates to your practice as well. You [Wahhabis] make Takfir of Muslims on actions which are either major sin such as prostration to Ghayrullah (i.e. other than Allah). Or you make Takfir for actions totally innocent such as seeking help from deceased servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Yet you were prohibited by Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from engaging in this. Due to your two mentioned traits [declaring Kafir due to sins and actions] you invalidate the belief of Tawheed of a Muslim in Islam than permit his murder. Members of your sect murdered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Arabia even though they pronounced; there is no Ilah except Allah. And this is even when you have no right to do so, because they had professed, there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah. In this way you invalidated and removed from your heart all three roots of Iman.

Sunni: The roots on which your sect and you invalidate Tawheed and Islam were prohibited: “Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” Hence in light of this Hadith there is no valid excuse for you to invalidate Tawheed and Islam of a Muslim. Anyone who professes, there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah, Muhammad is Messenger of Allah, he is Muslim, and his actions and sins do not invalidate his Islam but only if he professes a creed with his tongue which is contrary to Islam.

Wahhabi: To invoke anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is act of worship and that does nullify the creed of Tawheed.

Sunni: You’re judging the creed from his action. You have assumed, XMan seeks help therefore XMan has believed in an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You’re inferring belief from action and based on this you are invalidating the Islam of Muslims.

Wahhabi: I am not invalidating Tawheed based on his action I am invalidating it on his belief.

Sunni: You’re using the action to deduce a belief. Khawarij did the same. They used an action and from it deduced a belief which was Kufr and they declared the Muslims as Kafirs, Mushriks based on invented belief. Foundation on which you build your case is action like the Khawarij. It is due to methodology of Khawarij that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said do not declare a Muslim as Kafir due to his action. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said regarding them and those who follow their Minhaj (i.e. way😞 “Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.”

Wahhabi: The Hadith is weak therefore I cannot accept it what is derived from it.

Sunni: You have the right to not to accept it or reject but you have contradicted what you stated in the beginning, about preferring weak Hadith over Qiyas. Anyhow do you accept this Hadith would be a valid argument against Khawarij because it depicts their methodology?

Wahhabi: Yes of course.

Sunni: An argument based on weak Hadith against Khawarij is acceptable to you but because it argument is against your sect and your methodology the same isn’t acceptable to?

Wahhabi: ...

38 - Revisiting The Lost Shoe In Madinah Discussion:

Sunni: Remember I told you a scenario about a man seeking help from Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in city of Madinah regarding a lost shoe.

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: Do you remember you said it was innovation for seeking help in Madinah?

Wahhabi: Yes!

I said: OK, good. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) mentioned desert because he lived on a part of earth where most dangerous part of country was desert. So he instructed seeking of help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if one is in need of help in desert. What IF a person is lost in a forest, suppose amazon rain forest? Is he permitted to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Wahhabi: It will be innovation if one was to engage in seeking help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in rain forest.

Sunni: So brother, you will practice and you believe in strict literalism of Hadith. Where did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) perform his prayers? Did he perform Salah in the Masajid in Arabian Peninsula, or throughout the world?

Wahhabi: He performed most of his prayers in Masjid Nabvi.

Sunni: So Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed most of his prayers in Masjid Nabvi then why do you perform your prayers in the Masajid of UK? Should you not also be performing most of your prayers in Masjid Nabvi?

Wahhabi: Brother we are commanded to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and specification of in which Masjid it is to be performed has not been made in Qur’an or Hadith. Had Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) specified a particular Masjid for Muslims of entire earth then it would have been impractical. No one would be travelling to perform prayers such vast distances.

Sunni: That exactly is my point.

38 - Knocking On The Door Of Ijtihad:

Sunni: You see brother Hukm (i.e. injunction) to seek help from the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in desert is impractical for one living in Brazil. There is chance of Brazilian Muslims getting lost in rain forest now if they seek help of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are guilty of innovation. Can it not be that they make Ijtihad via Qiyas, replace desert with forest and seek help in forest?

Sunni: Yes, holding to literal permission of Hadith is most correct but Ijtihad is also teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Do you remember when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) sent few companions to Banu Qurayza and instructed them to perform Asir prayers when they reach there? In way between time of Asr prayer came one group performed the prayers on the grounds Prophets (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has instructed to perform the Asr prayer at residence of Banu Qurayza but did not prohibit performing Asr prayer at any other place. The other group reasoned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has instructed to perform Asir prayer at Banu Qurayza’s place he said nothing about performing Asir prayer in between. Therefore we will not perform it and we will only perform Asir prayer at residence of Banu Qurayza. Both groups referred the difference of opinion back to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he said both were correct. The literal adherence and the Ijtihadi understanding both were accepted by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). On the basis of this I reason that explicit instruction is for desert but one not living in desert country and one not in difficulty in desert can ask the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) where ever they maybe – in context of Brazil, rain forest.

Wahhabi: I need bit of time to think about the subject.

Wahhabi: I could respect such Ijtihadi understanding of Hadith of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) providing the person does not abrogate the Sunnah relating to it with action of Ijtihad and believes the servants of Allah are the angels.

Wahhabi: What Hadith did you base your understanding this on?

Sunni: There are two Ahadith I read while browsing but I can’t recall where. I will search for them.

Wahhabi: OK.

Sunni: “Narrated Ibn Umar: On the day of Al-Ahzab the Prophet said, "None of you Muslims should offer the `Asr prayer but at Banu Quraiza's place." The Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way. Some of those said, "We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza," while some others said, "No, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet did not mean that for us." Later on it was mentioned to the Prophet and he did not berate any of the two groups.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H445, here.] “It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah who said: On the day he returned from the Battle of Ahzab, the Messenger of Allah made for us an announcement that nobody would say his Zuhr prayer but in the quarters of Banu Quraiza (Some) people, being afraid that the time for prayer would expire, said their prayers before reaching the street of Banu Quraiza. The others said: We will not say our prayer except where the Messenger of Allah has ordered us to say it even if the time expires. When he learned of the difference in the view of the two groups of the people, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) did not blame anyone from the two groups.” [Ref: Muslim, B19, H4374, here.]

39 - Shirk Cannot Become Tawheed Due To Presence Of Evidence:

Sunni: According to you [in section 05] even IF Tawheed is upheld and IF one seeks help from Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) such person is guilty of Shirk. Your reasons for this verdict were: (i) seeking shoe from dead person, (2) seeking help of dead person: “Polytheist due to seeking help from a dead person and polytheist due to seeking a shoe from dead person.” Regarding the first you said in detail: “… he seeks shoe from someone who has no power to grant him or aid him to find it.” Second one you expanded [in section 08] by saying: “It is Shirk. XMan is guilty of worshipping the dead Shaykh by asking him for his help for which there is no proof, nor there is proof the dead can hear the call of help.” In that discussion [ending at section 07] you were unable to substantiate these principles with evidence of Qur’an/Hadith. Is there anything else which nullifies Tawheed of Muslims when they call the dead to help?

Wahhabi: I cannot think of anything else.

Sunni: I know you believe Istighathah is Shirk because lack of evidence from Qur’an/Hadith. What IF there is proof for Istighathah – will it then be Shirk?

Wahhabi: There is no proof for Istighathah.

Sunni: Brother, this is a hypothetical question just enquiring to gain knowledge about your principles.

Wahhabi: You are insinuating we judge Istighathah to be Shirk because it has no evidence. Quite contrary we judge it to be Shirk because it contradicts teaching of Tawheed. Don’t misrepresent our position.

Sunni: I am not. Answer the question please.

Wahhabi: IF there was proof, which there isn’t, then it would not be Shirk.

Sunni: Brother, this establishes you judge Shirk not on making someone is partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Rububiyyah, Uluhiyyah, and Asma Wal Sifat. Instead you judge Tawheed based on presence of evidence and Shirk on absence of evidence.

Sunni: What is Shirk was never Tawheed, will never become Tawheed, and cannot become Tawheed. IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had a son then the son would be Shareek/partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And hypothetically speaking, IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was to command us to believe that He possessed a son then we would be believing in a Shirk on command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which sanctions this Shirki belief will never be proof that believing in son of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is a Tawheedi belief. It will forever remain Shirk which is sanctioned by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The point is brother what is Shirk Haqiqi will remain Shirk no amount of scriptural evidence and prophetic words will make it Tawheed.

Sunni: Hypothetically speaking we could have had permitted Shirk and prohibited Shirk but we cannot have Shirk becoming Tawheed due to scriptural/textual evidence.

40 - Back To Basics Of Tawheed And Shirk:

Sunni: Brother, we both know very well, that Shirk is associating a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and an action is not Shirk due to absence of evidence. There are many practices which do not have evidence from Qur’an or Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Yet we do not say these practices are Shirk and the ones engaging in them as Mushrikeen. Sunnah way fighting Jihad is; sword, spear, horse, camel, shield, bow and arrows etc. There is no evidence from Qur’an/Hadith for modern weapons. Do you declare the usage of these weapons as Shirk and those who use them as Mushrikeen?

Wahhabi: Jihad was commanded nowhere it was stated these weapons should be used for Jihad. Jihad conceptually is part of religion of Islam not the weapons with which we can fight them.

Sunni: Does not the Qur’an say way of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is best of examples then will you abandon his example – sword, spear, horse, camel, shield, bow and arrow, for what the Kuffar invented? And isn’t one of principles, innovation in Deen which eliminates Sunnah is Shirk?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Do you agree it is Shirk?

Wahhabi: The issue is not related to Shirk so how can I agree to it.

Sunni: You’re saying using modern weapons is not Shirk?

Wahhabi: What else am I saying bro! That is what you’re asking me about.

Sunni: This issue is connected with Wahhabi version of Tawheed al-Hakimiyyah and Shirk al-Hakimiyyah. Legislating religion against what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislated is Shirk in Wahhabism. How is not usage of modern weapons Shirk when you have Halaled them leaving what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Halaled?

Wahhabi: We have not declared them Halal and we do not consider them part of Deen.

Sunni: Think about this, I don’t believe Yoga is part of Deen; neither is it part of Ibadah. It is just an exercise. What would you say to someone who has abandoned Salah and performs Yoga five times a day, every day, right after Adhan reciting all the Tasbihs of Salah, and has adopted approximate forms from Yoga for each position of Salah? What would you say? You would say something like this: IF you haven’t made it part of Deen and as a replacement of Salah than why are all details match approximately? Your abandoned prophetic Sunnah for modern weapons how else will you make it part of Deen. Do you see Wahhabis use them in their barbaric acts called Jihad? By using them in your so called Jihad you have made them part of Deen.

Wahhabi: It would be Shirk in Hakimiyyah IF someone uses them believing they are prophetic Sunnahs, or these modern weapons have abrogated prophetic Sunnah because than they would make them part of Deen. IF you say it is Shirk than you are guilty of Shirk too because Sufis use them too.

Sunni: So even though the issue is related to Tawheed/Shirk Hakimiyyah and it has no evidence you won’t declare it Shirk but you do judge Istighathah to be Shirk on account it ‘lacks’ evidence?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Brother, there is indirect evidence for the use of these weapons. We can via Ijtihad legalize the use of these weapons. We can approximate modern weapons with Prophetic Sunnah weapons with Qiyas and legalize their use; rifle with bayonet with spear, rifle with bullets to bow and arrow, artillery to bow and arrow.

Wahhabi: Well, than these weapons are not truly without evidence hence no reason to declare their use as Shirk.

Sunni: This is not explicit proof this is indirect evidence which I call Ijtihadi evidence. IF you refrain from declaring something Shirk due to implicit evidence then I can at least present implicit evidence in regards to Istighathah, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), the dead and the living are servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence Istighathah is established. IF existence of implicit evidence is valid reason to with-hold edict of Shirk then there is Hadith which implicitly establishes Istighathah.

Sunni: It is impossible for Shirk to become Tawheed on basis of existence of evidence. Shirk will remain Shirk even if there is evidence, the only difference would be permitted Shirk and prohibited Shirk. I believe this was sufficient to refute your position.

41 - Pettifogging An Unrelated Issue To Divert Attention From Topic:

Wahhabi: You’re saying worship cannot be Tawheedi and Shirki?

Sunni: I didn’t say that. Read again.

Wahhabi: You’re saying a Shirki action cannot become Tawheedi and I assume other way around would also be true in your methodology.

Sunni: I didn’t say that. I said a definite Shirk, a real Shirk; an actual Shirk i.e. will not become Tawheedi even IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed us to believe in.

Wahhabi: That’s what I have refuted.

Sunni: You haven’t refuted anything. You would have refuted my argument IF you had proved worship of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) becomes Tawheedi worship because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed us.

Wahhabi: Can worship be Tawheedi?

Sunni: Yes.

Wahhabi: Can we commit Shirk in worship?

Sunni: Yes.

Wahhabi: You have been refuted.

Sunni: How does that refute me has beaten my intellect. I believe an action, or a belief can become Tawheed/Shirk IF Tawheedi and Shirk beliefs are associated with it and there is evidence.

Sunni: A belief/action which has already Shirk/Tawheed associated with it cannot become Tawheedi/Shirki without Shirki/Tawheedi aspect being removed from it. IF Quran/Sunnah taught Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has a partner Ilah/Rabb even this evidence will not make this Shirk into Tawheed.

Sunni: Istighathah according to you is Shirk but it can be in accordance with Tawheed IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed us. I am arguing IF it was indeed Shirk like you claim it will never become Tawheed.

Wahhabi: Worship can be Shirki and Tawheedi so why can’t Istighathah be in accordance with evidence of Quran and Sunnah?

Sunni: Brother I am getting angry. IF you’re doing this to wind me up than it is good time to stop.

Wahhabi: I am not.

Sunni: We are not talking about Ibadah so leave it out for now. We are talking about Istighathah and those things which are definitively Shirk.

42 - Attacking Wahhabi Position, Evidence For Istighathah Will Make It Tawheed:

Sunni: Is Istighathah by its very essence Shirk?

Wahhabi: ...

Sunni: Is Istighathah entirely made up of major Shirk? Answer the question brother.

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: You would agree with the following statement: Istighathah is definitively Shirk just as believing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has an Ilah/Rabb partner is definitively Shirk. Would you?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had revealed an Ayah instructing Istighathah would that mean he instructed us to engage in Shirk?

Wahhabi: No. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not instruct Shirk.

Sunni: So Istighathah would be in accordance with Tawheed IF there was evidence in support of it?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: How can something Shirk by its very essence/nature become Tawheed on basis of evidence? Please spare me your wisdom.

Wahhabi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will not legalize a Shirk so IF there was evidence in support of it than Istighathah would not be Shirk.

Sunni: Point I intended to make was that IF Istighathah was Shirk by its very essence, nature, build than no amount of evidence in Quran/Sunnah will make it Tawheed. Just as IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed us in 200 Ayaat to believe in a Ilah/Rabb partner would not make our creed Tawheed. It will be Shirk but permitted Shirk. We both believe there is no such thing as permitted Shirk.

Sunni: You acknowledge Istighathah can become a valid Tawheedi practice IF there was evidence in Quran/Sunnah. This means you believe Istigathah is not Shirk by its very nature/essence even though you have said contrary to it. IF Istighathah can become Tawheedi practice on basis of evidence than it means there is room for it to be compatible with Tawheed even without evidence. Yet according to your methodology Istighathah is a definitive and Shirk by its very nature/essence. This is contradictory position and demonstrates erroneous methodology you’re upon.

Wahhabi: Your entire philosophy is erroneous because actions become Tawheed/Shirk. Worship can be in accordance with Tawheed and Shirk.

Sunni: My patience is running very thin with your games bro.

Wahhabi: Why are you getting angry? Can’t take my legit refutations?

Sunni: Amr believes Bakr is an Ilah, worships Bakr, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reveals Ayah, Bakr is an Ilah, worship of Bakr is commanded, everyone believes Bakr to be an Ilah, worships Bakr. Question to you is that to believe Bakr is an Ilah and worship of Bakr in accordance with Tawheed?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Respond to what I have asked you. Is worship of Bakr in accordance with Tawheed if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed it?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Your silence speaks volumes. You were talking about entire worship which can be Shirk and non-Shirk. Whereas I was talking about something which is definitive Shirk such as worship of creation. Shirk cannot become Tawheed and Tawheed cannot become Shirk, in presence of, or in absence of evidence. You believe something which is Shirk can be accordance with Tawheed IF there was evidence for it. This can only be IF it was not Shirk to begin with and you were misguided to believe it is Shirk. Believing in son of Allah is Shirk an IF there was evidence in Quran it will not become Tawheed. It was Shirk and remains Shirk. IF Istighathah was Shirk will remain Shirk even with evidence but in your Wahhabism it will become Tawheedi practice IF there was evidence. There are huge consequences of this because without evidence Istighathah is Shirk because it is Shar’ri Dua i.e. Dua of worship. This is what you say and not I. IF there was evidence than what would happen to that Dua of worship in Istighathah; would it would remain Dua of worship but not affect Tawheed? Or worshiping others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) become part of Tawheed? Answer.

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: You will have to agree that a definitive Shirk will not and cannot become Tawheed on basis of evidence in Quran/Sunnah.

Wahhabi: Istighathah is Shirk but not definitive/concrete like others so the Hukm on it can change IF there was evidence.

Sunni: Without evidence call of help in Istighathah according to you is Dua of worship how will presence of evidence remove worship from the Dua/call?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Answer to this question is very obvious. You will be forced to abandon your principles. I mean you will have to let go of these; (i) calling upon dead is Dua, Dua worship, hence Shirk, (ii) seeking out of means is Shirk, (iii) seeking one far is Shirk. Which means they would not be part of Tawheed/Shirk determining principles and IF they would be not so than they are not at the moment.

Sunni: Only reason you are declaring it Shirk is because you believe there is no evidence for it. We both know absence of evidence for a practice does not make it Shirk but in case of Istighathah you have taken this stance that it is Shirk. Rather than taking natural course of action which is to consider beliefs of people engaged in practice than judge the practice instead you have decided it is Shirk than invented principles mentioned above to prove it is Shirk. These invented principles will instantly disappear and suddenly will absolutely have nothing to do with methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk. This establishes that your principles have actually nothing to do with determining Tawheed/Shirk and instead they were invented out of thin air to support extremism and Kharijism of Shaykh al-Najd Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

Wahhabi: You’re milking a hypothetical scenario the reality is Istighathah is Shirk by its very nature and there is nothing in Quran/Sunnah supporting it.

Sunni: I have said what I needed to.

43 - An Action And A Practice Can Be According To Shirk And Tawheed:

Sunni: Do you believe Shirk can be removed from Istighathah?

Wahhabi: The very practice of Istighathah is Shirk.

Sunni: You mean to say that Istighathah cannot be separated from Shirk?

Wahhabi: Yes! To remove Shirk from Istighathah you have to remove Istighathah.

Sunni: Can Shirk enter into a practice and make it polytheistic practice?

Wahhabi: Yes, there are many practices in which Shirk can enter.

Sunni: Give me example, brother.

Wahhabi: Prostration (i.e. Sajdah).

Sunni: What are you basing this on?

Wahhabi: Angels prostrated to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) on command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it was not Shirk.

Sunni: Why was this free from Shirk?

Wahhabi: It is not Shirk because Allah does not command Shirk and angels don’t commit Shirk.

Sunni: My brother, I am aware of this. Suppose, IF angels had belief that Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) was Ma’bud/Ilah. Then could their action be worship and Shirk?

Wahhabi: Why suppose the impossible! I don’t want to get involved in such hypothetical scenarios.

Sunni: You had no objections earlier [in the discussion] to answer questions which are hypothetically grounded. Why now?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Imagine I am an Atheist.

Wahhabi: You’re worse than an Atheist because you’re Mushrik due to Istighathah.

Sunni: As an Atheist, I prostrate to Allah, but do not believe Allah is Ilah/Ma’bud. Have I worshipped Him?

Wahhabi: No!

Wahhabi: Why would an Atheist do this if he does not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Sunni: I am Atheist but new age type Atheist  just trying Salah to see IF I get struck with lightening and get instant enlightenment so I do weird stuff.

Sunni: So here [in this scenario] there was no belief of Ilahiyyah, neither intention of worship, hence the prostration was not worship. IF same action was accompanied with belief of Ilahiyyah for Krishna and intention to worship [Krishna] was part of it than I will be Mushrik due to belief and guilty of Shirk in Ibadah.

Sunni: What I was trying to get from you earlier was the factor which changes the nature of an action but you were not cooperating. You see Shirk can enter and Shirk can leave a practice. When it enters it, practice becomes Shirk, and when it leaves practice than it becomes Tawheed. You’ve stated Istighathah by very nature is Shirk and therefore it cannot be according to Tawheed.

Sunni: No action by its nature is of worship, or Shirki, or Tawheedi. Actions become something due to belief and intention with which they are enacted hence your statement that Istighathah by very nature is Shirk is erroneous.

44 - Demonstrating Brother Changed Position To Shirk Cannot Become Tawheed:

Sunni: You have also contradicted what you said week ago. You said Istighathah can be in accordance with Tawheed IF there was evidence for it from Quran/Sunnah but week later you said it is Shirk by its very nature and to remove Shirk from Istighathah you have to remove Istighathah. Which means even evidence of Quran/Sunnah, IF there was, would not be enough to make it compatible with Tawheed.

Wahhabi: You’re misrepresenting what actually was said by me. I said it was Shirk by its very nature even then but I also said it can be valid practice IF there was evidence.

Sunni: I pointed out than that these two were contradictory positions which cannot be reconciled with each other without you letting go of your methodology of determining Shirk.

Wahhabi: Did I not say it is Shirk by its very nature? Yes or no.

Sunni: Yes you did.

Wahhabi: Why are you making it out as IF I have changed my position now when it was there to begin with?

Sunni: My bad I will correct the detail.

Sunni: You have also contradicted what you said week ago. You said Istighathah is Shirk by its very nature but can be in accordance with Tawheed IF there was evidence for it from Quran/Sunnah but week later you said it is Shirk by its very nature and to remove Shirk from Istighathah you have to remove Istighathah. Which means even evidence of Quran/Sunnah, IF there was, would not be enough to make it compatible with Tawheed.

Sunni: I added the missing detail which got you so worked up. This detail doesn’t change the fact that your position on Istighathah has changed from last session.

Sunni: Your position has changed. Previous session [in section 42] you said Istighathah is Shirk by its very essence but IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed it than Istighathah would be in accordance with teaching of Tawheed and won’t be Shirk. In this session you have taken position which basically contradicts this and I quote: “Sunni: Do you believe Shirk can be removed from Istighathah? Wahhabi: The very practice of Istighathah is Shirk. Sunni: You mean to say that Istighathah cannot be separated from Shirk? Wahhabi: Yes! To remove Shirk from Istighathah you have to remove Istighathah.” You said to remove Shirk [from Istighathah] you have to remove Istighathah which means to believe nothing can reconcile Istighathah with Tawheed not even the evidence of Quran/Sunnah.

Wahhabi: I only entertained a hypothetical scenario but I have been advised not engage in, what IF’s, hence I have reverted back to position which is based on solid foundations.

Sunni: Damage was done than and has been done today.

Wahhabi: Plus a Talib ul-Ilm confirmed that a definitive Kufr cannot become Tawheed.

Sunni: I suppose you believe Istighathah is a definitive Kufr?

Wahhabi: It is.

Sunni: I have demonstrated [in section 43 that] no practice is definitively Shirk until Shirki beliefs enter it. Istighathah as we practice is not Shirk but if beliefs of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah are affirmed for whom the help is being sought and intention of worship is part of call of help then Istighathah is Shirk.

Wahhabi: Shirki beliefs (i.e. dead can hear, see, have ability to grant the need) and Shirki actions (i.e. worship) are part of Istighathah.

Sunni: Your last comment will change direction of our discussion.

45 - Pointing Out The Evil Side Of Khariji Coin:

Wahhabi: You said: “I have demonstrated [in this section 43 that] no practice … is part of call of help than Istighathah is Shirk.” This is not the only criteria determining Shirk but seeking from deceased something which is not in his power and with belief that he can hear/see is Shirk.

Sunni: What have you based your principle on?

Wahhabi: Based on the fact that dead cannot help you and cannot hear you when you call upon them.

Sunni: I gathered that much the first time you said it. What relevance does this [principle of yours] has with Shirk?

Wahhabi: It doesn’t have any?

Sunni: You and I both know Shirk is associating an Ilah-partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How can seeking help from deceased result in deceased being made Ilah-partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! There is no equality between the deceased Awliyah and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Not unless you believe your Ilah has died, and you seek help from deceased Ilah, and only then seeking aid of deceased Awliyah can have some relevance with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Otherwise I do not see any relevance of your principle with Tawheed or Shirk.

Wahhabi: I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from such blasphemous accusation.

Sunni: I didn’t accuse you of anything. I merely indicated how there can be equality between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Awliyah, leading to ‘Shirk’. IF one was to consider your belief, Istighathah being Shirk, then naturally if we peel each layer, we come to foundation that the Ilah you believe is dead, and you seek help of this dead Ilah, and seeking help of deceased Awliyah therefore will mean sharing His right with creation.

46 - Wahhabi Is Scrambling And His Counter Attack:

Wahhabi: Seeking help from the deceased itself is not Shirk but when one does so he worships the deceased and this is Shirk.

Sunni: I am fully aware what your methodology and principles are. You are just damage controlling and just distorting the reality.

Sunni: What makes the act of calling the deceased an act of worship?

Wahhabi: The Mushriks invoked the dead which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said is an act of worship.

Sunni: Can you quote me evidence for this in context?

Wahhabi: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up. Your Ilah is One Ilah. But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny, and they are proud.” [Ref: 16:20/22]

Sunni: The verse does not in any way indicate that invoking the deceased is worship or invoking the deceased is Shirk.

Wahhabi: The verse establishes that they invoked dead and invocation to the dead is worship. And this is our principle on which we judge Shirk in Istighathah.

Sunni: You’ve argued your case well so well that I need to actually think about how I will respond to it. We will meet again tomorrow.

Wahhabi: Tomorrow is Monday so I will have to see IF I can.

47 - Wahhabi Brother Is Justifying The End With End:

Sunni: I need to set some record straight. Yesterday I had to leave and think about what you said because I thought you have beaten me so I needed to reflect and take stock of matter. This is why I decided to leave.

Wahhabi: I didn’t think it was the case but why have you rejected my principle?

Sunni: You see you wanted to prove this principle: invoking the deceased is worship, do you agree?

Wahhabi: OK!

Sunni: This is what you wrote: “The verse establishes that they invoked dead and invocation to the dead is worship.” In other words, the principle which you wanted to establish was part of reasoning through which you established it the principle. It is like trying to establish crow is black with reasoning, crow is black.

Wahhabi: Give me bit of time to get my head around what you’re saying.

Sunni: OK!

Wahhabi: I see your point but it is not big deal to be honest it can be modified. My evidence isn’t wrong how I reasoned my argument was wrong.

Sunni: Your understanding is indeed wrong.

Wahhabi: How?

Sunni: I will prove it but you will have to tolerate excessive writing.

Wahhabi: No objections.

48 - Explaining The Evidence Of Q16:21 Employed For Principle:

Sunni: You quoted the Ayah: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up. Your Ilah is One Ilah. But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny, and they are proud.” [Ref: 16:20/22] Firstly the people who invoked the dead were polytheists. Secondly the words the dead in verse were regarding those who did not create anything but were created themselves and this is a referrence to gods of polytheists. Evidence is as follows: “Yet have they taken besides Allah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] Their Shirk was they took idols as Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and invoked their idol-Ilahs as an act of worship to get to closer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and they said: "We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah." [Ref: 39:3] They affirmed creed of Ilahiyyah for their idols, had intention of, than performed action of worship. All three requirements for action to be worship are present and this is why their act of invoking ‘the dead’ (i.e. idol-Ilahs) mentioned in the verse is worship. And this goes on to demonstrate the correctness of principles of Ahle Sunnat not yours.

Wahhabi: I have proven my principle with sound reasoning and you have rejected it

Sunni: I disagree.

Wahhabi: We will have to agree to disagree on this then.

Sunni: You haven’t proven your principle because referrence to dead was not to dead people but to idols [which are made from dead/inorganic materials] and idols were/are Ilahs of polytheists. The invocation was not to the dead people but to idols [which are made from dead/inorganic materials].

49 - Wahhabi Interpretation Chapter 16 Verse 21 Is Without Foundation:

Wahhabi: Brother you have interpreted the verse in light of another verse. Obviously the understanding will change depending upon verses you couple it with.

Sunni: True but this doesn’t refute what I have demonstrated with evidence.

Wahhabi: Did I say it refutes anything?

Sunni: …

Wahhabi: I have taken the verse into account as it is and based my argument on it.

Sunni: I have only removed ambiguity and identified who the dead are in this verse.

Wahhabi: I am not saying you haven’t but I am saying other interpretations are possible.

Sunni: Are those interpretations canonical?

Wahhabi: Canonical?

Sunni: Authoritative, scriptural and valid.

Wahhabi: What is more authoritative than Quran?

Sunni: …

Wahhabi: When it says they invoke beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which create nothing but are themselves created and they are dead and not alive than why do you have problem with accepting they invoked the dead people?

Sunni: The Ayah does not say they are invoking dead people which created nothing but were themselves created. You’re inserting your understanding into the verse.

Wahhabi: Allah says: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up. Your Ilah is One Ilah. But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny, and they are proud.” [Ref: 16:20/22] Why would the dead-ness of invoked be emphasized so clearly IF it was only about idols?

Sunni: Quote me a single verse from Quran which EXPLICITLY states Mushrikeen of Arabia invoked dead people. Or says like the following verse, they have taken besides Allah dead people as partners which create nothing but were themselves created, something like this but for dead people: “Yet have they taken besides Allah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.” [Ref: 25:3] I make you a deal. IF manage this I will become Wahhabi once again.

Wahhabi: Bro you’re making such challenges because you have grounded your demand in impossibility.

Sunni: It is not impossibility. It is well known and universally accepted that ambiguity found in one verse is removed by another verse so IF your interpretation is correct than evidence is in Quran. Or we can make decision on what is stated Tafasir.

Wahhabi: I will try search for evidence Quran. It will take time so we will have to continue week ends as routine.

Sunni: Wait. Wait.

Sunni: Shaykh Ibn Kathir interpreted the verse in context of idols: “Then Allah tells us that the idols which people call on instead of Him cannot create anything, they are themselves created. As Al-Khalil (Ibrahim) said: "Do you worship that which you (yourselves) carve While Allah has created you and what you make!'' (37:96) Verse: “They are dead, not alive …” Means they are inanimate and lifeless, they do not hear, see, or think. Verse: “… and they know not when they will be resurrected.” Meaning they do not know when the Hour will come, so how can anyone hope for any benefit or reward from these idols. They should hope for it from the One Who knows all things and is the Creator of all things.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q16:20/21, here.] Have a look at this Tafsir and others. Weekend we can discuss any evidence you submit but condition is that the interpretation has to have explicit evidence from Quran because Quran explains Quran the best.

Sunni: Another matter I want to address now before it slips out of my mind. You said your following principle can be corrected: “… they invoked dead and invocation to the dead is worship.” What would be correct?

Wahhabi: They invoked the dead, and invocation is worship, hence invoking the dead is an act of worship.

Wahhabi: I really have to go.

Sunni: We can carry on weekend.

50 - Verses Establish Worship Is On Ilahiyyah, Intention, And Action:

Sunni: It was already established the phrase ‘the dead’ refers to idol-gods of polytheists. And this same point is being in the following verse: “Have they feet wherewith they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear? Say: "Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me, and give me no respite! “ [Ref: 7:195] This verse is implying even though the idols of polytheists possess hands, feet, eyes, ears yet they are dead and do not have life which would enable them to use these body parts. It was also established that polytheists had the intention of worshiping the idol-gods and worshiped them to get closer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). There is belief of Ilahiyyah, there is intention of worship, and there is action of worship. And IF we accept your understanding of verse and agree that the verse is about dead-people as well even than your principle is incorrect because it omits these fundamentals hence it cannot be correct.

Wahhabi: IF the verse was not referring to human beings then why would Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) use the word dead its usage makes no sense.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states, earth is dead – here: “He brings the living out of the dead, and brings the dead out of the living, and brings to life the earth after its lifelessness. And thus will you be brought out.” [Ref: 30:19] “And a sign for them is the dead earth. We have brought it to life and brought forth from it grain, and from it they eat. “ [Ref: 36:33] IF earth being dead makes sense to you then why would not idols being referred as dead make sense to you – especially when the idols were made from dead earths material?

Wahhabi: I have taken your point on board.

Sunni: IF your principle was compromised the following details: They invoked the dead [idol-gods], invocation is worship [when directed toward a Deity with intention of worship], and hence invoking the dead [idol-gods] is an act of worship. This way all the details of verse are included in your principle.

He said: You’ve just tactfully presented your own principle in garb of mine.

I said: Indeed all the details of the verses do establish my principle.

He said: We will have to agree to disagree on this than.

I said: I agree.

51 - Invalidating Three Principles Of Wahhabism:

Sunni: Right in the beginning of our discussion [section 04] we had the following exchange:  “Sunni: Suppose a Wahhabi loses his way in desert. (i) Seeks help from the angel. Is he monotheist or polytheist? Wahhabi: A monotheist! Sunni: (ii) What if he seeks help from the angel believing the angel is god-partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Is he polytheist or monotheist? Wahhabi: Polytheist because he takes angel as partner in God-hood! Sunni: Is he polytheist due to belief or action? Wahhabi: Action and belief. Sunni: Which action made him polytheist? Wahhabi: He invoked the angel for help and this is worshipping therefore Shirk. Sunni: OK but why is he Mushrik? Wahhabi: He is polytheist for action of worship and guilty of Shirk for attesting to belief of god-hood for an angel. Do you agree? Sunni: I agree that he is polytheist due to belief and his action. I want to contextualize what we discussed. Sunni: In the scenario (i) the angel wasn’t taken as a god hence his request for help from angel wasn’t worship but in scenario (ii) the angel was taken as a god therefore the request of help was interpreted to mean worship.” Read it and take special note of underlined. I want to discuss something that is connected with underlined.

Sunni: I apologize in advance because I will start with something very basic. My objective is to confirm we are on the same page about building blocks and IF we do have any issues they need to be sorted before discussion progresses

Wahhabi: I agree.

Sunni: What is Dua?

Wahhabi: I don’t know what you’re asking but I take a shot at your question.

Sunni: What is status of Dua in religion of Islam?

Wahhabi: Dua is act of calling-out i.e. supplication, invocation.

Wahhabi: Dua is worship.

Sunni: In Islam is every act of Dua worship?

Wahhabi: No!

Sunni: Why isn’t every act of Dua worship?

Wahhabi: Word Dua is used in linguistic and legal sense.

Sunni: Explain.

Wahhabi: In linguistic sense [it just means call therefore] it is not worship and in Shar’ri sense it is [call of, invocation of, supplication of] worship.

Sunni: How do I differentiate between Duas …

Wahhabi: What has this got to do with the contents of quote? Doesn’t seem it is even remotely connected to it.

Sunni: It is connected. You said he is Mushrik due to belief and action. According to you action of Shirk associated with Istighathah is Dua/Ibadah and this is discussion about action associated with it i.e. Dua/Ibadah.

Sunni: How do I differentiate between Duas of Tawheed and Shirk according to scholarly Minhaj?

Wahhabi: (1) Dua directed toward, dead Wali is worship and Shirk. (2) Dua in which Ma Fawq al-Asbab (i.e. out of natural means i.e. supernatural) type of help is sought is worship and Shirk. (3) Dua directed to someone who cannot naturally hear you is worship and Shirk.

Sunni: Are these fundamental and only principles on which you judge Istighathah to be worship and Shirk?

Wahhab: These are the core principles on which we judge Dua in Istighathah to be worship.

Sunni: And only?

Wahhabi: And only.

Sunni: So would you agree with the following principles: (1) Asking the living is not worship neither Shirk, (2) asking for which is in Taht al-Asbab (i.e. according to natural means) isn't worship neither Shirk, (3) and seeking help from someone who can hear you is not worship neither shirk?

Wahhabi: Yes!

Sunni: I offer you a Scenario.

Sunni: Aalim genuinely believes his friend Zalim is an Ilah. Aalim says: O Zalim give me glass of water please. Zalim: Walks to him and goes here you go have one cold glass of water. According to your belief system: (1) Asking the living is not worship therefore not Shirk, (2) asking for which is in Taht al-Asbab is not worship therefore not Shirk, (3) and seeking help from someone who can hear you is not worship therefore not shirk.

Sunni: Question to you is: Is Aalim a Mushrik? IF yes than why Aalim is Mushrik? IF no why Aalim is not Mushrik?

Wahhabi: Aalim is Mushrik because he has believed Zalim is an Ilah.

Sunni: Is Aalim guilty of worship of Zalim?

Wahhabi: Yes he is.

Sunni: Here you have gone against your principles. You stated in your three principles that Dua directed toward dead, Dua in which Ma Fawq al-Asbab type help is sought, and Dua in which someone is expected to hear but has not means of hearing is worship. And you agreed with my presentation and opposite of your principles as well. In your principles this is not an act of worship [and three principles I derived from your three also establish the same] but in my principles it is worship [because belief of Ilahiyyah was affirmed and Dua was directed].

52 - Three Sunni Principles Via Which Dua Of Worship Is Determined:

Wahhabi: What are your principles?

Sunni: (i) Dua directed toward a Deity/Ilah is worship. (ii) Dua in which help of a Deity is sought is worship. (iii) Dua in which intention is of worship such Dua is worship.

Sunni: According to my principles Aalim believed Zalim is an Ilah therefore he is Mushrik. Aalim also directed Dua of help to Zalim [who is believed as an Ilah] hence he worshiped Zalim and this is second reason why Aalim committed Shirk.

Wahhabi: I agree with your first principle and third principle but not second.

Sunni: Why?

Wahhabi: You’re tying worship with seeking of help from a Deity and this is not an essential requirement.

Sunni: You’re objecting because Istighathah wouldn’t be Shirk because there is no outward, explicit affirmation of belief in Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah.

Sunni: What about seeking help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) while not believing He is my Ilah/Rabb? Will that be worship in absence of Ilahiyyah?

Wahhabi: No! No! No! It is essential requirement otherwise it can be worship.

Sunni: It seems for Istighathah you Wahhabis have made special exception due which Ibadah/Shirk is warranted even without Ilahiyyah.

Sunni: Why should Ilahiyyah be essential for all invocations of worship except invocation of Istighathah?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: On what evidence of Quran/Sunnah have you made this Tahkhsees/distinction that in context of Istighathah affirmation of Ilahiyyah isn’t required?

Wahhabi: This is methodology of Salaf as-Saliheen.

Sunni: I would like to see evidence which proves Salaf adhered to your methodology.

Wahhabi: I will search in our books of Aqeedah than I will share it with you.

Sunni: And what IF you cannot support your claim?

Wahhabi: I will.

Sunni: What IF you cannot?

Wahhabi: There is no, what IF, I will support my position.

Sunni: I just want to get something clear. You will be supporting these principles of yours: “(1) Dua directed toward, dead Wali is worship and Shirk. (2) Dua in which Ma Fawq al-Asbab (i.e. out of natural means i.e. supernatural) type of help is …” There is no Ilahiyyah in these and on basis of this you judge Istighathah to be Shirk.

Wahhabi: I will prove invocation of help is worship when it is directed to a dead person hence Shirk.

Sunni: OK.

53 - Wahhabi Attests Sunni Principles Are Correct: Islamic Principles:

Sunni: The three principles you mentioned earlier: What purpose do they serve?

Wahhabi: Well they point out where Shirk is.

Sunni: You didn’t understand what was being asked.

Wahhabi: You’re not very precise with your questions.

Sunni: Your three principles determine Istighathah to be Shirk.

Sunni: According to your methodology these three principles establish an action/Istighathah is worship. And it is universally accepted that worship is always of an Ilah/Ma’bud. Hence when a Muslim calls a deceased Wali for help than according to your methodology he has not only worshipped the Wali but also taken him to be an Ilah/Ma’bud and that’s why you charge them of committing Shirk [because they have taken an Ilah as partner beside Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala]. In your methodology seeking help from deceased Wali is worship because Ilahiyyah is implied from the action. Where as in my principle, Dua in which help of a Deity is sought is worship, belief of Ilahiyyah is already believed and then help is sought as act of worship. The difference between two methodologies is that Salafi three principles lead to Ilahiyyah via actions and my methodology Ilahiyyah leads to action of worship/Dua.

Sunni: Fundamentally Ilahiyyah is part of my and your methodology. In mine Shirk is due to Ilahiyyah and actions of worship and in your methodology Shirk is due to worship and Ilahiyyah. Rationale of your methodology is that the three principles establish worship, worship is for Ilah, hence worship of creation, implies affirmation of Ilahiyyah for creation. You judge Shirk based on Ilahiyyah but which is implied through action. This is clearly wrong because creed precedes all actions.

Wahhabi: No. In this regard I judge Shirk based on worship and not due to affirmation IF Ilahiyyah.

Sunni: By worship you specifically mean, invoking the deceased, or are you using it generally?

Wahhabi: According to context of our discussion (i.e. Istighathah) and generally.

Sunni: You have already said [in sections 18, 19, and 20] that you do not judge belief from actions but you judge belief from what person affirms with his tongue. And I already have refuted your judging creed from actions. You cannot judge/derive creed of Ilahiyyah from actions you know this is wrong because creed leads to actions.

Sunni: You said that you judge Shirk from worship?

Wahhabi: Yes! How can I not judge creed from actions? Someone is performing Salah and I can make judgment that he believes only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deserves to be worshipped.

Sunni: How can you say those who perform Istighathah are Mushrik IF Salah proves your version of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah?

Wahhabi: Mushrikeen of Arabia which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered purified worship in calamity. You Sufis contaminate your creed with Shirk in calamity.

Sunni: In that case Salah is not proof of my creed is it which you said: “… Salah and I can make judgment that he believes only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deserves to be worshipped.” Is it or not?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Does the belief of Ilahiyyah lead to worship or does worship lead to Ilahiyyah?

Wahhab: …

Sunni: Did you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is your Ma’bud/Ilah first and then worshipped Him or did you worship Him and then believed He is your Ilah/Ma’bud?

Wahhabi: The creed leads to worship and I worshiped Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) after believing He is worthy of worship.

Sunni: The building block of your actions is creed and precisely this is on what principle two which I purposed is based on: “… a Deity/Ilah is worship. (ii) Dua in which help of a Deity is sought is worship. (iii) Dua in which intention …” Think about it. You’re on the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah [because you believe creed of Ilahiyyah leads to worship] but against Ahlus Sunnah you employ the invented principles and methodology [which judge worship in absences of Ilahiyyah]. This proves all my three principles are valid because your own actions are based on them.

Wahhabi: I need time to think about the discussion we had so far and refer to Ahlul Ilm in this regard.

Sunni: I think we will leave it at this and continue when you return with a verdict.

Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum.

Sunni: Wa Alaykum Salam.

Wahhabi: I have had time to think about contents of our most recent discussion and I am inclined to believe you were correct.

Sunni: Why the change of heart?

Wahhabi: I thought about why I objected to it and how it is actually valid and that opened the door to my realization your understanding is correct.

Sunni: What bought you this realization? What are your reasons?

Wahhabi: Like you said that my own Ibadaat and invocations are based on Ilahiyyah/Niyyah hence it cannot be denied validity but on other hand I cannot accept it as a universal principle. I originally objected to your second principle because it was created to exonerate practitioners of Istighathah from Shirk and this is the only context in which I am opposed to it. Otherwise it is valid.

54 - Agreement Principle Is Correct And Ijmah Is Upon Guidance:

Sunni: Brother when both of us agree on correct-ness of my principles. Should you not take heed from the following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] Implying that his Ummah will only unite/agree upon what is guidance.

Wahhabi: In this Hadith Mu’an Bin Rifa’ah Aslami is weak in Hadith. Abu Khalf al-Aa’ma has been accused of lying. The Hadith is weak hence cannot be used for evidence.

Sunni: We have clear instruction in Sahih authentic Ahadith to follow the Jammah and Jammah is majority of Islamic scholarship and Muslims who follow them so the Sanad of Hadith maybe weak but the content is supported with authentic Ahadith.

Sunni: I did not intend to imply adherence to majority is obligation so there is no reason to weaken the Hadith. I merely cited the Hadith to establish that Ijmah is upon guidance and not misguidance. You and I both agree that upon Ijmah being source of guidance?

Wahhabi: Ijmah of Ummah is upon guidance no doubt but there is no Ijmah on your principle just agreement between us both. You’re calling this Ijmah and this is not right.

Sunni: Ijmah is of two types: (i) Ijmah via explicit statements an example of this would be clear categoric statements indicating on this there is Ijmah. (ii) Ijmah via non-contradiction is type in which a position/action was known to scholars but they did not refute it or object to it.

Sunni: I and you have agreement following principle is valid: “… a Deity/Ilah is worship. (ii) Dua in which help of a Deity is sought is worship. (iii) Dua in which intention …” Do you think the scholars of Ummah would reject this principle? We have Ijmah Sukooti because none has refuted or contradicted this principle. Not just only this but all three principles mentioned by me are agreed upon by both of us and there is no doubt Islamic scholarship would agree with them hence these cannot be error. As per agreed rules which I quote: “… any principle not agree upon both sides needs to be supported with evidence if demand is made, agreed upon principles will not be brought into dispute, questioned …” We agree upon Ijmah and I expect that it will not be brought into dispute in future. Any how you have already agreed with me upon the correctness of Sunni three principles [mentioned in the beginning of section 52] and I seek assurance you will not bring it into dispute in future.

Sunni: As for your three Salafi principles which you presented they are disputed and unsubstantiated. We already had a discussion regarding them on PalTalk, and even in this discussion, and once more I am willing to hand you the charge so you can establish them. At this moment our discussion stands at you holding to Sunni principle which has support from Quran/Sunnah and you agree they are all valid. And on top of these principles you’re holding to your own three principles which don’t have any textual support from Quran/Sunnah. I leave you to decide.

Wahhabi: …

55 - Servants Of Allah Inclusive Of Deceased Awliyah-Allah And Karamat:

Sunni: IF you recall in the beginning of our discussion [in section 04] you stated the words, servants of Allah, refer to angels and instruction of seeking help is from them. We also discussed [in section 38] about seeking help from servants of Allah in Brazil’s Amazon jungle and you stated you would respect the decision of someone seeking help from angel even though it is not prophetic Sunnah.

Wahhabi: I do.

Sunni: What IF his Ijtihad is that servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are not just the angels according to Hadith but inclusive of deceased Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Wahhabi: The following Hadith has angels: “Ibn Abbas said: Indeed Allah possesses angels besides the Hafazah (the angels of protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call "Assist (me) O slaves of Allah"' [Ref: Shu’ayb ul-Iman, Volume 1, Hadith 167.] Many commentators including Imam Shawkani (rahimullah), Shaykh Albani (rahimullah) have stated it refers to angels and Muslim Jinn.

Sunni: The Hadith explicitly did not state seek help from angel or Muslim Jinn. The Hadith which you quoted only states, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed guardian angels including angels to write everything that takes places on earth even falling of a leaf. It does not in any way insinuate seek help of those or any angel or Muslim Jinn and generality of words, O slaves/servants of Allah, is proof of this. IF Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) intended to say angels/Jinns then he would have said, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has angels appointed to help so say o angels help me. Commentators have stated about the angels and Muslim Jinns and I have no problem with that either. I am all for including angels/Jinn in it but I do not agree to limit phrase slaves of Allah to them only.

Wahhabi: Point noted and I will get back to you on this.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: “When My servants ask you about Me, (tell them that) I am indeed the near-most. I answer the supplicant’s call when he calls Me. So let them respond to Me, and let them have faith in Me, so that they may fare rightly.” [Ref: 2:186] “Indeed you will taste the painful punishment, and you will be requited only for what you used to do (all) except exclusive Allah’s servants.” [Ref: 37:38/40] A general/Mutliq statement is all encompassing and excludes none as is the case in these Ayaat. When RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said slave/servants then all which come into category of slaves/servants are included just as righteous Jinn and Bashr/human are included by these verses.

Wahhabi: Brother this would be fruitful and beneficial Ahadith relating to this topic were graded Sahih/authentic or Hassan/good. Issue with these Ahadith is they are not hence servants of Allah being inclusive of Awliyah will not establish permissibility for seeking help from the deceased Awliyah.

Sunni: Ibadullah includes Awliyah or not?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Even IF Ahadith are weak we can still act on them as long as the Hadith is not extremely weak.

Wahhabi: That is IF Hadith are mentioning a merit of certain action and this Hadith doesn’t mention any.

Sunni: Brother these Ahadith have been acted on by Muhaditheen, Mujtahideen, Mujadideen, and by Mufassireen. Why would they act on this weak Hadith IF they saw no reason to do so? There is obviously some benefit and this is why we can too. We recite Surah Fatihah no less than twenty times in a day and ask: “Show us the straight path. The path of those whom you have blessed …” [Ref: 1:6/7] The blessed are Muhaditheen, Mujtahideen, Mujadideen and Mufassireen and straight path is to act on this Hadith as they have.

Wahhabi: Others have opposed them. You won’t like it but Shaykh Albani is Muhaddith and he did not act on this Hadith.

Sunni: Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) on one side and Shaykh Albani on the other. IF you put them both on a scale who do you think outweigh the other in knowledge of Hadith and Taqwa?

Wahhabi: ...

56 - Help From A Wali As An Act Of Karamah:

Sunni: Would you agree that servants of Allah are inclusive of Awliyah-Allah?

Wahhabi: They can be but chance of a person in desert and his call reaching a living-Wali is zero hence the likelihood of help being granted by a Wali is zero.

Sunni: Not even as an act of Karamah (i.e. saintly miracle)?

Wahhabi: It is possible but has not taken place.

Sunni: What IF I prove it has taken place.

Wahhabi: It has taken place amongst early three generations but not later.

Sunni: That makes your first statement clear.

Sunni: When you said it has taken place amongst the early three generations were you thinking of Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statement, O Sariya behind the mountain, Hadith?

Sunni: “When Umar Ibn Khattab sent out an army, he appointed a man named Sariyah as their leader. Then while Umar was delivering the sermon he started shouting, “O Sariyah, the mountain! O Sariyah, the mountain, the mountain!’ Then a messenger from the army came and he [Hazrat Umar radiallah ta’ala anhu] questioned him [concerning the army]. He said, ’O Leader of the Believers! We met with the enemy and they had [almost] defeated us, then a voice proclaimed, ‘O Sariyah, the mountain!’ So we put our backs against the mountain and Allah vanquished them.’” [Ref: Fadhail is-Sahabah, Hadith 355, Page 121, by Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Arabic/Urdu, here.] The chain is Hassan/good and it has been narrated in many books.

57- Karamat Of Awliyah And Their Relationship To Istighathah:

Wahhabi: Yes! Also about the Ayah in which Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam) enquired who can bring the throne of Balqis and Ayah says one who had knowledge of book said I will bring it in blink of an eye.

Sunni: OK.

Wahhabi: “Said one who had knowledge from the Scripture, "I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you." And when (Solomon) saw it placed before him. He said this is from the favour of my Lord to test me whether I will be grateful or ungrateful. And whoever is grateful - his gratitude is only for (the benefit of) himself. And whoever is ungrateful - then indeed, my Lord is free of need and generous." [Ref: 27:40]

Sunni: According to Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he was Katib (i.e. scribe) appointed to write the Wahi dictated to him by Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam). According to Qatadah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) Asif Bin Barkhiya was a human and not some supernatural Jinn/angel type creation.
 
Wahhabi: Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) recorded these details in Tafsir Ibn Kathir.

Sunni: “’One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture said …’ Ibn Abbas said: "This was Asif the scribe of Sulayman.'' It was also narrated by Muhammad bin Ishaq from Yazid bin Ruman that he was Asif bin Barkhiya and he was a truthful believer who knew the Greatest Name of Allah. Qatadah said: "He was a believer among the humans, and his name was Asif.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 27:40, here.]

Sunni: We are on the same page than.

Sunni: Point I intended to make was that IF voice of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) can reach Sariyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) can see the event while it is unfolding. Then why wouldn’t a Wali hear a call of help IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills for him to hear it?

Wahhabi: As an act of Karamah a living Wali can hear and as an act of Karamah can help someone in need and distress.

Sunni: IF I seek help of a Shaykh, believing that he will hear my call of help in Africa, with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and as an act of Karamah. And also believe Wali can help me as an act of Karamah than can that be termed Shirk?

Wahhabi: Karamah is possible hence it cannot be termed Shirk but Karamah does not permit nor it is proof of seeking his help.

Sunni: I didn’t say Karamah is proof of seeking help from Awliyah. The proof is Ahadith I quoted and we have discussed in detail. These are Ahadith on which the great scholar’s likes of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) acted on. I am merely arguing Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have supernatural powers granted to them and they can see/hear and provide help supernaturally as is in the case of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And IF help was provided by Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) without being asked than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can enable His Awliyah to provide help to His servants when they act on the Hadith and say, O servants of Allah help me. Ahlus Sunnah believes Awliyah-Allah hearing/seeing the call of help and providing help are acts of Karamah and within dominion of powers granted to them.

Wahhabi: You believe in Karamat even for the deceased?

Sunni: According to Ahlus Sunnah Karamat of Awliyah do not cease even after their death. We have established the living Awliyah-Allah can help, see and even hear with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: What are your evidences?

Sunni: I want to complete my argument before we change direction.

Sunni: One of your principles is that requesting help from someone who cannot hear you through natural means results in Shirk and this principle has been refuted because you have affirmed out of natural means type of hearing is possible for creation.

Wahhabi: The call will be heard through the means; super natural means but still has means.

Sunni: Is there anything which is believed to take place without natural or super natural means? Everything happens within realm of natural or super natural means. We have never removed means from seeking help. According to Ahlus Sunnah everything happens through means natural/supernatural [and you believe seeking/providing supernatural help i.e. Ma Fawq al-Asbab type is in according to means on account of Karamati abilities of Awliyah hence you had reason to charge us of committing Shirk].

Sunni: I am done.

Wahhabi: What are your evidences [Quran/Sunnah] supporting belief that Awliyah perform Karamat even after death? The Quran says the dead cannot hear/see and they don’t know who is calling them etc. How can they perform Karamat? This is against common sense.

Sunni: I will answer all briefly: (i) I do not know any evidences other than what the scholars have stated in this regard. (ii) Nowhere does the Quran state the dead people cannot hear. You’re taking advantage of ambiguity in verses of Quran which are about dead idols made from dead material, stones, dead wood etc. Ahadith have made it clear the dead hear. (iii) The body dies the soul is alive. It hears, sees, and knows. IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits the souls can provide help.

Wahhabi: Than you have nothing to support your belief in reality.

Sunni: I prefer follow evidence-less path of, and prefer to be misguided by giant of, Islamic scholarship than guided by you and your Najdi scholarship.

Wahhabi: Due to lack of evidence calling the deceased Awliyah to help with belief they will hear, see, know, and help as an act of Karamah would be Shirk. Also IF the Wali called for help does not hear, see, know, and does not provide asked help than Shirk was occurred.

Sunni: What evidence of Quran/Sunnah do you have to support this is how Shirk is to be determined?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I have noted in beginning of our discussion your position was that Istighathah was by default Shirk in all conditions but now it is not Shirk IF there is evidence and the Wali called for help hears, sees, knows and provides the needed aid. And this means one thing: You believe call of Istighathah IF meets your above mentioned conditions than it will not be worship.

Wahhabi: Brother you are prolonging the discussion. Actual dispute is over deceased Awliyah-Allah being able to help, or having the ability to hear the calls of help.

Sunni: IF evidence of Karamat continuing after death can change Istighathah from Shirki to Tawheedi than your standard position [indicated in the beginning of section 42] that Istighathah by default and by its very essence is Shirk is invalid.

Wahhabi: You believe it is permissible and I believe it is impermissible because it is Shirk. This is what needs to be discussed but you are bringing into discussion aspects which are not disputed.

Sunni: I have made my point IF you have nothing to add than we can discuss permissibility/impermissibility issue.

Wahhabi: We need to discuss the permissibility/impermissibility of Istighathah.

58 - Discussion On Impermissibility Of Istighathah Due To Shirk:

Sunni: You believe Istighathah is impermissible because it is Shirk. Hypothetically speaking IF it was established that it isn’t Shirk then would it be permissible?

Wahhabi: It is impermissible even IF it was not Shirk.

Sunni: Would it be impermissible due to being Haram or innovation [which makes it Haram]?

Wahhabi: Come again?

Sunni: Is Istighathah Haram because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared it Haram explicitly – like we find injunction alcohol, pig, donkey, interest etc? Or is it Haram because it would be an innovation for which there would be no clear prohibition but it would be implied from it being innovation?

Wahhabi: I need to think about the answer. Give me a little time.

Wahhabi: It is Haram because it is Shirk like prostration to other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Haram and Shirk in our Shari’ah.

Sunni: We already discussed Istighathah being Shirk and you provided no proofs for this neither for your principles on which you judged it as Shirk.

Wahhabi: I am not going through that rabbit hole once again what was discussed and evidence I provided was enough.

Sunni: I am not saying we discuss it again I was merely making a statement of what happened already.

Wahhabi: And it is a representation which I do not agree with. I have reasoned and provided enough evidence to prove it Shirk.

59 - A Technicality Istighathah Is Not Haram Like Prostration Is Haram:

Sunni: OK. What I want to ask is that you said Istighathah is Haram like prostration is Haram. To me this means you said that there is clear explicit texts in Quran/Sunnah which prove Istighathah is Haram. Is this what you meant?

Wahhabi: Istighathah is Haram due to clear texts.

Sunni: There are many Ahadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) indicated prostration is impermissible for every creation. In this context take note that to say Istighathah is Haram like prostration in my understanding means you’re saying, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has explicitly/clearly declared Istighathah is Haram. You’re talking about corroborative prohibition where as I am asking about explicit/Sari prohibition.

Wahhabi: I didn’t mean it like that. I meant Haram due to clear texts which prohibit worship of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Shirk.

Sunni: In my understanding your statement is contradictory. You said, it is Haram because it is Shirk, which means according to you prohibition of Istighathah is based on corroborative evidence. Your next statement was, like prostration to other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Istighathah is Haram, which denotes meaning it is explicit/Sari Haram. Yet the whole sentence is arguing it is corroborative Haram because it is Shirk. In other words your stance of Haram-ness of Istighathah is contradictory and massively confusing. IF it is corroborative Haram due to Shirk than it is not Haram like prostration. IF practice Istighathah is an explicit Haram like prostration than it is not a corroborative Haram due to Shirk.

Wahhabi: Why are you wasting so much energy in an attempt to deconstruct what I have said? All you need to do is to ask me. IF I understand you correctly than yes my statement is confusing.

Sunni: There is a reason I have to be this technical because ambiguities would cause problems and lengthen our discussion. Also we wouldn’t know exactly where I/you stand on an issue connected with Istighathah.

Wahhabi: I will be more direct. Istighathah is Haram because it is Shirk.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favour. So accept from Allah His favour, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] We have clear evidence from many Ahadith that prostration to anyone beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is prohibited but there is no proof that Istighathah is prohibited.

Wahhabi: Istighathah is prohibited because it is Shirk.

Sunni: Where is the evidence of on basis of which you establish its prohibition?

60 - Haram Is Clear Stated And Istighathah Is Not Clearly Stated Haram:

Wahhabi: It is Shirk hence prohibited.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said all that which is Haram has been clearly stated to be Haram. We have clear evidence of Quran/Sunnah that prostration is Haram. To prove Istighathah Haram you cannot argue its Haram-ness on basis of it is Shirk therefore Haram. Haram is clearly stated to be Haram. IF you quote me a single Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, Istighathah is Haram, or Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited someone from seeking the help of deceased Awliyah then I will concede the point. Otherwise you will have to accept Haram-ness is based on what is clearly declared has Haram.

Wahhabi: Brother Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that we should not invoke those beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed to ask from Him only. This evidence automatically implies we are forbidden to invoke others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Anything to back-up your claim?

Wahhabi: "And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] “The places of worship are ˹only˺ for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides Allah upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 45:5] “If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14]

Sunni: For now let us return to what we were discussing. I will return to content of these verses I need to research regarding them.

Wahhabi: Address the content of these verses now.

Sunni: I need to research and prepare how I will respond and explain them.

Wahhabi: So you admit that you’re not aware of meaning of theses verses?

Sunni: I have clear understanding what they mean but I need to substantiate my claim. This is why I need time so I can gather all relevant verses.

Wahhabi: OK. No harm in that.

Sunni: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] Read the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and think about them. There is no denying IF something is Kufr/Shirk than it is Haram and we cannot engage in it but establishing Haram-ness due to Shirk is lessening severity of Shirk.

Sunni: Would you agree that major Shirk is major sin. Yes or no?

Wahhabi: Yes it is major sin but major Shirk also.

Sunni: Do you/we establish XMan committed major sin instead of major Shirk?

Wahhabi: We don’t deny it being major sin.

Sunni: What did I ask?

Wahhabi: We don’t.

Sunni: The most damaging aspect takes precedence and we correct that and in this case IF Istighathah is Shirk than we have no reason to discuss IF it is Haram or Halal rather we should discuss Shirk-ness. Haram and Halal is determined on what is stated clearly as Haram/Halal and IF something is composed of Haram/Halal. There is no denying engaging in every minor/major Shirk is Haram and we can reason that but it is not proper methodology. You need to establish it is major Shirk and that by default will establish it is Haram therefore wouldn’t need to discuss IF it is permissible/impermissible. Plus Haram-ness of Istighathah is should be last of your and my concern IF it is Shirk discussion on it being Shirk should take precedence over Haram-ness.

Wahhabi: There you go, just as I thought, you want me to prove it is Shirk once again.

Sunni: We don’t have to but I needed to point out the technicality involved.

61 - What The Verses Of Quran Say And What Wahhabi Made Them Say:

Sunni: You quoted these Ayaat as evidence that Istighathah is Shirk: "And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] “The places of worship are ˹only˺ for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides Allah upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 45:5] “If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14] In context you wanted to prove Istighathah is Haram because it is Shirk. I want to respond to these verses.

Wahhabi: I already know what you will say regarding these evidences.

Sunni: You don’t brother. You don’t even believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knows Ilm ul-Ghayb but here you’re claiming it for yourself.

Wahhabi: I didn’t claim Ghayb. I said I know because of pattern in your responses is consistent.

Sunni: How do you know I will keep to that pattern?

Wahhabi: Continue with your response. You’re twisting my words.

Sunni: IF you weren’t twisting our belief and actions than we wouldn’t be having this discussion and I wouldn’t be twisting your words. Would I Sherlock Holmes?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: You stated Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed that we seek His help and invoke none but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).  You quoted verses of beside-Allah. You’re taking words beside-Allah literally and not in the technical meaning in which they are employed and IF this is correct than surely the living, dead, angels, Jinn, and human are not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but are beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). IF your quoted evidence is considered without context of Ilahiyyah then we are prohibited to seek help from all mentioned. Yet we seek help from living in all situations and you do not deem it Shirk.

Sunni: Invoking none but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the instruction to invoke beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is in context of not invoking idol-gods of polytheists. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “Whoever invokes, besides Allah, another god—for which they can have no proof they will surely find their penalty with their Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will never succeed.” [Ref: 23:117] “And those who invoke not any other Ilah (god) along with Allah, nor kill such person as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse - and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.” [Ref: 25:68] “So invoke not with Allah another Ilah (god) lest you should be among those who receive punishment.” [Ref: 26:213] The ambiguity over the identity of besides-Allah is removed by these verses because these verses make it clear the Mushrikeen invoked their Ilahs/gods.

Sunni: The punishment and prohibition is for those who invoke an Ilah beside-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We are discussing act of seeking help from souls of deceased Awliyah without affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Also you’re deducing prohibition of Istighathah on basis of these verses yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said prohibited matters are clearly stated. IF it was prohibited it would be clearly stated as prostration is prohibited and clearly stated to be Haram in many Ahadith. Also you are using a point which is not established to argue for prohibition i.e. Istighathah is Shirk therefore Istighathah is prohibited. You first need to establish this contention of yours and then you can argue prohibition from it.

62 - Wahhabi Repeats He Said Earlier Without Responding To I Said:

Wahhabi: "And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] “The places of worship are ˹only˺ for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides Allah upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 46:5] “If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14] All these verses are prohibiting all types of worship of Shirk including of Istighathah. Shirk is Haram and worship of creation Shirk therefore it is Haram. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Narrated An-Nu'man Ibn Bashir: The Prophet said: Supplication (Dua) is itself the worship. (He then recited) "And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you." (40:60).” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1474, here.] Istighathah is an invocation and therefore it obligates worship and worship which is directed at creation is Shirk. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has explicitly prohibited to invoke besides-Allah hence Istighathah is Haram.

Sunni: You’re not addressing anything I have said instead you have rehashed the same old and I am not responding it to your argument against Istighathah.

Wahhabi: To refute what you say I do not need to directly respond to what you have said rather refute what you have deduced from the verses.

Sunni: How else will you refute my position than?

Wahhabi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed angels to prostrate to Adam (alayhis salam). A verse says Iblees did not prostrate. Giving rise to misunderstanding that Iblees was an angel, angels have choice and ability to obey/disobey. We employ verse in which it is clearly stated that Iblees was a Jinn and like humans Jinn have choice to obey/disobey.

Sunni: You, by removing ambiguity of one verse through another?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: The verses I quoted were actually removing ambiguity found in verses which you quoted above. Where was the ambiguity in what I said or the evidences I quoted?

Wahhabi: I don’t have them in front of me to point the ambiguities out.

Sunni: I quote them again: “Whoever invokes, besides Allah, another god—for which they can have no proof they will surely find their penalty with their Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will never succeed.” [Ref: 23:117] “And those who invoke not any other Ilah (god) along with Allah, nor kill such person as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse - and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.” [Ref: 25:68] “So invoke not with Allah another Ilah (god) lest you should be among those who receive punishment.” [Ref: 26:213] Where is ambiguity in these verses which had to be removed?

Wahhabi: The verses do not indicate who these Ilahs are but verses I quoted state those who possess these qualities should not be invoked.

Sunni: How does that prove your position against Istighathah?

Wahhabi: How it doesn’t?

Sunni: You basically have said what I needed to say to refute you. Your verses omit mention of Ilahiyyah and my verses omit the qualities you indicated toward. There are two routes we can take, insert missing details of your verses into my set of verses, or insert missing detail established by my set of evidences into yours evidences. Either one will give us the correct way of understanding both sets of verses.

Wahhabi: I am not able to comprehend what exactly you mean.

Sunni: I removed ambiguity in your verses with my evidence and established Ilahiyyah is part of your verse.

Wahhabi: Can you give example of what you mean?

Sunni: Brother you’re pointlessly pretending ignorance. You understand very well what I mean and how it affects understanding of verses in discussion.

Wahhabi: I understand but I want clarity.

Sunni: I need time to write and demonstrate what I meant.

Wahhabi: I will wait.

Sunni: You quoted: "And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] Verse prohibits calling upon beside Allah that … Who are these beside Allah whom we are prohibited to call? This question is answered by following: “So invoke not with Allah another Ilah (god) lest you should be among those who receive punishment.” [Ref: 26:213] Why are they offer no benefit, or harm? They are idols: “Yet have they taken besides Allah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] Idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen are harmless and benefit-less. In light of other verses you quoted these idol-Ilahs cannot hear and will not hear even unto the judgment day. Therefore Mushrikeen were instructed: “And do not invoke beside Allah that which neither …” [Ref: 10:106]

Wahhabi: JazakAllah Khayr.

Sunni: I have had some ideas while writing the above that I need to pen down.

Wahhabi: IF it is not related to discussion than it should wait. You can’t just leave write down your dreams.

Sunni: It is related to our discussion and explanation of mine/your evidences. And it will take time to complete so I wish to continue tomorrow IF it is not objected.

Wahhabi: Brother Ali I have to leave my chores to make time for this discussion but you unilaterally decide to pack your bags and leave when you like. Don’t you think this is a tad bit rude.

Sunni: I will clarify these verses in light of evidences I presented earlier but you will have to give me permission to improve content when I publish it.

Wahhabi: You can improve it.

63 - Wahhabi Qur’anic Evidence And How I Removed Ambiguity From It:

Sunni: (i) This is how you quoted the verse: "And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] And this is how I removed ambiguity and explained it with my set of evidences: "And do not invoke besides Allah [an Ilah] that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did [invoke an Ilah beside-Allah], then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] (ii) This is how you quoted the verse: “The places of worship are (only) for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] And this is how I removed ambiguity with my set of verses and explain it in the context of verse itself: “The places of worship are for Allah [and not for any Ilah beside Him] so do not invoke any [Ilah] besides Him [in these places of worship].” [Ref: 72:18] (iii) This is how you quoted the verse: “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides Allah upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 46:5] This is how I have removed ambiguity through verses I employed as evidence: “And who is in greater error than he who calls upon besides Allah [Ilahs] those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 46:5] (iv) This is how you quoted the verses: “If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14] This is how I remove ambiguity from it with my set of evidences and based on context: “If you call on them they [the Ilahs you call upon O Mushrikeen they] shall not hear your call, and even if they [the Ilahs you call] could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they [the Ilahs you called upon] will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14]

Sunni: This exercise establishes verses you employed are about Mushrikeen who believed idols are their Ilahs and as an act of worship called/invoked them. Shirk and worship is determined on basis of creed of Ilahiyyah and intention with which action is performed. Creed and intention of polytheists was in agreement with Shirk and worship hence they were Mushrikeen. Istighathah doesn’t warrant Shirk because creed which necessitates worship and the intention of worship are missing. Invocation of Shirk in which Ilahiyyah is believed for a creation and Niyyah is to worship is prohibited in these verses and not Istighathah.

64 - Intertextual Explanation Of Verses By Combining Relevant Parts:

Sunni: “Whoever invokes besides Allah another god for which they can have no proof they will surely find their penalty with their Lord. [Ref: 23:117] And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you. [Ref: 10:106] That will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call. [Ref: 45:5] And even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah). [Ref: 35:14] So invoke not with Allah another Ilah (god) lest you should be among those who receive punishment. [Ref: 26:213] Yet have they taken besides Allah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection. [Ref: 25:3] And those who invoke not any other Ilah (god) along with Allah, nor kill such person as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse - and whoever does this shall receive the punishment. [Ref: 25:68] This Tafsir is based on verses which you have employed and verses I have employed

Sunni: Reading it will become obvious that prohibition to invoke was regarding Ilahs/gods. These Ilahs/gods are said to be benefit-less, harmless, unable to hear/answer, cannot create anything, but were themselves created by the ones worshipping them, and these Ilahs have no control over life, death, or resurrection. Theme of this Tafsir is Mushrikeen invoking idol-Ilahs when there is no justifiable reason to invoke them hence they are forbidden to invoke idol-Ilahs on threat of punishment. It is evident that prohibited and Shirki invocation is one directed to an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this evidence is not against Istighathah because Istighathah is calling without affirming Ilahiyyah and Niyyah to worship one called. Invocation which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has forbidden is one directed to an Ilah beside-Allah with intention of worship.

[This section was written two days after the session ended and it was shared with Wahhabi brother. Section 65 is continuation of section 63. I have inserted section 64 in between both because section 63 and 64 are related in theme and objectives.]

65 – Again Ignores Tawheed/Shirk Is On Creed, And Worship On Creed/Intention:

Sunni: I am done at the moment but I will provide comprehensive and explanation of verses once I have finished writing it. Do you have any objections disagreements in regards to what I wrote?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I need an answer brother.

Wahhabi: I will answer in my own way.

Sunni: …

Wahhabi: Who do you believe created the universe and earth? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or those whom you call for help in Istighathah?

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wished a harm or a benefit can they remove any harm from your, or deprive you of a benefit intended for you by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Sunni: No.

Wahhabi: Why not than invoke Him who can benefit/harm as He pleases and the One who cannot be stopped?

Sunni: …

Wahhabi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say: Allah!  Say: See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty? Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace?" [Ref: 39:38] How are you any different from Mushrikeen than because they held to same belief? You’re justifying exactly the same Shirki invocation and you have same beliefs as Mushrikeen yet you claim you’re a Muslim.

Sunni: I will respond to you and answer your questions in our next session [which started from section 72 onward]. For now I need to complete Tafsir of verses you quoted as evidence [in sections 60 and 62].

66 - Tafsir Do Not Invoke Besides-Allah Which Neither Benefits Nor Harms:

Sunni: You quoted:  "And do not invoke besides Allah that which neither benefits you nor harms you, for if you did, then indeed you would be of the wrongdoers." [Ref: 10:106] Following verse has explicitness about identity of besides-Allah: “But they have taken besides Him gods which create nothing, while they are created, and possess not for themselves any harm or benefit and possess not (power to cause) death or life or resurrection.” [Ref: 25:3] Hence in verse Q10:106 the prohibition to invoke idol-Ilahs besides-Allah because has made it clear in verse Q25:3 that besides-Allah are idol-gods of Mushrikeen.

67 - Tafsir Masajid Are For Allah So Do Not Invoke Besides Him:

Sunni: You quoted the Ayah: “The places of worship are (only) for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] To properly and comprehensively understand it with evidences I need to build the foundations. (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs to say: “Say: "Shall we invoke instead of Allah that which neither benefits us nor harms us and be turned back on our heels after Allah has guided us? (We would then be) like ...” [Ref: 6:71] In following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has replaced/interpreted word invoke with worship to insinuate invocation is worship: “Say: "Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no (power of) harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?" [Ref: 5:76] This is in agreement with following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) narrated in Hadith: “Narrated An-Nu'man Ibn Bashir: The Prophet said: Supplication (Dua) is itself the worship. (He then recited) "And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you." (40:60).” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1474, here.] (ii) You quoted verse: “The places of worship are (only) for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] Do not invoke anyone besides-Him means do not worship anyone beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Masjid: “The places of worship are (only) for Allah so do not invoke/call [as an act of worship] anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “The places of worship are (only) for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] Masajid are only for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in the sense that He alone should be worshipped and invoked in: “In houses (mosques) which Allah has ordered to be raised in them His Name is remembered. Therein glorify Him (Allah) in the mornings and in the afternoons or the evenings.” [Ref: 24:36] (iv) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: The places of worship are (only) for Allah, so do not invoke anyone besides Him.” [Ref: 72:18] We are prohibited to invoke besides-Allah and these are idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen invoked/worshipped: “So invoke not with Allah another Ilah (god) lest you should be among those who receive punishment.” [Ref: 26:213]  “Whoever invokes, besides Allah, another god for which they can have no proof they will surely find their penalty with their Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will never succeed.” [Ref: 23:117] (v) By combining the understanding all the Tafasir in this section we have meaning that Masajid are only for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in the sense that He is ONLY to be worshipped them and Masajid are not for idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen to be invoked in worship.

68 - Tafsir Who Upon Is Greater Misguidance Than One Invokes Beside-Allah:

Sunni: (i) You quoted the verse: “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides Allah upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 46:5] One verse before what you quoted Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "Say, Have you considered that which you invoke beside-Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in the heavens? Bring me a scripture (revealed) before this or a (remaining) trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful." [Ref: 46:4] The insinuation is that Min Du’nillah have not created anything on earth nor they were partners in creation of anything in space and similar is affirmed in following verse: “Yet have they taken beside-Allah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] In this light it has become evident that verse quoted by you as evidence is about Mushrikeen and idol-Ilahs they invoked: “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides Allah [idol-Ilahs] upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 46:5] (ii) Allah says besides-Allah will not respond/answer till the judgment day: “And who is in greater error than he who calls besides-Allah upon those that will not answer him till the day of resurrection and they are heedless of their call?” [Ref: 46:5] Besides-Allah are unable to respond to call of Mushrikeen on this earth till the judgment day. On the judgment day the Mushrikeen will again call their partners but they will still not respond: “And (warn of) the Day when He will say, Call My partners whom you claimed, and they will invoke them, but they will not respond to them. And We will put between them (a valley of) destruction.” [Ref: 18:52] “And there will not be for them among their (alleged) partners any intercessors, and they will (then) be disbelievers in their partners.” [Ref: 30:13] Yet despite in earthly life the Mushrikeen believe those who do not benefit/harm them are their intercessors: “And they worship other-than-Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, "These are our intercessors with Allah. " Say, "Do you inform …” [Ref: 10:18] These partners and intercessors who cannot hear their call till the judgment day and will not respond to Mushrikeen nor are any benefit/harm to Mushrikeen are gods of Mushrikeen: “Yet have they taken beside-Allah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] Each succeeding verse is connected with and revealing a new detail about preceding verse as such all of them are about beside-Allah whose identity has been revealed in Q25:3 with words, taken beside-Allah gods that create nothing but are themselves created. (iii) Both these Tafasir make it clear that one who invokes an Ilah partner beside-Allah is upon the greatest error.

69 - Tafsir They Do Not Hear Call And IF They Hear Than Shall Not Answer Till Judgment:

Sunni: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says the ones invoked by Mushrikeen will not hear the call and if they could hear they will not respond to them even to the judgment day: “If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14] This verse indicates that one’s invoked by Mushrikeen do not have ability of hearing neither ability to answer. Following part of verse is in two meanings: “… and even if they could hear they shall not answer you …” (a) Invoked have no ability of speech hence they cannot answer through speech. They cannot respond with speech like, we heard your invocation nor they can say, help has been sent: “… and even if they could hear they shall not answer you [to inform you of their activities] …” (b) Invoked have no capacity neither access to resources to provide what Mushrikeen invoked them: “… and even if they could hear they shall not answer you [and provide you what you have asked them to provide] …” (c) Ability to provide is ability to benefit and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says invoked are unable to answer/benefit: “… and even if they could hear they shall not answer you [to benefit you] …” (d) Overall understanding derived from Ayah is that  invoked cannot hear, speak, neither have any ability to provide material help, nor access to resources which they can grant. (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “If you call on them they shall not hear your call, and even if they could hear they shall not answer you; and on the resurrection day they will deny your associating them (with Allah) …” [Ref: 35:14] Who are the invoked in this Ayah, why are they unable to hear and respond? The ambiguity about identity of invoked is removed and was demonstrated by Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) in his debate with Mushrikeen: “And recite to them the story of Ibrahim (Abraham). When he said to his father and his people: "What do you worship?" They said: "We worship idols, and to them we are ever devoted." He said: "Do they hear you, when you call on (them)? Or do they benefit you or do they harm (you)?" They said: "(No) but we found our fathers doing so." [Ref: 26: 69/74] In the following Ayah idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen are described having hands, feet, eyes, ears but which do not function: “Verily, those whom you call upon besides Allah (are created by you and owned by you and therefore) are slaves like you. So call upon them and let them answer you if you are truthful. Have they feet wherewith they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear? Say: "Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me and give me no respite! “ [Ref: 7:195]

70 - Prohibited Invocation Is One Directed To An Ilah With Intention Of Worship:

Sunni: All these verses prove that in all of them Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited invocation directed to an Ilah beside-Allah and told of harm and punishment for one who invokes an Ilah besides-Allah. None of these verses are evidence against Istighathah nor prove Istighathah is major Shirk/Kufr neither these verses in anyway established Istighathah is Haram. Alongside the following Hadith these verses have established invocation directed to an Ilah with intention of worship: “Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah's Messenger saying: "The action depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So ..." [Ref: Bukhari, B1, H1, here.]“It was narrated from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: “People will be gathered (on the Day of Resurrection) according to their intentions.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4230, here.] It is important to point out that in technical sense worship of anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Kufr and the creed which leads to it, i.e. XMan is an Ilah/god, is cause of major Shirk. Hence to think that Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah would permit a major Kufr and Shirk is preposterous.

[All content from sections 66 to 70 was pre-written and shared via e-mail with Wahhabi brother.]

71 - Wahhabi Wants Me To Address His Last Evidence And Argument:

Wahhabi: I have nothing against your Tafasir. My objection and reasons for it were voiced at the end of our last session [now part of section 65] and that is something you need to address.

Sunni: This means you want me to move onto your presented argument and evidence?

Wahhabi: You had six days to prepare.

Sunni: I have prepared my response and explanation of verse you quoted. You are will be fine IF I share it here or do you want me to e-mail it to you?

Wahhabi: In here would be convenient.

Sunni: I will share it here but I will e-mail it also because in this chat formatting and emphasised parts won’t show. Is that good with you?

Wahhabi: …

72 - Tafsir See Things You Invoke Beside Allah, Can They Remove Penalty:

Sunni: (i) You also quoted [in section 65] and it is important I explain it before responding to what you said: "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say: Allah!  Say: See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty? Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace?" [Ref: 39:38] Two examples of penalty/punishment are mentioned in the following verses. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs to enquire Mushrikeen about IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made day/night permanent as punishment than is there a Ilah/god they worship who could change it to night/day: “Say "Tell me! If Allah made the night continuous for you till the Day of Resurrection, which Ilah (god) besides Allah could bring you light? Will you not then hear?"  Say: "Tell me! If Allah made the day continuous for you till the Day of Resurrection, which Ilah (god) besides Allah could bring you night wherein you rest? Will you not then see?" [Ref: 28:71/72] (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say: Allah!  Say: See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty? Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace?" [Ref: 39:38] The answer to both questions is no. IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) intended some penalty or some grace the invoked cannot prevent Him. It is worth noting and remembering that penalty imposed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is harm and grace granted by Him is benefit and the invoked cannot prevent Him from inflicting/granting either. In another Ayah Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) clearly states that invoked Ilahs of Mushrikeen do not possess the ability to benefit or harm: “Yet they have taken besides Him other gods who created nothing but are themselves created, and possess neither harm nor benefit for themselves, and possess no power (of causing) death, nor (of giving) life, nor of raising the dead.” [Ref: 25:3] This verse is explained by following verse: “Verily those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatches away a thing from them, they will have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought.” [Ref: 22:73] Ability to prevent someone taking what belongs to one is ability to benefit one’s own-self and the Ayah says the idols are unable to benefit themselves by preventing item being taken from them. They cannot harm because if they could they would have prevented the fly from stealing what was offered to them.

Sunni: In conclusion the idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen not only are unable to prevent Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from inflicting harm neither they are able to prevent Him from granting benefit. The idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen are also unable to inflict any harm or do anything beneficial for anyone else including can benefit themselves, or harm anyone for their own benefit and defence.

Edited 25 ستمبر 2022 by MuhammedAli
Updated 26th Sept 2022.

[MuhammedAli]

73 - Answering Question, Why Not Than Invoke Him Who Benefits/Harms:

Sunni: “Wahhabi: Who do you believe created the universe and earth? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or those whom you call for help in Istighathah? Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Wahhabi: IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wished a harm or a benefit can they remove any harm from your, or deprive you of a benefit intended for you by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?  Sunni: No. Wahhabi: Why not than invoke Him who can benefit/harm as He pleases and the One who cannot be stopped? Sunni: …”

Sunni: You asked: “Why not than invoke Him who can benefit/harm as He pleases and the One who cannot be stopped?” There is no reason to not to invoke Him who created us and who we believe is our One and the Only Ilah.

Wahhabi: IF there is no reason not to invoke Him than why do you invoke others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Sunni: You will have to be patience and let me complete my response.

Wahhabi: You paused so I thought you were done.

Sunni: I was wrestling what your question and its insinuations. Your question is like: Will you stop beating your wife? IF one says yes/no, regardless of answer in both ways he is guilty of spouse violence.

Sunni: IF I answered saying Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted Istighathah and Tawassul than it would have been a reason to not to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because that is how you have phrased your question. We both know there is no reason to not to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but this does not mean there is no justification to seek another’s help.

Wahhabi: You’re behaving like fish out of water meaning even after being caught won’t give up the struggle. Smile.

Sunni: I am still very much in my comfort zone.

Sunni: As I understand you have made assumption that because there is no reason to seek help of anyone but Him hence we have no permission to seek help from anyone but Him. I need to correct this misunderstanding. I will have to recontextualize what you said to demonstrate the point I am attempting to make.

Sunni: “Gloom: IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wished a harm or a benefit can that medicine remove intended harm from you? Or can that medicine deprive you of a benefit intended for you by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Doom: No. Gloom: Why not than invoke Him who can cure as He pleases and the One who cannot be stopped?"

Sunni: IF Doom said seeking cure through medicine is Prophetic Sunnah that is why we should seek cure through medicine. Do you think it would be valid reason not to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to cure you/me? There is no valid reason to not to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to cure us but that does not mean there is NO justification in Quran/Sunnah to seek cure through medicine. So even though there is no reason/justification to not to invoke Him to cure us but also there is justification to seek cure through medicine.

Wahhabi: Good. I got line of your argument and what you’re intending to say.

Sunni: There is no reason to not to invoke Him but the Ahadith of slaves of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and other Ahadith/Ayaat are justification for taking His creation as Wasilah to Him. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says seek Wasilah to Him and in another verse instructs the believers to ask Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to seek forgiveness on behalf of sinners: “O you who have attained to faith! Fear Allah and seek means (Wasilah of getting closer to Him) and strive hard in His cause so that you might be successful.” [Ref: 5:35] “And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, and asked forgiveness of Allah and the messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.” [Ref: 4:64]

Wahhabi: These verses are not proof of Istighathah because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was alive.

Sunni: I wasn’t trying to justify Istighathah with these verses. I am refuting the argument that because we can directly ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore we have no justification to ask others. These verses establish that even though sinners could directly ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to forgive sins yet this does not amount to prohibition of seeking Wasilah/means. Instead the Wasilah is instructed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran. Give me ten minutes and I will be back.

Sunni: “Gloom: IF Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wished that you commit sins. Or wanted to forgive sins can anyone prevent Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Doom: No. Gloom: Does Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hear, see, know all happenings in the universes? Doom: Yes. Gloom: Does not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not have the authority to forgive sins? Doom: He does. Gloom: Can anyone persuade Him to forgive sins against His wishes? Doom: No. Gloom: Is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not close to our jugular vein? Doom: He is indeed. Gloom: Why not than directly invoke Him to forgive our sins? Why ask others to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) IF He has ability to all-hear/see/know and not can persuade Him to forgive sins against His will?"

Sunni: Has this reasoning invalidated Wasilah taught in the above verses and established that companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had no right to ask Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to seek forgiveness on their behalf?

Wahhabi: …

74 - Reasoning Which Prevents What Is Permitted Is Heretical:

Sunni: It was a question directed toward you.

Wahhabi: No. It cannot abrogate text of Quran.

Sunni: Does this type of logical reasoning prove only way to gain His mercy is invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) directly?

Wahhabi: Yes but …

Sunni: Is this type of logical reasoning which takes away from an aspect of Islamic teaching heretical or not?

Wahhabi: Heretical IF there is textual evidence in support of something.

Sunni: Everything Mubah/permissible does not have textual support. Principle is anything which is not declared Haram, Kufr, Shirk, and sin is all allowed meaning Mubah. In this light I ask: What IF it prohibits what is permissible in light of Shari’ah and there is no proof whatsoever proving it is Haram/Shirk/Kufr?

Wahhabi: It would be heretical.

Sunni: Fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and tell: Have you substantiated Istighathah is Shirk, or Kufr, or Haram based on principles established and demonstrated from Quran/Sunnah? I am not asking on basis of principles used by Wahhabis to judge Istighathah but on basis of what is evident from Quran/Sunnah.

Wahhabi: I have proven it is Shirk and Haram.

Sunni: Brother you believe it is Shirk and Haram but you have not substantiated your claim. You believe based on your principles Istighathah is Shirk and I say to you in your sect’s methodology maybe but not in accordance with teaching of Quran/Sunnah. Your methodology and principles on which you judge Shirk of Istighathah have absolutely no basis in Quran and Sunnah. Until you establish your principles of determining Tawheed/Shirk from Quran and Sunnah you have not proven anything but other than what you believe. In contrast my principles are established and cannot be denied by you or anyone other than you.

Wahhabi: What are your principles on which you judge Shirk?

Sunni: Shirk is ascribing Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to creation in inferior, equal, or in greater capacity than believed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or ascribing attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation in meanings which are uniquely reserved for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Living but I am living and so are human, Jinn, angels, animals, plants, and birds. We share many attributes with Him but not in meanings which is uniquely reserved for Him. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Living from eternity past but we are were created by Him and given life years ago hence there is no Shirk.

Sunni: Do you agree with what I have stated here?

Wahhabi: I don’t see any issue with what you said.

Sunni: This is how Shirk is judged according to Quran and Sunnah so I will ask you once again: Have you substantiated Istighathah is Shirk, or Kufr, or Haram based on principles established and demonstrated from Quran/Sunnah?

Wahhabi: Not according to methodology you have stated.

Sunni: You have proven it is Shirk according to your own methodology but your methodology has no support from Quran/Sunnah. Your methodology has no support from Quran and Sunnah. IF I recall correctly you said you will prove your methodology [in section 52] and you also said you don’t know evidences for your methodology [at the end of section 7] when you was pressed to support your principles with evidences. Keep this in mind and I ask once again.

Sunni: Have you substantiated Istighathah is Shirk, or Kufr, or Haram based on principles established and demonstrated from Quran/Sunnah?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I take your silence as proof of admission that you have failed to substantiate Istighathah is Shirk, Kufr, or Haram in general or Haram due to Shirk/Kufr. To declare something Haram due to Shirk and Kufr when in reality it is permissible is heretical and an evil act.

[He did not respond and in the next session told me he had to leave in emergency but we all can see what happened and why he left so suddenly. Next week I directed discussion to another topic because I wanted to take heat out of discussion.]

75 - Answering Question, How Are The Muslims Different From Mushrikeen:

Sunni: Let us go back to Tafsir of verse Q39:38 [in section 72 of this article]. Do you have any objections to that Tafsir?

Wahhabi: No.

Sunni: Any objection to principle that major Shirk is warranted through ascribing Ilahiyyah to creation?

Wahhabi: No.

Sunni: Any objection to principle that creed of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship come together to make an action worship?

Wahhabi: No.

Sunni: Do you have any objections against notion that all [major] Shirk in Quran and Hadith is connected with people ascribing Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah to idols and due to directing acts of worship to these invented idol-Ilahs?

Wahhabi: Actually I do have objection because Quran is evidence that people committed Shirk because they ascribed Prophets, angels and others has sons and daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Another thing none of the Mushrikeen committed Shirk in Rububiyyah

Sunni: Thanks. You’re wrong with regards to Tawheed al-Rububiyyah of Mushrikeen but I will rephrase it anyway.

Wahhabi: There is clear evidence proving Mushrikeen did not commit Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Sunni: That is what you think.

Wahhabi: There are clear verses in Quran. I can quote you evidences IF you want me to.

Sunni: No I don’t because it is not the right time. Please don’t mind.

Wahhabi: No harm. I will e-mail the evidences IF that is good with you?

Sunni: …

Sunni: Do you agree that all the verses you quoted about beside-Allah were about idols-Ilahs of Mushrikeen and their invocations directed toward idol-Ilahs?

Wahhabi: Yes. Where are you heading with this?

Sunni: Do you have any objections against notion that all [major] Shirk in Quran and Hadith is connected with people ascribing Ilahiyyah to various creations He created and due to directing acts of worship to these invented idol-Ilahs?

Wahhabi: No.

Sunni: What was cause of Shirk in and Kufr in creed and actions of Mushrikeen: (i) Was it that they invoked idols? (ii) Or was it that they invoked in worship idols who they believed as their Ilahs?

Wahhabi: What is the difference between the two questions? To me both are asking the same thing.

Sunni: They are not. In the first action is performed in absence of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah. In the second action is built on and performed on basis of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah.

Wahhabi: I would say yes to both of them.

Sunni: No. Not what you would say. Which out of the two has support of Quran and Sunnah?

Wahhabi: I said both of them.

Sunni: What you mean both of them? Evidences you quoted clearly are about idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen which they invoked with intention of worship. How can you say both when only one of them [the second] is only possible in light of demonstrated evidences!

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I must repeat again my question: What was cause of Shirk in and Kufr in creed and action of Mushrikeen: (i) Was it that they invoked idols? (ii) Or was it that they invoked in worship idols who they believed as their Ilahs?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Obvious answer is that according to Quran and Sunnah Shirk which Mushrikeen were guilty of was because of their creed and intention of worship in actions. There is no denial Istighathah is performed by people without ascribing creed of Ilahiyyah to creation and without intention of worship. In order for you to prove Istighathah is Shirk and Haram therefore you must prove it is Shirk even when no Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah was ascribed to creation and establish Istighathah is act of worship in absence of creed and intention of worship.

76 - Technical/Shar’ri Usage Of Min Du’nillah And Wahhabis:

Wahhabi: Shirk is calling beside-Allah and Istighathah is calling beside-Allah.

Sunni: Non-Ilah are not beside-Allah because the phrase Min Du’nillah and related are technical terms referring to idol-Ilahs and every Ilah in general. Hence Istighathah is not calling beside-Allah and not worship.

Wahhabi: This is what you have said not what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has said and I believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Sunni: Are you using applying the verses upon Muslims based on technical usage of Min Du’nillah, or on linguistic usage.

Wahhabi: Technical usage. In same sense as it is used in Quran. I mean Shar’ri usage.

Sunni: No you don’t use technical usage.

Sunni: In technical sense of Quran phrase Min Du’nillah in general used for all things and beings believed to be Ilah partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in some capacity. There is not a single usage of Min Du’nillah or its related terms denoting same meaning where it is used for non-Ilah. All the verses Salafis quote against Istighathah all of them use words Min Du’nillah about Ilahs of Mushrikeen once ambiguity is removed.

Sunni: Salafis either use Min Du’nillah verses against Istighathah on basis of linguistic meaning. IF not than you have innovated called-to help-dead are Min Du’nillah and have made this part of Shar’ri meaning of Min Du’nillah. This is very highly likely but it is an innovation because in Quran there is no proof for Min Du’nillah and related being used for deceased in absence of Ilahiyyah. Where there is no mention of Ilahiyyah it is to be understood because other verses remove the ambiguity and help to understand that Min Du’nillah are Ilahs of Mushrikeen.

Wahhabi: I will research the matter but that is a very bold claim. IF there is evidence supporting understanding that called-to-help-dead are Min Du’nillah would that justify usage of verses for subject Istighathah and those who practice it?

Sunni: IF words Min Du’nillah are used for called-to-help-dead/living and caller does not believe called-t-help-dead/living to be an Ilah than I will retract my statement about usage of Min Du’nillah being ONLY for Ilahs of Mushrikeen. And that would justify usage of Min Du’nillah and related in meaning verses on subject of Istighathah and those who practice it.

Wahhabi: Brilliant.

Sunni: IF you do not find any such evidence or you present me evidence thinking it supports your position but I establish one’s said to be Min Du’nillah are actually Ilahs of Mushrikeen than you will acknowledge: (i) You’ve and Salafis in general distort the meaning proper application words Min Du’nillah hence guilty of innovation. (ii) You had no right to apply verses of Min Du’nillah upon Muslims and use them in context of Istighathah. (iii) You will repent from and admit that you and Salafi-kind are upon Khariji Minhaj in relation to application of Ayaat revealed for disbelievers upon Muslims.

Sunni: I want blood after your attempt.

Wahhabi: I thought you were giving me license to murder you without consequences. Smile.

Sunni: Smile. Do your research well and check Tafasir before you approach me.

Wahhabi: I don’t like that you have raised the stakes this high. No deal. This is a gamble and I am not gambling my Iman. I have to walk away but I will still pursue the subject to prove you wrong.

Sunni: Do your research and share with me what you discover. We can leave the deal.

Wahhabi: I need to go.

77 - Kharijis Applying Verses Revealed For Kafirs Upon Muslims:

Sunni: You quoted various verses [in sections 60, 62, and 65] to prove Istighathah is Shirk therefore Haram and I explained and demonstrated each verse is about Mushrikeen invoking their idol-Ilahs and referrence to Min Du’nillah is referrence to idol-Ilahs of Mushrikeen. And previously when I asked you that IF you have any objections of explanations I have provided you said that you have none.

Wahhabi: You didn’t ask me about all it was regarding a specific verse.

Sunni: I am sure it was about all of them but even IF it was just about specific verse [in section 75] than no issue. I will rephrase.

Sunni: All evidences you quoted were as mentioned above i.e. about Mushrikeen, and referrence of Min Du’nillah was about their idol-Ilahs. Issue is that you cannot apply upon Muslims verses revealed for disbelievers and IF you engage in this practice than you’re from Khawarij: "And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Book 88, Book Apostates, Chapter 6, Killing Khawarij and Mulhideen, here, scribd here.] This establishes you and Salafism is upon Khariji methodology.

Wahhabi: We need to discuss meaning of this tradition in our next meeting.

Sunni: There is no ambiguity in its meaning it is very clear in what it records.

Wahhabi: …

78 - Which, Why Kharijis Applied Verses On Muslims And Connection With Wahhabis:

Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum.

Sunni: Wa Alaykum Salam.

Wahhabi: Last Sunday I wanted to discuss meaning of Hadith; Khawarij applying verses revealed regarding disbelievers upon Muslims.

Sunni: You did but I don’t see anything which needs discussion.

Wahhabi: You quoted this Hadith once before and I did some investigation with regards to context of statement and who the Khawarij were. Khawarij applied the verses revealed about fighting disbelievers, taking their property as loot, capturing and enslaving of the combatants, not eating slaughter of Mushrikeen, verses prohibiting Mushrikeen to being Carer of Masajid, verses prohibiting marriage with Mushrikeen women/men, and verses prohibiting seeking forgiveness for deceased Mushrikeen family members. Khawarij applied all such verses upon companions. This is the historical context in which Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made his statement. They did not apply verses against companions which we employ to refute Istighathah and those engage in it. You’re in reality distorting Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statement by not mentioning the context.

Sunni: You’re absolutely correct that this is how Khawarij behaved but you’re ignoring why were they applying all such verses upon companions/Muslims to begin with. What happened historically and what did the Khawarij conclude regarding creed of Companions which led them to apply all such verses upon Muslims/Momineen? Don’t answer it.

Sunni: Arbitration between Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Mu’awiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) provided the Khawarij pretext to accuse Companions of committing Shirk because both warring parties agreed on arbitration. Khawarij rebelled at the pretext saying both sides have taken creation as judge hence committed major Shirk and to justify their claim they quoted, judgement is only for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The charge of Shirk is same. The difference between you and those Kharijis is the pretext on which you charged Muslims of committing major Shirk. They said you the Companions have given right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to creation because of arbitration. You the Salafis argue that you the Muslims have given right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to creation because of Istighathah. Those Khawarij accused the companions of setting up rivals unto Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you accuse us of the same. Where is the difference between you and those Khawarij? Don’t answer it yet. You will have your chance. Let me tell you now and you can tell me later. The only difference is grounds on which you and they declared Muslims as Mushrikeen.

79 - Establishing There Is No Difference Between How And Why Of Both Kharijism:

Sunni: Am I a Mushrik?

Wahhabi: I wouldn’t say you’re Mushrik but will say you’re guilty of Shirk.

Wahhabi: You’re about the change the direction of discussion and I won’t get chance to respond to you.

Sunni: I am not changing direction. I will respond to what you said earlier but I need confirmation before I continue.

Wahhabi: OK!

Sunni: IF I die upon my current would I die a Mushrik?

Wahhabi: Technically speaking yes but there could be a valid excuse for you. Meaning Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) may accept your Shahadatayn on some grounds.

Sunni: You said Khawarij applied all these verses upon the best of Muslims. My question to you is that are you Wahhabi any different than Kharijis? Let Shaykh al-Najd Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab answer this himself. He writes: “Allah's Messenger came to a people who differed in their object of worship; some worshiped the Angels while others worshiped the Prophets and pious, also there were those who worshiped stones and trees and some worshiped the sun and the moon, but the Prophet did not differentiate between them. The proof is the Saying of Allah, "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (i.e., Shirk) until the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone." (8:39)” [Ref: Qawa’id al-Arba, Page 7, here.] Shaykh al-Najd said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made no distinction between any Mushrik instead he treated them all same and in accordance with revealed Shari’ah. And according to Shaykh al-Najd he has no precedence in Sunnah to treat me and the Sunnis any different from how Mushrikeen were treated by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) treated Mushrikeen in Quran.

Sunni: Blood of Muslim is Haram. Shaykh al-Najd permitted slaying of Muslims on grounds that they are Mushrikeen and Kafireen.

Sunni: He wrote: “It is absolutely amazing! And more amazing is tat despite their (people of Biddah) reading this story in the books of Tafsir and Hadith, along with their understandings of its meaning, and knowing about the obstruction that Allah has put between them and their hearts, they believed that the deeds of the people of Nuh (i.e. over praising the dead and memorializing their graves with statues) is the best type of worship. They believed in what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden which is the disbelief (Kufr) that permits the taking of life and wealth.” [Ref: Kitab al-Tawheed, Chapter 19, Page 80, Important IOChapter Number 14] How did he legalize killing us without applying the verses revealed for disbelievers upon believers? You may might distinction how you treat me and Sunnis like me but Shaykh al-Najd made no distinction between us and the Mushrikeen which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encountered. In principle Wahhabism is not any different from those Khawarij who applied every single verse of Mushrikeen upon Companions/Momineen. In practice you may have some differences but in principle there is no difference whatsoever.

Sunni: IF you could would you perform my Salat ul-Janazah and invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to forgive me?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Would you eat meat of an animal slaughtered by me with, in the name of Allah. Allahu Akbar?

Wahhabi: I would because it is slaughtered correctly.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about Mushrikeen: “O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their (final) year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.” [Ref: 9:28] So you would eat my slaughter even though I am guilty of major Shirk and impure/unclean?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: No insult intended brother. Would you marry your sister or daughter to one who is guilty of major Shirk of Istighathah like me? I am sorry IF this has caused offence but it needed to be asked.

Wahhabi: I will not agree to such marriage.

Sunni: Why?

Wahhabi: You already know the answer brother Ali.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has said: “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees examine (and test) them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: If you ascertain that they are believers then send them not back to the unbelievers. They are not lawful (wives) for the unbelievers, nor are the (unbelievers) lawful (husbands) for them. But pay the unbelievers what they have spent (on their dower) and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them.” [Ref: 60:10] We both know the disbelievers in this verse are Mushrikeen. Is your refusal based on the belief person would be upon major Shirk, Mushrik, and Kafir?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I will conclude my point now. There is really no difference between how the Khawarij applied verses upon Companions and how you Wahhabis apply upon us. You base your Fiqh rulings against us are based on verses revealed about Mushrikeen as IF these verses were revealed about us. And this is what the Khawarij did in regards to companions. The only difference is that grounds on which they declared companions as Mushrikeen and you declare us Mushrikeen are different. As a result both Khariji groups employ verses which they believed/believe are related to and justify charge of Shirk.

Wahhabi: Brother this is wrong because we have not prevented you from Hajj and entering Masjid al-Haram.

Sunni: Wahhabi principle, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not make distinction between Mushrikeen and therefore we will not because he did not, speaks for itself volumes. The reason Wahhabis did not prevent Muslims practicing Hajj is because Hijaz was under rule of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah so you could not prevent us. When you did get control the original Wahhabi zealots were dead. It was third and fourth generation of Wahhabis and Ibn Saud had become diluted in his Wahhabism. Another reason which is more likely is that Wahhabis allowed Hajj because preventing Sunnis would have brought war to Arabia. Anyhow that is all speculation the truth is your principle is make no distinction between Mushrikeen and deal with them as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) demonstrated in his Sunnah. Hence in conclusion there is no difference how those Kharijis applied verses and how you Kharijis apply verses upon Muslims.

Sunni: You can respond to whatever you like.

Wahhabi: There is no need to respond to anything but I will say that Kharijis had no valid reason to denounce the best of Ummah as Mushrikeen and Kafireen i.e. Companions. Against you Sufis we have valid grounds because you worship others-beside Allah. There exists Shar’ri justification to apply verses of Shirk revealed for earlier Mushrikeen upon Mushrikeen of latter times who’s Shirk resembles Shirk of earlier ones.

Sunni: It is your claim that we engage in Shirk and that we are Mushrikeen which you have not substantiated in light of Quran and Sunnah.

Wahhabi: We would have to agree to disagree.

80 - Challenging Erroneous Notion Prostration Is Shirk Like Istighathah:

Sunni: I apologize but I need to side-track [from where we left off yesterday].

Sunni: You stated prostration was prohibited because it was Shirk in our Shari’ah to prostrate to anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “It is Haram because it is Shirk like prostration to other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Haram and Shirk in our Shari’ah.” Is there any evidence to suggest that it was prohibited because it was Shirk in Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prostrate to anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Wahhabi: It was prohibited obviously because prostration of respect may lead to Shirk.

Sunni: It may lead to Shirk is not ground for arguing prostration of respect/honour performed for other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk.

Sunni: Its prohibition is valid basis to argue that the commoners could be misguided hence it could have become a mean to worship of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), leading to Shirk.

Wahhabi: It [the prohibition] is [related to] blocking means to Shirk.

Sunni: This is not what you have said earlier. I quoted you word for word.

Wahhabi: What do you believe about prostration to creation then?

Sunni: I believe prostration with respect to anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was prohibited because it was means to misguidance therefore it was declared Haram. And it was not declared Haram because of the reason which you gave i.e. that prostration performed to creation warranted Shirk.

Wahhabi: On basis of what have you arrived at this position?

Sunni: Sajdah is of two types, worship and respect. Prostration of worship for creation was prohibited in every Shari’ah of Prophets including in ours. Prostration of respect was not prohibited in our Shari’ah and eventually it was prohibited because it could have become source of misguidance for commoners.

Wahhabi: That is my point. In Islam after prostration of respect was abrogated then only prostration of worship remained hence every prostration performed is considered worship.

Sunni: Islam abrogated and prohibited the prostration of respect but it did not prohibit the intention of respect neither did Islam state from now on every prostration is of worship. Yes the person performs Haram action but his Haram action is with Halal intention of respect. You can’t judge the Haram action to be Shirk even when the intention is Halal i.e. respect. Haram action with Haram intention, i.e. of worship, is Shirk. Our Shari’ah recognises that prostration of respect is not Shirk. Qur’an gives examples in context of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam), Prophet Yaqub (alayhis salam), and angels prostrating to Prophet Adam: “And when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the Jinn and departed from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.” [Ref: 18:50] “And he raised his parents high on the throne and they fell down in prostration, (all) before him. He said: "O my father! This is the fulfilment of my vision of old! Allah hath made it come true! He was indeed good to me when He took me out of prison and brought you (all here) ...” [Ref: 12:100] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that He narrates old stories so the people of understanding learn lessons from them. We learn prostration of respect was not Shirk and to say it is Shirk is to distort Qur’anic teaching. In conclusion Islam/Quran does recognise that prostration of respect is not Shirk.

Wahhabi: Brother IF something was prohibited then how does Islam accept it? It’s abrogated.

Sunni: Prohibition of prostration of respect is established and agreed by both of us. You have to understand that abrogation of prostration of respect does not mean suddenly it has become Shirk. Even though prohibition of action is established yet this prohibition cannot and should not lead to conclusion that every prostration is of worship. Intoxicants are Haram including alcohol. Does that lead to conclusion it is also Shirk? I repeat once again Islam has prohibited the action alone. It has not declared performing of prostration of respect as an act of Shirk. IF someone performs this action than we refer to Qur’an and come to conclusion that it is not Shirk. Than we refer to Sunnah and come to conclusion it is Haram.

[There was no agreement on this and after both of repeating the same points in different ways I just gave up. Instead I suggested we move to discussing permissibility and impermissibility of Istighathah.]

81 – Evidence Establishing Permissibility Of Istighathah:

Sunni: How do you establish permissibility of a practice and action in your Hanbali Madhab?

Wahhabi: I do not follow a Madhab. I am upon Minhaj of Ahlul Hadith. IF it is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or practice is found in his companions, or two succeeding generation.

I said: I was looking for some principles but your answer is fine for what it is worth. IF you recall I referenced you some Ahadith [in section 59] about Haram and Halal. It was stated in them, issues on which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has remained silent are excused as favour by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so we should accept His favour.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “O you who believe! Ask not about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be made plain to you. Allah has forgiven that, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Forbearing” [Ref: 5:101] Prohibition of questioning about them was because then injunction regarding will be revealed making it Halal, Haram, Fardh … and this would make life difficult for Muslims. And in context of this Ayah Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, on which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) remained silent were excused/permitted due to His favour/mercy: “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favour. So accept from Allah His favour, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] Sunan Darqutni contains a Hadith in which it is stated: “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” [Ref: Sunan Darqutni]

Sunni: Based on these Ahadith it would be correct to argue that Istighathah is permitted because neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited it.

Wahhabi: These Ahadith refer to food items not the practices of worship.

Sunni: Does not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibit Zina? Did He not forbid lying and murdering unjustly, murder of minors, theft, interest on loans, marriage of a Mahram with another Mahram, consumption of Khanzir, drinking of blood, and dead animals? Did not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibit associating of partners with Him, seeking of help from idols/gods, worship of idol/gods, dedicating of crops for their idols/gods?

Wahhabi: I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from accursed Iblees.

Sunni: La Hawla Wala Quwwata il’la Billah …

Sunni: Iblees and me? When you’re part of sect which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described as Qarn ash-Shaytan i.e. horde of Iblees.

Wahhabi: I was checking Hadith. That was a bit surprising development. It was not directed toward you because …

Wahhabi: … Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in numerous Ayaat has stated that forgetfulness is from Iblees so I sought refuge from him in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I had forgotten [that there are many types of Haram] and what you stated reminded me.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited so many things and so many practices. Yet He did not forbid Istighathah, nor He forgot about it, nor was He unaware of future. He left it untouched and this is proof it is permissible.

82 - Evidence Mutashabihaat Against Impermissibility Of Istighathah:

Wahhabi: There is Hadith in Sahih of Imam Bukhari, which states between Halal (i.e. lawful) and Haram (i.e. unlawful) are Mutashabihaat (i.e. ambiguous) and one falls into doubtful has fallen into unlawful: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things indulges in fact in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Muslim, B10, H3882, here.] Based on this Hadith Istighathah is Haram.

Sunni: First of all there is issue with translation in my understanding the words should be, and one who engages in doubtful will engage in unlawful. According to your translation the person has already fallen into Haram by engaging in doubtful. Logically speaking IF a doubtful is Haram then why is it termed doubtful? They should be under the category of Haram. As I understand it matter is that engaging in doubtful without concern for falling into Haram will eventually lead to Haram.

Sunni: In addition to this according to you Istighathah is an issue of major Shirk therefore Haram. Here you are arguing it is Haram because it is from Mutashabihaat i.e. ambiguous, or doubtful. This is a contradiction. Presupposing you have changed your position and now you believe it is a doubtful matter. [IF the translation is correct which is unlikely but we suppose it is] then doubtful matters are Haram but can doubtful be major Shirk? Don’t answer it. IF Istighathah is clear Shirk than it is not doubtful and IF it is doubtful then it is not Shirk. You can’t have it both ways.

Sunni: Moving on. You have argued that Istighathah is Haram due to it being doubtful. IF I concede the point [Istighathah is Haram because it is from Mutashabihaat] even than you would failed to prove it is Shirk. What remains behind is your understanding that it is Haram and my understanding that it is permissible.

Sunni: IF your translation is correct [which I am very doubtful of because it contradicts common sense] then your position that Istighathah is Haram would be valid in my judgment or at least for you. And I certify permissibility of Istighathah based on the Ahadith I quoted.

Wahhabi: Translation is absolutely correct but you’re just refusing to accept the truth.

Sunni: Brother I don’t know Arabic but I have a very functional brain.

Wahhabi: How do you know then?

Sunni: I have read the entire Hadith and contemplated over it that’s how.

Wahhabi: I have read this Hadith as well.

Sunni: I don’t think you have read the entire Hadith but IF you have and you still argue translation is correct than it can only be because you’re being deceptive, or you’re empty in your head. Sorry I insulted you.

Wahhabi: Insult and apology came together hardly a lapse.

Sunni: It wasn’t a lapse I intended both.

Wahhabi: Smiles.

Sunni: Read the Hadith from beginning to end.

Wahhabi: Give me a minute or two.

Sunni: The translation is not correct because the example employed in Hadith states shepherd grazing flock near a reserve eventually will have sheep grazing in the reserve implication of which is one who engages in Mutashabihaat will eventually fall into Haram but the translation says he has fallen into Haram.

Sunni: You referenced this Hadith from Bukhari it is not in Bukhari there is another Hadith, here.

Wahhabi: Sorry. This Hadith isn’t from Bukhari. It is actually from Muslim, here. I was struggling to find it for the same reason.

Sunni: Did you read what I wrote explaining why I believe the translation is wrong.

Wahhabi: You make a good point but I will not disregard the translation due to what you said until someone reliable says translation is wrong.

Sunni: I have demonstrated why logically the translation cannot be correct and through prophetic example demonstrated why it cannot be correct translation. What you’re asking me is above my pay grade. I suggest you ask members of popular Islamic-Awakening forum about the translation.

[In my judgment issue of Istighathah is between permissibility VS. impermissibility VS. Doubtful is of Ijtihad but Ghulu i.e. extremism by Kharijis has made this issue a matter of Tawheed and Shirk. It should be noted that afterwards I checked number of Urdu and English translations of Hadith and it is confirmed that the translation is wrong, here, here, here, and here.]

83 – Explaining Hadith Of And Demonstrating What Are Mutashabihaat:

Wahhabi: In yesterday’s discussion you said Istighathah is permissible me but Haram for you IF the translation of Hadith is valid. How can that be? This is contradiction don’t you think?

Sunni: You’re correct. My thinking is that I rather have you be guilty of innovation than Takfir which invalidates Islam.

Wahhabi: To prevent Takfir which I don’t make you decided to change the verdict regarding it and declared it Halal for yourself and declared it Haram for me. In Islam there is no such a thing as Haram me but Halal for you.

Sunni: There is Halal for me but Haram for you.

Wahhabi: You lost me completely.

Sunni: It is Haram for you to marry your wives sister and Halal for me to marry her. In context of Istighathah there is no such thing as Halal for me and Haram for you.

Wahhabi: Smiles. You have contradiction.

Sunni: Reality is brother yesterday I wasn’t prepared to deal with your evidence. I didn’t get time to think about meaning of Hadith.

Wahhabi: You had 24 hours to think about meaning of Hadith in context of Istighathah so I would expect you have better understanding of Hadith.

Sunni: I was wrong Istighathah is not from practices which are Mutashabihaat so it is not Haram for you even IF translation is correct.

Wahhabi: Are you admitting you made an error in judgment?

Sunni: I am embarrassed that I have made mistake but I will rectify it since you bought it up. This will involve properly understanding Hadith. Do I have liberty to explain Hadith?

Wahhabi: Nothing too long but short and to the point.

Sunni: What are Mutashabihaat? How do we determine IF something is from Mutashabihaat?

Wahhabi: Wasn’t you suppose to answer these questions?

Sunni: Rhetorical statements.

Wahhabi: There is nothing online which is related to this Hadith apart from content related to Mutashabihaat verses of Quran.

Sunni: Mutashabihaat are things are connected with Haram. Credit Card is from Mutashabihaat. Having it eventually lead to using it and paying interest. Associating with prostitutes is not Haram but Zina is. Staying in company of prostitutes will eventually lead one to Zina. Mutashabihaat are things which are connected with Haram and which could lead to Haram but means which are not Haram. TV is amongst the Mutashabihaat. Eventually it would lead one to watch Ghayr-Mahram and in some cases worse such as pornography.

Wahhabi: That is an interesting observation [about how to determine Mutashabihaat] and explanation but on what have you based your explanation?

Sunni: On the Hadith you quoted.

Wahhabi: How?

Sunni: You have to infer some aspects to clearly understand the Hadith.

Wahhabi: Like?

Sunni: I have looked after grazing animals in Pakistan when I was younger. There was always a place where we were not permitted to graze cow/sheep. Slight mismanagement which was inevitable because would play games and those sheep would enter pasture which was Haram for them in linguistic sense. And the owner would come charging and verbally chastise us like how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will for entering Haram. I understand the Hadith from experience and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used that example because he was also charged with looking after sheep/camels when he was young.

I quote Hadith with what I believe is correct translation: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things will indulge in fact in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Muslim, B10, H3882, here.] The Hadith gives example of a pasture/reserve which is no-go-area for sheep i.e. Haram for people. Just like sheep who linger around the no-go-area will eventually stray into no-go-area and graze in it the Muslims who linger around Haram will eventually be persuaded by Shaytan to engage in Haram. In short Mutashabihaat is an area outside of pasture, no-go-area, Haram-Zone but close enough that heedlessness will lead to engaging in Haram. TV, Credit Cards, and many other things which could lead to Haram therefore all are from amongst Mutashabihaat: “So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless.”

Wahhabi: Good explanation brother Ali.

84 - Istighathah Is Not Amongst The Mutashabihaat And Not Haram:

Sunni: You attempted to declare Istighathah Haram through route of Mutashabihaat. It has been established that Mutashabihaat are those things which are connected with Haram and lead to engaging in Haram. IF Istighathah is Haram than it is not part of Mutashabihaat and IF it is related to Mutashabihaat than it is not Haram.

Wahhabi: Brother there is no solid reason to believe Istighathah is not amongst those things which are Mutashabihaat. Is it?

Sunni: I will respond to that in a bit.

Sunni: Istighathah is not Haram because no clear evidence stating it is Haram. IF it was from amongst Mutashabihaat then it is permitted/Mubah but requires extreme care to avoid falling into Haram i.e. Shirk, Kufr due to worship of creation. Hence you have no reason to declare it Haram, Shirk, and Kufr. Instead it is Halal as long as we do not enter the Haram aspect of it such as engaging in Istighathah with creed that one asked for help is an Ilah/Rabb and deserves to be worshipped.

Wahhabi: What are you basing permissibility on?

Sunni: It is Mubah/allowed because silence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) on something is sign of His mercy and permission. I have already quoted Ahadith in support of this.

Wahhabi: There is no reason to not to believe Istighathah is not out of Mutashabihaat.

Sunni: There is a reason. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave example of shepherd and his sheep straying into a pasture which they are not allowed to graze in. Sheep stray into no-go-pasture always happened due to negligence. IF it happened due to negligence than Shirk in Istighathah cannot happen due to negligence but requires conscious decision to believe a creation as an Ilah than call to help with intention of worship. Change of creed and intention both of these require conscious decision to adopt Shirk and worship. Whereas Mutashabihaat are those things which inadvertently lead to engaging in Haram. You may not intend to deal in interest/usury but you used the Credit card with assumption you will pay it before interest kicks in but you’re dismissed from job and you cannot pay the money as needed and you’re forced to pay interest. This Hadith is talking about unintentionally falling into Haram. One cannot fall into Shirk due to Istighathah because Shirk requires change of creed and worship requires intention. Sheep stray into no-go-area always due to negligence for whatever reason and Shirk in Istighathah cannot be warranted due to negligence.

Wahhabi: Can it not be that shepherd is tempted by Shaytan to graze the sheep in no-go-zone?

Sunni: The natural meaning/understanding is unintentional but I cannot deny deliberate is possible as well but my point still stands. IF a man deliberately chooses to indulge in Haram such as believes in an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and consciously decides to worship others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) than he is out of Islam. And only Istighathah is not what could inspire someone to Shirk but Tawaf around Kabah could as well and IF it did Tawaf still wouldn’t be Mutashabih practice but person would be out of Islam.

Sunni: What you’re saying is Istighathah is Mutashabih because it may inspire practitioner to willingly knowingly adopt Shirki creed that XMan is Ilah and practice Istighathah with intention of worship. It is absolutely possible that someone could be inspired to practice Istighathah with this creed and intention but I still don’t believe Istighathah is a Mutashabih practice.

Wahhabi: Can you please conclude your point because I need to leave.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said one who grazes his sheep near a no-go-zone will eventually end up grazing them deliberately. Or will find the sheep grazing in the pasture due to his negligence: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things will indulge in fact in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Muslim, B10, H3882, here.] In other words engaging in Mutashabihaat has a very high chance almost 100% that one engaged in them will engage in Haram.

Sunni: I have seen people practice Istighathah and mostly these people are commoners with little knowledge of Islam. I have questioned them, you call for help with intention of worship and do you believe one you calling for help is an Ilah/Rabb? There hasn’t been a single instance where someone has responded affirmatively. How can Istighathah be from Mutashabihaat when it doesn’t lead to Shirk? And I am talking about commoners who have bare minimum knowledge of Tawheed, about Prophet-hood and Fiqh related to Wudhu, and Salah. IF these commoners have protected Tawheed and their Islam from Shirk than there is no chance amongst the educated Sunnis.

Wahhabi: This is where we have to disagree. Istighathah has always led people to commit major Shirk so it is from Mutashabihaat which we should avoid.

Sunni: That is because you do not judge Tawheed/Shirk based on what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed instead you judge Tawheed/Shirk based on Wahi received by Shaykh al-Najd. Tawheed/Shirk is determined on basis of affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and Ibadah is judged on creed and intention of worship.

Wahhabi: We judge according to principles which we received from Salaf who knew Quran and Sunnah better than you and all the Sufis.

Sunni: Prove your principles have been passed on by Salaf as-Saliheen. It is a challenge. Do you accept it?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: I will continue with my response …

Sunni: You said Istighathah is Mutashabih practice which means by itself Istighathah is not Shirk but it becomes Shirk when Haram joins it. That is a contradiction and a non-sense.  According to words of Hadith a Mutashabih leads to a Haram which is clearly and explicitly stated in Quran and Sunnah as Haram. What you’re saying is Mutashabih becomes Haram. How can it be Mutashabih and Shirk? IF it is Shirk than it is not Mutashabih practice.

Sunni: In the Hadith, Mutashabih equals Istighathah and Haram equals Shirk?
Wahhabi: …

Sunni: What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful such as Istighathah. So he who guards against doubtful things like Istighathah keeps his religion and honour blameless. He who indulges in doubtful like Istighathah will indulge in fact in unlawful things such as major Shirk.  What this Hadith means is that one who engages in a Mutashabih practice will leave it for a Haram practice. Which IF you pay attention you will realize that Istighathah is not Shirk but person would leave it for a Shirk.

Sunni: In conclusion I want to say that Istighathah is not Mutashabih practice to begin with but IF you insist it is than you have to accept it is not Shirk and person leaves Istighathah for a practice which is Shirk. And I have already stated to leave Istighathah which we practice for Shirk the practitioner must affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah one whom he calls for help and has intention to worship while calling for help. Hence you did not establish Istighathah is Shirk.

[Wahhabi brother left without responding to anything and I did not pursue the subject thereafter because there was no real answer to points I raised.]

85 - Ijtihad Of A Mujtahid Regarding Deceased Awliyah-Allah Helping:

Sunni: Sorry to dig old graves. Few weeks ago in one of our sessions we discussed [in section 55] IF phrase servants of Allah includes deceased Awliyah or not? Do you recall? 

Wahhabi: I can’t recall but …

Sunni: Something came to my mind while writing up that portion of our discussion so I thought I bring it up to benefit from your knowledge.

Wahhabi: This is your wise way of milking advantage. Smiles.

Sunni: What IF a Mujaddid/Mujtahid has understood the phrase servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be inclusive of deceased Awliyah and seeking of help from them as permissible? Will he be guilty of Shirk? And those who follow his Ijtihad will they be guilty of major Shirk also?

Wahhabi: None from the Mujtahideen have stated this.

Sunni: Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) was the Mujaddid of 14^th century. Amongst different types of Mujtahideen his Maqam/rank is of Mujtahid Fil Masail. Some have stated he is Mujtahid Fil Madhab. Out of seven ranks of Mujtahideen, he is upon the 5th i.e. Mujtahid Fil Masail and there is agreement amongst Ahlus Sunnah. Dispute is over his one level higher (i.e. Mujtahid Fil Madhab). His status amongst Muhaditheen is of Hujjat ul-Hadith which is one lower from the highest.

Sunni: He has published books on every aspect every field of religion, Tafsir, Asool Tafsir, Hadith, Shuruhaat, Grammar, Logic, Philosophy, Algebra, Astronomy, Physics, Maths, Biology, Knot Theory,  and list goes on totalling some 1200/1500 books. His Fatawah Razawiyyah is published in 30 volumes. What is the big deal you would ask? He spent 40 years answering to and resolving problems faced by scholars of his era. Fatawah Razawiyyah is compilation of Fatawah of his last ten years. Thirty years before that nothing was saved. Had he saved all the Fatawah it would have been the most comprehensive collection of Fatawah likely touching 150 plus volumes. And then we come to who was seeking clarifications and answers from Imam Ahmad Raza Khan (alayhi rahma). A browse through the list of names of people who referred to him will reveal vast majority, over 90% of Fatawah are in response to major scholars of his time.

Sunni: This Imam has stated phrase slaves of Allah is inclusive of Awliyah living and deceased, angels and Jinn, and has stated it is permissible to seek help from deceased Awliyah with belief that the aid in Haqiqi terms will come from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: He is not a Mujtahid, nor Mujaddid only Ahlul Biddah claim this therefore it is of no value.

Sunni: Consensus is not of whole Ummah but of majority. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated follow the majority. And majority is in agreement of his Maqam as Mujaddid and Mujtahid.

Wahhabi: The Hadith you are basing this on is Weak.

Sunni: It is corroborated by Sahih Hadith: “It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a hand span and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] Deviation from main body is death of Jahiliyyah because main-body is lion’s share, and majority. Another Hadith from indicates majority is better than minority “Abu Dhar (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that, “Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghafari, Hadith 20776] Out of three, two is majority, and out of five three is majority. Therefore prophetic advice would be to stick to which is better (i.e. majority) and that majority would be the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. In another Hadith it is stated that we should follow the great majority and it is stated the Ummah will not unite upon misguidance -: “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950]  Prophetic advice to follow the majority could only be if the majority could not unite upon misguidance.

Wahhabi: Brother these Ahadith refer to agreement over teachings of Deen not over disagreement/agreement over who is Mujaddid or Mujtahid.

Sunni: Birth of Mujaddid every hundred years is part of teaching of Deen hence agreement over who is Mujaddid is part of it and therefore part of instruction to follow majority.

Wahhabi: OK but your claim would be supported IF Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold about birth of Mujtahid, he said about Mujaddid.

Sunni: Mujaddid is responsible for renewing religion of Islam. Every hundred years or so old Masail/matters need to be dealt in light of new developments. How could Mujaddid do his job if he does not have ability of Ijtihad?

Sunni: The prerequisite for Mujaddid is rank of Mujtahid because he needs to renew with Ijtihad. Mujaddid doesn’t search for the old books and publishes them again. Mujaddid: Here I am Mujaddid because I have reprinted books out of print. He carries out Ijtihad as a Mujtahid to comply with his role of Mujaddid.

Wahhabi: Smile! I have never thought about it this way until now.

Sunni: Well I am glad I have helped with something.

Wahhabi: In this case my position would be weakened.

Sunni: Which position?

Wahhabi: Istighathah being Shirk and its practitioners being Mushrik.

Sunni: I am glad you realised this. IF you have some material with aid of which we can judge who is Mujtahid and Mujaddid that would be great. It would be interesting to see how your criteria and our criteria agrees and disagrees. And we can use both to see IF Shaykh al-Najd Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, or Imam Ahmad Raza Khan al-Bareilwi (rahimullah) meets the criteria.

Wahhabi: I haven’t read anything on who can be deemed as Mujtahid and Mujaddid. My knowledge on the subject is very basic. IF you’re keen to discuss than I will try to find content relating to it but I cannot promise it will be my top priority.

Sunni: Mine isn’t of any worth either but I will search.

86 - My Questions About Ijtihad And Followers Of Mujtahid:

Sunni: I want to return to my questions which you did not answer.

Wahhabi: Which ones?

Sunni: Ijtihad of Mujtahid leading him to believe phrase servants of Allah is inclusive of living, deceased, Awliyah, and inclusive of angels and Muslim Jinn. And due to this Mujtahid believes in permissibility of Istighathah practices it and so do people following his Ijtihad.

Sunni: Question was; is the Mujtahid and his Muqallideen guilty of Shirk?

Wahhabi: I do not believe Ahmad Raza is a Mujtahid.

Sunni: That is neither the question nor part of discussion because even IF we both come to agreement that Sayyidi Ala Hazrat is not a Mujtahid and Mujaddid it will still not affect my point which I am intending to make.

Wahhabi: IF a Mujtahid arrives to this understanding. It would be his mistake and those who follow him will be following him in an error.

Sunni: This would be major mistake in understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. And his error is so serious that Mujtahid has legalized major Shirk. Is the Mujtahid guilty of major Shirk and Kufr? And what about those who follow him [are they also guilty of same]?

Wahhabi: Ijtihad of Mujtahid is rewarded even IF it is invalid.

Sunni: And those who practiced what he legalised?

Wahhabi: No comment. I need to investigate this part.

Sunni: Suppose I Ali strive and make every effort and come to same understanding as the Mujtahid. Will I be Mushrik IF I deem Istighathah permissible and practice it?

Wahhabi: Yes, Shirk!

Sunni: In your understanding Mujtahid/Mujaddid is not guilty of major Shirk but I am guilty of major Shirk?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: In this context you’re not judging Shirk-ness or Tawheed-ness of Istighathah based on criteria of equality with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but you are judging it on basis of Mujtahid's Ijtihad vs. Talib's effort. Mujtahid’s Ijtihad means his practice doesn’t nullify his Tawheed and his major Shirk becomes a reward worthy error. Yet my practice ONLY becomes major Shirk despite the fact that I and Mujtahid both will share exactly same creed regarding Istighathah.

Sunni: We have come to understanding that your criteria of Shirk is presence of evidence means Tawheed and absence means Shirk, Ijtihad of Mujtahid is error but Tawheed isn’t invalidated by his belief or action, but for same belief and same action a common man’s Tawheed is invalidated. Furthermore seeking help/something XMan who has ability to help/grant is in accordance with teaching of Tawheed but seeking from XMan who doesn’t have ability/item to provide help/grant is Shirk. What this establishes is you do not judge Tawheed/Shirk based on the definitions of Tawheed/Shirk rather idiotic blameworthy innovative principles which have no foundation in Qur’an and Ahadith.

87 - Kharijis Invalidating Iman/Islam Of Major Scholars Of Islam:

Wahhabi: Mujtahid error in Fiqh is rewarded but serious errors in creed would take him out of Islam [and therefore Ijtihad of Mujtahid legalising Istighathah would invalidate his Islam].

Sunni: Brother you’re correct that Hadith in which reward for errors in Ijtihad is mentioned is about Fiqhi issues and issues which Islam is not built on.

Wahhabi:  I have corrected my error.

Sunni: I am glad you have corrected your mistake. There remain two problems: (i) You do not judge Tawheed/Shirk on basis of what each is but on something totally unrelated. (ii) Mujtahid’s Ijtihad establishing legality of Istighathah should make you cautious and it should force you to rethink your understanding instead you’ve resorted to attacking and nullifying their Iman/Islam.

Wahhab: I did not attack [Iman/Islam of] anyone.

Sunni: You wrote the following or not: “Mujtahid error in Fiqh is rewarded but serious errors in creed would take him out of Islam.” I was planning to quote you statement of Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) in which he says the phrase servants of Allah is about angels, Jinn, and men of Ghayb (i.e. Rijal al-Ghayb). IF I make the mistake of quoting him would you give him excuse of ignorance or resort to his Takfir.

Wahhabi: I did not declare out of Islam. Look how you have phrased it: “… and it should force you to rethink your understanding instead you’ve resorted to attacking and nullifying their Iman/Islam.” You’re attributing something so serious which I have not done.

Sunni: Brother making commitment to assault Iman/Islam of a Muslim on condition IF this criterion is met than … and it has been met even IF you’re not aware in my books it means you’ve attacked and nullified their Islam/Iman.

Wahhab: You’re a harsh judge than.

Sunni: I meant: … and it has been met, even IF you’re not aware that your condition has been met, in my books it means you’ve attacked and nullified their Islam/Iman.

Wahhabi: I understand you’ve made a logical deduction based on what I said but I have not yet targeted anyone.

Wahhabi: IF Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) rejects Khatamiyyah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would he be a Kafir? Would you be guilty of declaring him Kafir IF you answered with, YES?

Sunni: No don’t ask me a questions but ask this one to yourself: What would happen to your/mine Islam IF we turn against people who were/are the beacons illuminating Quran/Sunnah and start attacking their Iman/Islam based on a sectarian disagreements? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has said: “… the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah upon him, said: ‘There will be in the end of time charlatan liars coming to you with narrations that you nor your fathers heard, so beware of them lest they misguide you and cause you tribulations.’” [Ref: Muslim, Intro Hadith 15, here.] The early scholars are arbiters between me and you. IF we take a sword of Takfir and declare them Kafir and Mushrik we will be left with, I and My sect are only true Muslims.

Sunni: Issue of Khatamiyyah isn’t an issue in which the Ummah is divided but we are unanimously in agreement that Khatam/Khatim has certified Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is the last and end of all Prophets and Messengers. You’re given example of something going against which not just I but the whole Ummah would say major Kufr and Kafir.

Sunni: Istighathah is disputed issue between majority and minority. Majority of scholarship teaches Istighathah is not an issue of Aqeedah but instead it is primarily matter of Fiqh. Hence it is not Shirk and does not invalidate Iman/Islam due to it. Majority also considers it permissible. And a minority holds to view it is mainly issue of Aqeedah and practice of it invalidates Islam hence it is not allowed.

Wahhabi: How is it not an issue of Aqeedah?

Sunni: Salah is issue of Aqeedah or not? IF yes than why do we study it as Fiqh even though a component of Salah is related to creed? Aqeedah is pure belief and no action is part of it. Anything which is action based i.e. Istighathah is Fiqh even though component of it is connected with creed.

Wahhabi: The key point was to say XMan would be guilty of Kufr/Shirk IF certain condition is met is not same as saying XMan is Kafir/Mushrik. You said I have nullified the Iman and Islam of major scholars of Ummah. This is not simply true.

Sunni: I have explained why I wrote it. In Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equates back biting to eating flesh of dead brother. Objective is to dissuade by comparing it to something really disgusting and similarly I have developed your verdict about these Imams from your statement. I intended to simply to show its end result and force you to back track.

Wahhabi: OK. I understand but I would not like you to attribute such things to me until I say them. It comes under categories of spreading false rumours about me.

Sunni: JazakAllah Khayr. I will not do it again. Sorry.

[Realizing that so much effort is being wasted and the man has yet to see the light of Islam. I decided to go to his Wahhabi side but with slightly more vigour for Wahhabi version of Tawheed.]

88 - In Hardship Polytheists Sought Help Of Allah:

Sunni: Why do you think Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said that a Muslim should seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) IF Muslim is lost desert?

Wahhabi: There are angels appointed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to provide help so he just wanted the believers to know they will be helped.

Sunni: Yeah! I understand that. What I am asking is why didn’t Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) say seek help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) IF you are lost in the desert?

Wahhabi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) only permitted it because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted it.

Sunni: My brother I understand Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not permit anything which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not permit but …

Sunni: You see when the polytheists were at sea and IF there was a storm then they invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone but when they reached the safety of dry land they committed Shirk, established by following verse: “And when harm touches you upon the sea, those that you call upon besides Him are lost from you – except Him (Allah alone). But when He brings you safely to land, you turn away (from Him). And man is ever ungrateful.” [Ref: 17:67]

Wahhabi: Yes they committed Shirk in Uluhiyyah (i.e. Shirk in worship) not in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah (i.e. Tawheed of Lordship).

I said: Brother please can you not interfere while I am writing and let me complete.

Wahhabi: I won’t but sometimes I need ... but I won’t again.

89 - Angels As Daughters Of Allah And Is Prophet Reinforcing Shirk:

Sunni: You need to take note that the polytheists invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in time of difficulty but committed Shirk in time of comfort. Yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is asking the Muslims to seek help from angels in time of difficulty. Doesn’t this establish the polytheists understood role of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in receiving help and that’s why they sought His help alone and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) didn’t understand it?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: IF you look at the issue in the context of polytheists taking angels as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and believing them to be gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This seeking of help from angels wouldn’t that reinforce the polytheistic belief of angel gods in your methodology?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Don’t you think according to your [Salafi] methodology Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is instructing Shirk by instructing to ask the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to help in time of difficulty and not instructing to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Wahhabi: Na’awzu bi’illah min zalik. Brother help is being asked from the angels hence there is no Shirk because the help being asked is in power of angels.

Sunni: You are aware that polytheists took the angels as gods besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worshipped them so IF the aid was to sought from angels then how was this different from polytheism of polytheists?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Brother Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could have instructed the Muslims to seek help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in such circumstances and then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would instruct the angels to provide the help being sought. We both know the angels do nothing but with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence seeking aid directly from angels is of no consequence. Instead of blocking the means to Shirk we find Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) opening the gate of Shirk.

Sunni: You believe Dua is worship so how can invoking the angels and leaving Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not be Shirk in your sects understanding?

Wahhabi: I don’t believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed Shirk [in this Hadith] but I do believe that he did not adequately block the means to Shirk.

Sunni: There is another issue connected with this topic of blocking the means to Shirk.

90 – Shirk And Wahhabi Said Prophet Not Adequately Blocked Shirk:

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and story of Prophet Yaqub (alayhis salaam) and his wife prostrating to Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam) are recorded in the Qur’an: “And (remember) when We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourselves before Adam", and they prostrated except Iblis (i.e. Satan), he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers.” [Ref: 2:34] “And he raised his parents to the throne and they fell down before him prostrate. And he said: "O my father! This is the interpretation of my dream afore time! My Lord has made it come true! He was indeed good to me, when He took me out of the prison, and brought you (all here) out of the bedouin-life, after Shaitan (Satan) had sown enmity between me and my brothers. Certainly, my Lord is the Most Courteous and Kind unto whom He wills. Truly He! Only He is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” [Ref: 12:100] Do you believe mention of these stories in the Qur’an supports the position that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not appropriately block the means to Shirk of worship?

Wahhabi: Absolutely not! Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) clearly instructed that He alone should be worshipped throughout the Qur’an.

Sunni: Just because throughout the Qur’an worship of creation is prohibited therefore you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appropriately blocked the means to Shirk. What do you think the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did all his life?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Did he not worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instructed His worship and forbade all types of Shirk?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: How dare you say that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not appropriately block the means to Shirk in this case!

Wahhabi: I only said that due Hadith in discussion and on basis IF Hadith was authentic which you know I believe Hadith is not authentic. You know I did not want to discuss the contents of Hadith because I believed it is a Weak Hadith and I said to you anything established I would not be liable to believe.

Sunni: Yet you wouldn’t say Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) failed to appropriately block the means to Shirk of worship in the Quran on basis of these verses which I mentioned. IF you loved the beloved Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you would not have dared to utter such Kufr.

[I was absolutely livid and on verge outright abusing him. I had to sign-out and block him on Yahoo, PalTalk, and his e-mail address. Few days after I regained composure I unblocked him. He came back on the Yahoo Messenger so I planned to continue the flow of discussion in the same direction in the hope that with help and direction he will eventually realize the error and Kufr.]

91 - Wahhabi Refuses To Say About Allah What He Said About Prophet:

Sunni: You said: “I only said that due Hadith in discussion and on basis IF Hadith was authentic which you know I believe Hadith is not authentic.” It makes absolutely no difference IF the Hadith is authentic or not. Just having the audacity in saying to say that you believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not properly block IF Hadith is authentic is Kufr.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed angels to prostrate to Adam (alayhi salam). Yet you wouldn’t say Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not appropriately block the means to Shirk al-Uluhiyyah in the Qur’an on basis of these verses which I mentioned.

Wahhabi: I will reword what I said earlier. IF the Hadith is authentic than I would say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not appropriately block routes to Shirk but it is not authentic.

Sunni: What you said has got nothing to do with authenticity of Hadith because concrete verse didn’t make you say the same about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: Brother my statement was conditional on basis IF Hadith is authentic.

Sunni: Why wouldn’t you say the same about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because the verses of Quran are authentic beyond comprehension?

Wahhabi: We have no right upon our Lord to critique His decision as Muslims. We obey and submit to Him in Islam.

Sunni: The reality is you have such a high degree of respect and love for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that you would not even contemplate saying, I believe statement about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) neither you would say, I would say this negative about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) IF this condition was met. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is insignificant expendable compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and therefore in your mind his honour is collateral damage in defence of Wahhabism. This is the reality which you’re refusing to come to terms with.

Sunni: Wallah il-Azeem this is evident Kufr. IF you loved the beloved Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and respected him as he should be respected than you would not have dared to utter such Kufr.

Wahhabi: How can you say what I said is Kufr?

Sunni: Wallah il-Azeem your blood is Halal.

Wahhabi: All of sudden you have become judge, jury, and a potential executioner.

Sunni: I am not judge and not would be or could be your executioner but I am definitely jury determining IF you’re guilty or not. You’re guilty of insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) which is major Kufr. IF I was judge and you was in my court I would book your date with executioner.

Wahhabi: I am not surprised though because this is how Ahmad Raza Khan distorted words of Taqwiyat ul-Iman to make case of Kufr against Shah [Ismail Dehalvi] Shaheed.

Sunni: You’re really getting on my nerves. I need to leave.

[Contents of following section were sent to him via an e-mail to point him in the right direction but I assume he did not read contents of this e-mail.]

92 - Wahhabi’s Kufri Statement Is Saying Prophet Failed Core Of His Mission:

Sunni: What you said on the other day [at the end of section 89], I believe Prophet did not block means to Shirk properly, and [in section 91] you said IF Hadith is authentic I would say the same, both statements are no lesser insult and Kufr than what Dhul Khuwaisirah said to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Sunni: He said to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that you did not deal justly and the companions drew their swords to kill him: “While we were with Allah's Apostle who was distributing [spoils of war], there came Dhu-l-Khuwaisira, a man from the tribe of Bani Tamim and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do Justice." [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807] “… While the Prophet was distributing (war booty – raw gold) one day, Dhul Khawaisira, a man from the tribe of Bani Tamim, said, "O Allah's Apostle! Act justly." The Prophets said, "Woe to you! Who else would act justly if I did not act justly?" Umar said (to the Prophet ), "Allow me to chop his neck off." The Prophet said, "No...” [Ref: Bukhari, B73, H184] In a way what you said is so monstrous even Dhul Khuwaisirah was a saint compared to what you said. You said Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not properly block the routes to Shirk than you said I will say the same IF Hadith is authentic. I am sure you will want to know why I said that.

Sunni: The cornerstone objective due to which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Prophet-hood and Messenger-ship to His last and the end of all prophets was to promote Tawheed, eradicate Shirk and to block routes to Shirk and build a straight path leading to Tawheed. I will spell out what you said and why it is Kufr.

Sunni: (i) You said O Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) I believe you did not properly do your job, to block means to Shirk. You FAILED in one aspect of your commission. (ii) You said IF this condition is met than I will say that O Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) you FAILED in blocking routes to Shirk. You FAILED in one core objective of your Prophet-hood and Messenger-ship.

Sunni: Are you willing to say that to the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) IF the Hadith is authentic? What you should have done instead is … He is above reproach and above any criticism as is He who sent Him and taught Him. I do not and will not raise my voice above the voice of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) neither above the command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which the Hadith would be IF it was authentic. I believe in all which is revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) without question.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “O you who have believed, do not put (yourselves) ahead of Allah and His Messenger but fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” [Ref: 49:1] This Ayah means do not decide what should be religion ahead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It also means do not oppose Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when they have decided something as religion: “… (and His messenger) until you receive Allah's command and the command of His Messenger; it is also said that this means: do not oppose the Messenger; and it is said this means: do not contravene the Book of Allah or the practice of His Messenger …” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 49:1, here.] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not.” [Ref: 49:2] To speak loudly over while another is speaking is sign that you believe what you have to say and your view on something is more important than what they are saying. In this light the Ayah also means do not give your own views precedence over what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has taught or is teaching.

93 – Addressing Wahhabi’s Accusation Against Imam Distorting Writings:

Sunni: Yesterday you said Imam Ahmad Raza Khan twisted the writings of Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi in our last session.

Wahhabi: I think truth of what I said touched a nerve. Smile.

Sunni: You touched wrong nerve when you said I believe and I would say IF Hadith was authentic that Prophet did not block the means to Shirk properly. You can’t imagine how close I was to saying something which I would have regretted.

Sunni: I left yesterday because you brought issues of Taqwiyat ul-Iman into our discussion and I do not want to discuss statements which are insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I left Dawah to Christians because it involved having to bear insults hurled at Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). I only discuss such statements when I absolutely have to. Plus you’re poorly informed about history of events and contents on which scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah objected and blasted Shaykh Ismail.

Wahhabi: I am sure you would claim to know all truth.

Sunni: Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah) was second generation of scholars opposing Taqwiyat ul-Iman and pointing out where and how he insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Deobandis have record in which Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi himself says he has employed harsh language in parts his book Taqwiyat ul-Iman and has been extreme in other parts and as consequence there will be strife but people will argue/fight over it and sort themselves out, here. Despite knowing the contents are extreme in nature and offensive and insulting the gathering of major Shayateen including Shaykh Abdul Hay Lakhnawi decided to publish the book as it was written.

Wahhabi: And I suppose to believe you without evidence?

Sunni: It is available over on IslamiMehfil.com but in Urdu.

Wahhabi: There is nothing insulting about what he wrote you are just over-stretching what he wrote like you’re doing to what I wrote.

Sunni: You personally insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and now you’re defending a man who insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) deliberately and with very obvious intent.

Wahhabi: Why would he insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) when the book is about Tawheed? This makes absolutely no sense.

Sunni: Give me two minutes.

Sunni: “Meaning all humans are brothers of each other. One who is bara buzurq (great personality) that one is older/great brother. Therefore respect him like an older brother. And Malik of all is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), worship is due to him. From this Hadith we learn that, saints, Prophets, Imams and sons of Imams, and spiritual guides (i.e. Peer) and martyrs. Meaning all people beloved/near to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are human, and humble humans, and our brothers, but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted them bara’ee (greatness), therefore they are our baray (i.e. elder/great) brothers. We have been instructed to obey their instructions. We are their chotay (younger/minor) therefore they should be respected like human beings.” [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, Page 80, here.] “Every person may he be great (bara) or lowly (chota), may he be Prophet or a saint (Wali) …” [Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 75, here.] In these parts of his book you can see he uses word bara/baray to mean Prophets, Awliyah of Allah including companions and chota/chotay to mean common Muslims. Do you agree with that?

Wahhabi: IF your translation is correct than it would seem so.

Sunni: “And know/believe (with firm) conviction every creation may he be great (bara) or lowly (chota) compared to exalted status of Allah is more disgraced then a cobbler." [Ref: Taqwiyat ul-Iman, page 35, here.] You can see in this statement he has stated Prophets, Awliyah in general including companions are chamar say bi zaleel i.e. more disgraced than a Chamar when compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Is this really the case?

Wahhabi: You would want them to be equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Sunni: He said while comparing Prophets, Awliyah and Chamar with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that they are more zaleel i.e. disgraced, honour-less than Chamar. He is saying when Prophets, Awliyah, Chamar are all compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Chamar has somewhat better honour than Prophets and Awliyah.

Wahhabi: No he isn’t saying that. There is nothing wrong with what he wrote. He is saying Prophets and Awliyah are not equal in honour/Izza with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). His Izza is greater than them.

Sunni: Compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) … every creation … be it great or lowly … is more honour-less, is more disgraced … than a Chamar.

Wahhabi: And?

Sunni: Which is indicating is other way of saying … a Chamar is … less Zaleel … than every creation … be it great or lowly … i.e. be they Prophets or commoners … when compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wahhabi: No doubt it lacks proper manners and a very dangerous statement when you look at the fact that Shaykh Shaheed counted Prophets and Awliyah amongst great persons. Did Ahmad Raza declare him Kafir due to this statement?

Sunni: No. He declared statements to be Kufr but because it was popular amongst people Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi repented he did not make Takfir. His position was anyone who makes his Takfir we will not condemn neither condone Takfir but remain silent in his regards to his Islam. My position is Shaykh Ismail Dehalvi died Kafir because there is no reliable report of his repentance.

Wahhabi: You’re not qualified to declare anyone Kafir. You’re not even an Aalim IF I am correct.

Sunni: Scholars before Imam Ahmad Raza Khan al-Barelwi (rahimullah) declared him Kafir and I follow their verdict and what agrees with my understanding. Let’s leave this discussion.

94 - Seeking Help From Angels And Jinn Is Shirk In Wahhabism:

Sunni: There is something we discussed earlier I want to revisit IF you’re OK with it.

Wahhabi: IF you want to continue what happened on the other day than it is better to leave now. I will not discuss this Hadith or its text on hypothetical basis.

Sunni: Why not?

Wahhabi: Hadith is Weak and I see no reason to continue.

Sunni: You know this Hadith teaches Shirk according to Salafi methodology because Mushrikeen worshipped Jinns and angels and directed Dua to them.

Wahhabi: Brother this Hadith doesn’t teach Shirk because the help sought is in power of angels so they can help, they are alive, and help sought from them is of type which creation is in power of creation. It would be Shirk IF the opposite of these points was true.

Sunni: IF the angels couldn’t help, IF they were dead, and the help was of supernatural type which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can provide than it would be Shirk?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: This is Salafi criteria to determine IF a Dua is in agreement with Tawheed or not?

Wahhabi: It is brother.

Sunni: What is your evidence? Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say, they invoke the deceased and such call is of Shirk?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say, they invoke for supernatural which I can only do, they commit Shirk by asking supernatural from creation?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say, they invoke ones who cannot help, invoking ones who cannot help is Shirk?

Wahhabi:

Sunni: How is this your criteria of judging Tawheed/Shirk in Dua when it has no evidence of Quran and the prophetic Sunnah?

Wahhabi: These rules are derived out of Quran and Sunnah.

Sunni: The way you guys derived these rules and decided what Shirk/Tawheed is I also have derived understanding seeking help of angels/Jinn is Shirk. Be the sought help natural and supernatural, from living Jinn/angels, and even help which they can provide because the Mushrikeen invoked them for help of all type.

Wahhabi: I won’t comment on Jinn but asking help from angels is not Shirk and not their worship and not Shirk.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed in Q17:40 Mushrikeen believed angels are daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In verse Q6:100 He states Mushrikeen associated Jinn with Him. In Q37:158 Mushrikeen are said to have believed Jinn are relatives i.e. daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In Q34:41 it is stated Mushrikeen worshipped Jinn and other verses indicate angels were worshipped as well such as Q34:40. In this context I ask you; did they not commit Shirk by invoking Jinns and angels?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: Did the Mushrikeen not invoke angels in worship?

Wahhabi: They did invoke as to worship.

Sunni: Than answer the question; did they not commit Shirk by invoking angels?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: Than is asking help from angels Shirk or not?

Wahhabi: It is not Shirk in when sought while acting on the Weak Hadith [centre of this discussion] but it is Shirk when Mushrikeen do it.

Sunni: How?

Wahhabi: Same like prostrating to Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) by angels. It wasn’t Shirk because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed it. Do it against instruction of and in absence of instruction of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) than it is Shirk.
Sunni: You don’t think creed of Tawheed and intention had anything to do with actions of angels and Mushrikeen?

Wahhabi: I am not answering anymore questions.

95 - Comedy Of Wahhabi Tawheed And Understanding Of Shirk:

Sunni: Tawheed and Shirk has a new rule; act on Weak Hadith and action is Tawheedi but act without Weak Hadith backing you than action is Shirki. I cannot stop laughing at this.

Wahhabi: O! You’ve sense of humour.

Sunni: I laughed because in your methodology Weak Hadith is good as not having any evidence.

Wahhabi: I would say pretty close to it.

Sunni: What you said made me laugh because according to you an action with no evidence, or as you said pretty close to no evidence is Tawheedi. Same action is Shirk when performed by Mushrikeen because there is no evidence in support of their action.

Sunni: Call it Karamah of Wahhabi Dawah because it is Tawheed/Shirk for same reason. Who said Wahhabis have not had a zero Wali who has displayed Karamah.

Wahhabi: You can mock me as much as you like but don’t be sneaky with me. I only said Hadith is pretty close to being no evidence and you added Hadith is no evidence than based on what you said (i.e. that Hadith is no evidence) you concluded I declared something Tawheed/Shirk on same basis.

Sunni: Sorry. It is just my quirky sense of humour.

Sunni: I did not distort what you said and I did not add my conclusion based on what I said ONLY but based on the truth of matter.

Wahhabi: I said Hadith is pretty close to not being evidence than you concluded saying that I [Wahhabi] believe seeking help of angels is Tawheed/Shirk because there is no evidence. You’re giving wrong impression about my belief.

Sunni: You said pretty close to not being evidence. Does that mean Hadith can be employed as evidence?

Wahhabi: It is not evidence for anything.

Sunni: You classed it as pretty close to having no value as evidence but not being no evidence.

Wahhabi: It is not evidence of anything in Shari’ah.

Sunni: Hadith is in books so it was termed as evidence but it is no Shar’ri evidence on basis of which you believe an action can be based on. Am I correct?

Wahhabi: Yes.

Sunni: In reality this Weak Hadith is no Shar’ri evidence to support any practice. I said [earlier] seeking help from angels is Shirk/Tawheed on basis of no evidence. I wasn’t misrepresenting the reality. I wasn’t concluding based on what you said but based on actual value of Hadith as evidence. Was I unjustified in my conclusion?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: You declared something is Shirk and Tawheed on the same time on basis of no Shar’ri evidence. Did you not?

Wahhabi: …

96 – Some Random Chat Due To My Big Mouth And Delusion Of Grandeur:

Sunni: I walked this path of debates/discussions my entire religious life 16+ years out of 27/31 I have lived. I am not your regular Barelwi victim. I have spent all that time studying and debating some 10 subjects. There is nothing I haven’t heard before and nor anything I haven’t responded to.

Wahhabi: Your experience has put you in advantageous position. You made rules to benefit you while I assumed they were neutral and balanced.

Sunni: When you say something I have read it, computed it, mapped different routes, how I need to respond, and conclusions it would lead to. Years attempting to understand what people say, write and why, what it means for me has made it possible for me to understand what people say/write sometimes even before they have understood.

Wahhabi: Brother Ali we all do this in some capacity but you have distinct advantage and experience in discussions which has made it possible for you to realize errors and point them out. Maybe you have better understanding of meanings of words in relation to what is said in context Deen due to debates/discussions because you can relate to your experience.

Sunni: This is cross examination style discussion this is why rules seem to be favouring me because they have put me in position of power/control and you on back pedal. That doesn’t mean you can’t check my questioning and interrogation with evidences of Quran/Sunnah, sound reasoning. I am in control of discussion and direction of it but not in control truth and whom it supports.

Wahhabi: True but your experience has given you advantage in planning your discussion.

Sunni: I agree. Let us return to real issue or we can do it next session.

Wahhabi: Next session would be better. Today we wasted a lot of time on irrelevant stuff.

97 - Wahhabi, You Didn’t Demonstrate Shirk According Wahhabi Methodology:

Sunni: In our earlier sessions I had reasoned [in section 94] that invoking angels like Mushrikeen of Arabia did is Shirk on basis of Salafi methodology and I conclude seeking help from angels is Shirk irrespective creed/intention even if done due to Hadith.

Wahhabi: You did not arrive to this understanding based on our methodology nor what you wrote above represents our understanding of the matter. You keep saying this is our methodology. What is our methodology? You don’t know anything.

Sunni: Did you not quote me the following Ayah [in section 09] to establish invoking the deceased is Shirk: “And those they invoke other than Allah create nothing, and they (themselves) are created. They are (in fact) dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.” [Ref: 16:21] You drew similarity between actions of Mushrikeen and Muslims and dead-ness and established Shirk. Your logic was; both call/invoke the dead, both Mushrikeen. I am using the same logic this is Shirk here and IF action resembles action of Mushrikeen and being resembles in some detail which Mushrikeen worshipped than Shirk. Similarity is in (i) calling, (ii) to seek help from angels, Shirk. And this is not just unique to you but Salafis scholarship also establishes Shirk in this fashion and not on basis of creed neither establishes worship on intentions.

Wahhabi: My action is not representative of methodology employed by Salafi scholarship so you’re hardly justified in saying this about Salafism.

Sunni: I will have to leave it here and return to our discussion. It is shame that you have resorted to contradict and disagree with me on something which you and I know is correct representation of Salafi methodology.

Wahhabi: IF it is than quote me a source. That is all I want.

Sunni: I don’t know anything particular where this is stated as a principle but I can quote you many examples in which same methodology is used to establish Shirk.

Wahhabi: You acknowledge that this is not a Salafi principle stated in our books but something which you have deduced.

Sunni: I did not say it was principle written down but I derived the principle through simple observation based on how I have personally and how Salafi scholarship has been establishing Shirk.

Wahhabi: I disagree with your saying that you have derived principle based on Salafi scholarship’s practice. Rather it is based on what you have seen laymen do.

Sunni: I agree with disagree and I wish to move on.

[Our discussion continued in section 99. Following (i.e. section 98) was not originally part of our discussion it is being added in 2022 version. It is mainly due to quote from Shaykh al-Albani. There are many such examples from books of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and other prominent Wahhabi scholars but I limit myself to just one example.]

98 - Demonstrating My Methodology Was No Different Than Shaykh Albani’s:

Shaykh Albani: “This description can only apply to the angels or the jinn, because they are the ones who we do not usually see. … So it is not permissible to include with them Muslims among the jinn or humans whom they call “men of the unseen,” such as the Awliya’ and the righteous, whether they are alive or dead. Seeking help from them and seeking their aid is blatant shirk, because they cannot hear the supplication, and even if they could hear it, they would not be able to respond and fulfil the request. This is clearly stated in many verses, including the passage in which Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer (the thin membrane over the date stone). If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call, and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them. And none can inform you (O Muhammad SAW) like Him Who is the All-Knower (of each and everything). (35:13/14)” [Ref: Silsilat al-Ahaadeeth ad-Da‘eefah wa’l-Mawdoo‘ah (656), here.] (i) Numerous Ahadith establish that deceased people do hear and verses of Quran establish hearing of dead people so obviously verse employed by Shaykh Albani is regarding about dead who cannot hear. The verse is about idol gods of Mushrikeen which are said to be dead in another verse because they are made out of dead, inorganic earth materials such as stones etc. In many verses of Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says earth was dead and he gave it life. This is true in two ways; (a) He caused vegetation to grow, (b) and created all living creatures out of material/minerals which are essentially lifeless. I have deviated and I shall return to topic. Inorganic material in language of Quran is dead and earth was dead i.e. inorganic before He gave it life. (ii) Anyhow Wahhabis believe dead cannot hear and do not respond and cannot grant anything. Due to this similarity Shaykh Albani applied verse Q35:13/14 upon deceased Awliyah and Prophets. In reality it was revealed about Mushrikeen and it is describing characteristics of idol-Ilahs. (iii) Shaykh Albani applied this verse and generally would apply all verses describing idol-Ilahs as; unable to hear, see, know, and possess anything; unable to grant a need, protect their callers, themselves from harm; unable to create anything but being created themselves; all such verses upon Prophets and Awliyah. And Shaykh Albani would apply and every Wahhabi would apply every verse revealed regarding Mushrikeen; in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) censored the Mushrikeen from invoking in worship idol-Ilahs; upon Muslims on basis of some similarity between actions of Mushrikeen and Muslims while totally ignoring/disregarding the difference in creed. Wahhabi basis for doing this and their methodology is that description of qualities mentioned in these verses of idol-Ilahs is matching deceased Prophets and Awliyah. In addition action of Mushrikeen; invoking idol-Ilahs in worship for things; is similar to action of Muslims who practice Istighathah (i.e. asking the souls of deceased Awliyah to help). This is how Shirk in Wahhabism is established. This is how Shaykh Albani justified his accusation of Shirk and this is how I justified asking angels is Shirk [in sections 89 and 94].

99 - Khariji Said, Prophet Muhammad Facilitated Shirk:

Wahhabi: Brother Ali our scholars have not said seeking help from angels is Shirk and they are more aware of our methodology than you’re.

Sunni: Maybe you’re not aware of the methodology they are on as well as I am.

Wahhabi: IF this [act of seeking help angels being Shirk] is in accordance with teaching of our Minhaj than why don’t you quote a reputable scholar saying this?

Sunni: I have knowledge of methodology what I don’t have is knowledge of Fatawah on every aspect of Salafi creed but I will do my research and I will get back to you.

Wahhabi: You’re speculating than.

Sunni: IF it is speculation than we need to move onto something which is not something concrete, something definitive.

Wahhabi: And that is?

Sunni: Well my brother you know that polytheists invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in time of difficulty but at the time of ease invoked pious worshippers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and yet they were Mushrikeen. On the other hand Hadith indicates that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed the obedient servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be invoked in time of difficulty to alleviate the problem. Is this teaching not turning people away from invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instead instructing them to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) like Mushrikeen invoked pious servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

He replied: Brother this is not Shirk. Asking the angels to help you in what is in their powers is not Shirk.

I said: Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was sent as a prophet to spread the message of Tawheed and to instruct people to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for all things. Yet in this Hadith IF I judge according to your methodology than clear Shirk is being taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Wahhabi: This Hadith is Weak.

Sunni: What IF this Hadith is Sahih or Hassan then will you agree Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught Shirk?

Wahhabi: Yes IF this Hadith is Sahih/Hassan than Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) facilitated Shirk of calling others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but unintentionally but I believe it is not. I will explain my position.

Sunni: I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from the cursed Iblees.

Sunni: The Prophets are free from sin!

Sunni: Prophets are free from sins of all type.

Sunni: “When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] There is support for the Hadith from prophetic teaching.

Wahhabi: Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) committed Shirk because he named his son Abdul Harris instead of Abdullah [as indicated in Kitab at-Tawheed, chapter 50, pages 95/96, here ].

Sunni: Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) did not commit Shirk of any type. To say any Prophet of committing any Shirk is Kufr.

Wahhabi: He obeyed Shaytan and obedience to him is Shirk according to Hadith so even the Prophets can commit Shirk. Facilitating an act which is Shirk is lesser offence so it is quite possible Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed this act of Shirk without knowing the effects it will have upon Tawheed Muslims.

Sunni: The Hadith this is based on is extremely Weak Hadith. According to many scholars it is Mawdu i.e. a lie and a forgery. And you’re basing and justifying charge of engaging in Shirk and accusation of teaching Shirk and accommodating Shirk on this Hadith.

Wahhabi: I am aware Shaykh Albani has said this Hadith is Weak but I agree with what Imam [Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab] has said about Hadith.

Sunni: Shouldn’t you be cautious instead of blurting out Kufr upon Kufr?

Wahhabi: …

100 - Who Is Responsible For Muslims Committing Shirk:

Sunni: In your sect’s methodology obedience to Shaytan on issues of Halal and Haram, Tawheed and Shirk, is akin to taking Iblees as a lord besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is Shirk which invalidates Tawheed so you believe that Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) committed major Shirk which invalidated his Tawheed?

Wahhabi: …

Sunni: You said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) facilitated Shirk of calling others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) i.e. the act of calling dead persons for help which you believe is Shirk.

Wahhabi: I didn’t say that but I assume you’re contextualizing meaning of my statement in context of this discussion.

Sunni: Two people engage in a fight and a third person hands a knife to one of them. The knife is used during the fight and one of the two fighting is killed. Now in court the murderer will be punished but the one who handed the knife over is also a criminal because he aided a criminal activity. Do you not think when the Sufi grave-worshippers will be punished in hell-fire eternally some punishment will be due for our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for his hand?

Wahhabi: Brother this is Kufr system. Islam does not support the concept of aiding a criminal activity is criminal act.

Sunni: Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, one who innovates a reprehensible innovation and IF others follow his innovation the originator of innovation will have sin increased each time others act on his innovation: "And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] “And whoever sets an evil precedent in Islam, he will have a burden of sin for that, and the burden of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisai, B23, H2555] By acting on the innovation people aid the innovation and as a result they and the creator of reprehensible innovation will be punished. Now will Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) be punished for his part in spread of polytheistic practice of seeking help from the dead?

[I received no response to this question of mine and after few minutes he seemed to go off-line never to sign-in again until ... My guess is that he blocked me and did not wish to discuss with me anymore. In a subsequent discussion nearly a decade later he revealed he repented his, here, saying Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam accommodated Shirk. Fortunately by the end of second discussion he disowned the notion Istighathah is Shirk.]

101 - Seeking Help Of Angels is Shirk V.S. It Is Not Shirk:

In the beginning of section 99 Wahhabi wanted evidence that Salafi scholarship stating seeking help of angels is Shirk. Even though I was aware there are Fatawah saying precisely that but at that time I couldn’t come up with a reference. While compiling this comprehensive version in 2022 of discussion I did bit of digging around and managed to source a statement from Wahhabi prominent Fatawah site: “Question: Among some of the common people there is the widespread practice of saying, before going to sleep, “O guardian angels, wake me up at such-and-such a time.” Answer: Praise be to Allah. This is not permissible, and in fact it is a form of major Shirk, because it involves calling upon someone other than Allaah and asking for something from one of the unseen creatures. This is like asking from the jinn or idols or the dead, because of the general meaning of the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): … Allaah described calling upon anyone other than Him, such as the dead, idols, the jinn or the angels, as shirk or the association of others in worship with Him. He said (interpretation of the meaning): …. So Allaah calls those who call upon anyone other than Him Kafireen. This applies to all those who call upon anyone other than Allaah, whether it be the dead, idols, jinn or angels; no one is excluded from that except one who is alive, present and able to help, because Allaah says in the story of Musa (interpretation of the meaning): … Examples of this shirk are to be found in what some people say, such as “O jinn, seize him” or “O seven (Jinn), seize him” or “O Jinn of the noon-time, seize him” or “O Jinn of such-and-such a valley” or “O Jinn of such-and-such a land”. All of this is major Shirk and is calling upon unseen creatures instead of Allaah. If a person says, “O angels of Allaah, wake me up” or “protect me”, this is also major Shirk, and if he says, “O Jinn protect me” or “wake me up”, this is also major Shirk. We seek refuge with Allaah from that. The Muslim must beware of that and must seek help from Allaah alone and ask from Him alone, for He is Sufficient and He is Able to do all things. Allaah is the One Who says (interpretation of the meaning): … And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If you ask of anyone, then ask of Allaah, and if you seek help, then seek help from Allah.”  We ask Allaah to help us and all the Muslims to understand His religion and to keep us safe from the things that cause His wrath, for He is the All-Hearing, Ever Near. “[Ref: Ruling On Calling Upon The Angels Before Sleeping, Question 10084, under supervision of Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, here.] Wahhabi brother was not wrong in saying Salafi scholarship has said seeking help of angels is not Shirk but that discussion is only in context of Hadith of servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). They have to adopt this contradictory position because they are aware major scholars of Ummah including Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) acted upon this Hadith. Hence in context of those Ahadith and narrations Wahhabis do not declare calling of angels Shirk but outside of that they will say it is Shirk.

102 - Wahhabi Scam Tawheed/Shirk V.S. Islamic Tawheed/Shirk:

Their version of Tawheed/Shirk and the methodology to determine each is nothing less than a scam and distortion of Tawheed/Shirk and Islam. Wahhabis say the Mushrikeen sought from angels which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) could do hence they were Mushrikeen. And Imams sought help which is creation is also able to provide hence seeking help of angels was not Shirk. These rules have nothing to do with distinguishing Tawheed over Shirk neither Shirk from Tawheed. Neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) employed these principles to distinguish one from the other hence these are evil innovations. Furthermore Mushrikeen sought both types from Min Du’nillah (i.e. others beside Allah). They sought help from others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) what you classify as; (a) what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do, (b) and what creation is able to do from angels. And yet they were polytheists and disbelievers irrespective of which they sought from angels because seeking of both warranted worship and Kufr. In addition Wahhabi Shaykh Asim al-Hakeem says seeking help from angels/Jinn even which creation is able to do is Shirk, here. And this dumb- has condemned mother of Prophet Ismail (alayhis salam) to Shirk: “When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] Shaykh Asim al-Hakeem is judging Shirk according to Salafi methodology and he is not wrong in his judgment act of seeking help from angles warrants charge of Shirk. A act which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not say was Shirk but Wahhabi methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk, Shaykh Asim al-Hakeem, and I say according to methodology of Wahhabism is Shirk. IF Wahhabism was the true Islam from beginning to present and Wahhabism was dominant group up to present than it is great shame that two fundamentals of Islam Tawheed/Shirk haven’t yet been properly systemized and understood. Imams and people who had help of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) were practicing Shirk according to some Wahhabis and were upon Tawheed according to other Wahhabis. Exactly what is Tawheed/Shirk and how it is to be determined has evaded Wahhabis and Wahhabism.

103 - How Mother Of Prophet Ismail And How Imams Remained Free From Shirk:

A righteous female-servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), a mother of Prophet, whom angel helped, and angels help none but with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), hence Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) helped. Question is why this mother of Prophet Ismail (alayhis salam), and the Imams are not guilty of major Kufr/Shirk when the type of help sought doesn’t remove major Kufr/Shirk? You have no way left but to retreat to Islam and adopt and respond as Muslims respond: The Mushrikeen affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah in context of angels and intended to worship angels hence their every call and seeking of help of every type was worship and warranted major Kufr. The Imams did not affirm Ilahiyyah nor intended to worship angels but only sought help with belief angels are appointed to task by Him to provide help. The creed which makes person a Mushrik, and intention makes action a worship/Kufr were absent hence no Shirk/Kufr. By saying creed of … and intention of … you will validate Islamic principle and invalidate your argument against Istighathah because it is based on absence of Shirki creed and intention which turns an action into worship. True Tawheed is to believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to believe as the One and the Only Ilah/Deity and Rabb/Lord. And not to associate with Him a creation as partner Ilah/Rabb as an inferior, equal, or superior Ilah/Rabb. And not ascribe to any creation His attributes in meanings/details which are absolutely unique to Him. This is Tawheed. To ascribe to Him a partner inferior, equal, superior Ilah/Rabb is Shirk. And to ascribe to a creation one, or more, or all of His attributes in meanings/details which are unique to Him alone is Shirk. And Istighathah does not warrant Shirk according to any of these details neither does seeking help from angels warrant Shirk because conditions of Shirk have not been met. Mushrikeen believed angels, Jinn, and righteous men of earlier times are their Ilahs and worshipped them hence their major Shirk is proven. Truth is Wahhabi scam understanding labelled as Tawheed/Shirk and their methodology to determine each is in reality connected with Kharijism and not with Islam. It is on basis of Khariji methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk that Wahhabis have argued Istighathah is Shirk. This logic/reasoning is, seeking help is of only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) just as worship if of Him alone, hence to seek help of other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk. They say Istighathah is seeking help which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to provide hence to engage in it is Shirk. The Muslims say seeking any help be it natural/supernatural is Shirk IF it is sought from an Ilah other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) just as worship of another Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk.

104 - Wahhabi Tawheed/Shirk Understanding Glimpse Of Kharijism:

In order to avoid bloodshed between Muslims Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) appointed judges/arbiters to judge between them. The Khawarij opposed decision of Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) arguing judgment is only right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And I suppose they believed this on foundation that al-Hakim is only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and therefore to appoint anyone to judge between two parties means right of judgment and title of al-Hakim has been given to creation hence Shirk. This is methodology which Wahhabis employ to judge Tawheed/Shirk and this is only way the Kharijis could argue companions have committed major Shirk. To appoint judges/arbiters i.e. Hakims and to believe there are Hakims within creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not Shirk primarily because Shirk requires al-Ilahiyyah to be coupled with al-Hakimiyyah. And secondarily there are Hakims and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is best al-Hakim out of Hakims: “Is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not the best of Judges?” [Ref: 95:8]  Other than Wahhabi methodology of determining Shirk there is way of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah but first we refute Kharijism. We respond to Khawarij saying that to judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and resulting judgement is His judgment. It is so in the same way as He gives you Rizq but it is through creation. In the same way when a creation gives you Rizq/apple but it is Allah (subhanahu wa taa’ala) who has provided you with Rizq. According to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah to believe there is an Ilah as al-Hakim other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk. The companions did not believe the judges were Ilah partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence Khariji charge of Shirk was not based on methodology of Ahus Sunnah Wal Jammah but it can only be in accordance with Wahhabi methodology of determining Shirk. Sharing understanding of Tawheed/Shirk and methodology to determine is not the only connection Wahhabism has with Kharijism the roots go much deeper. Please refer to section 111/112 to see the deeper connection of Wahhabism with Kharijism.

105 - Calling Upon Gods Is Calling Satan, Worship Of Satan Is Idol-Gods Worship:

(i) IF you have read the discussion so far you will be aware founder of Wahhabism, i.e. Shaykh al-Najd Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, and his Wahhabis have accused Muslims of Arabian Peninsula and world in general of engaging in major Shirk on basis of their practice of Istighathah and other practices. And this discussion has exposed Wahhabism and has established Wahhabis have no leg to stand on regarding their accusations of Shirk and Kufr but this is not end all. The best of speech is book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and best of guidance, refutation of Wahhabism, and evidence of its deviation is from Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is on record saying he is not afraid his Muslim-Ummah associating others as gods with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and on record saying his Muslim-Ummah will not worship sun, moon, idols, and stones. Despite this assurance by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and clear evidence defending of Tawheed of Muslims Wahhabis believe and teach against what the last and final Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught. (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Narrated An-Nu'man Ibn Bashir: The Prophet said: Supplication (Dua) is itself the worship. (He then recited) "And your Lord said: Call on Me, I will answer you." (40:60).” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1474, here.] This Hadith gives us rule: Invocation is worship and worship is invocation. (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (Allah) call but upon females (goddesses): They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] This verse gives us principle: Calling upon gods/goddesses other than Allah is calling upon Satan. (iv) Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said: "O my father! Worship not Satan for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] To understand the verse properly we have to apply two principles. Understand that Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said to his father; my father do not call upon Satan. Second principle established from verse Q4:1117 states calling upon goddesses/gods other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worship of Satan and in this context Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said; my father do not invoke idols/gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In short worship of idols, gods and goddesses other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is considered as worship of Satan just as calling goddesses is calling of Satan. Following commentators have explicitly stated idol worship is Satan worship, or Satan worship is idol worship, here, here, here, here, and here. In the following it was said that words of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) were an exaggeration of reality, here, to convey effect that reality of idol-worship is Satan-worship because it is obedience of Satan.

106 - Satan Will Despair In Regards To Muslims Engaging In Worship OF Idol-Gods:

On the farewell pilgrimage address Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) addressed many things and one issue he addressed was Shirk. He said Satan has give-up on trying to make Muslims worship him/Satan in Arabian Peninsula: “It was narrated from Sulaiman bin ‘Amr bin Ahwas that his father said: “I heard the Prophet () say, during the Farewell Pilgrimage: ‘O people! Which day is the most sacred?’ three times. They said: ‘The day of the greatest Hajj.’ He said: ‘Your blood and your wealth and your honor are sacred to one another, as sacred as this day of yours, in this land of your. No sinner commits a sin but it is against himself. No father is to be punished for the sins of his child, and no child is to be punished for the sins of his father. Satan has despaired of ever being worshipped in this land of yours, but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that. All the blood feuds of the Ignorance days are abolished, and the first of them that I abolish is the blood feud of Harith bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib, who ...” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol1, B25, H3055] We know in language of Quran worship of Satan is worship of idol-gods hence the Hadith means Satan has given-up trying to revert the Muslims to worshipping idols/gods other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said but Satan will be obeyed in some matters and following Hadith tells we will obey him and fall into dissension/disagreements and dislike of each other:  "Jabir reported: I heard Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily, the Satan has lost all hopes that the worshippers would ever worship (him) in the peninsula of Arabia, but he (is hopeful) that he would sow the seed of dissension amongst them." [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6752] “Jabir narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Indeed Ash-Shaitan has despaired of getting those who perform Salat to worship him. But he is engaged in sowing hatred among them.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1937] In other words Satan will not try to and will not succeed in reverting Muslims of Arabia major Shirk i.e. taking creation as gods and worshipping them. He will try issues which we will consider minor issues to cause disagreements between Muslims and he will have success in this and Satan will be satisfied with this little victory: “…but he will be obeyed in some matters which you regard as insignificant, and he will be content with that.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol1, B25, H3055]

107 - Impossibility Of Ummah Falling Into According To Prophetic Teaching:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said he is not afraid his Ummah would associate others as gods/goddesses with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “By Allah! I am not afraid that you will associate with Allah (i.e. idol-gods as partners to worship them) after my death, but I am afraid that you will compete with one another for the worldly things." [Ref: Bukhari, B23, H428] Same is stated in another Hadith: “Narrated Uqba bin Amir: Allah's Messenger offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of Uhud eight years after (their death), as if bidding farewell to the living and the dead, then he ascended the pulpit and said: ‘I am your predecessor before you, and I am a witness on you, and your promised place to meet me will be Al- Haud (on the Day of Resurrection), and I am (now) looking at it from this place of mine. I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah, but I am afraid that worldly life will tempt you and cause you to compete with each other for it.’ That was the last look which I cast on Allah's Messenger.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H374, here.] Wahhabis say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) used word, you/kum, and this is referrence to companions only. This ambiguity is removed in another Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Ummah will not commit major Shirk but instead will engage in minor Shirk: “The thing that I fear most for my Ummah is associating others with Allah. I do not say that they will worship the sun or the moon or idols, but deeds done for the sake of anyone other than Allah, and hidden desires.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1 B37, H4205]  Minor Shirk called Shirk ar-Riya Shirk of show-off. Performing acts of worship in an attempt to gain acceptance approval of creation is Shirk of Riya. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) feared his Ummah would engage in minor Shirk but he did not fear that we his Ummah would take other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Ilahs/gods beside Him. What he doesn’t fear it is because it will not take place and what he feared is will take place.

108 – And Establishing Evidence Argument Against Wahhabism:

Wahhabism originated in Arabia with belief/charge that most/all of inhabitants of Arabia were guilty of major Shirk except Wahhabis thus non-believers and killing whom is Halal. This Wahhabi belief and the resulting slaughter is against the prophetic teaching because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told Muslim-worshipers will not fall into idol-worship in Arabia and he said his Ummah will not worship sun, moon, idols, in one Hadith worship of stones is also negated, here. Founder of Wahhabism charged Muslims of Arabia of being Mushrikeen and Kafireen countless reasons but one was practice of Istighathah. It was established Muslims of Arabian Peninsula and Ummah in general would not and cannot fall into idolatry thus we have defended Iman, Islam, life, property of Muslims by establishing practice of Istighathah is in accordance with understanding of Tawheed and it is not Shirk. IF it was Shirk than prophetic statement would be falsified and Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not lie nor does the One issuing Wahi lied. And by default anyone holding to and sharing creed of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah of Arabian Peninsula is upon Tawheed even though the Kafireen dislike this statement of truth.

109 - Wahhabis Distort Ahadith Apply Ahadith Of Kafirs Upon Muslims:

Wahhabis have various Ahadith on basis of which they argue Muslims have already fallen into Shirk but all these Ahadith are about Arab disbelievers/Kafireen reverting to idolatry and specifically to worship of idols which their ancestors worshipped but this will take place after death of every single Muslim has taken place. Following article responds to the Wahhabis and proves their Ahadith are about Kafirs and not Muslims, here. And this next article establishes major Shirk will only return to Arabia after death of all Muslims which will be caused by cold, musky, fragrant wind, here. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will cause the death of all Muslims/Momins with the afore mentioned wind and Arabia and world in general will fall into idolatry once again as it was before Islam. This death of Muslims will take place because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has promised the Mushrikeen that he will bring a great destruction upon them for disbelieving in His message and Messenger, here, here. Following two articles comprehensively explain the two Ahadith I have employed above, here, and here. In conclusion Wahhabis have no evidence against Muslims and all they offer as evidence is distortion of Ahadith and complete misunderstanding of what the Hadith says. In truth Muslim Ummah and Arab Muslims will not fall into idol-worship in totality or in majority and Ahadith which Wahhabi employ explicitly state which idols will be worshipped and when - after death of every Muslim and Momin.

110 – Wahhabis Are Worse In Their Deviation Than Kharijis:

Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed the Khawarij to be worst creatures in the creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because they apply verses revealed for disbelievers upon Muslims: “And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as (if these verses are) describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing Of The Khawarij.] “Abu Jafr al-Tabri in Kitab Tahzeeb ul-Athaar heard from; Yunus, Ibn Wahb, Amr Ibn al-Harith told me, Bakira (Ibn Abdullah bin A’shj) told me that he enquired/wondered what is opinion of Ibn Umar regarding Harurriyah (i.e. Khawarij). He said they are the worst of creatures in creation of Allah because they applied verses revealed for disbelievers upon righteous-believers.” [Ref: Taghleeq al-Ta’leeq Alas-Sahih ul-Bukhari, Vol5, Page259, here.] “’Ibn Umar considered the Khawarij and the heretics as the worst beings in creation, and he said: They went to verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the Believers.’ Imam Tabri (rahimullah) has mentioned this Hadith in Musnad of Ali with the chain of Bakeer in Abdullah in Tahdhib al-Athaar. He asked Nafi what was the opinion of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) regarding Harurriyah (Khawarij). He (Nafi) replied: ‘He (Ibn Umar) used to consider them worst creations of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because they applied Ayaat revealed for disbelievers on believers.’ He (Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani) said: This Hadith has SAHIH chain. It is also proven from the Sahih Marfu Hadith of Imam Muslim which he narrated from Abu Dhar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in characteristics of Khawarij, the Hadith states: They are a creation of worst kind, and Imam Ahmed has also narrated a similar Hadith from Anas Bin Malik (rahimullah) with a strong chain. Imam Bazzar (rahimullah) has narrated the Hadith from Aisha (radiallah ta'ala anha) who narrates from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that he said: They will be the worst of my Ummah and they will be killed by the best of my Ummah, The chain of this Hadith is “Hassan.” [Ref: Fath ul-Bari, Sharh Sahih ul Bukhari, Vol 16, Pages168/1699, Published by Dar Taybah, Beirut, Lebanon, here.] Wahhabis not only distort the verses of Quran and apply them upon Muslims but they distort the Hadith which are about Kafirs and apply them upon Muslims living long before the wind has blown.

111 - What Prophet Say About Wahhabism/Wahhabis And Land Of Their Origin:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had foretold group of Satan i.e. Qarn ash’Shaytaan would appear from East, here, and in another Hadith he refused to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for Najd because it is land of group of Satan, here. And this group of Satan is a group of people with shaven heads, here, here. First Hadith out of two is about Khawarij in general and second Hadith is specific to Khariji sect to appear from Najd and from progeny of Dhil Khuwaisirah. There are two groups of Satan in direction of sunrise i.e. East of Madinah [in region of Najd] and they are Banu Rabia and Banu Mudhar, here, here. First Khariji sect originated in Iraq but the man was mainly from Banu Tamim which was located in central Arabia in region of Najd. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted Jawami al-Kalim, i.e. short expression bearing widest meaning possible, here. Ahadith referenced earlier are about first Khariji sect in general and evidence of second major offshoot of Kharijism in specific and specifically about a Khariji sect which was to originate from Najd and out of descendants of Dhul Khuwaisira, i.e. Hurqus Ibn Zuhayr, here, here, and here. Dhul Khuwaisirah was part of first Khariji sect and a figure head amongst Khawarij of Iraq. His associates were so pious that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said even his own companions will be ashamed of their Taqwa/piety, here, when they will encounter associates of Dhul Khuwaisirah. He also said they will kill Muslims but will leave the Mushriks alone, here. Kharijis were/are outwardly very pious and seemed to be acting on teaching of Islam. Hence none from them would kill a Muslim without an invalid pretext which they deem valid grounds to kill Muslims. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said they will recite Quran but it would not enter their hearts, here, and truth of this is attested to by Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) who said about Khawarij: “And the statement of Allah: 'Allah will not mislead a people after He has guided them, until He makes clear to them what to avoid.' (9:115) And Ibn Umar used to consider them (the Khawarij and the Mulhidun) the worst of Allah's creatures and said: "These people took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as (if these verses are) describing the believers.” [Ref: Bukhari, Vol 9, Page 49, Chap 6: Killing Of The Khawarij.] Heart is organ on which Quran was revealed upon and it holds the capacity to understand it hence it must reach it to understand it. Due to lack of proper understanding Khawarij applied verses revealed regarding disbelievers and their deities upon Muslims and Prophets and righteous-believers. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said in a Hadith group of Kufr is in East, here, and this was said about Khawarij in general and Wahhabis in specific.

112 - How Ahadith Apply To Wahhabis And What Is Established:

Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, al-Najdi, at-Tamimi was born in Najd, and he is a descendant of Dhul Khuwaisirah at-Tamimi. Shaykh Sulayman Ibn Abdul Wahhab elder brother of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab refuted Shaykh al-Najd and wrote in his book, al-Sawa’iq al-Ilahiyyah Fi al-Radd A’lal Wahhabiyyah, that Shaykh al-Najd is originator of group of Satan which was foretold to appear from Najd, here. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold Khawarij of Najd will kill Muslims, Shaykh al-Najd legalised the killing, and Wahhabis killed Muslims without impunity. Abusing a Muslim is Fisq (i.e. act of disobedience) and killing him is act of Kufr, here. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Khawarij would be in East with shaven heads. Imam Ibn Hajar (rahimullah) said regarding shaving of heads: “Certainly the norm amongst the Khawarij was to shave their heads bald. The pious predecessors allowed the hair to grow in length and did not shave. It is the way of Khawarij (to shave the hair).” [Ref: Fath ul-Bari Sharh, Volume 8, Pages 68/69.] First wave Wahhabis shaved their heads completely bald and practice has gradually weakened but still predominantly sign of Wahhabis in Muslim countries. Those in Western countries and those influenced by Westernisation have pretty much abandoned shaving of heads. Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) told us Khawarij apply verses revealed regarding Mushrikeen/Kafireen upon Muslims and this is speciality of Wahhabism. My challenge is to pick any book written by any Wahhabi aimed at establishing Tawheed and refuting Shirk and you will witness wholesale disbeliever verses applied upon Muslims to prove they are Mushrikeen/Kafireen. This point alone is enough to establish Wahhabis are Khawarij in their methodology of interpreting Quran and Sunnah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) named Banu Mudhar and Banu Rabia as two groups of Satan. here, here. Vast majority of original Kharijis, their theological leadership and political leadership, belonged to these two tribes. Founder of Wahhabism Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab was from Banu Tamim which is an off-shoot of Banu Mudhar. The Saud family traces its roots back to Mani al-Muraydi through Rabia or Banu Rabia. In was in early 1700s that both Shaykh al-Najd and Ibn Saud joined forces and not only started another Khariji sect but also a Khariji state today known as Saudi Arabia. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) anticipated emergence of Khawarij so he said: “Three things are the roots of faith: (i) To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity except Allah” (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] Shaykh al-Najd legalised and Wahhabis like Kharijis killed Muslims who openly and clearly professed, la ilaha il-Allah i.e. there is no Deity except Allah. Wahhabis like Kharijis declared the Muslims as disbelievers for actions which were major sin such as prostrating out of respect to Saliheen. And Wahhabis like Kharijis declared people out of Islam for actions which they did not approve of. Wahhabis declared Muslims out of Islam on actions such as Istighathah, prostration out of respect to creation, visitation of graves of Saliheen and other practices. They nullified all three conditions of Iman and Islam, and there is no Iman or Islam after nullifying all three. This is why Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said group of Kufr is in East i.e. in Najd, here. All this establishes Wahhabism is an off-shoot of original Khariji apostasy. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Kharijis and Wahhabis would leave Islam like an arrow darts through a target. It means it will pass through target so quickly that after examination no sign of any remains will be found on arrow, here. It means upon close examination Muslim scholar will not find any sign of true belief in Islam on Khawarij despite their outward excessive piety. It also means they will leave Islam very quickly and cleanly like arrow leaves a target. It also means that they will not return to Islam like arrow does not return to the bow, here, here. Someone may say this is description of Khawarij of earlier times and I say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said the same about Khawarij who would appear near the end of times, here, and Wahhabism one such group and more sub-sects will emerge from it till last one appears in time of Dajjal and joins him against Muslims: “Then he said: "A people will come at the end of time; as if he (Dhul Khuwaisirah) is one of them, reciting the Qur'an without it passing beyond their throats. They will go through Islam just as the arrow goes through the target. Their distinction will be shaving. They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. So when you meet them, then kill them, they are the worst of created beings." [Ref: Nisaee, B37, H4108, here.] You can see that the puppets will change but the dance will be same throughout centuries i.e. habits, practices, beliefs and methodology will be same. Just as there are many breeds of dogs but all are connected with certain common traits and qualities in the same way Kharijis are many sects but there are common traits which will remain common between them. These Khawarij are dogs of hell, here. And hence teachings, beliefs, practices and traits all establish Wahhabis are Khawarij and group of Kufr which was to emerge from East and Najd.

113- Hijaz And West Dominant Over Kafireen Of East And Najd:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in one Hadith said: “The callousness of heart and sternness is in the East [meaning Najd] and faith is among the people of the Hijaz [meaning West].” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H95] And in another East is where group of Kufr exists, here. We know Wahhabism originated from Najd from East of Madinah and we have clear proof that Shaykh al-Najd declared all the inhabitants of Hijaz are Mushrikeen/Kafireen: "It's known regarding the people of our land and the land of al-Hijaz, that those among them who reject the resurrection (after death) are more than those who accept it and that those (among them) who know the religion are less than those who do not ..." [Ref: al-Durar al-Saniyya, Volume 10, Page 43, Trnslted by Abu Sulayman, here.] In general Wahhabis considered all Muslims of Arabia including residents of Hijaz region of Arabia other than their own as Mushrikeen. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Hijaz i.e. West: “The people of the West will continue to triumphantly follow the truth until the Hour is established.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4722] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said people of West will hold to truth of Islam and this is important because opposite of West is East. And this Hadith indirectly insinuates East of Madinah and West of Najd will be at odds with each other but West will be dominant and will hold to truth victoriously: “The callousness of heart and sternness is in the East [meaning Najd] and faith is among the people of the Hijaz [meaning West].” [Ref: Muslim, B1, H95] Hijaz was and is predominantly a Sunni persuasion with a minority of Shias and even lesser of Wahhabis. And truth of Islam will remain dominant over the disbelievers of Najd and Khawarij who abandoned Islam. It is undeniable originally the battle with between Muslims and Wahhabis was struggle between Wahhabis of East and Muslims in West of Arabia.

Conclusion:

The discussion as whole is a brilliant source for those Muslims who want to properly understand the disagreement between Muslims and Khawarij on subject of Istighathah. It is unfortunate that discussion ended on a bad note and partly I am responsible for this. Shaytan clouded my judgment and made me vindictive and angry. Result was that I took the course of destructive criticism which landed the brother in hot waters. I had to really struggle with myself to publish some of the content but I decided to do so is better than not because it established long held notion that Khawarij have disrespecting attitude in regards to Prophets and saints. I have also established that Wahhabism and Wahhabis are an off-shoot of Khariji apostasy and it is the group of Kufr in East. And as concrete refutation of Wahhabism it was also established Muslim-Ummah as whole and over-whelming majority will not fall into Shirk and Arabian Peninsula in specific and Muslim lands in general will remain free from major Shirk until death of Muslims. It is upon you to remember learn and protect your Iman. I have delivered the message to best of my ability. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said he does misguide a nation and its persons until He has provided them guidance telling them what they should engage in and establishing what they need abstain from.

Wama Alayna Ilal Balagh ul-Mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Edited 25 ستمبر 2022 by MuhammedAli
Updated 26th Sept 2022.

[MuhammedAli]

bump.