An Account Of Debate On Question: Does Istighathah Warrant Shirk Without Ilahiyyah And Niyyah Of Worship.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

Istighathah is practice of asking the souls of righteous believers to help them in time of difficult, hardship, and calamity. It has basis in Ahadith of, O servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) help, and these Ahadith can be read, here. Relevant Ahadith are quoted and contents discussed in sections 17.23, 18.0, 18.3/4. Wahhabis/Salafi's deem this practice as major Shirk and accuse the Muslims of engaging in worship of Ghayrullah (i.e. others besides Allah) even though its permissibility is established. And even though legality of practice of Istighathah is connected with Fiqh and in worst case scenario Istighathah is error in Ijtihad which even is of error is blameless. Discussion on Istighathah is not just an ordinary debate but it is debate where Wahhabis/Salafi’s cherish the notion Muslims are Mushriks/Kafirs and believe along the lines of, killing you is Halal for me, so is looting your property, and taking your women, because you’re no good Mushrik filth. And other side of coin debate is for struggle to live peacefully as a Muslim, to be allowed to be a Muslim, preach/teach Islam, and defend Islam, life, property, and honor, dignity, chastity all women professing la ilaha il-Allah, Muhammadur RasoolAllah. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) accept my effort to defend/guard what is worthy of defending as per teaching of Islam and make this humble effort a means of guidance for those seeking His way of Islam. Ameen.

Background To Why The Need For Discussion Came About:

(i) A Salafi brother, now a neo-Salafi, lets call him Umar, discussed subject of Istighathah with me. The first time it was over 12 years ago, here, and about two years ago brother Umar once again wished to discuss this subject and resulting discussion can be read, here. This discussion lasted over a year, 15 months to be precise, and then it took me nearly six months to civilize our discussion so it is reader friendly. During this discussion Salafi brother relied on a Salafi Talib ul-Ilm, we will call him Abdullah, for material help. At the end of said discussion, all praises for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), brother Umar decided to renounce his Salafi position on Istighathah and the faulty understanding of Tawheed/Shirk it was based on.

Brother Umar Wanted To Keep Change Of His Heart A Secret:

Brother Umar wanted to keep his change of heart out of knowledge of his family members, friends, and associates. Unfortunately I published discussion account, with permission of brother Umar, including material in which he renounces his Salafi beliefs about Istighathah, Ibadah, and understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. It escaped my mind that this part should be omitted to keep lid on his change of heart. After proof reading most parts brother Umar authorized the publishing of the contents and it did not occur to him to instruct me to remove problematic parts. All seemed good and dandy until it went online and brother Abdullah (featured in this discussion) read the change of his heart. Brother Abdullah confronted brother Umar about his renunciation of his certain beliefs. Both discussed the subject privately but to no solution. Brother Umar suggested and brother Abdullah showed interest in discussing subject of Istighathah with me to prove it is Shirk. Brothers made an agreement upon success of brother Abdullah brother Umar will return to Salafiyyah but there is no obligation upon brother Abdullah to leave Salafi Minhaj.

Lesson Of History, Present, And A Future To Come And To Fear:

Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab legalized for his band of true ISIS [metaphorically speaking] the killing, enslaving women, looting property of all Muslims of Arabia not adhering to their false Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. Up to this day where ever they have acquired weapons, man power, and where ever government authority has weaken these Kharijis have appeared in form of ISIS, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, al-Qaida, TTP, and in form of countless other militant groups destroying lives, property of Muslims throughout the world. There isn’t a Muslim country, that I know of, hasn’t been plagued with barbarity of these folk in last 50 years. And which doesn’t have an active militant group ruining lives of Muslims and battling state authority. All most all cases, 99.9%, these folk have come from ranks of Najdi Wahhabism, or a sect which has extremely close theological ties with them such as Salafi's, Ahle-Hadith, Deobandi, and Athari-pretenders. Wahhabi's/Salafi's are increasingly adopting, Athari, label to put a distance between themselves and bad reputation associated with Salafism/Wahhabism. This change of label is not due to following true Atharism, or due to any persecution. Rather the change of label is to successfully entrap those unsuspecting, untaught those Muslims who have developed dislike of Wahhabis, and see Wahhabism in negative light. Rebranding same old Wahhabism with even older high end brand names such as, Salafiyyah, Ahlul Hadith, Athariyyah is an attempt to establish credibility by establishing a link with past. Let me return to topic of discussion. Wahhabism is a rebranded and improvement of age old Ibadhi Khariji sect and modern off-shoots therefore are fundamentally Khariji, here. Takfir of Muslims, rebellion against state authority, killing of Muslims combatants/non-combatants, charges of innovation are cornerstone of Muslims. As a nation if you’re disunited then sooner or later the associated violence with Wahhabism will reach your country but only if you do not toe Saudi/Israeli/American line. And then Wahabis will do what they have always done to Muslims … so guard yourself from all evil and Wahhabism.

Kharijism, Ibadhism, Wahhabism And Branches Of Wahhabism:

Wahhabis of whatever sub-division some popularly known such as Salafi, Ahlul Hadith (i.e. Ahle Hadith), Deobandis, Wahhabi-Atharis, Qutbism of Sayyid Qutb, other less known such as Ikhwan (literally, brethren), and politically motivated sub-divisions of Wahhabism such as Madkhalism (Saudi loyalists), Sahwa-ism/Sahwi-ism. Despite their disagreements and over lapping allegiances all of them share a common understanding of Tawheed/Shirk, methodology of determining Shirk, understanding of Biddah, cherish same beliefs about Mutashabihaat attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and burning desire to rid the world of ‘worst polytheists then polytheists’ i.e. orthodox/Sunni Muslims. I have to point out Deobandi’s are exception in regards to Mutashabihat because they typically affirm Maturidi/Ashari belief in this aspect but there are few oddities. They do have Fiqhi disagreements with each other but none of the issues have effected their close theological ties with each other.

Rules Followed To Edit This Discussion To Make It Reader Friendly:

Brother Abdullah and myself had no formal agreement about publishing contents of discussions. Or how we will conduct ourselves and from where and how evidences will be taken and explained. I did initiate the discussion about these matters but he said something which agreed with me. He said we will conduct our selves as we should as Muslims, harsh words we will avoid, forgive and move on. Evidences will be from Quran/Sunnah and the explanation of it would be according to what scholars have said. He said our methodology in interpreting Quran/Sunnah will be of Muslim scholarship before Shaykh al-Najd’s movement and before Barelwi movement. With regards to discussion being published he showed no objection. In regards to editing the contents of discussion he said; you [I Muhammed Ali Razavi] will have to keep in mind one day you will stand in court of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and be responsible for any distortion. I informed him that I will edit discussion but expressed meaning will not be distorted. Any content not relating to subject of Istighathah maybe removed. And this does not include material which is indirectly connected with the subject of Istighathah. Material maybe relocated from original context. When this happens the context will be inserted in square brackets to readers know what is meaning of it. On other occasions square brackets were used to add information to help better understand sentence. Also slang was omitted and replaced by equivalent English words.

General Method According To Which I Edited The Discussion:

In some places there was ambiguity in a sentence. Clarification was inserted in the in square brackets so meaning of ambiguous sentence becomes clear but content in which clarification was sought and matter clarified was expunged from record. Most Duas directed toward each other, including Salam Alaykum, Jazakallah. Barak-Allah, wa iyyaka (i.e. and to you) and others have been omitted except words of Hamd of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Salawat/Dua for Prophets, and Duas for companions. Brother Abdullah and Umar both used common form of Salat, sallallahu alayhi wasallam (may Allah’s blessing and peace be upon him), but I have used sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him and his family). And I decided to replace their version of Salat with my own. This is the only deliberate Manavi Tahreef (meaning changing alteration) I have resorted to. Brother Abdullah’s English had short comings in grammar and corrections were made without indicating where. This might seem an attempt to undermine brother Abdullah, by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it is not. To balance things out I have still problems with spelling words correctly and correctly employing were/was and then/than. I use was where correct grammatical usage would be were. Was/Were and then/than issue has plagued all my articles go verify, here. I haven’t made any effort to correct my own spelling, grammatical mistakes, or shortened long sentences because I do not care about queens English enough. Insha’Allah when I am proficient in King’s Arabic I will contemplate improving my English grammar. My principle is as long as reader can understand what was intended by me then it is good enough. Now balance restored we can move on. Smiles. Lastly after, section 112, quoted contents of each other were either reduced to token presence, or bear minimum in case of Ahadith. Especially when the content in quotation marks was not part of coming discussion.

Brother Umar A Unwitting Participant Of Discussion:

(i) Brother Umar’s agreed upon role was to keep peace between myself and brother Abdullah and moderate our disagreements in best interest of discussion. He breached power of authority bestowed on him too many times regarding which neither I nor brother Abdullah took any serious legalist exception. It is needless to say brother Umar’s interactions contributed material. Originally which I had no intention of publishing but his input at places was valuable. Material resulting in response to him became integral part of discussion thus I had no other option but to make it available for readers. I have not consulted nor informed brother Abdullah in regard inclusion of brothers Umar’s content. And I genuinely believe there will be no objection to do so. And if brother Abdullah does object it is unlikely I will be moved to remove any such content.

Brother Umar’s Role As A Peacekeeper And As A Censor:

(ii) At times brother Abdullah and I used ‘discussion unfriendly’ tone and language. Brother Abdullah enjoyed this liberty more so then me. These type of exchanges happen especially in matters of Deen and regarding matters which a person is passionate about. During a discussion about a controversial subject of one/both person’s do not get emotionally charged then and keep perfect etiquette, likely, I would accuse them of being insincere and lacking care and love for Deen of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). At times brother Abdullah became unbearable with his, you Pagan this, you Mushrik that, you grave-worshiper this, and results were some epically harsh, vindictive and bitter reprisals. All removed from discussion except one occurance. There after brother Umar played instrumental role in ensuring my and brother Abdullah’s content remains respectable by asking both of us to channel all EMail content through him instead of directly to each other. And as consequence if he felt something was not right and is likely to offend the other party he requested revision before passing it forward. He advised published content should not contain any/every ill words directly targeting each other. And we also had limited direct interactions in absence of brother Umar but all such interactions were brief. Most exchanges especially the lengthy ones from my side were actually in form of EMails because brothers got tired of my long, never, ending explanations. This is what they said and not me. Smiles. And then they realized via EMail exchange I can be more industrious so we returned to direct chat.

001 - You Prove It Is Sunnah, You Prove With Explicit Evidences Istighathah Is Shirk:

Salafi: You will prove Istighathah is Sunnah and I will prove it is Shirk. Do you agree?

Sunni: Don’t try to be clever with me brother Abdullah. My beard has turned grey checking cleverness of people.

Salafi: Am I being clever! I outlined what is expected from you and from me.

Sunni: You contacted me saying you will prove to me Istighathah is Shirk. Did I say to you that I will prove it is Sunnah?

Salafi: No but what else will you prove it is then?

Sunni: You will attempt to prove what you said (i.e. Istighathah is Shirk) and in response I will prove it is not Shirk.

Salafi: You want me to do all the leg work and you will just sit down and do nothing. Real discussion would be if you prove it is Sunnah and I prove it is Shirk.

Sunni: I don’t want to prove it is Sunnah.

Salafi: You believe it is permissible don’t you?

Sunni: Permissibility isn’t dependent upon something being prophetic Sunnah. Everything not Haram is permissible, be it Sunnah, or no Sunnah.

Salafi: You’re just being rigid.

Sunni: OK! I will prove it is Sunnah if you prove with explicit evidence of Quran/Sunnah, not deduced, that Istighathah is Shirk.

Salafi: Done.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you didn’t grasp what he said. He is saying if you quote him a text from Quran/Hadith in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: ‘Istighathah is Shirk’.

Sunni: You’re not quite there brother Umar word Istighathah and Shirk both have to be used in that Hadith/Ayat. Any deductive reasoning will not count.

Umar: I thought I said that. Smile.

002 - Salafi Step Outside The Bounds Of Set Confines:

Sunni: [Brother Abdullah’s] Evidence has to be, Qati al-Subut Qati al-Dilalah, and then I will prove it is Sunnah.

Salafi: How can I prove with such clear evidence when Istighathah is a later innovation of pagan Sufis?

Sunni: We have agreed to not to use words which will ruin peace in our discussion. And these words, pagan Sufis, are offensive.

Salafi: I am not allowed to say what I believe now.

Sunni: Then should I also express what I believe about Wahhabis? Trust me you won’t like it.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you could have just say it is innovation of Sufis.

Salafi: Why are you speaking in defence of him?

Umar: I am not. You could have just said the same without using Pagan. We all want this discussion to be academic but it is unlikely to be so if you continue.

003 - Not Interested In Proving Istighathah To Be Anything Except It Is Not Shirk:

Sunni: Point I intended to make; you’re subjecting me to conditions which you’re not willing to accept yourself. Me proving it Sunnah is same as you proving Istighathah is Shirk with clear/explicit Ayat/Hadith in which the text itself says: Istighathah is Shirk. I cannot prove it is Sunnah for same reason you cannot prove it to be Shirk with such clear evidence.

Salafi: You agree that Istighathah is a later innovation?

Sunni: No one has ever said it is prophet Sunnah, or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed it in Quranic verses. Scholars have said it is not Shirk.

Salafi: In that case you would be proving it is permissible and I will prove it is Shirk. Fair!

Sunni: I am not interested in proving it anything other then that it is not Shirk.

Salafi: Agreed, I will prove Istighathah is Shirk and you will prove it is in line with teaching of Tawheed?

Sunni: I will prove, it is not Shirk, but not that it agrees with Tawheed.

Umar: Brother Ali, OK, you’re being bit too rigid. You got to give an inch.

Sunni: Brother. To prove it is Tawheed, it means, I will have to compile evidence in support of it being Tawheed. While for me to refute it is not Shirk I will have to establish faults in his evidences and prove that Ilahiyyah and Niyyah was part of verses he has employed.

Umar: I still think you’re being too rigid and bit too technical. Think about it if you establish it is not Shirk you’ve proven Istighathah agrees with Tawheed.

Sunni: That would be indirectly established and I would be happy with that.

Umar: Abdullah why don’t you prove it is Shirk and when you’re satisfied with your effort he will prove Istighathah is in agreement with belief of Tawheed.

Salafi: You’ve deal, if your Sufi brother agrees.

Sunni: I agree to what brother Umar purposed.

Umar: Good. Now move on.

004 - Upon Whose Methodology Of Tawheed/Shirk We Will Judge:

Sunni: Upon whose methodology will we decide Istighathah is Shirk or not? Salafi or Sunni?

Salafi: According to methodology of Quran and prophetic Sunnah.

Sunni: And what methodology is that?

Salafi: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah.

Sunni: Agreed. You’re generous brother Abdullah. Brother Umar you’re witness brother Abdullah has agreed to judge by methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and not by Salafism. Smirks.

Salafi: I haven’t. What you on about?

Umar: You’re a deviant brother Ali. Smile.

Sunni: Brother we have two very different methodologies of determining if a belief/practice is Tawheed/Shirk. Clearly your methodology is primed to support your beliefs and mine is primed to support my beliefs. You’re judging based on Salafi and I am judging by Sunni definition.

005 - Issue With Sectarian Labels Sunni VS Salafi:

Salafi: Salafiyyah is Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah and its adherents are Sunni. You are portraying Salafis as we are not Sunnis. In reality you’re not Sunni but member of Ghulat Sufi Barelwi sect. You’re calling me Salafi and calling your self Sunni when in reality you’re Barelwi. You should identify yourself as Barelwi because I will call a spade a spade from here on.

Sunni: You’ve made it known Salafiyyah is and told us Salafi equals Sunni so there is nothing to be insecure about. When I addressed you as Wahhabi you protested saying you’re Salafi and you take offense at being called a Wahhabi what did I do? Apologized and have ever since addressed you as a Salafi.

Salafi: I am not insecure but you’re that is why you won’t call spade a spade.

Sunni: You explicitly asked to be addressed as Salafi when your sectarian persuasion is referenced.

Umar: Brother Ali you call yourself Sunni One and brother Abdullah you be SunniTwo.

Salafi: You’re Barelwi but you’re not willing recognizing yourself as one.

Sunni: Brother I refuse to identify myself as Barelwi for same reason you do not like ascription of Wahhabi. You have preferred ascription, Salafi, and you’re addressed by it and I prefer to be called Sunni because that is what we are known as and only our detractors call us Barelwi. Brother Umar is witness to this that term Sunni is almost exclusively used by ‘Barelwis’ in subcontinent. Almost 99% of the  ‘Barelwis’ identify and introduce themselves as Sunni. The term ‘Barelwi’ isn’t even heard by most of them/us.

Salafi: Is this true?

Umar: ‘Barelwis’ are the dominant group in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and even Nepal.

Salafi: What did I ask bro?

Umar: Being dominant group they have monopoly over the title Sunni. I have not seen heard Deobandis, or Salafis use it for themselves as frequently as ‘Barelwis’. Statistically I would say well above 90% ‘Barelwis’ employ term Sunni to identify them. Almost zero percent of Ahle Hadith use it. Deobandis do use the term but it is no where near 90% likely it would be 15% to 25% of Deobandi population would use Sunni to identify them.

Salafi: You agree with Brother Ali.

Umar: Brother my parents and extended family are effectively Barelwis. Whenever I called them Barelwi they say we are not Barelwis we are Sunnis. They don’t own the label as others own Salafi, Ahle Hadith, Shia, and Deobandi. Some of them haven’t even heard of the word Barelwi especially the older generation.

Salafi: I am not going to bicker over this issue brother. He was respectful toward me by calling me Salafi when I asked him and I will do likewise and call him Sunni.

Umar: May Allah reward you with good.

006 - To Be Judged On Methodology Of Ummah And Jammah:

Sunni: How do we resolve this difference of differing methodologies? Your version of Ahlus Sunnah and my version of Ahlus Sunnah are not the same.

Salafi: I have already stated that Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah because they follow Quran and Sunnah.

Sunni: You’re not understanding the point. How do we figure out who is upon methodology of Quran, Sunnah and Jammah?

Salafi: Why are you complicating the subject? One who follows Quran and Sunnah is following path of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah.

Sunni: Don’t you think I know this much?

Salafi: What you want from me then?

Sunni: Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has made our task easy. Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has informed us of following Ijmah of Ummah and Ijmah of Jammah.

Salafi: Isn’t Ijmah of only Ummah?

Sunni: Ijmah is of Ummah and Jammah.

Salafi: What is proof of Ijmah of Jammah?

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about Ijmah of Ummah: “Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, …” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] When Ummah decides a matter it is guidance and cannot be misguidance. And this is also in agreement with following Hadith where understanding of Muslim scholarship as whole is said to be guidance and misguidance: “Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud said, “Verily, Allah looked at the hearts of the servants and He found that the heart of Muhammad, was the best among them, so He choose him for Himself and He sent him with His message. Then He looked at the hearts of His servants after Muhammad, and He found that the hearts of his companions were the best among them. Thus He made them into the ministers of His Prophet, fighting for the sake of His religion. And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah. And the Companions unanimously chose to take Abû Bakr – Allâh be pleased with him – as the successor (to lead the Muslims after the Prophet).” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] And if Ummah disputes then he went on to inform us to follow (i.e. Ijmah of) Jammah of Muslims: “…  so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (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 Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] One who deviates from Jammah/Ummah in belief then it is as if he died upon death of Jahilliyyah: “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 Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] Ummah is entirety and Jammah is majority. These Ahadith are talking about entirety and majority of Ummah

Salafi: I was under impression in these Ahadith the Jammah is in meaning of Ummah and Ummah in meaning of Jammah.

Sunni: These Ahadith can be interpreted in both ways and best is to be inclusive of all interpretations possible until a interpretation cannot be harmonized with text of Hadith. For example following Hadith indicates that those who leave the Jammah leave the Ummah as well: “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 Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] And if one leaves Jammah and has left Ummah by default then Jammah is Ummah and Ummah is Jammah. I will add from myself that any who leaves Jammah and Ummah, leaves, without leaving Islam. And if their leaving of Jammah/Ummah is through major Kufr/Shirk then death and life of such person is upon Kufr/Shirk.

Salafi: Jazakallah.

Sunni: Where were we?

Umar: Discussing on whose methodology you will judge Istighathah to be Shirk, or Tawheed.

Salafi: Yes.

Sunni: We have answer to our subject – which we will judge Istighathah to be Tawheed, or Shirk on basis of methodology which is in agreement with Ijmah of Ummah and Ijmah of Jammah.

Salafi: You do mean Ijmah of scholars of Ummah and Jammah?

Sunni: Yes.

Salafi: Agreed.

007 - What Are The Consequences Of Rejecting Ijmah Of Ummah And Jammah:

Umar: What is Hukm for one who rejects Ijmah?

Sunni: Shall I answer or will you brother Abdullah?

Salafi: I don’t issue Hukm outside of my capability. You’re good at that so you go ahead.

Umar: Laughs.

Salafi: I meant he is good at issuing Hukm of legal issues not what you thought. Laughs.

Sunni: Denial of Ijmah of Ummah is disbelief and of Jammah of Muslims leads is misguidance. And a sect which opposes Ijmah of Jammah is sect of hell – out of seventy-two sects to enter hell.

Umar: We can agree to that.

Sunni: Nice stab bro Abdullah. Smiles.

008 - Issue Of How Ijmah Of Scholarship Of Ummah Will Be Known To Us:

Salafi: Any text you quote [about Ijmah in support of your position] has to be from original source with scanned image.

Sunni: I want this to be clear there is no text which states there is Ijmah on this methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk. Nor there is text which states there is no Ijmah on this methodology.

Salafi: You’re wasting time with pointless pursuits brother Ali. I am not playing games and you need to stop playing games. Brother Umar what is this? You said this will be serious discussion.

Sunni: I didn’t say I will quote Ijmah of scholars.

Salafi: Whose Ijmah will we need then? Donkeys from zoo?

Umar: Laughs.

Sunni: Smiles.

Sunni: I said Ijmah is of scholarship because you enquired me about it. I no where said I will quote Ijmah. I will establish there is silent Ijmah over methodology which I employ to determine Tawheed/Shirk.

Umar: You were being vague and misleading to be honest.

Salafi: How else will you prove there is Ijmah? You need evidence of scholarship to prove there was/is Ijmah on this/that.

Umar: He reasons Ijmah comparatively through deductions.

Salafi: How can he reason Ijmah? What are you both on? Smile.

Sunni: High on knowledge and high IQ.

Umar: 10/10 for that.

Salafi: Laughs.

Umar: I been through his Ijmah making mill once before.

009 - Declaring Our Intent And Objectives & Help Need To Establish Ijmah:

Sunni: This discussion is so Islam dominates and al-Batil is destroyed. We as Muslims should help each other in understanding and explaining our religion. Do not be obstacle in the way of Islam. Our intentions should be good and sincere. Our questions need to be thoughtful and our answers true to voice of our heart. We conceal truth for our own detriment and speak it for our own benefit. Where we make mistake we accept good advice and rectify it. Above all I remind we fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and do all of His pleasure and for reward from Him.

Salafi: All praises are for Allah the Lord of Universe.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah I will need your help to achieve our objective. When I ask a question I want honest truthful answer. This question and answer will establish if there is Ijmah on Sunni methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk, or on Salafi methodology. Or if both of them are without support of Ijmah.

Salafi: I still don’t get it how will that amount to Ijmah.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah there are two methodologies of determining Tawheed/Shirk. You’re representing the Salafi side [and their methodology] and I am representing Sunni [ methodology]. Questions asked will be answered according to your methodology and according to my methodology. When the answers agree with each other then Salafism and Sunnism has agreement. Where ever there is disagreement we will judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and what the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has left for us of his Sunnah to decide who is upon truth. And then this correct understanding will be part of methodology on whose basis we will judge Tawheed/Shirk of beliefs/actions.

Salafi: I have no objections to this but I do want you to answer some of my questions before we move unto the subject of methodology [of determining Tawheed/Shirk]. Hope you don’t mind answering them.

Sunni: We have to help each other on good so why not!

[Brother Abdullah asked his questions and executed his plan and it would not be wrong to say it backfired on him and Salafi scholarship. The downside is that discussion developed on basis and in context of his questions. I did intend to press the reset button number of times so we can return and execute discussion as we agreed but it became difficult to do so in light of what was being discussed. So I had to allow the discussion to progress as it was. I don’t believe brother Abdullah was intending to divert our discussion from the agreed path. He just wanted to embarrass me about my claim to Salafiyyah.]

010 - Salafi Testing My Former Salafiyyah Affiliation With Help Of Salafi Tawheed:

Salafi: What is Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah?

Sunni: To believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the one and the only Ilah/Ma’bud is Tawheed Ilahiyyah.

Salafi: And Shirk?

Sunni: To believe another Ilah then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is deserving of worship is Shirk al-Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah.

Salafi: Rephrase it, please.

Sunni: To believe another Ilah then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ilah/Ma’bud is Shirk al-Uluhiyyah.

Salafi: What is definition of Shirk Rububiyyah in books of Salafi scholars.

Sunni: Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Rabb and there is no Rabb beside Him.

Salafi: Shirk Rububiyyah?

Sunni: Shirk al-Rububiyyah is to believe there is another equal, inferior, superior Rabb as a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Salafi: Please don’t mind me telling you, your definitions of  Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah and Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah are wrong.

Sunni: Wrong? Why are you asking me these questions and telling me they are wrong?

Salafi: Because I know you was never a Salafi. You’re lying and deceiving people about your claim that you followed Minhaj as-Salafiyyah.

Sunni: Stupid of me to assume you want to learn. Sunnism doesn’t need your approval to be correct.

Salafi: Very, very stupid of you brother.

Sunni: Brother I don’t need certificate of Salafiyyah from you. Nor I requested you to issue it so I don’t need to go along with your interrogation. I agreed to discuss with you on issues which are controversial between Ahlus Sunnah and Salafism.

Salafi: It is not about certification. It is about truth. You claim you were Salafi with fairly high level of knowledge of creed but your answers don’t represent Salafiyyah.

Sunni: You should have told me you’re testing my knowledge of Salafiyyah. I would have offered you Salafi version. I assumed you are inquiring about Sunni understanding of Tawheed/Shirk Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah so I responded accordingly.

Salafi: If I told you then you would have Googled the answers.

Sunni: What will be stopping me now?

Salafi: With your incorrect definitions you’ve already exposed yourself.

Sunni: My definitions of Tawheed/Shirk al-Ilhahiyyah are absolutely correct in light of teaching of Quran/Sunnah but they are not Salafi. And I haven’t exposed myself except to deception. Had I known you’re asking these questions for purpose of testing my former dance with Salafiyyah then I would have been careful and I would not have expressed creed of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah.

Salafi: Yeah that’s what I meant [that it is not Salafi].

Sunni: Now that I have [expressed Sunni understanding] you have pounced saying I have failed to prove that I was former Salafi. My definitions of both closed the gate of Khariji misguidance. Shall I prove to you why these are correct?

011 - Saudi Arabia If It Was Found Upon Khariji Rebellion Or Not:

Salafi: We warn against Khawarij. Our scholars have consistently denounced extremist groups like ISIS. You’re slandering us and you will be responsible for it so fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: You warn and refute them because they oppose your Saudi Kingdom and reject authority of Aal al-Shaykh scholarship because it supports the Saudi Kingdom, and you refute them in Furu and not on basis of Usool.

Salafi: Our Usool is to not to rebel against the state authority yet ISIS and other groups rebel against state. You’re a liar brother. Fear Allah.

Umar: We need to discuss subject of Tawheeds.

Sunni: Rebelling against the Jammah of Muslims is worse then rebelling against state. Rebellion against causes material destruction and death and rebellion against Jammah did the as mentioned and took to hellfire. Salafism was rebellion against the Jammah of Muslims and it turned and attacked the Jammah of Muslims in Arabia. You’ve same Usool as them just difference in application. The original Khawarij rebelled against Jammah in theological matters and then rebelled against state.

Salafi: We have not rebelled against Jammah. We rather brought the Jammah back from brink of extinction.

Sunni: I think you’re under impression Najd was not part of Uthmanic Caliphate rule. Had Najd not been part of Uthmanic Caliphate then why would have the empire moved troops and tasked their armies to defeat Wahhabi goons who were busy killing butchering Muslims in Najd? If it was not part of Empire it became part of Turkish Empire after it was conquered so it became part of their empire afterwards.

Salafi: Ottomans only moved armies against Saudi Kingdom when they conquered Hijaz. You’re not aware of history of Arabia.

Sunni: (i) In that case rebellion against Ottoman state would be proven also. Further more in a booklet, Qanoon Nama e Aal e Uthman, here, al-Ahsa/al-Hasa and Asir are mentioned as part of Uthmanic Empire yet not displayed so on any  of their official maps and both these regions are surrounding central modern Arabian province of Najd. This indicates Turks were not very interested in actively ruling regions East of Hijaz and therefore granted limited autonomy to Najdis to conduct their own affairs. Najd’s status to Uthmani Caliphate was how status of Azad Kashmir is in Pakistani constitution. AK is Pakistani controlled territory with Pakistani constitution, currency, no border, no visa, nothing, but yet AK has its own elected government. In constitution of Pakistan AK is not part of Pakistan but an independent [Azad] state yet it is fully under control of Pakistan and part of Pakistan. Same situation was with Najd it was independent but the central Uthmani Caliphate had control and rule of the region. (ii) In book, Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire, published by Macmillan,2003, author Jason Goodwin writes Ottoman empire claimed authority over central Arabia but allowed the Najdis to manage their own affairs.

Umar: This is not our subject of discussion here. Can we move to the real discussion. You both have agreed to have me as moderator for this but you’re not heeding my directions.

Salafi: How can rule over al-Ahsa and al-Asir mean Najd was governed by Ottomans?

Sunni: I didn’t say that. Read again.

[Brother Umar intervened so I had to drop the subject but I wanted to add following: Salafi state came to existence upon rebellion. It’s conquests were based upon feeble justification; the Turks, people of Hijaz, and Arabia in general were no longer beholders/defenders of Islam but rather out-right Mushrikeen of worst type to ever exist. Rebellion against them is not rebellion but compliance with teaching of Islam and defending Islam. This was the justification and teaching which motivated Salafis and Salafi armies and allowed them to heap barbarity upon Muslims of Arabia much worse in scale then of ISIS. Your Usool are no different to ISIS. This Usool has changed after Saudi Arabia consolidated its existence through treaties with British and Americans and now Israel. We judge Salafism on basis of how it originated, as a rebellion, and what it teaches then/now.]

012 - Salafis Do Not Leave Tawheed For Shirk Or Do They Leave Kharijism For Islam:

Umar: Do you want brother Ali to prove why his definition is correct?

Salafi: His definitions were correct but they were/are not what Salafi scholarship has taught. I wanted to prove to you brother Ali wasn’t a former Salafi. He has been lying to you about his former associations. No Salafi will ever leave Tawheed for Shirk.

Sunni: Shirk?

Salafi: You claim to have left Salafiyyah and now believe Istighathah and other Shirk of Sufis is not against Tawheed.

Sunni: Not even Shaykh Yasir Qadhi?

Umar: Smile.

Salafi: I am not saying it is impossible but I believe you wasn’t.

Sunni: Why do you think it is impossible for Salafis to leave Salafiyyah for mainstream Islam. Salafis have left Salafiyyah for things like Atheism, Christianity, and worse.

Salafi: I am not saying that brother Ali.

Sunni: Well I am not interested in proving to you if I were a Salafi or not.

013 - Returning To Subject Of Tawheed/Shirk And Right/Wrong Definitions:

Umar: I am interested in understanding reason why you defined Shirk Uluhiyyah as you have. I am sure brother Abdullah will be interested in too.

Salafi: Brother Umar I leave it to you and him to decide.

Sunni: Brother Umar I want to tackle subject of Salafi definitions of Tawheed Uluhiyyah.

Umar: OK!

Sunni: Brother Abdullah what is definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah?

Salafi: “The meaning of Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah (Oneness of Worship) is the dedication of all acts of the servants to none but Allah Alone, such as: Dua' (supplication), asking help, seeking refuge, fear, hope, reliance and all other forms of Ibadah (worship).” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 11843, here.]

Sunni: This is contradicted by following: “As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity/purity of devotional acts – e.g. Salah (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 9772, here.]

Salafi: There is no contradiction because dedicating all acts of worship to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone with sincere and pure belief and intentions is Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah.

Sunni: It is obvious both are not same.

Salafi: Both these compliment understanding of each other. Combine both to make whole a comprehensive definition.

Sunni: You’re making excuses for Shaykh Ibn Baaz. If one was part of other then why didn’t Shaykh express it fully and comprehensively. You have arrived at the understanding both add up to make a comprehensive definition by looking at the two but the man who read either of two would he understand it like you?

Umar: You have a valid point.
 
Sunni: Point is not what is obvious but point is when the Salafi elites cannot properly define Tawheed Uluhiyyah then should they be part of Salafiyyah? No excuse was accepted for what I said so why should he make excuse for Shaykh Ibn Baaz and keep him in Salafiyyah? I say Shaykh Ibn Baaz was a FAKE Salafi and a charlatan.

Umar: Like I said you have valid point and I am sure brother Abdullah will agree.

014 - Belief Is Before Actions, Uluhiyyah Is Before Ibadah:

Sunni: I have question for brother Abdullah.

Sunni: You quoted following: “The meaning of Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah (Oneness of Worship) is the dedication of all acts of the servants to none but Allah Alone, such as: Dua' (supplication), asking help, seeking refuge, fear, hope, reliance and all other forms of Ibadah (worship).” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 11843, here.] I quoted this: “As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity/purity of devotional acts – e.g. Salah (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 9772, here.] Would the comprehensive definition of be of Tawheed Uluhiyyah or definition of Tawheed al-Ubudiyyah/Ibadah?

Salafi: One and the same.

Sunni: They both are interconnected but not the same.

Salafi: They are one and same.

Sunni: (i) They are not the same in Islam but same in Salafiyyah. Tawheed of Uluhiyyah is associated with affirmation of belief, la ilaha il-Allah. Shirk of Uluhiyyah is to affirm belief there is an Ilah as partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). (ii) Tawheed al-Ubudiyyah according to Salafism would be to worship to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only. And to not to direct actions of worship to anyone other then Him while worshipping Him. Shirk al-Ubudiyyah is to directs acts of worship to anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or to devote act of worship to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) along side another Ilah. (iii) Uluhiyyah is associated with belief and Ubudiyyah is associated with action of Ibadah which result due to belief in Uluhiyyah.

Sunni: Our belief, there is no Ilah/Deity except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), ensures that we perform no action of worship for another Ilah. If we believe there is an Ilah, Mushrikeen did, then next step would be to direct actions of worship to it, like Mushrikeen did for their Ilahs. Belief of Ilahiyyah is before actions of worship. Thinkers from Salafis realized that in Salafi literature what is classed as Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah in fact is Tawheed/Shirk al-Ubudiyyah. Hence they abandoned usage of Uluhiyyah for Ubudiyyah because it correctly defined text of definition.

Salafi: I agree that belief in Uluhiyyah precedes actions of worship.

Umar: Agreed.

Sunni: In conclusion your version of Tawheed Uluhiyyah is established on basis of action of worship directed toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Shirk Uluhiyyah on basis worshipping creatures. That is to say Salafiyyah gives belief no consideration and instead grounds Tawheed/Shirk upon action of Ibadah. In contrast we make clear distinction between belief and worship. And Ahlus Sunnah establish Tawheed/Shirk on basis of belief alone.

015 - Problem With Defining Ubudiyyah As Uluhiyyah:

Salafi: There is no problem even if Salafi scholarship has defined Ubudiyyah as Uluhiyyah because Shirk would be warranted.

Sunni: That is according to little you know.

Salafi: Bro stop talking as if you’re an expert in matters of Deen.

Sunni: According to Salafi definition of Shirk Uluhiyyah –: Shirk in Uluhiyyah can only be warranted if someone/Ilah is worshipped instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or along side Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This means in Salafi definition actions of worship leads to Shirk and not the belief of Uluhiyyah. And that means for affirming belief of Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah for a creation Mushrik isn’t Mushrik until he/she performs actions. We both know to affirm an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Shirk even if that false-Ilah is not worshipped by the Mushrik.

Umar: Brother Abdullah I am agree with what brother wrote above.

Salafi: Brother our definition of Tahweed al-Uluhiyyah incorporates both and same applies to definition of Shirk.

Sunni: You’re saying that both belief and action are combined to make Salafi definition of Tawheed Uluhiyyah and Shirk Uluhiyyah?

Salafi: Yes!

Sunni: I quote Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan’s explanation of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah: “So He ordered them with Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah, which is worship of Him and He used Tawheed ar-Rububiyyah as a proof against them, which is the creation of the people of earlier and later time …” [Ref: The Aqeedah Of Tawheed, by Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, p17, here.] And once again quote what Shaykh Ibn Baaz said: “The meaning of Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah (Oneness of Worship) is the dedication of all acts of the servants to none but Allah Alone, such as: Dua' (supplication), asking help, seeking refuge, fear, hope, reliance and all other forms of Ibadah (worship).” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 11843, here.] “As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity/purity of devotional acts – e.g. Salah (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 9772, here.] None of these definitions include belief as part of definition but only focus on action aspect of worship. I won’t pursue it any further you’re more then welcome to add any reference which indicates belief.

Salafi: Belief in Uluhiyyah has always been a pre-requisite and a essential part of Salafi definitions of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah, even if not expressed, due to evidences which our scholars use to prove these definitions.

Sunni: I agree that you believe, belief in Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah leads to action of worship. What I was getting at is that belief is not expressed in the definition instead focus is action of worship.

Salafi: Point noted brother Ali.

Sunni: This leads me to explain difference between Sunni version of Tawheed/Shirk al-Ilahiyyah, or in Salafi vocab Tawheed/Shirk ul-Uluhiyyah, and your version of it.

016 - Explaining Improved Definition Of Shirk Uluhiyyah:

Sunni: We know word Ilah is derivative of word al-la-ha which denotes meaning of worship hence word Ilah means, the worshipped, or one worthy/deserving of worship. It was this linguistic meaning and fact that belief is before action I defined my definition of worship as: ‘To believe another Ilah then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is deserving of worship is Shirk al-Uluhiyyah.’ When you said it was wrong I modified it thinking you’re objecting to omission of Ilahiyyah: ‘To believe another Ilah then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ilah/Ma’bud is Shirk al-Uluhiyyah.’ It is belief in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah that leads to worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it is belief in Shirk al-Uluhiyyah that leads a Mushrik to worship another creation as an Ilah/Ma’bud. With this definition even in absence of worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) a believer in Tawheed remains Muwahid and in absence of worship person affirming Shirki belief remains Mushrik.

Umar: Wouldn’t you agree your definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah and Shirk al-Uluhiyyah prevents Takfir in of Muslims when they haven’t belief of Uluhiyyah for a creation?

Sunni: Yes. It also blocks Khawarij from unjustly charging Muslims are/were guilty of major Shirk when they perform an action in absence of Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah.

Umar: Just to be sure that we are on same page by phrase absence of  do you mean when it is not affirmed/believed?

Sunni: When I say, absence of belief, I mean a belief not held by a certain X. Belief is not affirmed as part of his belief.

Umar: As in, Amr cannot be Muwahid in absence of belief of Tawheed. Meaning, Amr cannot be Muwahid without affirming belief of Tawheed.

Sunni: Correct! I want to add something to what I said earlier. According to Salafi definition of Shirk ul-Uluhiyyah/al-Ilahiyyah the action of Shirk has to be performed to be guilty of major Shirk. And in absence of action of worship Shirk has not been committed in Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah.

Salafi: Brother Ali you’re wrong because anyone who believes a creation is an Ilah, or Rabb in Salafi belief such a person is Mushrik even if individual does not direct any act of worship toward that false deity.

Sunni: Agreed! I am not accusing you that Salafis don’t believe. I was saying it in context of your inadequate definitions of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. Your definitions establish Tawheed/Shirk in Uluhiyyah based on actions and not belief. And we agree that belief precedes action. Ilahiyyah is affirmed leading to Ibadah.

Sunni: Considering flaws in Salafi definitions of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah I improved it by making belief the foundation of Shirk and not action. I presented you improved/corrected definition of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah. You pounced on me saying it is not definition of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah and therefore I was not a former Salafi. Yet in reality Salafi versions judge Tawheed/Shirk on basis of action and mine judges on basis of belief. When you asked me [what is Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah] you did not specify you’re asking me about Salafi definition of Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah and I don’t even think you were aware this difference exists. Now we got the confusion cleared and I have explained to why mine was different from yours.

Umar: Brother [Abdullah] I had warned you that this brother is not your typical Barelwi you encounter.

Sunni: In future you feel like testing my knowledge of Salafiyyah. Tell me you want Sunni definition of Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah, or Salafi definition of Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah? And whose Salafi version do you want me to use to respond to your query. One Shaykh Fawzan’s and Shaykh Ibn Baaz’s agree upon, or version in which is unique to Shaykh Ibn Baaz?

Umar: Smile.

Sunni: Had my answer been in accordance with agreed upon version chance you wouldn’t have known unique version. And if it was unique version there was chance you wouldn’t have known agreed upon version. Had I combined both versions and answered to your question chance was you would have rubbished that as well in eagerness to prove I was never part of Salafiyyah. There were so many variables and one wrong word and you would have said, you was never Salafi. And to be honest I myself did not know there was difference in definition of Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah between Salafi scholars until you forced me to look closely.

Salafi: Nor did I [know there was difference in definitions]. I have been using both without realizing the difference in them.

017 - No Certainty Of Being Muslim, Salafi, But Only High Probability:

Sunni: Anyway point I am making is; you can’t test me through which is not concrete in Salafiyyah and something which can easily be checked online with help of Shaykh Google. Incase it isn’t easily accessible and I provide correct answer even then there is no certainty that I were a Salafi because I can learn it. Christians have trained missionaries to pretend to be Imams in Masjid, Jewish Rabbis, and everything else. What makes you think I can’t do the same with Salafism? You learnt to be a Salafi why couldn’t I?

Umar: By Christian missionary Imam you mean [YouTube channel name omitted] Ishmael?

Salafi: Brother Umar you was suppose to be moderator.

Umar: Sorry! I will shut up. Smile.

Sunni: Not just him but he is definitely is one such individual. In British India a stooge of East India company was granted special access to tour a Madrassa/seminary in middle of British countryside. And he noted in his memoirs that white British, Indians all were memorizing Quran, learning Fiqh, Aqeedah, Arabic, Tafsir, learning Urdu, Persian and everything else that was taught in Madrassa back in the day. After the tour he said to tour guide, this brilliant seminary is being run secretively in English countryside, but it will benefit more if Muslims are aware of great work you’re doing for them. Tour guide told him these students are not Muslims they’re all Christian Missionaries. You have to wonder why the missionaries were trained to be Muslim scholars and what their objectives were.

Umar: Whose memoirs were these?

Sunni: I read/heard some where but I cannot recall where.

Salafi: I don’t know if you’re aware that a lot of Christians from Arab countries are claiming to be ex-Muslim and they all get caught on basic stuff which every Muslim is expected to know. Popular test is recitation of Surah al-Fatiha which the fake ex-Muslims can’t even recite.

Sunni: I understand. If you/I can learn a new language can I not learn Salafism? If a person can become a doctor, engineer, a lawyer, barrister, can I not learn and become Salafi without actually being a Salafi? If these are possible then surely I can learn about Salafism and adopt an appearance of Salafi. All one needs is commitment and time. All you can go by is what I say. I am not even confident if you’re a Muslim, or even a Salafi, but I go by what you say that you’re one, and I can only judge by what you utter. And that’s all you have from me what I say I was, and on that you will have to make judgment.

Salafi: You cannot have absolute certainty but it is possible to increase probability through demonstrating knowledge about a subject. Yes a committed person will learn but how likely is that someone will dedicate time and effort to learn Salafiyyah to pretend to be Salafi?

018 - Discussion Regarding What Is Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah:

Sunni: If you’re looking for high probability of my Salafiyyah and not absolute certainty then you should prove to me you know Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah.

Salafi: Why would I need to prove I know Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. You claim to be Salafi.

Sunni: What if you’re a Christian and like Ishmael guy pretending to be Salafi. Your knowledge of  Tawheed al-Rububiyyah increase probability of you being a Salafi and not a Christian missionary pretending to be a Salafi. Smile.

Salafi: You tell me what is Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah according to understanding of Salafi scholarship. Afterwards I will entertain anything you need to ask.

Umar: I agree with your proposal.

Sunni: Tawheed al-Rububiyyah according to Salafiyyah is to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is manager of all affairs of creation such as creating, providing, life, death, punishment etc. Is this correct?

Salafi: Yes! And Shirk?

Sunni: To believe there is another Rabb partner with, or instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Salafi: Finished!

Sunni: I am sure you could see I was typing something. Especially when it tells you I am typing.

Salafi: Sorry! Go on.

Sunni: In Salafiyyah the above is flagrant Shirk in Rububiyyah. Indirect form of Shirk Rububiyyah is to believe there is another, Creator, Sustainer, Giver of life, death, health, wealth, inflictor of punishment with/instead-of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is also Shirk in Rububiyyah. And to believe good and bad is from a creation/thing is also Shirk in Rububiyyah. Generally to believe another being instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) exercises authority/control/power over creation; and to believe benefit/harm is from creation is Shirk in Rububiyyah. Further more Rububiyyah is dependent upon of Asma Wal Sifaat hence Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat would warrant Shirk in Rububiyyah. I can go on with specifics but I wrote in general to include all specifics I could.

Sunni: Are you satisfied?

Salafi: You know enough to make your claim plausible.

Sunni: I can live with this verdict.

019 - Testing Salafis Understanding And Methodology Of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah:

Sunni: If someone uses word Rabb for a creation have they committed Shirk?

Salafi: In linguistic sense no but calling someone Rabb in Shar’ee sense of word then yes it would be Shirk. In Surah Yusuf Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) used word Rabb/Lord while referring to king: “And he said to the one whom he knew would go free: ‘Mention me before your Rabb/lord.’ But Satan made him forget the mention to his Rabb/lord, and he remained in prison several years.” [Ref: 12:42]

Sunni: What if someone uses word Rabb in technical/Shar’ee sense as it is used in phrase, Rabb of universe, would that amount to Shirk?

Salafi: I already told said it is Shirk.

Sunni: What if someone says, x, y, z, is my Lord/Rabb in Shar’ee sense?

Salafi: Brother Ali, you’re just repeating same question in different ways. Yes it would be Shirk.

Sunni: What if someone doesn’t believe x, y, z, is his Rabb/Lord but says it without believing x, y, z is his/her Lord/Rabb. Would that be Shirk, or Kufr, or nothing?

Salafi: You wanted to test my understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Sunni: Brother testing your understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is like testing if fish drowns in water or not. It’s like testing professor in A, B, C … Not really practical test. I actually want to test your methodology of determining Shirk in al-Rububiyyah.

Salafi: In that case, it would be Kufr definitely.

Sunni: In the following verses Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) called sun, moon, and planet Venus his Rabbs: “So when the night covered him (with darkness), he saw a star. He said, "This is my lord." But when it set, he said, "I like not those that disappear." And when he saw the moon rising, he said, "This is my lord." But when it set, he said, "Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray." And when he saw the sun rising, he said, "This is my lord; this is greater." But when it set, he said, "O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah.” [Ref: 6:76/78] Did he commit Shirk, Kufr?

Salafi: He did not believe they were his Rabbs but he uttered the words due to Hikmah of refuting Shirk.

Sunni: Before you judge it is important that you take note of fact that he held each position for number of hours, from Venus to moon to sunrise, before he disavowed it.

Salafi: He adopted this course of action as way of Dawah, to call people to Tawheed, and refute Shirk.

Sunni: Why are you making Taweel? You said even if someone does not believe it then it is Kufr.

Salafi: He is a Nabi! How can we judge him to be upon Kufr when some scholars do not even like to attribute major/minor sin to them? You want me to declare him Kafir/Mushirk?

Umar: Brother Abdullah please stop. Say nothing.

Sunni: You can’t interfere when I am trying to prove a point.

Umar: I am and I will. Sorry if you don’t like it. Stop for your own sake, his sake, and for sake of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: I have not said anything wrong.

Umar: It is not what you said, it is what you’re about to force brother Abdullah to say. This tight rope walk is very dangerous. I walked it and fell into Kufr if you remember.

Sunni: Sorry! Jazakallah Khayr.

Umar: Brother Abdullah sorry I intervened but I had to. Brother Ali’s and I’s first discussion ended on very bad tone.

Umar: Brother Ali, whatever point you’re trying to make go ahead make it without this interrogation.

Sunni: Brother your interruption has caused me to loose train of my thought. I will have to go back and read to regain my focus.

Umar: OK! While you try to gather your senses I will get brother Abdullah up to speed why I intervened. While I was being pressured by brother Ali I said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not properly block route to Shirk and he helped the spread of Shirk. He had brought you to same stage where you could have said something detrimental to your Islam.

020 - Refuting Salafi Methodology With Aid Of  Prophet Ibrahim’s Actions:

Sunni: I wanted to establish your methodology is inconsistent. Even when word Rabb was used in Shar’ee meaning you did not judge/charge Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) of major Shirk, or Kufr. Instead you made Taweel on basis that he does not genuinely believe what he utters but he employed his tactic to refute Shirk and call people to Tawheed. You accuse the Muslims of committing major Shirk. And they do not even pretend to affirm, Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, for a creation. Nor they direct Shar’ee Dua of worship to anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). They do not believe anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is deserving of worship, nor they intend to worship anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Salah, or in Dua. Yet despite all this, just on basis of linguistic meaning of Dua you judge them to be Mushrik but you won’t judge Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) to be Mushrik when he emphatically called gods of Mushrikeen as his Rabbs. Either declare he committed Kufr/Shirk at each affirmation of Rububiyyah and he returned to Tawheed after each step of disavowal. Or just shut it and focus on your Salah and here after.

021 - Salafi Principles Looking Through Which Istighathah Is Shirk:

Salafi: Stop being rude, bro. You make a good argument but it’s not related to subject of Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah. Shall I respond to your argument here?

Sunni: I have more to say on methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah.

Umar: Brother Ali let him respond.

Sunni: OK!

Salafi: I call upon my Lord because I am worshipping Him and I believe him to be my Lord and Ilah. Why would they call upon dead for help if they are not worshipping them and why would they call upon them if Sufis don’t believe saints to be their Ilahs.

Sunni: Should I apply same logic and reasoning to actions of Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salam) and Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam)? Why they called them Rabb when they didn’t believe them to be their Rabbs. Obviously I believe in Allah the Rabb il-Alameen and I call him so and they believed their Rabbs were x, y, and z and they called them so. Were they guilty of Shirk and were they Mushrik?

Salafi: Sufis are guilty of Shirk because they invoke the deceased saints and these saints can’t help them nor help themselves. They can’t even hear the call, nor can they see who is calling them. Incase they could hear they cannot give Sufis worshipping them anything.

Sunni: For a moment, I agree the deceased common folk, and elite of Ummah, including Prophets, saints, martyrs can’t hear/see etc. How is that proof this of Shirk?

Salafi: It is Shirk because you believe dead saints have supernatural powers which make them omnipotent (all-powerful), Omni audient (all-hearing) omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (all-present). You make them rivals in attributes Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: You saying we commit Shirk in Rububiyyah? How do we make them rival in attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Salafi: Yes, Shirk in Rububiyyah. You believe they can hear/see/grant your needs because they have supernatural abilities.

Sunni: I mean to ask how does one become rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attributes; through equality, or through inequality?

Salafi: Rival is set on bases of equality in attributes.

022 - Salafi Lacks In-depth Understanding Of Tawheed Of Attributes:

Sunni: Do we believe attributes/actions of saints are limitless or have limitations?

Salafi: You have set limits.

Sunni: What are those limitations which we have affirm for hearing, seeing, knowing … of deceased saints?

Salafi: I didn’t understand what you’re asking.

Sunni: Do we believe our saints hear, see, all things in universe, or all things taking place on earth? How extensive is the power of their supernatural attributes according to our belief?

Salafi: I don’t know for sure but I presume you affirm their supernatural powers cover entire earth.

Sunni: Does Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have any limits/restrictions on His attributes and actions?

Salafi: He has no limits. He sees, hears, knows all major/minor, apparent/hidden, events in entire universe.

Sunni: You said: “He sees, hears, knows all major/minor, apparent/hidden, events in entire universe.” And all this is the limitless/infinite knowledge which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows?

Salafi: Don’t you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows this much?

Sunni: I believe infinitely greater then what you affirm for my Lord. Now answer my question.

Salafi: How can you believe more then infinite? Answer to your question; yes this is limitless.

Sunni: Because what you affirm for Him is constrained and not infinite.

Salafi: Brother Umar, your Sufi bro has lost it. Smiles.

Umar: Hear him out first.

Sunni: Brother all that happens in universe even unto atomic level and anything smaller then that is not infinite. It is finite. Hearing, seeing, knowing all the happenings of universe is results in having finite knowledge. Infinite Hearing, Seeing, Knowing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is established through hearing, seeing, knowing of Imkanaat (possibilities), Mumkinaat (probabilities), Muhallaat (impossibilities) etc. He sees/hears all that could’ve take place, could’ve taken place, and never can take place as if it has happened and he knows what the consequence each would be to limitless variations.

Sunni: Do you agree with what I wrote above?

Salafi: We also believe this.

Sunni: What you expressed and defined as infinite was not infinite.

Salafi: I didn’t say it as you said but we believe this. You can ask brother Umar.

Sunni: I don’t need to, even if you didn’t believe, every Salafi will believe after becoming aware of it. I will now conclude my argument in light of what has been established.

023 - Salafi’s Erroneous Understanding Of Tawheed/Shirk Makes Inequality Into Equality:

Sunni: You said the Sunnis make deceased saints rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His attributes. You also agree to fact that to be rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attributes there has to be equality in attributes of Him and a creation. And you also said we have set limitations on supernatural abilities of deceased saints and you presumed we believe saints hear, see, know everything happening on earth. I am just going by what you said. You also said Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hears, sees, knows everything in the universe. Where is the equality between attributes of deceased saints and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? To be rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His attributes [of hearing, seeing, knowing, granting] one has to equal His attributes in strength. How is there equality in attributes of Creator and deceased saints? Without equality in strength of Creator’s/creation’s attributes there can be no rival-ship/partnership and therefore no Shirk.

Salafi: To believe deceased saints hear, see, know, can do anything/everything on earth establishes equality in His attributes. This is Shirk.

Sunni: Brother to establish position that these deceased are rivals you need to establish equality between attributes of His creation and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In your version of infinite, you said, Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hearing, seeing, knowing is of entire universe. You also said that we the Sunnis believe deceased saint’s supernatural ability of hearing, seeing, knowing is limited to realm of earth only. That is not equality and without equality the deceased saints would not be rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore not Shirk.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you need to think about what brother Ali is saying.

Sunni: Your version of limitless/infinite hearing, seeing, knowing was actually limited/finite and we don’t even affirm that much capability for deceased saints. According to our version of infinite hearing, seeking, knowing if deceased saints had access to entire earth’s/universe’s happenings, that would not amount to an atoms trillionth part compared to limitless ocean known, seen, heard by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

024 - Guilty Of Taking Rivals Due To Affirming Creation As Gods:

Salafi: I did not say equality. You asked: “I mean to ask how does one become rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attributes; through equality, or through inequality?” This was answered by: “Rival is set on bases of equality in attributes.” Having even some equality means rival has been made.

Sunni: OK! I understood your statement in context of my question. And I did not use, some, and nor did you.

Salafi: I did not mean what you understood. You’re former Salafi and you know we have never judged Sufis to be Mushrik on equality. I left out, some, due to speed in type: Rival is set on bases of some equality in attributes.

Sunni: Your principle is: Rival is set on bases of similarity between attributes of Creator and His creation.

Sunni:  Would you agree; absolute equality in attributes also would establish a rival/partner has be set with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Salafi: In both scenarios rival has been setup and Shirk has been committed but in last Shirk would be greater degree.

Sunni: I will ignore one we both agree on. Do you have proof for this principle: Rival is set on bases of similarity between attributes of Creator and His creation?

Salafi: Wait brother.

Sunni: What you’re purposing is very dangerous because any limited similarity can be declared Shirk.

Salafi: Polytheists did not believe their gods to be equals of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attributes. They only affirmed some similarity in attributes and despite this they were guilty of setting a rival against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: When someone takes someone as rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), does that mean they took him to be god partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Salafi: All rivals were taken as partners in Divinity/Deity of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Smiles. Coming back to what you said: (i) Did the Mushrikeen become guilty of taking creation as rival-gods because they affirmed some similarity between attributes of their gods and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (ii) Or did they commit Shirk of attributes by taking creation as Ilah partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (iii) Or were they guilty of taking rivals with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because they had affirmed Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah for them?

Salafi: You’re asking same thing in first two questions. I can’t tell difference between first two questions.

Sunni: Brother Umar I trust you the task of explaining the difference to brother Abdullah.

Umar: Each is different brother Abdullah. You need to read each individually. Brother Ali is pointlessly making it complicated.

Salafi: He should be more concise so it is easily understandable.

Umar: (i) Were the Mushrikeen guilty of taking creation as rival gods because they affirmed some similarity between attributes of their gods and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (ii) Or were they guilty of taking rivals with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because they had affirmed Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah for them?

Salafi: Answer to your question is not one or two, it’s both of them.

Umar: Wait for brother Ali to come back. You can continue with him.

Sunni: Had you gave the second as your answer I would have agreed with you because Quran/Hadith is proof of this. And this would have proven you have no evidence for your initial stance which was; Rival is set on bases of some similarity in attributes of Creator and His creation.

Salafi: At least we agree on something. Smiles.

025 - No Evidential Support For, Similarity Can Establish Shirk:

Sunni: Can you quote me a single verse, Hadith which explicitly or deductively supports; Mushrikeen were guilty of taking creations as rival gods because they affirmed some similarity between attributes of their gods and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Let me pre-empt this by saying, there is not a single Ayah or Hadith in support of this.

Salafi: I not inventing this out of thin air. There is support of this in Quran/Sunnah.

Sunni: If there is quote it. You made judgment that this is answer to my question. And your judgment if it is based on evidential support then it means you was aware/thinking of those evidences when you answered the question. Now quote them.

Salafi: I will.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you’re wasting time. Why don’t you acknowledge you made the first option as part of your answer because you was damage controlling. Damage controlling isn’t helping you.

Salafi: I am not damage controlling.

Sunni: If you’re not then quote the evidence on basis of which you … I am done brother Umar.

Umar: Calm down brother Ali. I will sort it out. Brother [Abdullah] you need to prove your position with evidences.

Sunni: The evidence of Quran he referenced in the following is actually indicating Mushrikeen were guilty of setting up rivals against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because they took creation to be gods: “Polytheists did not believe their gods to be equals of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attributes. They only affirmed some similarity in attributes and despite this they were guilty of setting a rival against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” And these verses which you’re referring to do not support belief; polytheists became guilty of Shirk of Ilahiyyah because they affirmed limited supernatural powers in attributes of hearing, seeing, and knowing.

Umar: Wait brother Ali. I am talking to him in private. We will continue tomorrow if that is OK with you.

[There is no evidence in Quran/Hadith which directly or indirectly/deductively proves Shirk in Sifaat can be warranted on basis of partial/limited/some similarity with attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Brother Abdullah is unnecessarily being stubborn. Brother Umar had private word with him to help him understand but brother Abdullah refused to budge from his stance. Private conversation has not been shared with me even though requested it’s content are shared with me.]

026 - Limited Similarity In Having Supernatural Attributes Establishes Shirk:

Sunni: You believe limited similarity in supernatural powers will establish a rival as been set in attributes and Shirk has been committed. What I want to know is that how much of supernatural power in attributes will warrant Shirk in your belief? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) seeing hell/paradise while leading Salah, here. Is that enough to warrant Shirk in attribute of Seeing, or the seeing has to be greater then this? What is the boundary in which supernatural power of hearing/seeing/knowing is in realm of Tawheed and crossing that boundary leads us to Shirk?

Salafi: Believing that a creation simultaneously and supernaturally knows/hears/sees multitudes of events would be Shirk. Supernaturally hearing/seeing one/two/three … events, one after another, would not result in Shirk of Asma Wal Sifaat.

Sunni: (i) So belief that Amr is simultaneously hearing/seeing many events would result in Shirk, meaning Amr would become a rival/partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His Asma Wal Sifaat? (ii) But if it is believed Amr hears/sees supernaturally few events one after another that won’t be Shirk?

Salafi: (i) Shirk of Asma Wal Sifaat and Rububiyyah. (ii) No that won’t be Shirk.

Sunni: Earlier you said that Shirk would be established on basis of equality: “To believe deceased saints hear, see, know, can do anything/everything on earth establishes equality in His attributes. This is Shirk.” Your new rule is contradicting the old one.

Salafi: It isn’t contradicting because the lowest boundary of Shirk is what I have defined:  “Believing that a creation simultaneously knows/hears/sees multitudes of events would be Shirk. Supernaturally hearing/seeing one/two/three … events, one after another, would not result in Shirk of Asma Wal Sifaat.” Where as what you quoted is greater degree of Shirk: “To believe deceased saints hear, see, know, can do anything/everything on earth establishes equality in His attributes. This is Shirk.” I formed the first one because I was under impression you believe your deceased saints see/hear everything on earth. I formed latter because brother Umar told me my assumption was wrong. Anything greater then lowest level of Shirk is by default Shirk and this is inclusive of what I said earlier and what you said.

Sunni: OK! I got it.

027 - Once Again Salafi Brother Is Unable To Provide Proof For His Principle:

Sunni: It would be logical, may not be Islamicly correct but logical, that all type of supernatural hearing/seeing is Shirk. Instead you have make Takhsees saying this is Shirk and that isn’t Shirk. Can you quote me evidence from Quran/Hadith of your Takhsees that simultaneous and supernatural hearing/seeing of many events take place leads to Shirk: And supernaturally hearing/seeing some events, one after another, is not Shirk?

Salafi: This is what I believe and my belief is in line with teaching of Salaf.

Sunni: Brother if there is no evidence of Quran/Ahadith it is rejected. We can’t entertain it any further.

Salafi: I will not let go of what is taught by Salaf even if I am unable to provide proof. It is my failure and not fault in my Minhaj. I am not prepared that’s all.

028 - Refuting Knowing Everything On Earth Establishes Equality Thus Shirk:

Sunni: If I believe that a creation has knowledge of entire universe including all the Ghayb till judgment day will that prove I have committed Shirk?

Salafi: Yes!

Sunni: And if I prove from Quran/Hadith that a creation does have knowledge all happenings of universe till judgment day will that be enough to prove your principle has been refuted?

Salafi: That would invalidate knowledge part for sure.

[Salafi brother earlier said: “Believing that a creation simultaneously and supernaturally knows/hears/sees multitudes of events would be Shirk.” Hence above he means out of three, knowing, hearing, seeing, the part connected with knowledge - i.e.  a creation simultaneously and supernaturally knows multitudes of events would be Shirk - would be refuted.]

Sunni: “… of faith until you know that what has come to you could not miss you, and that what has missed you could not come to you. I heard the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) say: The first thing Allah created was pen. He said to it: Write. It asked: What should I write, my lord? He said: Write what was decreed about everything till the Last hour comes. O Bunai! I heard the...” [Ref: Abu Dawood, B41, H4683] al-Qalam had knowledge of everything from beginning to the day of judgment.

Sunni: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B44, H414] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told everything to take place till the day of judgment. Proving there is no difference between  knowledge of al-Qalam and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Salafi: I said simultaneously knowing great many events is Shirk.

Sunni: Before you said that you also said: “To believe deceased saints hear, see, know, can do anything/everything on earth establishes equality in His attributes. This is Shirk.” Simultaneously knowing was not condition in this and you have said your latest and earlier both are correct. And you also said: “Anything greater then lowest level of Shirk is by default Shirk and …” al-Qalam and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowing greater then your lowest level of Shirk and knowing greater then your slightly higher level of Shirk is greater Shirk.

Sunni: I have to go my daughter is coming down stairs. Plus I need time to think about how to refute your simultaneous multitude seeing/hearing aspect. I haven’t encountered this before. Salam alaykum.

029 - Refuting Simultaneous Hearing/Seeing Of Multitude Of Supernatural Principle:

[Entire following section was pre-written and posted in chat.]
 
Sunni: Your principle that simultaneous seeing/hearing of great many events is Shirk. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "Narrated Abdur Rahman ibn A'ish: Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed His Palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] This Hadith is proof of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instantly seeing everything in universe.

Sunni: The verse quoted in the Hadith proves the knowledge acquired was through seeing: “… and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" In other words Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) shown the universe like Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam). And he like him came to know everything in universe through seeing. There is another Hadith which says: "Then I saw Him put his palms between my shoulder blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these?" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad]

Sunni: Instantaneous seeing/knowing of events of entire universe if it was Shirk then this Shirk is proven from Quran/Hadith and I believe in this Shirk and not in your Tawheed. Question to you is, do you believe al-Qalam, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) are rival/partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in knowledge and in attribute of seeing? And did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legalize for us to commit Shirk in regards to their knowledge and seeing? Not! Then it has been proven what you deem to be Shirk is not Shirk in Islam and your principles of determining Shirk are invalid.

Sunni: If something is not Shirk for x, y, z then it is not Shirk at all. To believe al-Qalam knows everything from beginning to judgment day and wrote everything in al-Lawh al-Mafooz is not Shirk. And to believe a Nabi, Wali possesses same knowledge as al-Qalam is not Shirk but it can be a [reprehensible] innovation if there is no supporting evidence from Quran/Sunnah.

Sunni: My response is complete but I have some complimentary bits I like to share. [Ends.]

Umar: Brother Abdullah this is specialty of  brother Ali. I had to put up with this for over a year.

Abdullah: Smiles.

Umar: Finish what you have started then paste the rest.

030 - Responding To Accusation I Am Wrongly Interpreting Ahadith:

Salafi: You’re distorting the meaning of Hadith, “Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything.” It does not mean he came to know everything in the universe but everything Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) enquired about. Read the context of Hadith brother.

Sunni: Everything is inclusive of everything. Same as, every, in Hadith of innovation, every innovation is misguidance, is inclusive of everything. If you want to restrict Hadith in context then have you ever restricted every of every innovation is misguidance to context these statements are in? You allow the generality in Hadith of every innovation is misguidance because it serves your purpose and here you’re restricting, everything, to context because it serves your objective. You have no consistency. Your way is goal justifies means which in this case is refuting my understanding through any means.

Salafi: We restrict, every, and it is not absolutely unrestricted. We restrict it in context of every innovation in worship is misguidance.

Sunni: Thanks for consolation but every innovative belief, i.e. Mirza is a Prophet, is not misguidance?

Salafi: It is misguidance and Kufr.

Sunni: But your Takhsees of every innovation is misguidance is every innovation in worship is misguidance and Mirza being prophet is not misguiding innovation of worship but it is innovated misguiding belief.

Salafi: I meant that’s how we commonly interpret the Hadith I didn’t mean to exclude belief.

Umar: Back to topic please. Brother Ali next justify why your understanding [about everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything] is correct. Drop subject of innovation.

Sunni: Hadith records Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) came to know everything: "… blades till I felt the coldness of his fingers between the two sides of my chest. Then everything was illuminated for me and I recognized everything. He said: Muhammad! I said: At Thy service, my Lord. He said: What do these high angels contend about? I said: In regard to expiations. He said: What are these?" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3246, Tafsir Surah S'ad] Exactly the same incident is narrated with different words: “… beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed His Palm between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty.' (6:75)" [Ref: Tirimdhi, Vol 5, Hadith No. 3245, Tafsir Surah S'ad] This Hadith establishes he came to know everything take place in the universe at the time. Words, I recognized everything, can also mean I recognized everything that has happened in past, is happening at present, and will happen in future in light of following Hadith: “Narrated Umar: One day the Prophet stood up amongst us for a long period and informed us about the beginning of creation (and talked about everything in detail) till he mentioned how the people of Paradise will enter their places and the people of Hell will enter their places. Some remembered what he had said, and some forgot it.” [Ref: Bukhari, B44, H414] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) once became aware he informed everything that will take place till people of paradise enter paradise. Am done.

Umar: Masha ‘Allah.

031 - Salafi Brother Makes Admission Of Error And Braces For Consequences:

Salafi: I concede.

Sunni: What do you exactly concede brother Abdullah? I mean there is a lot you can concede to.

Salafi: My error in understanding Hadith.

Sunni: You do realize by conceding you have undone your own methodology of determining Shirk.

Salafi: I can’t remember what we have discussed.

Sunni: I have lost track of discussion too. I will have to re-read it and summarize everything and explain how and what has been refuted with your admission of error.

Salafi: I couldn’t keep track of it.

Sunni: Before I get to the main issue I need to get something confirmed from you. Would you say your following statements are explaining each other and remove confusions: (i) “Rival is set on bases of equality in attributes.” (ii) “Rival is set on bases of some equality in attributes.” (iii) “To believe deceased saints hear, see, know, can do anything/everything on earth establishes equality in His attributes. This is Shirk.” (iv) “Believing that a creation simultaneously knows/hears/sees multitudes of events would be Shirk. Supernaturally hearing/seeing one/two/three … events, one after another, would not result in Shirk of Asma Wal Sifaat.” As it seems to me all these are fundamentally same and explain each other but I need your input but what you do say?

Salafi: They are explanations of same in different contexts in different ways. They are not contradictions if that is what you want to know.

Umar: This was my understanding too.

Sunni: If one of them was refuted would you say all of them have been refuted?

Salafi: The first one is not our principle, but two, three, and four are. First one was mistake I believe which I corrected.

Sunni: At the point of sword to be honest. Smiles.

Salafi: ?

Umar: Smiles.

Salafi: Oh I get it. Smiles.

Sunni: Anyone of three is refuted all three refuted?

Salafi: Principle would be refuted.

Sunni: When you said: “Rival is set on bases of some equality in attributes.” Did you mean some equality in supernatural attributes?

Salafi: Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) all attributes are supernatural from our perspective so it has to be supernatural, bro.

Sunni: I will copy & paste how refutation effected what you believed.

032 - Explaining To Salafi Brother How His Principle Was Refuted:

Sunni: Your first principle of Shirk was: “Rival is set on bases of equality in attributes.” I refuted your principle by establishing that Sunnis do not affirm equality in attributes hence no Shirk. So you changed it: “Rival is set on bases of some equality in attributes.” And your reason was that you believe even if limited supernatural powers are affirmed for creation it is Shirk and following supports this: “To believe deceased saints hear, see, know, can do anything/everything on earth establishes equality in His attributes. This is Shirk.” I rephrased what you wrote: ‘Rival is set on bases of similarity between attributes of Creator and His creation.’ [Section 24.] I asked you to produce proof of Quran/Hadith for your principle: “I will ignore one we both agree on. Do you have proof for this principle: Rival is set on bases of similarity between attributes of Creator and His creation?” You didn’t quote any specific evidence but you said: “Polytheists did not believe their gods to be equals of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attributes. They only affirmed some similarity in attributes and despite this they were guilty of setting a rival against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” [Section 24.] I refuted this by saying that all such verses establish Shirk of Mushrikeen was not due to affirming limited supernatural powers in Asma Wal Sifaat and Rububiyyah but their Shirk was due to fact that they took their idols and persons represented by idols as gods. You protested you’re not making this up rather there is evidence in Quran/Hadith. And in response to you I said: “Can you quote me a single verse, Hadith which explicitly or deductively supports; Mushrikeen were guilty of taking creation as rival gods because they affirmed some similarity between attributes of their gods and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Let me pre-empt this by saying, there is not a single Ayah or Hadith in support of this.” And I add to this, even if you can quote me a single Mufassir, pre-Wahhabism era, whose Tafsir states Mushrikeen were guilty of Shirk because of affirming limited supernatural powers of Asma Wal Sifaat and Rububiyyah for their idol-gods I will admit defeat. Anyhow I then refuted your principle; some similarity, in other words limited similarity in supernatural powers with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk; by Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) seeing hell/paradise. And it was then that your said: “Believing that a creation simultaneously and supernaturally knows/hears/sees multitudes of events would be Shirk. Supernaturally hearing/seeing one/two/three … events, one after another, would not result in Shirk of Asma Wal Sifaat.” Once again I demanded evidence from Quran/Hadith which clearly, or deductively proves your principle but you failed to produce any. Then I went on to refute your very principle with evidences of Quran/Hadith and you have acknowledge you were upon error.

Sunni: And you made admission in that if one of your principle out of three is refuted all three would be refuted by default because all of them are explaining each other in different ways. And you have admitted your principle has been refuted this means your initial stance that we the Ahlus Sunnah are guilty of Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat and Rububiyyah is refuted.

Salafi: I admit Sufis are not guilty of Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat but you’re guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah because you believe your deceased saints carry out tasks in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: We will discuss that too but for now I need to copy paste what I intended to earlier [at the end of section 29]. It basically explains how Shirk of attributes is warranted in belief.

033 - Equaling Creation With Allah Is Shirk, And Allah With Creation Is Kufr/Shirk:

Sunni: Reality of Shirk of attributes is that you have to elevate creation’s attribute/attributes to level of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) attributes to be guilty of Shirk and to set a creation as His rival in attributes. Supernatural and simultaneous viewing/hearing of thousands of things does not warrant Shirk because Shirk in attributes is committed when creation is equaled with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is indirectly equaled with creation.

Sunni: In order to explain equaling of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) an example is needed. Amr says anyone who believes a Nabi/Wali possesses knowledge of creation from beginning to people entering hell/paradise has made Nabi/Wali a rival/partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in knowledge therefore such a person has committed Shirk. It is established knowledge known to and it wrote in preserved tablet by al-Qalam is from beginning till people entering hell/paradise. By issuing edict of Shirk we deduce Amr’s belief is that Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge is of al-Qalam and this means Amr has made Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equal with creation.

Sunni: If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was inadvertently equaled with creation and equality is established through deduction as above then it is Kufr. It would be Shirk if it is done with outward belief that His entire knowledge is of al-Qalam; to affirm this for a creation means equality with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence Shirk. I want to put it on record; I have never read any Muslim explicitly say/believe Allah’s entire knowledge is of al-Qalam. Every case of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equaled in quantity of knowledge with His creation is deduced and not emphatic. And therefore in case of Jahl Kufr is excusable because person would be guilty of reprehensible innovation. When person becomes aware and correct understanding was but person refuses to take correct course then it would be Kufr.

Sunni: Bilal Phillips in his book, Fundamentals Of Tawheed, page 50, writes about Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being equaled to creation in section of Asma Wal Sifaat. He hasn’t been comprehensive on the topic as I have been.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you’ve affirmed a belief which is Shirk because you equaled Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation in Asma Wal Sifaat. You said Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowledge is of unlimited in meaning of He knows sees/hears all major/minor happenings in entire creation. This is knowledge of al-Qalam thus brother Abdullah you’ve made al-Qalam equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in knowledge. This is explicit affirmation which leads to charge of Shirk. You also have said to believe it is Shirk to believe deceased saints know, see, hear everything taking place on earth. This leads to deduction you equaled Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to knowledge of His creation. This I believe resulted because of your wonky principles.

034 - Shirk Of Asma Wal Sifaat Is Warranted On Basis Of Absolute Equality:

Sunni: Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat is warranted by elevating a creation’s attributes to such  degree of perfection that there remains no difference in between attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His creation. Examples for better understanding. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Living, and some of His creation is living but there is no Shirk. Why? Because we don’t affirm equality in Living. We believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is al-Hayy bil-Zaat (the Living due His own self) and we believe His creation is al-Hayy bil-Ardh (living status has been conferred) by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Now if a creation believes Prophet Jesus is al-Hayy bil-Zaat then the Christian has committed major Shirk because he has affirmed for a creation what should only be believed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: We believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Sami/Baseer (hearing/seeing) from eternity and will be to eternity. And if same belief of eternity is affirmed for hearing/seeing of Prophet Jesus, like Christians do, then Christians are worse type of Mushrikeen, even worse in Shirk then Mushrikeen of Arabia. Pagan Arabs committed Shirk in Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, and committed Shirk in their acts of worship but they did not believe their gods were duplicates of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Zaat, Sifaat, or Afaal. Where as the Christians believe Prophet Jesus, and Holy Spirit (Gibraeel alayhis salam) are perfect duplicates of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in their Zaat (essence), Sifaat (attributes), and Afaal (actions). To sum it up, Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat occurs when a creation is made a Twin of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in attribute/attributes. In other words a attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is photo-copied applied upon a creation, and it is believed this creation has no difference in this attribute, or these attributes when compared to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then Shirk in attributes has occurred. End.

Sunni: Your methodology of determining major Shirk of attributes is massively and completely flawed. What I suggest is you take bit of time and think about how Shirk should be determined in line with Quran/Ahadith. Done.

Salafi: This is too much to absorb in one go. I am will have to read it in my own time think about it.

Umar: That isn’t bad idea brother Abdullah.

035 - How Will Shirk Be Established Against Those Who Believe Unequal Gods:

Salafi: I read what you wrote but there are some issues which make it difficult for me to agree with your point of view [i.e. absolute equality between Creator’s and creation’s attributes establishes Shirk]. Greeks believed Zeus was not almighty powerful in attributes but had limited capabilities like other gods of Greeks. How are they guilty of Shirk according to your understanding of Shirk?

Sunni: Greeks would not be charged with Shirk of attributes because simply they are not guilty of Shirk in attributes. We believe Christians are guilty of Shirk in attributes because they have given attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to Prophet Jesus. Greeks are guilty of Shirk because they affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods/Ilahs. Even though there is no equality in attributes but they have affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for their gods and as such they dedicated acts of worship to them.

Sunni: Important thing to remember is when Shirk is obvious for example explicit affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah then we have no reason to argue over if x, y, z, is guilty of Shirk or not. Sunnis and Salafis argue over if we have committed Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat because we don’t affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for deceased saints. In absence of clear affirmation of these beliefs you’re forced to deduce and reason, on basis of your principles, that we the Sunnis are guilty of ‘Shirk’. And we counter by saying Shirk is based on absolute equality. When absolute equality is established between creation/Creator then creation is elevated to status of an Ilah/Rabb. In absence of explicitly affirmed and implicitly deduced Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah your charge of Shirk is invalid. In other words you try to establish we affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for Nabi/Wali but indirectly and we refute this allegation.

Umar: Brother Ali is way ahead of us in understanding of Tawheed and Shirk. Are you satisfied with the answer Brother Abdullah?

Salafi: First paragraph makes sense but second has confused me. He said we try to establish Sufis believe in Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah of deceased saints. I have never ever intended this, or even thought I need to prove Sufis are in a round-about way guilty of affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah when they ask for help etc.

036 - Shirk Is Judged On Basis Of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah In All Cases:

Sunni: Brother Shirk fundamentally is affirming a creation to be an Ilah/Rabb. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has not mentioned Shirk of attributes. Whenever Shirk is mentioned it is in meaning of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. In Quran there is no division of Tawheed/Shirk as we have categorized each. We have divided Tawheed/Shirk in parts to better understand each. To establish Shirk we need to establish Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. If it is clearly, emphatically, outwardly affirmed/believed Jesus is God then we charge/establish Shirk on basis of that affirmation. On other hand if Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is not affirmed as explicitly stated earlier then we look if person has beliefs which indicate indirect/deduced Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Suppose Amr believes Shia was from eternity, will be to eternity,  Shia is self-existing, not dependent upon anyone, and everyone is dependent upon him, Shia knows past, present, future, and the possible, probable, and the impossible etc. We will deduce even though Amr does not explicitly affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for Shia he does so indirectly because these beliefs are only to be affirmed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When qualities/attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are affirmed for a creation even without explicit affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah we deduce Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah on basis of affirmed qualities/attributes and charge Shirk.

Umar: Nicely explained.

Salafi: I concur.

Sunni: Jazakallah khayr.

037 - Discussion On A Tangent And Miracles Means Powers Of Rububiyyah:

Sunni: There are two subjects we can debate on. One a tangent of discussion which has just ended and other is something which I have planned to spar with you for a while.

Salafi: What are those?

Sunni: We can discuss your statement; you/Sunnis are guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah but not Asma Wal Sifaat because you affirm powers of Rububuiyyah for deceased saints. Or we can discuss Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) exercising powers of Rububiyyah by creating birds, giving life to dead, healing sick/lepers.

038 - How I Keep Track Of Things And Never Forget Anything:

Salafi: How the hell do you keep track of discussion? I can’t bloody recall what I was saying ten minutes ago.

Umar: That’s what I am wondering also. Brother Ali kept track of our discussion and what we agreed to discuss later. Even after a week he would remember what needs to be discussed. How?

Sunni: I have word document open, I make notes discussion under sections: need to respond to following, find evidence for, tangents agreed to discuss later, [Abdullah] contradicted Salafi scholarship, honest mistakes, agreed with following, wrong belief attributed to Ahlus Sunnah and …

Sunni: Nearly a fifty percent of your content goes into some kind of heading especially during Q&A session. I keep adding, and deleting as required. This all enables me to keep track of discussion and aware of what was said by you guys and me.

039 - Brother Umar’s Contradiction And Clarification:

Salafi: Explains. What did I say which contradicted Salafi scholarship?

Sunni: Nothing! I am using headings I created while I and brother Umar were discussing Istighathah.

Umar: What did I say against Salafiyyah?

Sunni: You said, Ahlus Sunnah is guilty of Shirk in Uluhiyyah but not in Rububiyyah. Traditional Salafi accusation has been we’re guilty of Shirk in Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah.

Umar: I haven’t read this in any book.

Sunni: In light of Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah and how Shirk is judged Sunni belief deceased Awliyah provide help/material in time of need is Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Umar: I knew in Salafi understanding Sufis are guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah. I can’t recall saying it though but if I did then I only said your side wasn’t guilty of Shirk Rububiyyah because I hadn’t read Salafi scholarship say the same. Your side has been accused of worshipping graves and deceased saints but as far as I am aware never of Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Sunni: I don’t think this was the case.

Umar: I didn’t want to say something which the scholars haven’t said and get caught out. I was thinking path of scholars is researched and refined in light of evidences so if I deviate from it I will make mistake.

Sunni: Jazakallah khayr.

[A4 page worth of chat had to be removed because, one, it didn’t talk topic, two, it was between me and brother Umar. Brother Abdullah decided to leave early.]

040 - Actual Topic And Agree To Discuss Miracles Warrant Rububiyyah Or Not:

Salafi: Why was Shaykh al-Bani forced to leave Saudi Arabia? Testing your knowledge of internal Salafi issues because if you was Salafi you would know it.

Sunni: Shaykh al-Bani had criticized Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab of being heavy handed in his Takfir, weak in Hadith, generally Hanbali Madhab and Taqleed. He also ‘coined’ the term Salafi. His position was anyone following a Madhab including Hanbali wasn’t/can’t be a Salafi because they are constrained by rules of their Madhab where as a Salafi is only constrained by Quran/Hadith. He had also expressed other controversial opinions but the one which likely ensured his expulsion from Saudi Arabia was he said in line with Ahadith; Amir has to be from Quraish. And we all known Saudi Wahhabiyyah isn’t ruled by descendants of Bani Quraish.

Sunni: No more riddles bro. I am not answering questions about, if I was Salafi or not, its beginning to anger me.

Salafi: Sorry bro. I and brother Umar in private decided me/you should discuss subject; if miracles warrant Rububiyyah, or not? What do you say?

Sunni: I agree to.

041 - Giving My Opinion With Regards To If Miracles Warrant Rububiyyah:

Sunni: What is your stance on the subject?

Salafi: Brother, you go first.

Sunni: Should I speak in context of Sunni or Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah?

Salafi: Both.

Sunni: OK.

Sunni: According to Sunni definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) bringing dead back to life, breathing life in clay figurines, healing lepers is not laying claim to any part of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah therefore not Shirk. Do I need to provide reasoning behind it?

Salafi: What you said is enough. What about in Salafi methodology?

Sunni: In your [Salafi/Wahhabi] understanding of Tawheed/Shirk of Rububiyyah Prophets are employing powers of Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This amounts to Shirk in Rububiyyah.

042 - Salafi Brother, Miracle Allah’s Action, It Materializes With His Permission/Power:

Salafi: You’re wrong. Your judgment would have been correct if Prophets were performing supernatural acts. You don’t know Salafi position about miracles. The miracle is performed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Prophet does not give life to dead, or heal sick, or split the moon, or make water come out of his fingers. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs miracles through His Prophets so are not utilizing powers of Rububiyyah instead He is exercising His Rububiyyah due to them.

Sunni: In other words Prophets only put a show that they are performing miracle but in reality Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs miracle to aid His Prophet while prophets pretend to perform miracle?

Salafi: You have grasped the idea correctly but I don’t like how you worded it.

Sunni: What you believe about miracles is not typical Salafi belief and you no support from Quran/Hadith. Even a Salafi will tell you that your belief is an evil innovation. Only evidence of this innovation you will find is in Bible.

Salafi: Bible? I haven’t even read Bible.

Sunni: Your belief is peddled by some scholars of Deobandi sect. And some Salafi Jahillab (Jahil + Tullab) say the same but no Salafi scholar said/wrote this. You can prove me wrong of course.

[I have said, no Salafi scholar said miracle is action of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, and I repeated this number of times in coming discussion but I was wrong. In my Salafi days I did not hold to this Salafi belief this is the reason for assuming all Salafis had same belief as me.]

Salafi: I can prove it from Quran [that miracle is Allah’s action and not Prophet’s].

Sunni: Your position is that Prophet’s miracle is not action of a Prophet. Prophet doesn’t utilize Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) powers of Rububiyyah because miracle is action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but it is performed by Him when a Prophet, or Rasool, wishes/supplicates/desires? And you believe because of this a Prophet does not become partner in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Salafi: 100% agreed.

Sunni: What is your proof for this?

Salafi: There is so much evidence in Quran/Sunnah in support of my belief I don’t know where to start.

Sunni: I take your word for it for now but I will get back to you. I need time to study this.

[I had to read two books regarding this dispute to prepare for next Saturday and Sunday’s discussion. The most important and comprehensive was, Hadyat ul-Ahbab Fi al-Tassarafaat Ma Fawq ul-Asbab, here, shortly named as Noor e Hidayat. And another book also in Urdu, Aftab e Hidayat Bajawab Rah e Hidayat, here.]

043 - Mojzah/Karamah Proof Of Rububiyyah If Salafi Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah Correct:

Sunni: You believe in Karamah of Awliyah?

Salafi: Ahlus Sunnah believe in Karamah of Awliyah but not what Mushriks have exaggerated about Tawagheet.

Sunni: If it is proven that Nabi performs miracle – meaning -  it is his action and his intention plays part in it, would that mean Nabi is Rabb also? What fault/contradiction would this establish in your understanding?

Salafi: Hmm … It would prove my understanding of subject was wrong.

Sunni: What you mean by that?

Salafi: I mean! My understanding that, Prophet’s miracle would warrant partnership in Rububiyyah, would be wrong.

Sunni: If I was speaking for Salafis I would say; the definition of Tawheed/Shirk al-Rububiyyah would be proven incorrect.

Salafi: No, it [the Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk] wouldn’t [be proven incorrect] because then we will have proof that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted a Prophet/Messenger to perform miracle. Quran/Hadith provide us with evidence of miracles therefore they cannot lead to Shirk [in Rububiyyah]. Further more Rabb is not dependent upon another therefore Prophet wouldn’t be proven Rabb.

Sunni: (i) There are many false dependent Ilahs/gods then there can be dependent Rabbs/lords. Only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is independent Ilah and Rabb. All other false are believed as dependents except Jesus. Therefore your last statement is not defense. (ii) You also seem to be saying because there would be permission for Prophets to perform miracles and there is evidence for them hence it would not amount to partnership in Rububiyyah [even if the miracle was indeed their action and not of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala]. Is that correct?

Salafi: Yes! As long as there is evidence that a Prophet performed this miracle we will exclude it from Rububiyyah because this will prove Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) excluded these miracles from His Rububiyyah.

Sunni: And any miracle attributed to a Prophet/Messenger in absence of evidence of Quran/Hadith would prove it is part of Rububiyyah?

Salafi: Yes.

Sunni: Shall I refute your understanding here or later?

Salafi: Say what you want to.

Sunni: Karamat of Awliyah are true and you and I believe them.

Salafi: We do.

Sunni: Suppose. Yesterday ShaykhX with 100% authentic creed according to Salaf and action according to Quran/Sunnah performs a Karamah. There is no evidence of it in Quran/Sunnah nor proof that Karamah ShaykhX performed is with His permission. Those who saw it believe in it as Karamah. Report has reached you through multiple chains, via all truthful and reliable people of knowledge. Is ShaykhX Rabb and those who believe in his Karamah attributing to him powers of Rububiyyah thus committing Shirk?

Salafi: I don’t know.

044 - Brother Umar Delivers The Truthful And Just Verdict:

Sunni: Brother you know very well. Brother Umar whatever you say I will accept your verdict.

Umar: I will not answer question on behalf of brother Abdullah but I will resolve the dispute if brother Abdullah accepts my mediation.

Salafi: I will agree to any verdict which you can back-up with evidence. Smile.

Umar: I don’t know if I will be able to offer any evidence but my insight and understanding is at your mercy.

Salafi: In absence of evidence decision to accept/reject your judgment is upon if I can corroborate your judgment.

Umar: In response to your two justifications (i.e. why miracles don’t result in partnership in Rububiyyah) brother Ali said; Rububiyyah isn’t based on independence only but it can be and has been of dependence upon supreme God/Rabb; and I [Umar] agree with what he [Ali] said. I want to add to this; no amount of evidence and expressed permission takes a miracle out of Rububiyyah. In short Prophets performing miracles means partnership in Rububiyyah. And of course this is against understanding of Quran/Sunnah therefore if it was proven miracle is action of Prophet then Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk of Rububiyyah would be incorrect.

Sunni: Smile. Jazakallah Khayr.

Salafi: I already new you will take his side.

Umar: Brother I am not taking sides. He broke both of your conditions on which you was averting Rububiyyah from Mojzah and Karamah. You had choice to face the natural but ugly consequences of Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah or accept Salafi understandings on these subjects is wrong. Frankly you’re going against the grain.

Sunni: I second what brother Umar said. Brother truth is you’re beginning to make-up Salafism as you go.

Umar: All this discussion was based on hypothetical scenario. Brother Abdullah was going to present evidence that miracle is action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

045 - Linguistic Meaning Of Word Mojzah And It’s To Discussion Relevance:

Sunni: The word Mojzah is derivative of word I’jaz and I’jaz is from Ajz. Ajz means unable, inability, humbling. I’jaz means to humble someone, to establish inability over something. Mojizah has same meaning as I’jaz. I am sure you already know this but I want to begin with a common ground.

Salafi: Agreed!

Sunni: True miracle is something against natural law and order of universe. And it is not in realm of probable and not even possible in natural law/order of universe. Thus occurrence of a Mojzah/Karamah incapacitates observer. You agree?

Salafi: Agreed! Can I quote my evidence?

Sunni: What is objective of a miracle? What is hoped to achieved through a miracle?\

Salafi: To dominate and to humble falsehood.

Sunni: Of course, but isn’t miracle performed as a proof of Prophet-hood?

Salafi: Yes!

Sunni: Mojiza is performed by Nabi? And Karamah performed by Wali?

Salafi: I would say yes to – by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) through a Prophet and Karamah performed through a Wali.

Sunni: Through, you mean Nabi/Wali does/says something and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manifests His supernatural power of Mojiza/Karamah due to that action?

Salafi: Yes! Can I now quote my evidence?

Sunni: Brilliant! You’re welcome!

046 - Salafi, Allah Cooled Fire For Prophet Ibrahim, Miracle From Him:

Salafi: When Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) was thrown into pit of fire then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cooled fire: “They said: ‘Burn him and support your gods - if you are to act.’ Allah said: ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham.’ And they intended for him harm, but We made them the greatest losers.” [Ref: 21:68/70] This proves miracle is in control of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You can respond now if you like.

Sunni: Quote all you need to because my response likely will be comprehensive.

Salafi: This is enough to support my stance.

Sunni: OK! I need time to look into verse, context, Tafasir, and gather my thoughts before I respond.

Salafi: Refute me now.

Sunni: I can’t just respond without having proper understanding verse. Whenever I respond to something which I haven’t dealt before I end up making mistakes. And these errors I will correct in time but the misguidance will remain on internet, maybe long after I am gone, adding to my sin even after my account of deeds has ceased. Even for unintentional misguidance and innovation Tulab (students) and Ulamah (scholars) we will be held accountable except Mujtahid and Mujadid. I have to study.

Salafi: Appreciate it.

047 - Is There Need For Prophet’s Natural Action For Allah To Perform Supernatural:

Sunni: Before I leave I have one question: If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs the supernatural action and Nabi performs the natural action then what is there need for Nabi’s natural action? Is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) unable to perform supernatural without Nabi striking the water of sea, or blowing on the clay figure?

Salafi: I have already quoted: “They said: ‘Burn him and support your gods - if you are to act.’ Allah said: ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham.’ And they intended for him harm, but We made them the greatest losers.” [Ref: 21:68/70] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to perform miracles without a Prophet’s intervention.

Sunni: I am not saying Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is unable to perform miracle/supernatural without a Prophet’s natural action. Read again.

Salafi: Prophets are instructed to perform actions and they do as instructed.

Sunni: Try to understand brother Abdullah. My understanding is that if a Nabi performs natural action and his natural action has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural that manifested through action then the natural action of blowing on clay figure, or striking the sea water itself is just an empty act, showmanship, act drama, similar to lip-sync. Miracle is act of deception and deception does not befit majesty of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor of a Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Salafi: There is nothing deceptive about miracles. Brother Umar he is insulting Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophets. This is not acceptable and dangerous statement.

Umar: He has based his judgment based on your understanding of miracles. Theoretically brother Ali is actually insinuating it is your belief that warrants insult of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Your point will be justified [that Muhammed Ali is insulting …] if your belief is in accordance with Quran/Sunnah. We haven’t determined who is upon truth [in regards to whose action is miracle] so I am in no position to make judgment against any of you.

Sunni: I wrote that in context of your belief and explained to you the problem that arises from it. Look at the context brother Abdullah.

Salafi: Sorry! I didn’t read all of it sequentially. You write short statements but part of a longer sentence. I keep loosing track of what you’re writing. Your misunderstood paragraph came in 9 short messages. Not punctuated at all. Makes it difficult to follow what you’re saying. On top of that your paragraph is disguised as a single sentence and that doesn’t help either.

Sunni: Laughed at paragraph disguised as a sentence. There are two things I want to say before I leave.

Salafi: Go on.

Sunni: (i) Regardless of whose belief about miracles is wrong and whose is right. None would be guilty of insulting Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Prophets (peace be upon them). Neither of us has explicitly said Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messengers (peace be upon them) would be guilty of deception. Nor we have indirectly said this. Rather this is deduced/inferred from my/your belief which goes against Quran/Sunnah. And depending upon whose belief is invalid he would be guilty of sinful and evil innovation but not of Kufr. Insulting Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or any of His Messengers (peace be upon them) is act of Kufr. (ii) Secondly you believe the action performed by Prophets in a miracle is performed in command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so He can perform the supernatural through it. And I believe if this is the case then action of Prophet would be pointless and not needed. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able over supernatural without an action of Prophet. He would not have instructed the Prophet to perform action if it had nothing to do with the supernatural. And I therefore believe the outward action of Prophet, breathing on clay figure of bird, had in it essence of life. Salam alaykum.

048 - Responding To Incident Of Prophet Ibrahim Being Thrown In Pit Of Fire:

Sunni: (i) “Allah said: ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham. And they intended for him harm, but We made them the greatest losers.” [Ref: 21:69/70] We need to analyze the verse in context. Verses that proceed indicate Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is counting favors, blessings, mercy he bestowed to Prophets, and even saved Prophets from calamities: “And to Lot We gave judgment and knowledge, and We saved him from the city that was committing wicked deeds. Indeed, they were a people of evil, defiantly disobedient.” [Ref: 21:74] “And (mention) Noah, when he called (to Allah) before (that time), so We responded to him and saved him and his family from the great flood. And We saved him from the people who denied Our signs. Indeed, they ...” [Ref: 21:76/77] From verse 78 to 82 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions favors/blessings He bestowed upon Prophet Dawud (alayhis salam) and Sulayman (alayhis salam) using: We were witness … We gave understanding … We gave judgment knowledge … We subjected mountains …We taught him … We are all aware … We were their guardian. In verses 83/84 once again Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions removing adversity from Prophet Yaqub (alayhis salam😞 “And (mention) Job, when he called to his Lord: ‘Indeed, adversity has touched me, and you are the Most Merciful of the merciful.’ So We responded to him and removed what afflicted him of adversity.” [Ref: 21:83/84] Then story of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) is mentioned and how Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) saved his life: “And (mention) the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree (anything) upon him. And he called out within the darknesses: ‘There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers.’  So We responded to him and saved him from the distress. And thus do We save the believers.” [Ref: 21:87/88] Up to verse 91 Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions his blessings he bestowed upon Prophets and Maryam (alayhis salam). And reveals how in their difficulties He saved their lives against impossible odds. And then says: “Indeed this, your nation is one one, and I am your Lord, so worship Me.” [Ref: 21:92] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) mentions Prophets, mentions blessings, favors He bestowed upon them, instructions of worship, charity He gave them, also stated how He saved their lives, and then concludes saying the Ummah of former Prophets and Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is one nation – in sense that they have Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as their Lord and worship is His right. And just as nations of former Prophets were bestowed with blessings and were protected from His wrath due to their right belief/actions the Ummah of last Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) will be protected and provided too. This analysis reveals the objective of verse 69 is not to declare who performs the miracle rather it is in wider context in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reveals how He provides and protects Prophets and their righteous followers from calamities and how nations of all Prophets are in reality just one single nation.

Sunni: (ii) There are many examples in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) directs action of a creation to Himself: “And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, (O Muhammad), when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.” [Ref: 8:17] Even though Muslims and angels killed the disbelievers Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) explicitly negates that they did it. Similarly the action of throwing dust was action performed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says he did not. Even though there is explicit negation we still believe creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed the actions but there was input from the Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Comparatively the verse in discussion doesn’t even negate involvement of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) yet despite this you believe Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) played no role in the miracle: “Allah said: ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham. And they intended for him harm, but We made them the greatest losers.” [Ref: 21:69/70] Even if there were explicit negation of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) performing miracle it would have been reconcilable in light of quoted verse.

Sunni: (iii) There are two routes we can take in regards to incident of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) being thrown in pit of fire; one it is not a miracle, two it is a miracle and in case of second we will have to infer absent information from other parts of Quran. (iiiA) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) saw hell/paradise and was able to feel heat of hell. He was in position to take bunch of grapes from paradise: “They (his Companions) said: Messenger of Allah, we saw you reach out to something, while you were standing here, then we saw you restrain yourself. He said: I saw Paradise and reached out to a bunch of its grapes; and had I taken it you would have eaten of it as long as the world endured. I saw Hell also. No such (abominable) sight have I ever seen as that which I saw today; and I observed that most of its inhabitants were women.” [Ref: Bukhari, B4, H1982, here.] Loosely is miracle but technically it is not miracle. It was only something which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) experienced and for disbelievers this does not amount to valid evidence supporting his claim of Prophet-hood. Secondly Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not initiate the event rather Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed him what was promised hence it was not a miracle: “… and then said: ‘These (lunar and solar eclipses) are two of the signs of Allah and if you see them, pray till the eclipse is over. No doubt, while standing at this place I saw everything promised to me by Allah and I saw (Paradise) and I wanted to pluck a bunch (of grapes) therefrom, at the time when you saw me stepping forward. No doubt, I saw Hell with its different parts destroying each other when you saw me retreating and in it I saw `Amr bin Luhai who started the tradition of freeing animals (set them free) in the name of idols.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B22, H303, here.] Loosely we term this event as a miracle but in true sense of miracle it isn’t a miracle. Coming back to incident of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam), if he played no role, i.e. didn’t say fire be cool. Instead Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) commanded the fire to be cool purely on His own initiative in this context it is technically not miracle. Miracle is performed by Prophet, as you and I agree, as a proof of Prophet-hood and to support truthfulness of religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). It was not miracle just as Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) seeing hell/paradise is not miracle. Rather demonstration of Allah’s power of Rububiyyah. Miracles need a Nabi and audience to witness the miracle. Absence of anyone of two and there was no miracle.

Sunni: (ivBi) I believe it is a miracle which Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) performed but details of entire event have been omitted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Hadith records Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) uttered following words when he was thrown in fire: “Narrated Ibn `Abbas: 'Allah is Sufficient for us and He Is the Best Disposer of affairs," was said by Abraham when he was thrown into the fire; and it was said by Muhammad …” [Ref: Bukhari, B60, H86, here.] Why details were omitted was explained in part (i). It maybe possible to reconstruct details of event but to do that I need to build a base first. (ivBii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) performed these actions by My permission: “… so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing, wisdom, the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you made out of the clay, as it were, the figure of a bird by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My Permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) ...’“ [Ref: 5:110] Underlined part of verse indicates even ordinary actions are subject to His permission and not just supernatural type. In another verse Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) says he performed all the miracles by Allah’s permission: “And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s permission; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I bring the dead to life by Allah’s permission. And I inform you of what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you believe.” [Ref: 3:49] This establishes events take place due to permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). (ivBiii) It is likely that when the Mushrikeen threw Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) into pit of fire then Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) instructed the fire, O fire be cool by Allah’s permission, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave permission to fire to be cool by saying: “Allah said: ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham.’” [Ref: 21:69] In this context the words of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are not instruction but confirmation of what Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) ordered and His permission to fire to be cool.

[End of pre-written content.]

049 - Allah Created Supernatural And Gave It To Prophets To Perform Miracles:

Umar: Salam. Brother Ali I only read the last part ivBi to ivBiii so my comment will be only about that part. To be honest with you, your reasoning is well established, but absence of explicit evidence weakens your explanation. If there was evidence in Quran/Hadith stating Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) uttered these words then your explanation would have been believable.

Salafi: Had Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) did say, O fire be cool by permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), it would not be evidence that he performed the miracle. Rather this evidence would have proven that miracle is action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because His permission was needed for fire to be cool.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you said Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permission would mean miracle is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not action of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) makes a figure of clay bird with Allah’s permission and then breathes into it life by Allah’s permission: “… the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you made out of the clay, as it were, the figure of a bird by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and ...’“ [Ref: 5:110] This reveals natural action and supernatural action both are performed because of His permission. (i) Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) creates bird from clay by Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permission. Who performed the action of making clay figure of bird? You can’t deny this; it was Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). (ii) Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) then breathed life into the clay figure with intent and purpose of it becoming a bird. Who breathed life into figure of bird Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or Prophet Isa (alayhis salam)? Once again, just as figure of bird was created by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) the life was breathed into figure by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Action of miracle was of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam).

Umar: That doesn’t prove the supernatural power came from Prophet Isa (alayhis salam).

Sunni: I didn’t say this proved that. I explained how actions are of creation even after permission is granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)  granted.

050 - Who Creates Supernatural Of Miracle And How The Miracle Is Action Of Prophet:

Umar: Did Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) create life for clay figurines after permission from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Sunni: Life and all means of life, including soul, are created by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) had the authority to utilize what He created. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created life in body, life of soul, including lamb, onions, tomatoes, garlic, ginger, salt, chili powder, green peppers, mushroom, fresh coriander etc. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) gave you/me to authority/power to utilize them to make Lamb Karahi. Authority/Power has been granted to us to utilize what He created. And this principle applies to natural and supernatural. All things are created by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Ordinary people are given power/authority over ordinary matters but Anbiyah/Awliyah have been granted authority/power to utilize supernatural means when and as needed. Just as natural actions are ours supernatural actions including miracles are actions of Anbiyah and Awliyah.

Salafi: I have no problem with what you have said there. This understanding fully agrees with understanding of Tawheed.

Sunni: Finally we agree.

Salafi: I didn’t say I agree. I don’t have problem with that because it agrees with understanding of Tawheed and doesn’t warrant Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Sunni: We will get to that if it agrees, or disagrees with your/Salafi version of Tawheed ar-Rububiyyah.

051 - Brother Abdullah Is Confused And Worried:

Sunni: You believed that Prophet performs natural action and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed the supernatural. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) breathing on clay figurine but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs the supernatural action and gave the bird life. That’s your belief. My belief is supernatural was created by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and He granted power/authority it to Prophet to utilize it via an action. And therefore the natural action of Prophet contains in it supernatural. Breathing on the clay figure of bird was not just breathing on it but it was the very essence of supernatural. Hence the action of miracle is of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam).

Salafi: Brother Umar I have never been confused about Deen until having this discussion. I don’t know what to believe and what to think. I have lost my sense of right and wrong while discussing with brother Ali.

Sunni: Quite while back when I argued according to Salafi understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) exercised powers of Rububiyyah. You responded saying; miracles are performed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is exercising His power of Rububiyyah through a Prophet and not Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). I knew principally according to Salafiyyah Rububiyyah was being exercised by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) but I had no answer to your logic that miracle is action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You caught me totally unprepared. Your argument was so good that you actually caused me to doubt my understanding of Salafiyyah. To remedy the problems. Within the Salafi frame work of Rububiyyah, I built ground up, the entire argument of miracles equals Shirk in Rububiyyah. And then I read two books in five days to be able to answer why miracle isn’t action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Eight to ten hours of reading each day. Anyhow confusions and doubts plague everyone but you have to combat them through supplication and learning.

Salafi: How do you reconcile your understanding with incident of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) then? That is clear proof that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed the miracle.

Umar: That is exactly what I was thinking about asking him.

Sunni: I will take the longer route so you will have wait until I am done. I will Email it to you both.

Salafi: OK!

052 - Difference Between Miracles Prophetic And Supernatural Power Rububiyyah:

Sunni: (i) In Quran it is recorded Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) questioned how will creation be bought back to life after their death decomposition etc. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) asked him to take two birds, train them to respond to his call, slaughter them, mince meat them, mix the mince meat on two mountains, and call them:  “And (mention) when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." Said: "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but only that my heart may be satisfied." Said: "Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then (after slaughtering them) put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come to you in haste. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." [Ref: 2:260] Here Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) called upon the birds with desire of seeing how their life would be restored and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted him the powers which enabled him to perform this miracle. Even though there is no mention of bi-iznillah in these verses we believe and affirm that he performed this miracle bi-iznillah.

Sunni: (ii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated a member in court of Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam) brought throne of Balqis in blinking of an eye: “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 favor 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] Note the person says I will bring it to you before you blink. This establishes power to do so was under his control. It is undeniable that he performed this supernatural feet because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had created this ability, He granted it to His servant, gave His servant the power/authority to employ it as he and when he pleased but knowingly/unknowingly with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) performs natural and supernatural due to His permission: “… so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing, wisdom, the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you made out of the clay, as it were, the figure of a bird by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My Permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) ...’“ [Ref: 5:110] And in contrast Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) says that I perform miracles by Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permission: “And will make him a Messenger to the Children of Israel (saying): “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s permission; and I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I bring the dead to life by Allah’s permission. And I inform you of what you eat, and what you store in your houses. Surely, therein is a sign for you, if you believe.” [Ref: 3:49] And

Sunni: (iv) Coming to incident of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: : “Allah said: ‘O fire, be coolness and safety upon Abraham. And they intended for him harm, but We made them the greatest losers.” [Ref: 21:69/70] Incident of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) if he played absolutely no role then this incident is demonstration of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) supernatural power of Rububiyyah. Linguistically a miracle but not technically. On other hand like me if you believe this incident is only briefly narrated and Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) had played a role like Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) played role in healing of sick, giving life to dead, breathing life in clay figures of birds then miracle is of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have granted him the power and authority to utilize supernatural power which He created. So just as we utilize what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created for us and gave us the power/authority to engage in a action and action is ours in the same way miracle would be action of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam). In conclusion when a Prophet plays no role as the verse establishes then it isn’t prophetic miracle rather it is demonstration of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) supernatural power of Rububiyyah. And if a Prophet intends to perform a miracle and for miracle to materialize he performs an action then it is miracle of Prophet. Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was born without a biological father. This is display of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) supernatural power of Rububiyyah.

053 - Redefining Supernatural Power Rububiyyah As Miracle:

Salafi: With all due respect brother Ali. You’re calling it miracle and then saying it is not miracle in technical sense. Don’t you feel you’re fooling yourself with this?

Sunni: Let us look at it from another perspective then. There are two types of miracles, ones performed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And ones performed by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Ones which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs He does so on His own power/authority and all that He created. And Ones that Prophets perform they do so because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created the supernatural powers and granted them these powers and Prophets employ them with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to perform the miracle. Did you understand this?

Salafi: What is complicated about it?

Sunni: Nothing is complicated about it. You’re just stuck on terminology so I changed it. I made demonstration of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) supernatural power of Rububiyyah into miracle.

Umar: This will help to remove some confusion.

054 - Refuting, Here Miracle Of Allah, There Miracle Of Prophet Is Miracle Of Allah:

Sunni: In one place Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs the miracle, and in the other the Prophet performs miracle and Prophet says I performed it. How does that mean Prophet didn’t perform the miracle? How can you say in this verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed the miracle to save life of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) therefore here Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) performed miracle of breathing life into clay figure but it is still action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Why make this assumption when you can also make the following assumption; miracle here performed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but here it is performed by Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) therefore Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) doesn’t perform the miracle a Prophet does.

Sunni: Your belief is based on logical deduction: Here miracle is action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore every miracle is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Why won’t you make the assumption other way around; here miracle of Prophet therefore every miracle is of Prophet including Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) saving life of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam). You’re perfectly able to make skewed deduction that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs all miracles but some how your skew-ability is unable to see the other side of coin.

Sunni: Ahadith record Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) supernaturally saw hell/paradise and grapes and hell destroying itself and Amr Ibn Luhay. No! He didn’t see these events Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) saw them. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) heard sounds of punishment being inflicted on residents of graves, here, here. No! No! Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) heard the voice not Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because miraculous things only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not Prophets (peace be upon them).

Sunni: Anyhow brother Abdullah you’re distorting miracles of Prophet (peace be upon them) on basis of your logical deduction which is derived from miracles of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And that deduction is: Miracles are performed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in these verses therefore all miracles are performed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) even in those verses. Unless you present clear and emphatic evidence from Quran/Sunnah which states your logic your deduction and Biblical (New Testament) belief is rejected.

055 - Sunni Stance Is Natural Reflection Of Evidence Found In Quran/Sunnah:

Salafi: (i) Why are you demanding type of evidence which you yourself cannot present in support of your belief? (ii) Can you quote me a single verse/Hadith where it is stated miracle are performed by Prophets (peace be upon them) and not by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) through them?

Sunni: (i) You’re saying miracles performed by Prophets (peace be upon them) are not their own actions because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed miracles here/there hence every miracle is His including ones performed by Prophets. (ii) No, I cannot.

Salafi: There you go then. You have no proof either.

Sunni: I don’t need to present any such evidence because I am not distorting reality of miracles of Prophets (peace be upon them) with my Taweels. I am saying ones that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed are actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And ones that Prophets (peace be upon them) performed these are actions of Prophets (peace be upon them). You on other hand are imposing understanding one set of miracles on the other set. You provide proof why your imposition is valid. Why should understanding derived from miracles Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also be true for where the Prophets performed miracle? I don’t want your deduction/rational explanation but evidence from Quran/Hadith. Wait I have more to say.

Sunni: I believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created supernatural means of miracles, then granted these supernatural means to Prophets (peace be upon them), gave the authority and permission to perform the miracle when and as needed. Hence action of miracle is of Prophet performing it. I am leaving the miracles and believing as they have been narrated in Quran/Sunnah. You on other hand have been distorting. Your claim is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence. Mine belief is simple reflection of evidence found in Quran/Hadith and I am under no obligation to do so other then to explain and justify what is obvious from texts.

056 - Salafi Brother, Bi-Iznillahi Understanding Logically Derived Ignoring Context:

Salafi: Prophets have permission from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to perform miracles. How can a Prophet who is dependent upon permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) be performer of miracle, or as you would say supernatural-action! Scholars have always understood words, by Allah’s permission, to mean Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performed the supernatural and Prophet performed the natural action i.e. Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) hitting the water with staff.

Sunni: I have already explained that very act of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) shaping a figurine of bird from clay was also by permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And if action in that part of verse was Prophet Isa’s (alayhis salam) and bi iznillah did not turn actions of making clay figurine into Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then there is no reason to deduce miracle performed with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) turns into action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Salafi: It is based on two different realities. One is based on natural about whom Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) said, by permission of Allah, and second is based on supernatural regarding which he also said by permission of Allah. By giving them same meaning even though they have different ground realities you’re confining Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with boundaries of creation. Worst part is what you said is logical deduction and this is invalid thus rejected.

057 - Establishing Logical Deductions Are Used To Establish Certain Truths:

Sunni: Can attributes and actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) exist out side of His Essence/Zaat?

Salafi: Why you asking this question? It has no relevance to what I said.

Sunni: Answer the question because it does have connection.

Umar: You’re about to get blind sided by brother Ali. Smiles. Seemingly innocent question from him is never innocent, or irrelevant. You’re about to find out how right I am.

Salafi: Smiles. I will answer the question if you put it in context and explain why you asking.

Sunni: Christians believe Jesus is part of God’s Essence who has manifested at an attribute i.e. Savior. Can attribute exist outside of Essence/Zaat? Can hearing exist outside of Zaat/essence which hears or any such attribute? If yes can you quote me evidence of Quran/Sunnah.

Salafi: Characteristics and actions of people exist due to essence because both are dependent upon essence so answer is; no qualities and actions cannot exist outside of Essence.

Sunni: Is this also true for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – His Essence, Attributes and Actions? And the evidence in support of this is?

Salafi: Attributes and Actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) exist due to Essence of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Is this logic true for creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Meaning my attributes and actions exist because of my essence and without essence these two parts of me would not exist independently?

Salafi: Right.

Sunni: Do you have evidence that attributes and actions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cannot exist outside of His Essence? Evidence of Quran/Sunnah.

Salafi: I don’t know [evidence of Quran/Sunnah] but books of Aqeedah have discussed this point.

058 - Refuting Brothers Arguments And Deductions:

Sunni: (i) I explained to you the meaning of bi iznillahi: “And if action in that part of verse was Prophet Isa’s (alayhis salam) and bi iznillah did not turn actions of making clay figurine into Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then there is no reason to deduce miracle performed with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) turns into action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).” Regarding this explanation you said: “Worst part is what you said is logical deduction and this is invalid thus rejected.” This indicates you deem a belief to be invalid and rejected if it is inferred by drawing logical parallel. (ii) You also said: “Characteristics and actions of people exist due to essence because both are dependent upon essence so answer is; no qualities and actions cannot exist outside of Essence.” Yet you have had no problem saying this belief is invalid and rejected because it has been inferred by looking at reality creation and then affirmed for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This selectivism isn’t good trait. Wait brother Abdullah. I have a bit to say.

Sunni: You said: “By giving them same meaning even though they have different ground realities you’re confining Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with boundaries of creation.” You’re unjustly and wrongly accusing me of this. I did not limit/restrict power of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by arguing that if bi iznillahi for natural-actions translates to mean actions are of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) then words, bi iznillahi, in context of supernatural translate to mean miracles were actions of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). Where did I say, or insinuate what you have alleged? All I did was to interpret and determined the true understanding of words, bi iznillahi, and nothing else.

Sunni: You said: “It is based on two different realities.” Two different realities was reference to occurrence words bi iznillah in two contexts i.e. natural and supernatural. You’re insinuating both usage bi iznillahi require separate explanation because both are employed in two different contexts. My response is that even if we do factor natural and supernatural contexts the understanding would not be any different. Because we are trying to determine implications of words bi iznillahi. To understand bi iznillahi we don’t need any context – not natural, not supernatural. One can determine implication of words bi iznillahi in total isolation – without putting them into any context i.e. natural/supernatural. Nothing changes because meaning of these words is not dependent upon context. Context would come into play if these words were attributes or actions. Like word seeing is attribute. When it is used for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it does not mean seeing with aid of light etc. When it is used for creation or in context of a creation then it means seeing with aid of sunlight, eyes and toward a direction. For context to effect meaning it has to be a description, quality, action, characteristic of some sort which phrase bi iznillahi is not. Lastly we are not making judgment about two different realities discussed in the verse rather words bi iznillahi. The two realities are unique in their own way and if we were making judgment about them we would say they are completely different matters from each other. Judgment is in regards to meaning and understanding of phrase bi iznillahi and this remains unaffected by two different realities you hinted at. I don’t understand why you think natural/supernatural contexts would alter the meaning of words bi iznillah.

Salafi: You finished brother?

Sunni: You can respond.

Salafi: There is no need to refute anything you said because its your own understanding without shred of evidence.

059 - Scholarly Evidence In Support Of Orthodox Understanding Of Miracles:

Umar: Any evidence from Tafsir?

Sunni: ’I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I design for you out of clay, a figure like that of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave.’ “These are the miracles that Isa performed; he used to make the shape of a bird from clay and blow into it, and it became a bird by Allah's leave. Allah made this a miracle for `Isa to testify that He had sent him.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 3:49, here.] In Tafsir al-Jalalayn the Imams said: “So he created for them a bat being the most perfectly-created of birds and they would watch it flying but when it went out of sight it would fall dead — so that the work of a creature sc. Jesus may be distinguished from the work of the Creator namely God exalted be He and that he might know that perfection belongs to God alone.” [Ref: Tafsir al-Jalalayn, 3:49, here.] Take note of underlined because it indicates miracle was action of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and it would not live for long but fall down dead as soon as it flew out of sight. Indicating what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created lasts and what His Nabi (peace be upon him) created dies within moments. This clearly establishes according to Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (rahimullah) miracle were actions of Prophets that is why according to him what Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) created did not last but vanished as soon as it was out of sight. And he said this to make distinction between what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) creates and what His Nabi creates.

Umar: Brother Abdullah I think the arguments brother Ali presented along side evidence of these Tafasir prove his point is stronger then what you have argued so far.

Sunni: I have content in support of my position belonging to Imam Fakhr al-Din Raazi (rahimullah), Sharh Sahih Muslim of Imam Nawavi (rahimullah), Sharh Sahih ul-Bukhari of Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimullah).

Salafi: What did Imam Nawavi (rahimullah) and Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) say in regards to this issue?

Sunni: I don’t have direct confirmation from his Sharh but content is quoted a Urdu book, Noor e Hidayat.

Salafi: What does he say?

Sunni: I will quote it if I am not burdened to provide scanned image proof of quote from a published book.

Salafi: As long as there is reference where it was taken it is OK. I will find it myself.

Sunni: In that case I will do one better. Give me few minutes and I will be back. Back! All references are in Arabic. You can check page numbers, here.

Salafi: Arabic will do.

Sunni: Imam Raazi’s 248/249, 250, Imam Ghazali’s 251, Imam Zarqani’s 252, Imam Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani’s 252, Imam Nawavi’s 257/258, 268, 269, Imam Badr al-Din Ayni’s 270/271, Imam Qastalani’s 271.

Salafi: I will be back in an hour or so. We will chat if you’re still online.

Umar: I am online for a little while but I need to retire have to start early shift.

Sunni: Read Imam Nawavi’s (rahimullah) statement bit more closely. He actually references people who have professed your belief but indicates this is not orthodox belief. Nah! It is enough for today. Tomorrow is Monday and I have to get weekly shopping. If I am then we will chat.

Salafi: Back bro. All I want to say is we follow Quran, Sunnah and understanding of Salaf as-Saliheen. The evidence you provided is not from Salaf and I can’t accept.

Sunni: Did you even read what they wrote?

Salafi: I read what Imam Ibn Hajr (rahimullah) said and Imam Nawavi (rahimullah). The rest of them are open Ashari deviants.

Sunni: Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani (rahimullah) and Imam Nawavi (rahimullah) both were orthodox Ashari scholars. Smile.

Salafi: They made mistakes in Ijtihad and we over look their errors as we suppose to in regards to Mujtahid. We lay no blame of sin nor condemn them. Shaykh Ibn Baaz (rahimullah) and others hold same position with regards to them.

Sunni: I am satisfied with what I have said so far on this topic and believe it is sufficient material on basis which you can decide where truth is. You can empty your quiver on this topic. Go.

Salafi: Out of references you provided, Imam Nawavi (rahimullah) clearly said there are two views about this subject. Minority opinion is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) performs the miracle. Majority hold to view that miracle is performed in totality by Prophets/Awliyah but with power provided by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). From this I have deduced that scholars those who adhered to Salafiyyah were minority then and are minority now. I will adhere to Salaf and Salafiyyah.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said follow the majority and even Quran states Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will establish the religion of those who believe correctly and do righteous deeds and give them successor-ship on land and these are Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah the majority. Tiny minority isn’t successors of those who believed and did righteous deeds.

Salafi: What Quranic verse you quoting?

Sunni: See Surah Noor (24) Verse 55.The Ayah says those who follow Quran/Sunnah and the Jammah their religion will be dominant one and established. And if you doubt me read Tafsir Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) till the end and take note of last part of his Tafsir, here.

Salafi: What does he say?

Sunni: I have nothing to add brother. Allah Hafiz. We will chat Saturday on our usual time.

Salafi: Wait I will check. I glanced through the Tafsir. This Ayah was revealed in context of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and companions. Nothing about Ayah being revealed about Quran/Sunnah and Jammah.

Sunni: Have you gone through all of it?

Salafi: I did.

Sunni: Thank you. I don’t think I can add any value to this topic [of miracles] so discussion my side has ended.

060 - Discussion With Umar About Miracles And Shirk Rububiyyah:

Sunni: Salam alaykum. Did you get chance to check the references I quoted yesterday?

Umar: I have read all but haven’t verified any of them and it is unlikely I will attempt to find all the material. I am assuming author wouldn’t be bold enough to falsely claim so and so wrote this and that.

Sunni: You would be surprised to know that utterly scummy characters garbed as a scholar do deliberately distort books and distort text of books to comply with their own notions.

Umar: What happened after I left?

Sunni: Brother Abdullah came back after you left and we continued our discussion for a little bit. He is refusing to accept the obvious because my corroboration isn’t from HIS Salaf as-Saliheen. Where do you stand on this subject?

Umar: At the I agreed with his position but changed my mind when you pointed out bi iznillahi was also used when Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) was shaping bird figures but doubts remained. At one stage you redefined miracles as of two types [see from section 52.0 to 59.0]: One’s performed by Allah and one’s performed by His Messengers. Everything after that only added weight to your position.

Sunni: I was being too technical and then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) opened my heart to new way of tackling his objections.

Umar: I got the feel you were learning as you go along.

Sunni: I had read books on the topic but needed time to intellectually digest, organize, understand, make connections but I couldn’t. Situation was similar to I being in a boxing match and having to learn to box. Hence I was trying different things to mute his points. As discussion progressed the read material began to open closed paths.

Umar: It seemed subject became clear to you around the time you defined miracles as one’s performed by Allah and one’s performed by Prophets. There was clear shift and increase in strength of your arguments.

Sunni: Yeah! That was starting point. How we going to deal with brother Abdullah’s refusal to accept; natural and supernatural actions in miracles are actions of Prophets?

Umar: Leave the subject alone. I will talk to him but unlikely he will change his mind. Best is to leave this subject and discuss Istighathah which you agreed to debate but haven’t. The discussion you brothers have had so far is just to one-upmanship. He wanted to prove you are not a ex-Salafi and you trying to prove he hasn’t got clue about Tawheed/Shirk.

Sunni: And where does discussion of miracles fit into this narrative of yours?

Umar: I can’t remember brother Ali. Smile.

Sunni: I will tell that [how discussion about miracles started] in a bit. I had/have no intention of proving my superiority of knowledge all I wanted to prove was that Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk is contradicts Quran/Sunnah. When he questioned my former Salafiyyah alignment he provided me opportunities to elaborate and demonstrate Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk is defective.

Umar: How did the discussion on miracles start?

Sunni: Brother Abdullah said [in section 32] you/Sunni are guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah but not Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat. I wanted to prove Salafi version of Shirk in Rububiyyah is connected with Shirk in Asma Wal Sifaat. And also intended to establish Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah is defective. To prove this point I attempted to substantiate brother Abdullah and Salafis in general are guilty of Shirk Rububiyyah according to their definitions and belief about miracles.

Sunni: I was hoping once I establish this point he will be forced to concede his definition is defective on basis of two reasons: (i) Their understanding of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah demonizes a Islamic belief/teaching therefore it can’t be correct. (ii) Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah establish their own Shirk and this personal touch will force him to accept his definition of Tawheed/Shirk Rububiyyah is wrong.

Sunni: Hence his judgment about Ahlus Sunnah being guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah has to be invalid because defective definitions do not produce correct judgments. Unexpectedly brother Abdullah defended saying natural action in miracle is action of Prophet and supernatural is action of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so no Shirk in Rububiyyah is committed by Salafis. My side of discussion has nothing to do with one-upmanship. It is strictly business.

Umar: Makes better sense but it still give impression you both are trying to embarrass each other.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah is giving me impression that he just doesn’t want to accept the truth. And I can only complete my argument that Salafis are guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah in light of their own definitions of Tawheed/Shirk when he admits miracles in the entirety are actions of Prophets.

Umar: I don’t think that [he doesn’t want to accept the truth] is the case. I can vouch for brother Abdullah’s sincerity for Deen. He is genuine in his belief and convictions that’s why he is holding to them. He is worn out for sure because of your seven paragraph response rule while refuting a single line. Smile.

Sunni: Smiles.

Umar: There is no need to pressure brother to accept your position. Especially when you want to have the satisfaction of cornering him. All you will do is create unnecessary tension. Your points were strong and in my assessment you have established correctness of your three objectives well beyond shadow of doubt. You was fishing for validation and now you got it. Smiles.

Sunni: I wasn’t to be honest. What I did want was that you talk to brother Abdullah to concede the point.

Umar: I can’t ask him to concede his position because you want to have satisfaction of clearly defeating his point. Or have him confess to his error so your ego is soothed. I am not your partisan. I am neutral party keeping peace between you two.

Sunni: You’re misunderstanding me. Deen is Naseeha (i.e. advice, sincerity). I wanted you to talk to him , as in Naseeha, to concede point because I believe brother Abdullah knows he is wrong. And because I wanted you to encourage him to repent. There is no ego involved here. My objective is to preserve true teaching of Deen and to guide the brother to what is right and just.

Umar: I misunderstood brother Ali. Sorry! I have to maintain my integrity for this discussion. With regards to Naseeha. He gives me Nasheeha and I give him Naseeha. There hasn’t been a day we haven’t talked about aspects of your/his discussion. Encouraging him to good and forbidding him evil has been my motto ever since my change of heart about Istighathah. Deen is only medium through which I can repay his favors.

Sunni: Don’t stop helping him and yourself. I won’t re-ignite the miracles warrant Shirk Rububiyyah according to Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk.

Umar: Good decision. Nothing beneficial will come from it. It would be better if you discuss Istighathah with him.

Sunni: Brother we can’t discuss subject of Istighathah yet because his beliefs are based on assumptions and I need to check those assumptions before starting Istighathah. If all goes well and according to my plan we wouldn’t need to discuss Istighathah.

061 - Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, Intention, And Action Needed For Worship:

Sunni: Can there be worship in absence of belief of Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah?

Salafi: No not in Islam. Worship would not be valid. Invalid worship is not worship.

Sunni: What if al-Uluhiyyah is affirmed but not al-Rububiyyah – then can a action be worship?

Salafi: No!

Sunni:  What if Rububiyyah is affirmed but not Uluhiyyah then would a action amount to worship?

Salafi: No!

Sunni: Can an action become worship even if no belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is affirmed?

Salafi: I already answered this question.

Sunni: Can an action not part of Deen of Islam become worship if it is directed toward a creation with no belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah?

Salafi: Can you give an example so I can better think it?

Sunni: Call of Istighathah – caller does not affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah - calling out: ‘O Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) help me.’

Salafi: Yes. That would be worship.

Sunni: Brother you just contradicted yourself. Earlier I enquired from you: “Can there be worship in absence of belief of Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah?” And in response you said: “No not in Islam. Worship would not be valid. Invalid worship is not worship.” In contradiction to what you said earlier you have responded to latest question in which fundamentals are same, i.e. absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, but you said it would be worship: “Yes. That would be worship.”

Salafi: I answered the first three questions in context of practices legislated by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and taught/instructed by His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) so judgments were in context of Islamicly sanctioned practices hence there is no contradiction.

Sunni: Brother worship is judged on belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah [and intention]. Your Takhsees that practices of Islam are not worship if performed without belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. And Practices not taught in Islam will be judged to be worship even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is an evil and rejected innovation.

Salafi: Who judged it so?

Sunni: An action directed toward real, or false Ilah/Rabb believed to be an Ilah/Rabb with intention of worship is judged as worship be it of in-Islam, or of outside-of-Islam. And an action directed toward a creation, or even toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without intention of and without belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is not worship but just an ordinary action. What you’re saying is without sense.

Salafi: It does make sense if you follow understanding of Salaf.

062 - On Whose Side Are The Righteous Predecessors:

Sunni: No they don’t support you brother. How can you claim something about which you have no knowledge of. Salaf, Khalaf and all are against your belief.

Salafi: Prove it brother.

Sunni: You claimed Salaf support you so burden of proof is upon you in light of prophetic teaching that proof is upon claimant.

Salafi: You want to be extra judicial because you have no proof.

Sunni: First of all I didn’t make the claim so I don’t need proof to support my stance but you do. Secondly you’re very true that I don’t have clear proof from Salaf in this regard.

Salafi: I thought so.

Sunni: Yet I do have compelling evidence they were all against your position. Do you agree that Salaf followed teaching of Quran and Sunnah?

Salafi: Why would I follow them if I believed they were against teaching of Quran/Sunnah!

063 - Can There Be Major Shirk In Absence Of Belief Of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah:

Sunni: No where in Quran/Sunnah Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), nor Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), accused someone of major Shirk, in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of worship. Every case in Quran/Sunnah where charge of Shirk was leveled against a people it was on grounds they affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for a creation and they performed deeds in order to worship them. Now if Salaf were upon Quran/Sunnah then they were against you and they support my stance.

Salafi: There is such evidence in Quran and Sunnah.

Sunni: Any way, so you’re agreeing that a action can be worship in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah?

Salafi: Let me get this straight. By saying, ‘in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah’, you mean when it is not believed about a being?

Sunni: Yes!

Salafi: OK, I get it. It can be worship.

Sunni: It can’t be worship.

Salafi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said about Jews/Christians that they took their priests/monks as worshipped lords because they accepted/obeyed Haram and Halal of priest/monk instead of Allah: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] This proves Rububiyyah can be warranted without affirming it. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) also said: "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] Polytheists did not take their egos to be god but they became guilty of it due to going against teaching of Quran/Sunnah. There you go I have proven you can become guilty of affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for creation even when you don’t actively believe it.

Sunni: Brother going on the literalism of verses this does not, not, amount to absence of Rububiyyah or Ilahiyyah. Verses rather clearly say they took their scholars/monks and ego has Rabb and Ilah. This demonstrates an active belief on their part rather then indirectly, or assumed from their actions.

Salafi: They didn’t believe their priests and Rabbis as lords instead. It was assumed.

Sunni: The verse says they did.

Salafi: They were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah because they followed teachings of their priests/Rabbis against teaching of Allah.

Sunni: I am just going to go on apparent text of both verses for sake of our discussion. I state this now that I do not believe monks/scholars were being taken as lord and I do not believe the verse charges Jews/Christians of major Shirk on basis of following Haram/Halal of their priests/monks.

Salafi: What you believe then?

Sunni: I will tell later for now what you said – Jews committing Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Salafi: Tell now so it can be discussed too.

Sunni: You wrote they were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah because they followed teachings of their monks/scholars against teaching of Allah.

Salafi: And?

Sunni: As per the literalism of verse that doesn’t mean they were not guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah. The verse by default says they committed Shirk in Rububiyyah and by default in Ilahiyyah.

Salafi: They didn’t commit Shirk in Uluhiyyah. Ibadah is connected with Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah and not Rububiyyah so this doesn’t prove your position.

064 - Refuting Salafi Brother’s Excuse They Didn’t Commit Shirk In Uluhiyyah:

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said they worshipped their priests/Rabbis and Prophet Isa (alayhis salam). When a companion said Jews/Christians didn’t worship them. In response Prophet said Jews/Christians follow the Haram/Halal teaching of these against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Meaning obedience [in matters which go against teaching of Allah] is worship of monks/scholars.

Salafi: What is your point?

Sunni: Prophetic explanation reveals Shirk in Rububiyyah is Shirk in Uluhiyyah and proof for both is verse in discussion and Hadith.

Salafi: How so? I don’t get it how you deduced that.

Sunni: They took Halal/Haram of monks/scholars instead of what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislated as Haram/Halal and due to it they were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah. And it was due to same reason it was said that they are guilty of worshipping scholars/monks. In both cases the reason is same but their Shirk is connected with two categories -Shirk in Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah. This establishes Shirk in Rububiyyah is by default Shirk in Uluhiyyah.

Salafi: This is your Qiyas.

Sunni: What is my Qiyas?

Salafi: You said Shirk of Jews/Christians was in Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah and in response to that I said it is your Qiyas.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] On account of this verse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained Jews/Christians committed Shirk in Rububiyyah because they accepted Haram/Halal of creation and went against Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) teaching: “Narrated 'Adi bin Hatim: "I came to the Prophet while I had a cross of gold around my neck. Salafi: 'O Adi! Remove this idol from yourself!' And I heard him reciting from Surah Bara'ah: ‘They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.’ (9:31). Salafi: 'As for them … but when they made something lawful for them, they considered it lawful, and when they made something unlawful for them, they considered it unlawful.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3095, here.] Then employed same reason as proof of their worship of monks/scholars: “The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah: “They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.” Adi commented Sunni: `They did not worship them.’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes they did. They (the Rabbis and monks) prohibited the Halal for them and allowed the Haram, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 9:31, here.] It is not Qiyas Ibleesi it is Qiyas Shar’i. Principle is belief is preceded by action. Uluhiyyah before worship. Worship of Ghayrullah is due to Shirk in Uluhiyyah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) charged them of worship then by default Uluhiyyah must have been inadvertently affirmed by Jews/Christians. Therefore in reality Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah was also affirmed by Jews/Christians.

Salafi: I don’t have problem with your above explanation. I disagree with following: ‘This establishes Shirk in Rububiyyah is by default Shirk in Uluhiyyah.’ It seems you’re saying: Shirk in Rububiyyah warrants Shirk in Uluhiyyah by default even in absence of worship of Ghayrullah. This is understanding of yours is plainly wrong.

Sunni: Brother we have already discussed that Shirk Uluhiyyah is warranted even in absence of actions of worship and your point was defeated [see section 15 to 16 for details].

Salafi: Did we?

065 - Salafi Brother Misunderstood Metaphoric Insinuation Of Merry Goes Round:

Sunni: Merry goes round one more time.

Salafi: Why would you say disgusting thing like that in religious discussion.

Sunni: You what?

Salafi: You know what you said don’t you?

Sunni: Merry-Go-Round is a theme park ride for kids, here.

Salafi: I thought you meant something else.

Sunni: I was insinuating our discussion is like merry go round  ride i.e. returns to point of start again and again.

Salafi: OK! Merry-Go-Round in slang is a prostitute. Sorry bro.

Sunni: Last time I spoke in slang was 20+ plus years ago. How it has developed ever since I am not aware.

Salafi: OK bro.

066 - Shirk al-Uluhiyyah Primarily Is Issue Of Belief And Is Warranted In Belief:

Sunni: There are two things that need response. I need to explain and provide evidential support for my following statement: ‘This establishes Shirk in Rububiyyah is by default Shirk in Uluhiyyah.’ Also there is need to respond to what you said because you seem to be saying Shirk in Uluhiyyah occurs when a Ghayrullah has been worshipped but not without worship. Am I correct?

Salafi: This is definition of Shirk in Uluhiyyah.

Sunni: Shirk in Uluhiyyah is belief, to believe a there is a Ma’bud beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), to believe another than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is deserving of worship, is Shirk in Uluhiyyah. Principle is belief first and action later. Uluhiyyah first and Ibadah thereafter. Root of Ibadah is Uluhiyyah.

Salafi: I know all this.

Sunni: Knowing isn’t sufficient if you haven’t understood it’s implications. Shirk in Uluhiyyah can be warranted even if no worship of Ghayrullah has taken place. Just to believe there is an Ilah beside Allah, there is a Ma’bud besides Allah, another deserving of worship beside Allah warrants/establishes major Shirk of Uluhiyyah, or as I say it Ilahiyyah. Do you believe those Mushrikeen who believe in Ghayrullah to be Ilah are not Mushrikeen until they worship that Ilah?

Salafi: No they are Mushrik.

Sunni: I have proven my point that Shirk in Uluhiyyah is not warranted when worship of Ghayrullah is performed but merely affirming another Ilah beside Allah is Shirk in Uluhiyyah. You want to add something or shall I move on to my second point.

Salafi: Nothing. You make your points.

Sunni: I refuted one part of your belief which is Shirk Uluhiyyah is dependent upon action [of worship] to be warranted. I proved it is issue of belief.

Sunni: Shall I go on?

Salafi: Yeah.

067 - Rububiyyah Is Part Of Ilah And Ilahiyyah, And Not Separate:

Sunni: Now coming to if Shirk Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah is warrants Shirk Rububiyyah by default. You said you disagree with the following statement of mine: ‘This establishes Shirk in Rububiyyah is by default Shirk in Uluhiyyah.’

He said What did I say regarding it?

Sunni: I quote your words: “I disagree with following: ‘This establishes Shirk in Rububiyyah is by default Shirk in Uluhiyyah.’ It seems you’re saying: Shirk in Rububiyyah warrants Shirk in Uluhiyyah by default even in absence of worship of Ghayrullah. This is understanding of yours is plainly wrong.”

Sunni: Rububiyyah is part of Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah because Ilah has to be Rabb. Every Ilah is Rabb and every Rabb is Ilah. There is not a single Ilah who is not believed to be Rabb in some capacity.

Salafi: Brother wait. Mushrikeen did not commit Shirk in Rububiyyah they believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created all universe, controls life, death, rain … so your statement is false.

Sunni: So you believe the Mushirkeen were Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah?

Salafi: This is proven from Quran.

Sunni: What you believe is manifest Kufr.

Salafi: You’re committing Kufr by denying what the Quran says – Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Sunni: I am not denying what the Quran says, I believe it, but I do not believe they affirmed Tawheed in Rububiyyah, not Tawheed part.

Salafi: How so? Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is believing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manages affairs of creation – such as creating it, managing it, providing it sustenance, giving life, causing death.

068 - Proving Rububiyyah Is Connected With Ilahiyyah:  

Sunni: Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is found upon Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah. Denial of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah is denial of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah because every Rabb is Ilah and every Ilah is Rabb.

Salafi: You said that already but offered no evidence.

Sunni: In following two verses Rububiyyah is associated with Ilah: “Yet they have taken besides Him other gods (i.e. alihah) 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]  “Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any god. (Had there been gods or son-gods beside Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) then each god would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe (concerning Him).” [Ref: 23:91] Proving Ilah is Rabb.

Salafi: That is what you have deduced from it.

Sunni: In the following verses Ibadah is connected with Rabb: “And indeed We seized them with punishment, but they humbled not themselves to their lord, nor did they invoke (to Allah) with submission to Him.” [Ref: 23:76] This prove Rabb is Ilah.

Salafi: Once again this is your own deduction.

Sunni: Yes but verses Q25:3, Q23:91 make it clear that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has deemed Rububiyyah essential quality of Ilahiyyah that is why He said their gods do not create anything but are their gods are created. If there were other gods they would have taken their creations and waged war on other gods. In verses Q14:7, Allah(subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not say they did not humble themselves to their Ilah he said Lord. Establishing that worship is of Lord. And this proves my statement.

Salafi: Doesn’t prove entirety of it, at least not every part, but just proves in Islam Ilah is Rabb and Rabb is Ilah.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “Yet they have taken besides Him other gods (i.e. alihah) 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] “Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any god. (Had there been gods or son-gods beside Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) then each god would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe (concerning Him).” [Ref: 23:91] Brother you tell me did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say about all false gods or some?

Salafi: So you’re implying, every god, must be lord because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said this about all the false gods! If your deduction is correct then this only means every Ilah is Rabb then but not every Rabb is Ilah so you failed in your objective.

Sunni: I have proven both dimensions of my statement. Even this admission of yours proves my point because if every Ilah is Rabb then Mushrikeen took their idols as Ilahs and worshipped them. Even you Salafis believe Mushrikeen committed Shirk in Uluhiyyah but not Rububiyyah. And to support this I can quote Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab’s Qawaid al-Arba. Any way we have proof they committed Shirk in Rububiyyah then

Salafi: OK. Deductively you have [proven they committed Shirk in Rububiyyah]. Why isn’t there evidence of Mushrikeen committing Shirk in Rububiyyah then?

Sunni: Not just that but I also substantiated my statement: ‘This establishes Shirk in Rububiyyah is by default Shirk in Uluhiyyah.’ There is [evidence proving Shirk Rububiyyah of Mushrikeen] but that is another discussion. I want to bring resolution to discussion so far or at least put it into perspective of our discussion.

Salafi: Be quick bro. Its my time to go.

Sunni: You go brother, we will chat again. I will need to read our entire discussion to see how it developed and how points were connected with previous ones. I am will have to go back from Z to A to connect all and then demonstrates what it establishes.

Salafi: I will be back tomorrow.

069 - Presenting Final Argument In Light Of All Established Points:

I Said. Yesterday you failed to establish in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah actions can be worship. I have concluded and put everything in perspective here: You reasoned we the Sunnis are Mushrikeen due to our practice of Istighathah even though call of help in Istigahthah is in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of worship. To refute your position and to reason with you I argued that there can be no worship in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. And belief is before action in other words Ilahiyyah is before Ibadah. Belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah leads to action of worship and worship does not lead to belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Shirk is in belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah not in action of worship because in absence of action [of worship] belief continues to establish major Shirk. Hence belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah is foundation of worship and when it is absent there is no worship. And this effects the discussion of Istighathah which we are supposed to be having but haven’t had yet. Istighathah cannot be worship because belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for one being called for help is essential and absent. As result there can be no Shirk in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and no worship. This is summary plus my conclusion. We also sparred on the fact that Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah are essential for each other. Shirk/Tawheed in one is Shirk/Tawheed in other because Ilah is Rabb and Rabb is Ilah. Hence Mushrikeen could not have believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

070 - Demonstrating How Ilahiyyah Was Affirmed By Jews/Christians:

Salafi: Give me few moments to read this in its entirety. I did provide evidence: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] Why you ignoring these evidence and saying I failed?

Sunni: In that case brother Abdullah you failed to prove your stance and you failed to even understand how you have been refuted.

Sunni: It was proven that Jews/Christians worshipped their scholars/monks and you agree to this. And it was established belief is before action and you agreed to this. Worship is associated with belief of Ilahiyyah. Without belief of Ilahiyyah/Ma’budiyyah there would be no worship. Belief leads to action of worship. In this light Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Jews/Christians worshipped their own scholars/monks. Worship is preceded by belief and in this context of Ilahiyyah, Uluhiyyah, Ma’budiyyah: “The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah: “They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah.” Adi commented Sunni: `They did not worship them.’ The Prophet said: ‘Yes they did. They (the Rabbis and monks) prohibited the Halal for them and allowed the Haram, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 9:31, here.] And this proves worship of scholars/monks was based on belief of Ilahiyyah, Uluhiyyah, Ma’budiyyah and was not in absence of it. And when you quoted this evidence you were suppose to prove, Islam teaches there can be worship in absence of Ilahiyyah but you have failed.

Salafi: I can’t accept this. You are presenting Shirk in a attractive packaging and I am not buying it bro. Now I get it why scholars say students shouldn’t converse with people of innovation.

071 - Jews/Christians Affirmed Indirect, Covert, Hidden Belief Of Rububiyyah:

Sunni: Can you quote me a single Quranic verse, or a Hadith in which a group of people were charged of major Shirk, worshipping something even though accused did not directly/indirectly affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for what they allegedly worshipped?

Salafi: Directly/indirectly meaning?

Sunni: Overtly/covertly, apparently/hidden, explicitly/implicitly.

Salafi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] All I can offer is this verse and Tafsir of this in support of my position.

Sunni: Bro even I agree the Jews/Christians didn’t overtly/directly believe in Rububiyyah of their scholars/monks but according to literalism of verse and related Ahadith they did become guilty of taking them as lords indirectly/covertly via accepting and obeying Haram/Halal of priests/rabbis against revelation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

072 - Practitioner Of Istighathah Does Not Affirm Implicit Ilahiyyah And Ibadah:

Sunni: Istighathah does not fall into this category of indirect/implicit affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Ibadah category.

Salafi: Istighathah is Shirk and prohibited. You Sufis practice Istighathah which your scholars have legalized for you. Thus you take them to be lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you worship them.

Sunni: You still haven’t proven your stance because all you have reasoned is what I have already refuted saying, Rububiyyah/Ilahiyyah leads to Ibadah. If scholars of Ahlus Sunnah legalized a major Shirk, a Haram such as Istighathah and we believed them then it means we took them as Ilah/Rabb. And we practice it means we worshipped them through our obedience. Then how does that prove worship in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah?

Salafi: You’re pointlessly arguing against Hukm derived from the verse and related Ahadith.

Sunni: (i) Your understanding would be correct and your application would have been justified if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had declared Istighathah Shirk in a verse, or declared Istighathah Haram. And if our scholars had said ignore these verses but engage in Istighathah and if we obeyed them then we would have elevated them to status of Ilah/Rabb and would have been guilty of worshipping them by practicing Istighathah. There is not a single verse in Quran which states Istighathah is Shirk, or even Haram. Therefore we cannot be accused of obeying scholars against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and we cannot be legitimately accused of affirming Rububiyyah/Ilahiyyah, nor worshipping the scholars.

Sunni: (ii) You need to give me evidence which can be applied upon Istighathah via deduction (i.e. Qiyas). Evidence in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) issued Hukm of major Shirk for asking help from deceased but in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of worship. In other words a verse, a Hadith, in which Amr sought help from deceased RandomX, and Amr did not affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah nor intended to worship RandomX, but Amr was charged of affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and worshipping RandomX. If you provide such evidence then we will have to agree Istighathah is Shirk. And in accordance with principle of verse, Q9:31, any who deems it legal on instruction of a scholar such a person is guilty of taking scholar is Rabb/Ilah and guilty of worship and Shirk.

Sunni: (iii) You have failed and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits you will never succeed. There is no evidence from which you can deduce practice of Istighathah by default warrants Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and worship. You have no justification for your charge of major Shirk against us. And I conclude otherwise you would be and you’re just acting-Allah role and legislating religion as it pleases you: "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] Why? Because you have independently of Allah’ (subhanahu wa ta’ala) teaching and of His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legislated; a certain practice by default warrants Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, and Ibadah. Even when practitioner of Istighathah does not affirm such beliefs nor intends worship. Nor has practitioner of Istighathah indirectly become guilty of Rububiyyah/Ilahiyyah, Ibadah like Jews/Christians were. And on this I conclude you have raised yourself and your ego to station of Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you worship your ego as your Rabb. You’re a Taghoot.

Salafi: Brother I can’t continue with you. You will have to find someone else to keep you company. Salam.

Sunni: Wa alaykum salam.

073 - Sign Of Obstinate Rebellion Against Truth Of Islam:

Sunni: I guess the mighty have fallen.

Umar: Smiles. You have delivered a lethal blow to brother Abdullah.

Sunni: Brother evidence he provided itself is proof that to warrant Shirk Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah like it was established for Jews and Christians there has to be disobedience of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) injunctions and obedience of scholars. Which we are not guilty of. And his evidence does not establish absence of … rather establishes existence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and Ibadah. He is applying this verse on practitioner of Istighathah and there is no relationship with it because for the verse to be applied to Istighathah; Istighathah has to be a clear Shirk due to affirmation of openly professed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, or inferred from Istighathah being declared Haram and scholars Halaling it and we following it. It has to be clearly stated Haram, not, O I believe it is Haram. Haram like pig, Zina, alcoholic drinks … are said to be Haram, clear emphatically declared Haram.

Umar: I absolutely agree.

Salafi: Salam Alaykum. You called me Taghoot it was uncalled for, and that’s why I left.

Sunni: Wa alaykum salam. I called you Taghoot according to Salafi principles and because you opened to office of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for yourself, according to your own principles. Let me share with you what I said after you left.

Salafi: Brother Ali, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says invoke me. Ask me for help. The very beginning of Quran. He has taught us to seek His help.

Sunni: Yes! Very true but these verses don’t prove Istighathah is Haram/Shirk. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said seek My help, you deduced Istighathah is Haram, I also deduce seeking help, nourishment from food, seeking to quench thirst from water, seeking to protect against cold by wearing a jacket is also proven to be Haram on basis of same verses and your logic.

Salafi: Smiles.

Umar: Brother Abdullah to be honest with you. Brother Ali refuted you good and legit.

Sunni: Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Haram/Halal have been clearly stated in Quran/Sunnah and those things ignored by Him are pardoned/excused from judgment. I am sure you know the Hadith. Istighathah is not amongst the Halal and not amongst those things declared Haram in Quran/Sunnah. It is from amongst the ignored by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not due to forgetfulness but due to His mercy. Istighathah if it was Haram it would be clearly declared so and if it was Shirk it would be declared so. Shirk is greater Haram then ordinary Harams so if Istighathah was Shirk then it was more important for us to know Istighathah is Haram then pig being Haram. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t consider it serious enough to declare it as an ordinary Haram. What does that tell you about Istighathah? Does that scream practice is Shirk and practitioner is Mushrik?

Salafi: You present a good argument brother Ali but I cannot accept it because great scholars of Ummah have declared Istighathah as Shirk.

Sunni: Brother you’re rejecting undeniable. Your position, Shirk can be established in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, needs evidence. You either provide the proof or I am done.

Salafi: I have more evidence which will prove my stance.

074 - Salafis Evidence And Argument In Support Of Beliefs Can Be Inferred:

Salafi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (Allah) call but upon females (goddesses): They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says polytheists invoke female deities, such Laat Manat Uzza, but they in reality are calling upon Satan. This is proof that even though if you do not say Satan is my Ilah and do not intend to worship Satan you become guilty of worshipping Satan and taking him as an Ilah through actions of Shirk. Same is supported by these verses: "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60] This supports our position that one does not have explicitly affirm Uluhiyyah and intend to worship deceased to become guilty of major Shirk.

075 - Building The Foundation For Refutation By Establishing Common Ground:

Sunni: In the context of what you wrote above, would you say they were guilty of worshipping Satan by worshipping Awliyah even though they did not affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah nor intend to worship Awliyah?

Salafi: Can you not ask me questions answers to which are obvious to you! Please. You’re wasting time instead of acknowledging your error and misguidance.

Sunni: Brother answer the question. Please.

Salafi: They would be guilty of worshipping Satan and Awliyah.

Sunni: Look at verse, Q4:117, and then tell me if they can be guilty of worshipping Satan if they already did not worship a false idol/Ilah?

Salafi: I would say, no.

Sunni: Worship of idols lead to worship of Satan?

Salafi: It did!

Sunni: Thank you my brother. I will get on with my response. Please don’t interrupt this will get bit long.

Salafi: OK!

076 - Getting Brother To Agree To A Common Ground Before Refutation:

Sunni: You have come to conclusion that it is correct to insert Ilahiyyah and intention of worship into an action, such as calling a deceased Wali for help, even if Amr doesn’t/didn’t affirm belief of Ilahiyyah, or intended to worship. And you do this on basis of two foundations: (i) mainly because the action resembles actions of Shirk performed by Mushrikeen, (ii) and because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) charged Mushrikeen of worshipping Satan even when they did believe in Ilahiyyah of Satan, nor did they intended to worship Satan with their acts of goddess worship. Is this correct?

Salafi: Why are you presenting what I believe instead of not responding to evidence?

Sunni: I have to present your position for two reasons: (i) We both know what your position is, why, and we agree on it. (ii) And the readers can understand what your rationale is and knowing it will help them understand your position better and also understand my refutation better.

Salafi: Discussion is between me and you and we both know what Salafi positions are so there is no need to complicate issue.

Sunni: Brother I like to complicate issues. It helps me to exercise my brain.

Salafi: Brother Umar might be able to reason with you but I cannot.

Sunni: Hmmm …

Salafi: Truth has come and falsehood as perished and Sufi is still beating around the bush.

Sunni: Trust me brother I have spent years discussing with Salafis/Salafis and almost every single time their over confidence and arrogance of brothers blows up on their face. And if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills it will happen again. Brother Umar knows this from first hand experience.

077 - Existing Major Shirk Was Transferred To Worship Of Satan:

Sunni: Here is disclaimer: I am just going by apparent literalism of verses to address your point. You’re distorting the understanding of verses by employing their literalism.

Salafi: How am I? The verses clearly prove my point.

Sunni: The verses you quoted indicate following principle: If an Amr is guilty of taking a creation as an Ilah and worshipping it and then Amr by default is guilty of taking Satan as Ilah and worshipping it. In other words if there is no major Shirk to begin with then there is no major Shirk of taking Satan as an Ilah and worship of Satan.

Sunni: And we the Muslim do not affirm clear/emphatic major Shirk like the type indicated in these Quranic verses, such as affirming Ilahiyyah for Prophets/Awliyah and worshipping them, then we cannot be guilty of committing of major Shirk nor we can be accused of worshipping Satan. In practice of Istighathah there is no affirmation of belief of Ilahiyyah, nor intention of worship, nor before the call of help, nor after it.

Sunni: You believe Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and worship can be assumed into a practice of another even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah because these were assumed for Satan even though they were absent. This notion goes clearly against the apparent literalism of verses in discussion. Verses themselves denote meaning that existing manifest major Shirk was transferred to Satan and it was not assumed from complete absence. Your logical deduction goes against the understanding of verse therefore it is abandoned.

Sunni: In conclusion Quran is clear that the Mushrikeen took their females such as Lat, Uzza, Manat and various idols as their Ilahs. And invoked them with belief that they deserve to be worshipped, and with intention of worship, and to get closer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they invoked them. How does this relate to verses you quoted? Ilahiyyah and intention of worship was not assumed for Satan in complete absence of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship. Rather existing major Shirk, Ilahiyyah and intention of worship of Idols, was transferred to Satan. The verses themselves reveal that major Shirk lead to major Shirk. Ilahiyyah affirmed for idols lead to Ilahiyyah of Satan. Worship of idols-goddesses lead to worship of Satan. In absence of pre-existent major Shirk you cannot assume major Shirk into practice of Istighathah.

078 - Presenting Correct Understanding Of Verses Quoted By Salafi Brother:

Salafi: I am not applying the Hukm derived from verse but only inferring – that it is permissible to insert belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of worship – into actions which resemble Shirk – like it was done for Satan.

Sunni: I know brother. I have responded to this here: “You believe Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and worship can be assumed into a practice of another even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah because …”

Sunni: And to that I want to add something. We the Muslims would be guilty of taking scholars/Satan as lords if we had accepted/acted on a clear Shirk/Haram. And if we had been guilty of that you would be justified in saying you’re guilty of worshipping scholars/Satan and taking them as Arbab/Ilahs. At the maximum the verses you quoted establish that anyone guilty of clear Shirk, or accepts some Haram as Halal, or Halal as Haram, against teaching Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then that person in guilty of taking Arbab/Ilahs beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worship of them. The verses in no way denote meaning that Shirk can be assumed in absence of Shirk but rather Shirk can be transferred in presence of Shirk. And there is no Shirk in Istighathah. This entire discussion is because you want to prove that it is Shirk because you believe your principles on which you judge it to be Shirk are correct. And you have failed to prove so.

079 - Prophet Refutes Salafism Satan Worship Not In Arabia By Worshippers:

Sunni: You agree major Shirk can be warranted via two routes: (i) Clear affirmation of an Ilah partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), (ii) or giving a creation His attributes?

Salafi: Yes!

Sunni: You also agree that Satan worship can take place via both routes?

Salafi: Yes!

Sunni: And you also agree that to engage in explicit/implicit major Shirk is Satan worship?

Salafi: [He didn’t reply.]

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: "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, here.] “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 worshipping 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.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B25, H3055, here.] “Indeed none commits a crime for which his son is accountable, nor does a child commit a crime for which his father is held accountable. Indeed Ash-Shaitan has lost hope of ever being worshipped in this city of yours, but he will have compliance in some deeds of yours which you consider insignificant, which he will be content with.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B7, H2159, here.] And these Ahadith prove that Satan will not be worshipped in Arabia. These Ahadith are proof that in Arabian Peninsula Muslims would not become guilty of worshipping Satan by implicitly affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and in intention of worship. Nor they will become guilty of Satan worship by explicitly believing creations are Arbab/Ilahs partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Shaykh al-Najd accused and Salafis believed the Muslims of Arabia of worshipping Awliyah, Jinn, Anbiyah, trees, stones and others. And Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said it clearly that Muslims would not worship false deities thus they will remain free from worship of Satan. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also said: “It was narrated from Shaddad bin Aws that the Messenger of Allah said: “The thing that I fear most for my nation 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: Sunan Ibn Majah, B37, H4205, here.] And this evidence refutes your charge that Muslims of Arabia were guilty of worshipping idols (i.e. graves, Awliyah, Prophets etc) and refutes your charge that they were guilty worshipping Satan due to major Shirk. These evidences conclusively establishes the Jammah of Muslims in Arabia were upon Tawheed.

Salafi: I have evidence to prove Muslims will commit Shirk.

Sunni: You will have to wait until I am finished.

080 - Establishing Contradiction In Understanding Of Salafi Brother:

Salafi: You have more to say?

Sunni: Originally after I asked you the following question I was going to refute you with help of these Ahadith: ‘In the context of what you wrote above, would you say they were guilty of worshipping Satan by worshipping …’ Then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) opened my heart to content of following section: Existing Major Shirk Was Transferred To Worship Of Satan.

Sunni: Shirk can be warranted by explicitly affirming beliefs of major Shirk such as affirming Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah for creation and giving His attributes to creation. And in case of your belief it can also be warranted in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, worship intention, if performed action resembles actions of Shirk. In such case Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, intention of worship by default will be deemed part of action and Hukm of major Shirk will be issued. Am I correct?

Salafi: You’re.

Sunni: I asked you the following question: “In the context of what you wrote above, would you say they were guilty of worshipping Satan by worshipping Awliyah even though they did not affirm Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah nor intend to worship Awliyah?” And you responded saying: “They would be guilty of worshipping Satan and Awliyah.” Here you basically said even in absence of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship the Arabs were guilty of worship of Awliyah and Satan.

Sunni: I enquired from you if one can be guilty of Satan worship without first being guilty of false-deity worship and you responded in negative: “Sunni: Look at verse, Q4:117, and then tell me if they can be guilty of worshipping Satan if they already did not worship a false idol/Ilah? Salafi: I would say, no.” Which means you believe false-deity worship leads to Satan worship and in absence of false-deity worship there can be no Satan worship. Are you with me so far?

Salafi: [He didn’t reply.]

Sunni: From these two questions I deduce you believe, correct me if I am wrong, that a questionable practice can warrant major Shirk even in absence of clear affirmation and intention of Shirk. And you believe foundation of Satan worship is false-deity worship absence of which means no Satan worship. This establishes a contradiction in your belief. In the first question and in its answer even absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of worship the Arabs were guilty of worshipping Awliyah/Satan. In second question/answer Ilahiyyah and false-deity worship has to be affirmed first for Satan worship to be warranted.

Salafi: I swear you have completely lost me as to how you deduced this contradiction.

Sunni: Never mind. Ignore what I have deduced from your answers.

081 - Explaining The Verses And Revealing True Meaning Of Three Verses:

Sunni: When I said to you that you’re distorting verses in discussion you responded saying: “Salafi: How am I? The verses clearly prove my point.”

Salafi: Was this comment in context of three verses I offered as proof?

Sunni: Yes!

Salafi: OK! What’s your point then bro? Haven’t you taken whole day already that you need more time?

Sunni: Just little to go brother.

Sunni: Your last refuge are the verses themselves. I quote them again for ease: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (Allah) call but upon females (goddesses): They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60]  These three verses have same interpretative value as some other verses of Quran.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said Jews/Christians took monks/scholars as lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worshipped them because they were guilty of accepting Haram/Halal monks/scholars against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said they worshipped them by accepting Haram/Halal against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: I will interpret only one verse but it can be applied to all three. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says that the Mushrikeen took Satan as Ilah/Rabb and worshipped him. They accepted/obeyed Haram as Halal and Halal as Haram because Satan legislated it Halal/Haram for them. Where has Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had legislated and declared to believe Him as the One and the Only Ilah/Rabb. And only to worship Him and He forbade joining partners with Him. In contrast to Halal/Haram of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Satan declared monotheism is Haram and polytheism is Halal. Satan also legislated for them their entire polytheistic religion and the Mushrikeen accepted his evil whispered rulings and acted accordingly.

Sunni: In this context of Satan legislating Shirk/Kufr for Mushrikeen and worship of idols and invoking of false gods Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (Allah) call but upon females (goddesses): They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] They call upon idols because their false-Ilah Satan the legislator of their religion inspired them to invoke idols and by obeying his command they invoke him.

Sunni: The Ayah does not literally mean they took Satan as Ilah/Rabb and worshipped him. None of Mufassireen of pre-Salafism era has said the Mushrikeen became guilty of Satan worship taking him as Ilah/Rabb by accepting and acting on his instructions. You’re distorting the understanding of Ayah. This distortion became part of Deen in Salafism. To prove me wrong all you have to do is quote me a Mufassir pre-Salafism era who said these verses prove Jews/Christians were guilty of major Shirk because they took monks/scholars as Arbab/Ilahs and for worshipping them. And Mufassireen who said Mushrikeen were also guilty of Shirk because they indirectly affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for Satan and worshipped him.

Salafi: I will get you the evidence.

Sunni: Let me discourage you from trying it – or consequences will be huge. And you’re not ready to swallow the whole elephant yet.

082 - Literal Understanding Of Verses Is Invalid And Contradicts Quran/Sunnah:

Sunni: Do you commit sins my brother?

Salafi: [He didn’t reply.]

Sunni: Are the Ahlul Biddah, belonging to seventy-two sects, Mushrikeen, or Muslims?

Salafi: Muslim.

Sunni: Will they these 72 enter paradise, or hell?

Salafi: Hell in the beginning but later on will enter paradise.

Sunni: Biddah is teaching from Satan. Satan corrupts teaching of Islam with his innovation. He corrupted Tawaf and it was performed by Mushrikeen naked with Shirki invocation. Satan legislates Biddah as acceptable and as a teaching of Islam. Those who accept it don’t they take him as Lord/Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? And worship Satan?

Salafi: [He didn’t reply.]

Umar: I advised you [brother Abdullah] to read discussion between I and brother Ali. You didn’t and now …

Salafi: Shush!

Sunni: If you say they don’t take Satan as Rabb/Ilah you contradict Tafsir and literal reading of verse, Q4:117. And if you say they don’t worship Satan even though they accepted his legislations against teaching of Quran/Sunnah then you’re also contradicting Tafsir and literalism of verse.

Sunni: You have already said members of 72 sects are Muslims. It is Kufr to say a Mushrik is a Muslim and it is also Kufr to say a Mushrik will ever go to paradise.

Salafi: I haven’t thought about the Hadith in this context. I am going to change my position to make it in accordance with Quran/Sunnah.

Sunni: What you mean?

Salafi: Seventy-two sects are guilty of Shirk and as Mushrikeen they will remain in hell-fire for eternity.

Sunni: I was just merely attempting to prove to you that your understanding of these verses is wrong. Instead you’re just digging yourself a deeper hole.

Salafi: How can I abandon what is clearly stated in Quran/Sunnah?

Sunni: Wait. I let Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah speak on my behalf: "Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Similarly, with the other seventy-two groups, those that are hypocrites are inwardly kaafirs, and those that are not hypocrites but rather believe inwardly in Allah and His Messenger are not inwardly kaafirs, even though they are mistaken in their interpretations, regardless of what that mistake may be. Some of them may have some of the branches of hypocrisy, or they may not have the kind of hypocrisy that dooms a man to the lowest depths of Hell. The one who says that each of the seventy-two sects is guilty of kufr that puts one beyond the pale of Islam is going against the Qur’an and Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them all), and the consensus of the four imams and others. None of them regarded any of the seventy-two sects as kaafirs, rather they regard one another as kaafirs." [Ref: Majmoo al-Fataawa Vol, Page218, here.] Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah says there is Ijmah on seventy-two sects being Muslim. Ijmah of companions and of four Imams, and Muslims scholarship in general. And none of them regarded them as Kafir/Mushrik. And you say they are Ahl ush-Shirk to enter eternal hell-fire.

083 - Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah Is Not Mujtahid, Not Even a Mujadid:

Salafi: He made a mistake in his Ijtihad.

Sunni: Well can’t we say that [they made Ijtihadi error] about founders of seventy-two sects? If we allow Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah this liberty then we have to allow all this liberty because every leader of innovator was sincere and erred in in some degree of Ijtihad. Either we say they all made mistake in their effort to understanding Quran/Sunnah. Or we say none. Or say about whom the Ummah has agreed upon such as some Sahabah, the four Imams etc. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah never been declared to be a Mujtahid, or Mujadid by wider scholarship of Islam.

Salafi: Brother Ali I believe Shaykh ul-Islam was a Mujtahid that’s why I said he made mistake.

Sunni: Every Mufti is a Mujtahid. Lowest level of Ijtihad is done by a Mufti and highest by Mujtahid Mutlaq. In that case everyone has excuse then. Excuse of mistake earning reward and no blame is for those who believe as they are supposed to believe and did righteous deeds. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and anyone effected by innovation is not excused on basis of station of Mujtahid and Ijtihad.

Salafi: Classical era scholarship declared he was a Mujtahid. Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti (rahimullah) in one of his works said Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimullah) reached degree of Mujtahid Mutlaq.

Sunni: Did the Jamhoor of Ummah, the Jammah of Ummah say he is a Mujtahid? We are obligated to following the majority: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] ”Abu Dharr (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 Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] The Jamhoor declared Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah to be Zindeeq (heretic) and minority declared him Kafir despite praising his great knowledge and saying he was with defective intellect. And to that I add a very defective understanding of Tawheed/Shirk which makes me suspect his Islam.

Salafi: You have stooped too low brother Ali. I had great respect for you which I didn’t in the beginning but you questioning Shaykh ul-Islam’s understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. Shame on you.

Sunni: He had no following that endured test of time and no impact on Islamic scholarship other then sending a ripple of disunity amongst Muslims. And that ripple dissipated within fifty years of his death and he remained insignificant until leader of group of Satan got wind of his teachings. He was heretic and rebel against orthodoxy in his life and after his death he is champion of heretics and a worshipped idol of those who opposed orthodoxy. Heretic hasn’t fallen far from the heresy.

Umar: Brother Ali what is this? Have you lost your marbles? You’ve ruined a very civil discussion and now if brother Abdullah responds to you in same tone he is justified.

Salafi: I will not stoop that low.

Umar: Get to your actual point brother Ali.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said follow the great majority, and in other Hadith quoted above, he said majority is better then minority. According to majority Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimullah) isn’t a Mujtahid and majority of scholarship has criticized him due to heretical beliefs which is enough to prove he can’t be Mujtahid, not even Mujadid. He is not exempt from blame of sin for erroneous beliefs and understandings. You cannot absolve him of taking Satan as his Lord, nor you can absolve him of charge; he elevated himself to level of Rabb due to his invalid understanding of Hadith of seventy-two sects. Which you said was invalid and Ijtihadi error and not me.

Sunni: You believe you’re right regarding your stance regarding three verses [which he quoted section 63]; they establish Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah can be inferred even when not believed. And you believe you’re justified in understanding that all members of seventy-two sects mentioned in Hadith are people of Shirk and they will enter hell-fire forever. And YOU therefore must believe Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah elevated himself to level of an Ilah/Rabb because he legislated religion against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which you believe you’re representing [through your saying; members of seventy-two sects are guilty of Shirk]. And according to logic your own theology those who took Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s judgment in regards to subject of seventy-two sects being Muslim have taken him to be an Ilah/Rabb. Their acceptance of his innovative teaching [according to your logic] proves they worship him.

Sunni: And I Muhammed Ali like to add that those worshipped beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are fuel of fire: “Verily ye, and the gods that ye worship instead of Allah (Mindunillah) are fuel for hell, to it will ye (surely) come!” [Ref: 21:98] Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah is going to hell-fire because he elevated himself to status of a rival Rabb/Ilah and was worshipped and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about such people: “And if any of them should say: ‘Verily, I am a god besides Him (Allah).’ Such a one We should recompense with Hell. Thus We recompense the wrongdoers.” [Ref: 21:29]

Salafi: What are you on about brother Ali. I don’t believe this at all.

Sunni: Your belief [that seventy-two sects are Kafir going to hell] compels you to hold such notion about all those who legislated religion against the teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not only Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. And against all those who followed their teachings [you must believe they are Mushrikeen and will enter hell for forever] because those who committed Shirk will never enter paradise. And if you don’t believe this then it means you have taken your ego as your god and as per your understanding you elevated your self to degree of an Ilah. Or alternatively you can just give up that the Ayahs you quoted are about major Shirk and about inferring Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of Ibadah into actions.

Salafi: I am not qualified to issue verdicts on such delicate issues.

Sunni: You’re not qualified to pave your own path against Ijmah of Ummah [in regards to 72 sects being guilty of major Shirk leading being in hell forever] but you did yet you refuse to issue judgment against Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah based on your own principles and understandings.

Salafi: When I am not qualified then I am not qualified.

Sunni: Who is qualified to give this judgment then? You’re the sole beholder of great understanding which even Salafis don’t ascribe to. You’re the only one representing this stance hence you’re the only one who can issue judgment.

Umar: He has got a point brother Abdullah. Being the only known person to hold this view you’re only person who can issue judgment on it. Shaykh Muhammad [Ibn Abdul Wahhab] has large following and Muftis judging on his methodology. A Salafi Talib if doesn’t give judgment on issue a Mufti/Shaykh representing his methodology/Minhaj is in position to. You’re the only person upon this extreme position. You’re clearly wrong brother. I have so much respect for you for you and it will increase if you do the right thing and repent.

Salafi: They can be guilty of minor Shirk.

[Brother Umar privately intervened and suggested I make excuse and leave the chat and not pursue this line of interrogation any further. This discussion in wider scope of matters it does not benefit him (Salafi) or me. And following chat was result of his intervention.]

084 - Literal Following Of Verses Leads Being The Only And Lonely Muwahid:

Sunni: Brother my objective isn’t for him to make Takfir but for him to realize his understanding of verses is incorrect. And these verses do not literally mean that Mushrikeen, Jews, Christians became guilty of major Shirk of Ilahiyyah, and worship of Ghayrullah, simply by obeying scholars/monks/Satan.

Umar: I know what your motives are but it is better to leave it for now.

Sunni: I wanted to pursue him on his path until it became evident to him he is clearly wrong.

Umar: You are unlikely to get such conclusion so let go. He has become aware that your questions are always connected with something to come. That’s why he has stopped answering them. He definitely isn’t saying what you want him to say that’s for sure.

Sunni: Can you ask him to give his opinion and not his Fatwah? Smile.

Umar: What you wanted you have already kind of proven.

Sunni: Islam and Iman of entire Ummah is at stake not just Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, his followers, and Salafis.

Umar: I don’t get it. Explain.

Sunni: He says Ahlul Biddah of seventy-two sects are guilty of major Shirk for following innovations of innovators. In his belief Ahlul Biddah have followed religion legislated by innovators against religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) thus they have taken innovators and Satan as a Rabb/Ilah and Ahlul Biddah are guilty of worshipping them due to obedience. Hence whatever Hukm he issues, even if he doesn’t it is obvious from his belief and understanding of verses in discussion, it applies to all the Ummah including first three generations, Muslims Ummah in it’s entirety because ALL are upon belief seventy-two sects to enter fire are Muslims and will eventually leave hellfire. This will leave him to be the only and lonely Muwahid on earth. And I want him to come to this realization and then suggest to him that this is impossibility so he should let go of his faulty understanding of three verses he quoted (i.e. that these three verses establish major Shirk can be inferred).

Umar: Can I communicate this message to him?

Sunni: Isn’t he going to say you’re not impartial but partisan. You suppose to be neutral and regulate our discussion without being part of discussion.

Umar: Brother Ali. He knows I have changed my views of Istighathah and how both, Tawheed/Shirk, are to be determined. We discuss issues like Tawheed/Shirk, Istighathah, and other subjects quite regularly so there is no surprise for him about what I believe. The only reason why he is here is because he wanted to prove you wrong so I re-join Salafiyyah.

Sunni: I don’t want him to say we schemed against him [and we haven’t]. Instead tell him you’ve discussed it with me and then quote what I said. That way you will not be my apologist but only passing message.

Umar: He knows I wouldn’t scheme against him. Anyway leave this with me. Please heed my advice and drop this subject. Don’t engage in discussion with him until I say so.

[Brother Abdullah was persuaded to repent by brother Umar. I was asked to not to publish parts which brother Abdullah adopted this strange position. I had to refuse this request.]

085 - Taking Ego As God Means Following Your Own Desires:

Sunni: Quite while back you quoted me verse, Q25:43, to prove Ilahiyyah from can be inferred from an action even if RandomX has affirmed no such belief for a creation. I have worked on a little surprise attack.

Salafi: I remember.

Sunni: This verse: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] Another verse says the same: “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] Do you believe these verses establish Shirk of anyone who takes his ego as his god?

Salafi: What else would that establish if not Shirk, brother Ali? What do the Tafasir say?

Sunni: “(Hast thou seen) O Muhammad (him who maketh his desire his god) the one who worships a deity because of the whim of his ego; whenever his ego desires something, he worships it.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 45:23, here.] “Have you then seen inform Me about him who has taken as his god his own desire that is whatever new stone he may desire after having desired some other stone considering this new one to be better and whom God has led astray knowingly on His part …” [Ref: Tafsir Jalalayn, 45:23, here.] “‘Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his god …’, who abides by his lust, and whatever his lust portrays as good he implements it, and whatever his lust portrays as evil, he abandons it!” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 45:23, here.] “(Hast thou) O Muhammad (seen him who chooseth for his god his own lust) who worshipped his god ( i.e. al-Nadr and his host) out of the whim of his ego? (Wouldst thou) O Muhammad (then be guardian over him) a protector against going out for such corruption?” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 25:43, here.] “’Have you seen him who has taken as his god his own vain desire?’ Meaning, whatever he admires and sees as good in his own desires becomes his religion and his way. As Allah says: ‘Is he then, to whom the evil of his deeds is made fair seeming. So that he consider it as good. Verily, Allah sends astray whom he wills.’ (35:8) [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 25:43, here.]

Salafi: Fundamentally Tafasir say act of following whims of desire/ego of your own, or of someone else is taking desire/ego as god.

Sunni: They don’t say exactly what you said. Mufassireen have said the Ayah means following ego/desires without any restriction.

Salafi: How is that any different from what I said?

Sunni: There is a technicality involved. Mufassireen have turned the verse away from literal reading of verse with their explanation. Your account takes the Tafsir and turns it toward literal reading i.e. following whims of desire/ego is taking ego as god. In other words Mufassireen have negated literal reading of verse through Tafsir/Taweel. And you maintained the literal reading of verse despite Tafsir.

Salafi: And what is the problem in that?

Sunni: I will tell you in a bit if it don’t become apparent. For now; do you agree the verse means legislating religion through Halaling/Haraming is taking ego as god?

Salafi: Yes.

Sunni: Can a Taweel be made of apparent of verse or not?

Salafi: No Taweel is accepted until it is from Salaf as-Saliheen.

086 - Consequences Of Literalism, Salafi’s Response, And Preparation Of Refutation:

Sunni: This is the problem: "O Prophet, why do you prohibit (yourself from) what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (Muslims) the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise." [Ref: 66:1/2] Will you say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) raised his self to status of Rabb and took his ego as an Ilah?

Salafi: He did not declare it to be Haram as part of religion but as an oath. The Ayah itself says this: “Allah has already ordained for you (Muslims) the dissolution of your oaths.” [Ref: 66:2] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) took an oath to not to drink made from honey. He did not make it Haram in Deen.

Sunni: JazakAllah Khayr. You’re absolutely correct in saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not deem it as Haram in Deen.

Salafi: JazakAllah.

Sunni: Your statement itself is absolutely correct but I note the foundation on which it is based it is faulty. Your answer is based on foundation; Haraming in Deen would have lead to ascending on throne of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not so he isn’t guilty of claiming right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Correct me if I am wrong.

Salafi: No, you’re fine.

Sunni: This means you’re holding to literalism of the verse which is; Halaling His Haram and Haraming His Halal leads to elevating to rank of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. I need to respond to two points and to begin with I will refute the literal understanding of verse.

Salafi: What is other thing you need to respond to?

Sunni: I need to respond to your understanding that if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared it Haram he would have claimed right of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. I believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was permitted to legislate religion as he desired.

Salafi: A Prophet does not speak out of his own desires but only through Wahi. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could have changed legislation on basis of received Wahi but not independently of His instruction.

Sunni: I believe if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wanted to make it Haram in Deen he had permission and Shar’ee jurisdiction to do so. Had Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said it is Haram then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have backed up his pronouncement via Wahi if there was need for Wahi.

Salafi: Do you have evidence?

Sunni: In due time, brother. Now let me deal with literalism of verse.

087 - As Per Salafi Understanding/Methodology Prophet Committed Shirk:

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] The Ayah indicates each Mushrik took his own ego/desire as god. Meaning everyone of them was law unto themselves and they legislated right/wrong practice for themselves based on what they felt was right/wrong. This Ayah is about how each individual Mushrik behaved and how each one of them decided right/wrong and permissible/impermissible for themselves. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also declared honey drink Haram for himself. In other words what you said above is supporting my position because he didn’t make it Haram in Deen of Islam but he made it Haram upon himself. And Mushriks would make things Haram/Halal for themselves based on how they desired. Obedience to another against Haram/Halal of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not only affirmation of Rububiyyah but worship as well: “Narrated 'Adi bin Hatim: "I came to the Prophet while I had a cross of gold around my neck. Salafi: 'O Adi! Remove this idol from yourself!' And I heard him reciting from Surah Bara'ah: ‘They took their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.’ (9:31). Salafi: 'As for them … but when they made something lawful for them, they considered it lawful, and when they made something unlawful for them, they considered it unlawful.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B44, H3095, here.] In absence of Taweel of apparent text then your Salafism establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) took his own ego as a god/Ilah and worshipped his ego as a Rabb. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam); you have Haramed upon your self what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) made Halal. You’re making Taweel apparent text and you said it is not allowed until it is proven from Salaf.

Salafi: You didn’t respond to what I wrote. You’re ignoring my explanation.

Sunni: Brother I told you I will refute literal implications of verse. Smile.

[I didn’t know then what he wanted me to respond to and still don’t have clue what he wanted me to respond to. What I do know for absolute is; everything needing refutation from me was responded to. I didn’t ask him during discussion as I was in hurry to say what I needed to before hammer falls. It has been made clear to me by both brothers that I demand a lot of waiting around and patience. They even have joked he, Ali, is comfy on Sofa enjoying tea while we wait for him twiddling our thumbs. Smiles.]

088 - In Which Meaning Prophet Declared It Haram Upon Himself:

Salafi: What is your understanding of the verse [Q25:43/Q45:23] then?

Sunni: These verses, Q25:43/Q45:23, do not establish major Shirk but establish misguidance as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said in following verse: "But if they do not respond to you - then know that they only follow their (own vain) desires. And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people." [Ref: 28:50]  These verses establish misguidance and transgression against command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) when something is declared Haram/Halal, good/bad without assuming throne of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. Judgment depends upon what was Haramed/Halaled.

Sunni: As you said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not intend to make it Haram upon himself as in Haram Shar’ee, nor he usurped Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah by claiming it. He prohibited for himself due to he thought it produced offensive smell. His action was and is no different from me prohibiting milk for myself because I am lactose intolerant. This prohibition isn’t Shar’ee prohibition but a prohibition due to incompatibility in my case intolerance of lactose and in Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) due to assumed offensive smell of honey.

Sunni: The verse I quoted above note what it says: "And who is more astray than one who follows his desire without guidance from Allah? Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people." [Ref: 28:50] To follow desire without guidance of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is to be in worst kind of misguidance. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was not following his desire and prohibiting drink upon himself without guidance of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He provided guidance with regards to bad smells from mouth and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) enacted on His teachings which stated abstain from anything which produces bad smells if you attend mosque. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was always in company of people so it was his decision to not to drink it again to not to cause discomfort to others due to smell. At minimum it was Ijtihad of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and it was absolutely correct.

Salafi: This is Takbir moment.

Umar: Allahu Akbar!

Sunni: Allahu Akbar.

Salafi: How is that different from what the Mushrikeen did?

Sunni: Already answered this brother.

Umar: Answer what brother Abdullah asked, please.

Sunni: Mushrikeen were genuinely deciding their religion. What to worship? When to worship? How to worship idols/Jinn/angels etc. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not declare it Haram in Shar’ee sense. Its like I deciding not to eat raw garlic, or onion. You can say I have Haramed these upon myself in raw form but I have Shar’ee permission to do so. And secondly I have right of choice. I choose not to eat something for my entire life even then no harm. Similarly Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) chose and intended to not to drink it again.

089 - It Is Kufr For Non-Prophet To Declare His Halal As Haram And Not Shirk:

Salafi: Mushrikeen committed Shirk by legislating religion for themselves then. Am I correct?

Sunni: Upon literal meaning we are forced to following conclusion; Mushrikeen were not Mushrik before deciding on new god to worship, Halal/Haram and good/bad. We know this was not the case. They were Mushrik before and after. Therefore verse cannot be understood literally, nor its literal deductions are true intending meaning. They committed Kufr by judging Haram as Halal and Halal as Haram. Mushrikeen committed Shirk through affirming belief of Ilahiyyah for idols. Their ego/desire urged take this stone as your god it is better then your current god so they took new stone as god. Shirk was already in their belief and deciding Haram as Halal didn’t make them Mushrik.

Sunni: Taking ego as a god, or the God can only be Shirk if RandomX believes I am god/God and thus I can legislate religion. Or believes my ego/desire is my God/god and I obey them as compelled. Halaling/Haraming against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without this belief is only Kufr; which is lesser offense then Shirk but not enough to take one out of eternal hellfire.

Salafi: Your explanation brings us back to real issue of our debate; belief alone leading to Shirk VS lone action [without Shirk belief] leading to Shirk. You’re giving the belief primacy and we say both independently of each other can lead to Shirk. Any evidence supporting it is Kufr and not Shirk?

Sunni: I don’t have specific evidence saying, it is Kufr and not Shirk, but there is evidence to prove it is Kufr: “So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers.” [Ref: 5:44] Judging by not what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed means judging by what was legislated to be Halal/Haram, good/bad by desires and ego of men.

Salafi: This Ayah was revealed for Jews/Christians.

Sunni: Ayah Jews/Christians taking their scholars and monks as Lords is connected with verses we are discussing and due to similarity in meaning so is this verse related to all verses we are discussing.

090 - Allah’s Right To Legislate And He Shared It With His Messenger:

Sunni: The true right to legislate religion is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) this is why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says they have taken their ego as a god. Yet this right has also been conferred to His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) on basis of which he said; if I said Hajj is Fardh every year it would be so, here, here, here etc. To usurp an exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk but one in which His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is authorized to act can only be Kufr because that establishes this right is not His exclusive right. And this judgment agrees with Quranic evidence quoted earlier.

Salafi: You’re seriously misguided Sufi. Right to legislate religion is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only and to give His right to a creation is Shirk.

Sunni: Did the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lie about his authority?  If he said Hajj is Fardh every year would it not be so?

Salafi: This Hadith goes against what is in Quran.

Sunni: I did not ask you if it contradicts Quran or not. I asked you did the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) lie about his authority.

Salafi: That is what I answered indirectly. Quran has primacy over Hadith and if Quranic verses do not support your position then I reject these Ahadith.

Sunni: This is a example of taking your ego/desire as a God. Will you establish defect in Hadith through established principles or will you worship (obey) your ego. You reject them without establishing weakness in them.

Salafi: In one of your article you also rejected Sahih Hadith on basis that it contradicts Quran. I reject these Ahadith because I believe it is not what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught.

Sunni: I have never rejected a Sahih Hadith unless it was from abrogated Ahadith. You’re just making stuff up.

Salafi: You rejected this Hadith, here, read sections from 5.0 to 5.3.

Sunni: Smiles. Brother this Hadith is not Sahih for two reasons. One it clearly utterly contradicts text of Quran. You believe it is Sahih I challenge you to reconcile it with story of Prophet Nuh (alayhis salam) mentioned in Quran and write a refutation on it and I will respond in kind.

Umar: Brother Ali do you have evidence from Quran to support your position that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has the right to legislate religion.

Sunni: I have already provided Ahadith in support of my position.

Umar: Anything from Quran?

Sunni: I am under no obligation to do so. Brother Abdullah claimed the Hadith contradicts Quran he therefore must prove his position.

Umar: Brother Abdullah onus lies with you.

091 - Evidence Which Supports Right To Legislate Religion Is Of Allah:

Salafi: Q4:60, Q6:57, Q6:62, Q12:40, Q12:67, Q13:37, Q18:26, Q28:70 and Q28:88. Smiles.

Umar: Smiles.

Salafi: I hope he knows Arabic enough and not totally dependent upon translations.

Umar: He is away. His Arabic is basic but Urdu is very good level.

Sunni: Salam. Choose one, or two on which you want to discuss about. One, or twenty same point will be proven. One Quranic verse is just as compelling as twenty so choose one/two.

Salafi: Wa alaykum salam. “Say: ‘Allah is most knowing of how long they remained. He has (knowledge of) the unseen (aspects) of the heavens and the earth. How Seeing is He and how Hearing! They have not besides Him any protector, and He shares not His legislation with anyone.’" [Ref: 18:26]

Sunni: Thank you.

092 - Knowing Of Ghayb And Methodology Of Understanding Quran:

Sunni: Do you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possesses knowledge of Ghayb?

Salafi: What has this topic got to do with what we discussing?

Sunni: It has something to do with methodology of understanding the Quran.

Salafi: Don’t make it long brother but go ahead.

Sunni: There are many verses of Quran which indicate Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ilm ul-Ghayb such as: Q6:59, Q9:78, Q10:20, Q11:123, and Q27:45 etc. Other verses instruct Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to say he doesn’t know Ghayb such as: Q6:50, Q7:188, and Q11:31 etc. Yet there are verses of Quran which reveal Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was given knowledge of Ghayb such as: Q3:179, Q11:49, Q12:102, Q72:26/27, and Q81:24 etc.

Salafi: Are you trying to prove there is contradiction in Quran?

Sunni: By only reading verses related to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knowing Ghayb and verses instructing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to negate knowing Ghayb chances are reader would assume; only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ghayb and none has been granted Ilm ul-Ghayb including Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). When both sides of coin are explored we come to conclusion; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) knows Ghayb and He has granted it to His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Sunni: Brother you’re forgetting I am Muslim. Why would you make assumption that I am establishing there is contradiction in Quran on theme of Ghayb? Stop making destructive assumptions on my behalf.

Salafi: Brother even if your intent is not so but you have indirectly insinuated there is contradiction.

Sunni: There is no contradiction in three sets of Ayaat. If there is problem it is in your understanding and defective conclusions that you have made on these verses.

Salafi: These verses speak for themselves brother. Why should I not deduce natural conclusion from these verses?

Sunni: Did I reveal the Quran? I have not so I have no control over what it contains nor I should be blamed for bringing something to attention. I the only one out of us three that believes in Quran as book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it is without contradiction, or defect of any kind? Then can you then stop interrogating me because I am getting annoyed. I can offer my brief explanation of these three verses but only when I am done with main subject we are discussing.

Salafi: OK!

Sunni: Point I was making was to understand Quran/Sunnah we have to take all available evidences on a topic into account and then make a judgment based on this collective evidence. Without gathering all available evidences on a subject we would either make a defective judgment. We can only determine what a coin looks like after we have properly examined both sides and ridge of coin. By looking at one side of coin we will never make correct judgment about a coin. Same principle applies to subject of knowing Ghayb and on subject of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having authority to legislate religion. This was the point I was attempting to make and not establish contradiction.

Salafi: I agree with you that we need to judge by considering all evidences but there is a problem. On subject of Ghayb you have two three sets of verses and out of them one indicates Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was given knowledge of Ghayb by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Do you have evidence against what I have presented which forces us to reconsider the over-all conclusion?

093 - Hidden Revelation, Not-To-Be Recited Revelation Source Of Hadith:

Sunni: Proof is following Hadith: "Abu Huraira reported: Allah's Messenger addressed us and said: O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory for you; so perform Hajj. Thereupon a person said: Messenger of Allah, (is it to be performed) every year? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet, and he repeated (these words) thrice, whereupon Allah's Messenger said: If I were to say, yes, it would become obligatory and you would not be able to do it. Then he said: Leave me with what I have left to you, for …" [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3095, here.] Nothing needs to be added.

Salafi: I knew you have got no evidence from Quran to support your position.

Sunni: I might have and might not but for now. These Ahadith are my evidence and I cannot give-up struggling on these Ahadith without first spelling out the truth. Hold one while I write. Not all Wahi Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) received became part of Quran.

Sunni: Scholars agree that Wahi is of two types: (i) Wahi Jalli (outward revelation) also termed as Wahi Matlu (recited revelation). (ii) Wahi Khafi (hidden revelation) alternative name for this is Wahi Ghayr Matlu (revelation not-be-recited).

Salafi: These Ahadith are against Quranic verses and Muhadditheen and Imams have said when a Hadith contradicts Quran it is rejected.

Sunni: Stop jumping the gun brother Abdullah. I was intending to argue the permission to legislate religion could have been granted to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) through hidden revelation, in other words not-to-be-recited revelation. And this permission manifested itself through the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) about Hajj.

Salafi: If it was part of such Wahi then it would have been in Hadith and it is obviously not.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you’re being tad bit too skeptical. What brother Ali purposed is a good explanation.

Sunni: Brother we both believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) via Wahi taught Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) method of performing Salah. And I am fully aware there is no such Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said I was instructed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) via Wahi [Ghayr Matlu] to perform Salah like this and this, and to teach you it as well. Instead Ahadith indicate he taught the method of Salah with such reference. Why do you want me to provide you a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, I was granted permission to legislate religion, explicitly. You do not make such demands regarding Salah. When instruction of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) regarding, how to perform Salah, manifests through Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) you have no objections. Yet when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) granted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) right to legislate religion. And it manifested by what he uttered then you disbelieved in His Wahi.

Salafi: You are a typical Barelwi. Wonder aimlessly until you come on a path and then never let go of it. In other words you will repeat your Hadith and argument again and again even though it cannot stand against Quranic evidence.

Salafi: I do not disbelieve in Wahi. I merely hold to position these Ahadith contradict Quran and as such they are not reliable. Quote me single Ayah in support of your position and I will leave my current position.

Sunni: I do have Quranic evidence but I had to make Hujjah.

Salafi: Laughs. Brother if you had any you would have quoted it long ago.

Sunni: As for my evidence, Q3:79, Q6:89, Q21:74, Q21:79, and Q45:16.

Umar: Why did you not quote this evidence before?

Sunni: I have more but it is specific so I will hold it back until needed.

Salafi: It would be better you quote it now because then I can verify references and look into Tafasir.

Sunni: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who ..." [Ref: 7:157] “And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty." [Ref: 59:7]

094 - Unveiling The Truth And Refuting Brother Abdullah’s Argument:

Salafi: Q3:79 uses word Hukm/al-Hukma and Mufassireen have explained it means wisdom in Tafsir Ibn Abbas, here, Law/Torah in Tafsir Ibn Kathir, here, and Tafsir Jalalayn in Arabic says, reference of book and al-Hukma is about Shari’ah, here. Verse Q6:89 uses word Hukm/al-Hukma and Tafsir Jalalayn clearly employed word Hikmat (wisdom) in explanation, here. Every single usage of al-Hukma in these verses is about legal rulings which Quran declared as wisdom. You’re distorting the meaning of these verses to justify your position. Coming to your key evidences Q7:157 and Q59:7. I have checked number of Tafasir none of them say these verses mean Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) himself declares something Haram/Halal rather he explains what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) declared Haram/Halal in Quran. Both sets of verses do not prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been given authority to legislate religion.

Sunni: (i) You quoted these verses; Q4:60, Q6:57, Q6:62, Q12:40, Q12:67, Q13:37, Q18:26, Q28:70, Q28:88; to argue only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has right to legislate religion and none else. All you have to do is look into Tafasir and you will find Mufassireen have interpreted the word Hukm in many meanings including authority/judgment/legislation. Despite the difference in Tafasir you ignored and held to apparent and popular meaning of al-Hukm which I didn’t object to nor opposed. (ii) Brother if we go by strictly what is in Tafasir then you have no basis to argue verses similar in meaning to following prove major Shirk via elevation to rank of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] You either hold to Tafasir, or hold to literal reading of verses. Can’t play pick and choose game. Here I want to hold to literalism of verses but here literalism of verse refutes me so I go to Tafsir. You’re being dishonest to yourself and deceiving yourself. Be consistent in how you understand Quranic verses.

095 - Demonstrating Prophetic Methodology Of Interpreting Quranic Verses:

Sunni: I don’t and I cannot deny/reject word al-Hukm in these verses has been used in meaning of wisdom and this wisdom found in Shari’ah and wisdom in general. Understanding of Quran is not limited/restricted until it limits itself. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) called a companion and he was performing Salah so he did not attend until after completing Salah. He asked the companion why he didn’t attend when he was called and the companion said I was performing Salah. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directed his attention to following verse in an effort to teach him that believers are to respond to his call regardless of what they are doing: “O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered.” [Ref: 8:24] This Hadith can be found in Tirmadhi, here. This verse was revealed in historical context of Jihad and therefore it means respond to call of Jihad … Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) took it out of its historical event context and informed companion that he should have responded to his call regardless of what he was engaged in. And he imparted to companion that he disobeyed command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by not answering his call.

Sunni: What does this tell us? Is it telling us the verse is restricted to historical context and no other interpretation is allowed? Or we learn if contents of verse linguistically allow another interpretation then we have the right to interpret it so?

096 - Linguistically It is Possible To Interpret al-Hukma To Mean Judgment:

Salafi: Brother language of verse Q8:24 is general and it allows prophetic explanation.

Sunni: This was the point I was about to make brother Abdullah. Linguistically following verses can be applied on subject of authority/judgment being granted to Prophets to legislate matters of religion Q3:79, Q6:89, Q21:74, Q21:79, and Q45:16. We have precedent of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his methodology of understanding Quran. Same rule is to be applied to following verses of Quran: Sunni: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who ..." [Ref: 7:157] “And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty." [Ref: 59:7] The apparent of these verses indicate Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has the right to legislate religion and legislate Hajj every year is compulsory: "Abu Huraira reported: Allah's Messenger addressed us and said: O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory for you; so perform Hajj. Thereupon a person said: Messenger of Allah, (is it to be performed) every year? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet, and he repeated (these words) thrice, whereupon Allah's Messenger said: If I were to say, yes, it would become obligatory and you would not be able to do it. Then he said: Leave me with what I have left to you, for …" [Ref: Muslim, B7, H3095, here.]

Salafi: Brother Ali You’re over-ruling a verse based on a single Hadith. I can’t accept the fact that you believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can legislate religion without input from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says a Prophet does not speak out of his own desires and you’re saying he legislates religions according to his own desires.

Sunni: (i) There is more evidence brother Abdullah but I abstain from quoting other because I will have to search for them which is time consuming. And I only quoted the Hadith of Hajj because it is pre-prepared and saved in my database. (ii)“Abu Hurairah narrated that: Allah's Messenger said: ‘If it were not that it would be difficult on my nation, then I would have ordered them to use the Siwak for each prayer.’” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H22, here.] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could have made Siwak Fardh for every prayer just as Wudhu is but considering the difficulty we would be put in he did not. Another Hadith in which poorest Sahabi invalidate his fast through sexual intercourse and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legislated easiest law for him: “Narrated Abu Huraira: A man came to the Prophet and said, "I had sexual intercourse with my wife on Ramadan (while fasting)." The Prophet asked him, "Can you afford to manumit a slave?" He replied in the negative. The Prophet asked him, "Can you fast for two successive months?" He replied in the negative. He asked him, "Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?" He replied in the negative. (Abu Huraira added): Then a basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet and he said (to that man), "Feed (poor people) with this by way of atonement." He said, "(Should I feed it) to poorer people than we? There is no poorer house than ours between its (Medina's) mountains." The Prophet said, "Then feed your family with it." [Ref: Bukhari, B31, H158, here.] (iii) The verse you referred to is about Wahi. Meaning Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not invent Quranic verse because of his desires rather it s a Wahi sent to him. (iv) We do not believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legislates religion out of his own desires. We believe what he desires to be religion Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) through Wahi, hidden or apparent, declares what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) wished has been made religion. We believe he and all Prophets are protected from misguidance, sin, Kufr, and Shirk.

Salafi: There is no proof for this belief of yours in Quran/Sunnah.

Umar: Brother Abdullah he is basically saying Itjihadaat of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) knowingly/unknowingly to him are directed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: I will get to the evidence part. First I need to complete what I was writing.

Sunni: And out of his speech/action any matter of religion which did not originate through Wahi was his Ijtihad and there are two types of Ijtihadaat: (i) A issue had general guidance in Quran/Sunnah but a specific matter wasn’t dealt in them and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Ijtihad then he never made mistake. (ii) On a matter which there was no general guidance provided and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) performed Ijtihad in such matters his Ijtihad was at times correct and at times missed the mark of perfection. Every such instance was prior to guidance of revelation and on every such instance Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) corrected Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Ijtihad of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was never out right wrong rather it did not befit the majesty of a Prophet.

Salafi: The incident of blind man. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) turned away from him and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) rebuked him and this is proof of minor sin.

Sunni: How does that incident go the two principles I established? Sorry! I jumped the gun thinking you want to prove error of Ijtihad. Hold your horses brother. Law before the crime = crime. Drinking alcohol before it was Haram, NO SIN and drinking after it was declared Haram = SIN. A action is only sinful after when the law has been laid.

Sunni: On what basis did you say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) committed minor sin? Which law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that preceded the event did Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) violated? This matter was of prophetic Ijtihad and high moral standards on which a Prophet must conduct himself. A non-Muslim, I am inviting to Islam, and a blind Muslim, yes the blind man was a companion, interrupts my Dawah with questions. Who is your/my priority? One who is safe of la ilaha il-Allah Muhammadur RasoolAllah or one who is closer to fire every gone second then he was? Why was Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) judged differently? Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was displeased with continuous interruption and his face showed it. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not want his Messenger to even show signs of displeasure despite interruptions. This does not befit the majesty of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reminded him of his role and standard he should maintain.

097 - Prophet Of Allah Is Protected From Misguidance Because He Speaks Only Truth:

Sunni: The verse you quoted, he does not speak out of his own desire, itself is proof that when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legislates religion he does so according to His wishes. If Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared something Haram in Shar’ee sense without receiving Wahi from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and without knowing will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he would only declare Haram what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wanted to be Haram. In other words just as Jamhoor (majority) of Ummah’s scholarship is protected against misguidance so is Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) protected against declaring something Haram/Halal against wishes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When he declares something Haram/Halal without receiving explicit Wahi even then he declares it Haram/Halal according to revelation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’aala). And this is a meaning of verse you quoted: “Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. He has been taught (this Quran) by one mighty in power (Jibraeel).” [Ref: 53:3/5]

Salafi: Any scholarly support for your Tafsir?

Sunni: There maybe in Arabic Tafasir but as far as English Tafasir are concerned there is nothing as such. In Urdu Tafsir Tibyan ul-Quran, here, authored by Allamah Ghulam Rasool Saeedi. I have no doubt Tafsir is absolutely correct due to some Ahadith, quoted Shaykh Ibn Kathir, here.

Salafi: I presume that ‘Allamah’ is a Barelwi scholar. Smiles.

Sunni: He is a Sunni (Barelwi) Aalim but he indicates who else from earlier scholars explicitly stated and held to same interpretation of verses.

Salafi: I can’t read Urdu. What Ahadith are you basing your understanding on.

Sunni: I am unable to find the reference for the Hadith. Wordings is roughly: Write, by Allah in whose control is my life nothing comes out of this mouth except the truth. This Hadith establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can only utter truth and nothing but truth. And words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are in my understanding restating what the verse says except with emphasis: “Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired.” [Ref: 53:3/4] This Hadith supports understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even in cases of Ijtihad is guided by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Salafi: How is Ijtihad of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) directed by Wahi when he made mistakes in his Ijtihad? This would entail Wahi lead to error in Ijtihad.

Umar: “Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As: I used to write everything which I heard from the Messenger of Allah. I intended (by it) to memorize it. The Quraysh prohibited me saying: Do you write everything that you hear from him while the Messenger of Allah is a human being: he speaks in anger and pleasure? So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah. He signaled with his finger to him mouth and said: Write, by Him in Whose hand my soul lies, only right comes out from it." [Ref: Abu Dawud, B25, H3639, here.]

Sunni: Jazakallah khayr brother Umar. Only Ijtihad that agreed with will of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was constrained by Wahi. Ijtihadaat in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made mistakes resulted from not have general guidance via revelation on basis of which Ijtihad can be made, or forgetting some aspect of Wahi. And this forgetfulness was bought on by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so some aspect of Islam and Sunnah becomes obvious for believers: “Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘I forget or I am made to forget so that I may establish the Sunnah.’" [Ref: Muwatta Imam Malik, B4, H2, here.] My objective was to establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has authority to legislate religion and that subject has been decided in light of evidences I quoted. What we are discussing now isn’t related to topic.

Salafi: You’re dodging my question brother Ali.

Sunni: I am sorry to say, I have nothing to say on the subject.

098 - Explaining Why I Refused To Discuss Subject Any Further:

Maturidi scholarly works such as Fiqh ul-Akbar of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah), Sharh Fiqh ul-Akbar  Imam Mullah Ali Qari (rahimullah), Mawaqif Fi Ilm ul-Kalam by Qadhi Abdullah Bin Ahmad Iji (rahimullah), Sharah Mowaqif by Mir Syed Shareef Jurjani (rahimullah), Nibras, Sharh, Sharh Aqaid by Allamah Abdul Aziz Parharvi (rahimullah), Sharah Aqaid Imam Sa’d al-Deen Mas’ud Taftazani (rahimullah), Tamheed by Allamah Abu Shakur Salmi (rahimullah), Khayali of Mullah Abdul Hakeem Sialkoti (rahimullah) all hold to view that Prophets were without major/minor sins before the Prophet-hood and after the Wahi was granted to them but they can make mistakes. There was chance subject of, Prophets being sinless or not, would be dragged into our discussion and I was not prepared for the discussion. It is not enough to be able to explain away a evidence as I did in case of blind companion. More concrete guidance would be needed to establish traditional Maturidi stance. And not knowing evidences on basis of which scholars arrived at the conclusion that Prophets are all sinless before/after announcement of Prophet-hood would have put me in dangerous position. It was likely that I would be forced to step outside of my knowledge boundary and maybe step out the confines of (Maturidi scholarship of) Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. It is important to know that there have been great Ashari scholars likes of Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (rahimullah), Imam ul-Haramayn Ibn Yusuf al-Juwayni (rahimullah) who have said Prophets can commit minor sins but not major sins. This establishes difference of opinion between scholarship of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. Salafi brother Abdullah hold to position predominately held by Ashari scholarship. We do not condemn Ashari scholarship nor those who take their route but we disagree with them while maintaining respect which is not afforded to heretics.

[Please note the above was not part of our discussion. I have added this during write-up of this discussion.]

099 - Why Ahlul Biddah Not Ahlul Kufr But Why Only Deemed As Misguided:

Umar: I have a important question regarding something both of you already discussed [82 to 84 and 89 to 90]. I am sure brother Abdullah will also appreciate answer to this question. How come Ahlul Biddah are not Ahlul Kufr even though they legislate religion against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?

Salafi: Jazakallah Khayr bro.

Sunni: There are many issues which have divided the Ummah but these issues are not Kufr/Shirk. Any teaching which goes against clear emphatic teaching of Quran is Kufr and we do not consider them amongst Muslim Ahlul Biddah rather Kafir Ahlul Biddah because of their Kufria Biddah. Take Qadiyanis for example. They have denied meaning of Khatamiyyah and believe in a new Prophet we take them out of Islam. Where legislated religious innovation opposing Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) teaching we declare it Kufr and where innovation does not go against what is legislated by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) we don’t exclude believers/practitioners of such innovation from Islam. We say it is misguidance taking to fire in accordance with prophetic Sunnah and we do not pronounce judgment such person is to stay in hellfire for eternity.

Salafi: Jazakallah Khayr. The least I say your understanding of verses produces consistent judgment regarding Ahlul Biddah. At one hand I am forced to toe the line of Salafi scholarship in their verdict about Ahlul Biddah [that Ahlul Biddah are not guilty of major Shirk]. And to be honest I am not convinced they are indeed so due to verse and others like this: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43]

100 - Why Finding Difficult To Accept Ahlul Biddah Not Guilty Of Major Shirk:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah what is preventing you from accepting what the entirety of Ummah is saying. Take bit of time and put everything in detail. What are your reasons? Put them down on paper in detail.

Salafi: Salafi scholars are saying if someone were to make some Haram to Halal that would be taking ego as a god. Or if someone legislated major Shirk for others or innovated major Shirk then ego/person has been elevated to rank of god but not for anything less. If someone innovates into Deen other matters, such as Mawlid, this is not major Shirk but misguidance. The Ayah says against this because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislates all aspects of religion not just Haram, Halal but Tawheed, Shirk, Ibadah, amr bil maroof, nahi anil munkar, major and minor aspects of religion. Ahlul Biddah legislate/introduce matters into Deen which are not Deen and according to the verse that is taking ego as a god.

Sunni: In context of Salafiyyah understanding of verse and methodology you’re absolutely correct in your observation there can be no exception even the rejected/evil innovations should warrant claim to Ilahiyyah. Because religion of Islam is inclusive of all the mentioned aspects and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislate minor/major components of religion. This is a problem for Salafi scholarship because your scholarship takes the verse and related to be literal affirmation if Ilahiyyah/Ibadah if a Halal is deemed Haram etc.

Salafi: That is what I am saying but your understanding of verse and your methodology [of determining Shirk] produces consistent judgment. You don’t take the verse to be literal affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Ibadah and therefore you don’t judge Ahlul Biddah to be people of Shirk instead you judge them depending upon their innovation.

Sunni: Brother this itself is proof that our understanding of verse, Q25:43 and related, is correct and Salafi understanding is wrong.

Salafi: I judge by right and wrong by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and based on revelation what you understood from the verse is wrong.

Sunni: Not just me. Salafi scholarship as well. You the only truly guided Muslim on earth. Congratulations. Smile.

Umar: Laughs.

Salafi: Smile.

101 - Problem Is Literalism, Denial Of Hakimiyyah, And Every Kufr Is Shirk Rule:

Salafi: I am certain my position is wrong but I need definitive evidence why your understanding is correct and why I am in wrong.

Sunni: The problem is not just you. The real fault is in Salafi scholarships literal understanding of verse and Salafi scholarships belief only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislates religion. Your fault is that you adhere to literalism of verse and refuse to believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been granted the right to legislate religion.

Salafi: Presuppose I accept Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can legislate religion because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has given him permission to do so. There literalism of verse still will be obstacle in the way because innovation in Deen is still taking ego as an Ilah.

Sunni: By accepting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can legislate religion bi iznillahi ta’ala you’re introducing another possibility against your definitive understanding. According to Salafism Haraming a Halal is taking ego as a god. And if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) can legislate religion including Haram/Halal then if a Amr Haram’s a Halal it is possible that Amr did so taking his ego/himself as a prophet which would mean such would be major Kufr but not major Shirk. With addition of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) as a legislator of religion we introduce another possibility and this eliminates definitive judgment of Ilahiyyah which would be warranted according to Salafism.

Salafi: OK. Wouldn’t taking ego as a prophet without being appointed as a prophet warrant major Shirk because ego has been taken as a prophet legislator without permission and commission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Even with help of Taweel you dodge this judgment you cannot escape the fact that [major] Kufr is [major] Shirk and every [major] Shirk is [major] Kufr. However you look at it taking ego as a god is an act of major Shirk.

Sunni: With regards to claiming Prophet-hood at maximum it can be major Kufr as long as Tawheed is affirmed. With regards to your belief; every major Kufr being major Shirk and every major Shirk being major Kufr; is simply not true. This principle originates due to holding to literalism of verse: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] I thought there was two issues but you have reminded me there are three issues: (i) literalism of verse, (ii) denial of right of a prophet to legislate religion, (iii) principle that every major Kufr is major Shirk by default which is result of literalism of verse in discussion.

Sunni: One and two we have already discussed in detail and number three didn’t come up until now. And three is a symptom of number one so until you’re not convinced your understanding of verse is wrong three cannot be resolved. And to be honest I have nothing left to say to refute literalism of number one. All that I knew on the topic I have shared. And if we stick with the literalism of verse based on Tafsir it still does not go against Istighathah in anyway because for it to be applied upon Istighathah it must have been declared Haram explicitly and then you can Salafis could have said practitioners of Istighathah you have Halaled a Haram therefore you have taken Amr/desire as a Lord/Ilah.

Salafi: I quoted the Ayah to prove Ilahiyyah can be inferred even Zaid doesn’t explicitly affirm Ilahiyyah for Amr.

Sunni: You did but I established that it isn’t in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah rather if we go by literalism then Ilahiyyah has been affirmed for creation through accepting a Haram as Halal.

Salafi: Now I remember.

Sunni: The reality is the verses you quoted in no way negatively effect Istighathah even if we apply literal wording through Tafsir. And I am leaving the subject of understanding of verse, and other verses like this, upon you to resolve. It is not my burden to carry, nor job to deliver.

Salafi: Why have we been discussing the understanding of verse then if it doesn’t matter to you or me?

Umar: Brother Abdullah I will talk to Brother Ali leave it with me. Take a break from each other. You guys are frustrated especially brother Ali. He is having hissy fits for no reasons.

Sunni: Laughs!

Umar: For mean while I recommend both of you brother read the following, here, from 40.2 to 46.7. Same verse is discussed in detail.

Salafi: Watch out for his girly tantrums. Smile.

102 - Brother Umar Urges Me Return To Subject And Helps To Explain Verse:

Umar: Brother Ali you’re being disrespectful by refusing to discuss his concerns. This approach of my way or the high way isn’t good for Dawah. You out of all people should be sympathetic to plight and difficult situation brother Abdullah finds himself in. You can’t expect him to walk away from firm convictions based on one time negative experience you have imposed on him. It is very likely he has never put in such difficult position which he finds himself at the moment. There are so many things go on in the mind. Sincerely dedicated Muslim’s first recourse to a disturbing revelation is Shaytan is misguiding me. Then blame goes to lack of knowledge and eventually we become bit brave and entertain maybe I was wrong. Gradual change creeps in as knowledge increases.

Umar: Brother Abdullah at the very least acknowledges his understanding is wrong and he is not disputing but looking for a logically acceptable understanding of verse. He is not asking for too much he just wants what anyone would want. All you need to say is that the verse is not literal if it was this problem arises therefore the verse, taking desires/ego as god, is a METAPHORIC EXPRESSION meaning, defining religion according to ones own desires.

Sunni: I thought I have explained verse is not literal for these reasons but is metaphoric way of say this. I am sure I have.

Umar: You have only negated the literalism of verse but so far you have not connected it with metaphoric expression meaning x, y, z. What you need to do is refute literalism, prove there are cases in Quran where the literalism is not intended meaning of verse/Hadith. Then provide metaphoric meaning of verse which I have specified above. With literalism negated and the metaphoric meaning replacing literalism of verse you would plug the gap. This would likely increase chances of brother Abdullah accepting your stance. This is what persuaded me to change my stance.

Sunni: To be honest I am bit disheartened and frustrated with brother Abdullah. He is not responding positively to anything. I am on verge of throwing in the towel. I contemplated before but I am holding on only because if I quit this discussion will become massive source of bad reputation for Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah.

Umar: Brother Ali hold on. Wallahi! The truth is on path of victory and even brother Abdullah knows this. I can’t share with you discussions which I and brother Abdullah have had but I can tell you that truth has demolished the innovations made in defense of Salafism. Send an email to both of us and explain why you left the topic.

Sunni:  I will, today, but after bit of rest.

103 - E-Mail Explaining To Brother Abdullah Why I Abandoned Subject:

Sunni: Salam alaykum. Why did I discuss the verse of taking ego as a god? Simply because your understanding of verse poses a major threat to a teachings regarding which there is consensus. For example Muslims who have fallen into major/minor sins even though they know they are sinning are Muslims and they have not taken their ego as their god. Yet literalism of the verse charges them of major Shirk and necessitates they have taken their ego as god to legislate for them their own Haram/Halal, religion. And you’re already familiar with Ahlul Biddah becoming guilty of major Shirk due to warranting Salafi version of Shirk Ilahiyyah. Yet Ummah including Salafis are in agreement sinners and Ahlul Biddah those who affirm essential of Islam are not only Muwahid they are Muslims.

Sunni: Given the delicateness of matter and having the foresight I decided to encourage you to let go of the literalism of verse. Despite my best efforts you have not only refused every effort I made to redirect you to another understanding. When I bought in Ahlul Biddah issue to refute your literalism and was hoping you would desist from literalism of verse, what did you do? Instead of taking heed and fearing Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you adopted leaders of and Ahlul Biddah are Mushrikeen. And in this EMail I have connected your literal understanding of verse to sins equals taking ego/desires as god and now I am afraid you will openly embrace Kharijism and start charging Muslims of major Shirk/Kufr like Khawarij did. Instead of refuting your misguidance it seems I am helping you and solidifying Kharijism. Methodologically your beloved Salafism is Kharijism. The only difference is that early Khawarij followed the methodology to logical end and formed their beliefs on those deductions – i.e. companion/Muslims are Mushrik/Kafir for major sins. You folk on other hand adopted their methodology of determining Shirk but haven’t chased implications to their logical ends thus not formed your beliefs on them. In context of verses of taking ego/desire as a god it has to be said; you have selectively applied your methodology of determining Shirk on issues and ignored others such as sins and Ahlul Biddah. And instead opted for verdicts of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah and those who followed him. Indicating to me that Salafism is not guided by principles but by blind following of your scholars.

Sunni: You’re teetering on edge of open Kharijism. Despite my best efforts you have refused any and every help. After your, Ahlul Biddah are guilty of major Shirk for legislating religion, smack on my face I now have to evaluate benefit VS harm before I refute you. I held back sin issue against literalism of verses in question. Take for example issue of major/minor sin. According to literalism sinning results taking desire/ego as god because you have obeyed it. And if the verse teaches taking desire as a god is major Shirk then we have had it. This point could work in my favor but ultimately could have backfired on me like Ahlul Biddah argument did. I am not even ordinarily pious and practicing Muslim and as such I have great burden of sins of my own. Last thing I want is I being asked on the day of judgment, did you sow the seed of greater misguidance knowing where it will take him/others? What else can I do in this situation? I am not being disrespectful only walked out on the topic out of concern for you, where it could lead you/others, and for my own hereafter. I didn’t know what else I can do to dissuade you from adopting your literal understanding of verse hence I walked out on the subject. But brother Umar has helped me to see the issue more clearly and I will continue our discussion. Apologies if I have offended you.

104 - How, Why, Taking Ego As God, Came Into Discussion, And Problems Due To It:

Salafi: I appreciate your concern and insight on the subject. I didn’t realize how literalism of verse can result charge of major Shirk on those who commit sins. I accept I am at fault but there has to be some logic according to which I can understand why taking desire/ego as a god isn’t literal nor Shirk. I understand the damage literalism of verse is doing to beliefs which are agreed upon by both of us but verse has to be understood within frame work of principles of Tafsir.

Sunni: Brother I have given you the principles on basis of which you can easily judge but you did not accept them because it went against your argument against Istighathah. Verses of taking desire/ego as a god came into discussion because you wanted to establish belief of Ilahiyyah can be inferred from actions of Amr even if when belief is not believed by Amr.

Salafi: What was it that you said?

Sunni: The general principle is: Any belief, in this case Ilahiyyah, has to be affirmed by tongue and held by Amr in his heart/mind. We have no right to establish belief of Ilahiyyah for Amr from his actions when Amr categorically negates affirming belief of Ilahiyyah for a creation. How this relates to verse of ego/desire as god? It connects with it in two ways. When Amr heedlessly decides to act on sinful acts defined within Shari’ah without thinking about his actions he is guilty of sin. Why? Because he hasn’t affirmed belief of Shirk for himself or affirmed for his ego/desire Ilahiyyah. When a Amr believes, I am God/god of my own destiny. Or when a Amr believes that Dajjal is my God/god, he controls my destiny and legislates for me my morality and law then major Shirk has been committed. The cornerstone of major Shirk is BELIEF affirmed by tongue and held in heart/mind. Without belief one can Halal a Haram and Haram a Halal for himself in state of ignorance he will only be guilty of major sin. And if Amr is aware X is Haram in Quran but due to modernism holds to view X is no longer Haram because time has changed then Amr commits major Kufr. Belief affirmed by Amr is cornerstone of each judgment.

Sunni: You want to establish major Shirk even when a Amr has not affirmed belief of Shirk. Your objective has been to prove major Shirk via Ilahiyyah can be established even when Amr does not himself believe Ilahiyyah. Now if you accept affirmed belief of Amr has to be computed to prove Shirk has been committed then you loose your argument against Istighathah. And if you don’t accept it then Ahlul Biddah and sinners are Mushrikeen for taking their egos/desires as gods. Ahlul Biddah don’t actually believe founder of their sect is an Ilah and sinners don’t believe their ego/desire is their Ilah yet you will be forced to judge them guilty of major Shirk.

105 - Salafi Brother Gives Upon Three Fundamental Issues And Seeks Understanding:

Salafi: Salam alaykum. I took this novel approach [that belief of Ilahiyyah can be inferred for Amr even when he does not believe so] in order to establish Istighathah is act of Shirk. After consulting brother Umar and our books I have come to realize I was upon error. Based on what I have learnt through reading and discussion with brother Umar, brother Ali, I retract my stance that belief of Uluhiyyah, you would say Ilahiyyah, can be inferred for a Amr as his beliefs even when they are not explicitly affirmed by Amr as his beliefs.

Sunni: Ma Sha’Allah! What did you read and what did you discuss with brother Umar?

Salafi: Salafi scholarship does not prove Shirk in Istighathah on basis of belief of Uluhiyyah for a creation but directing of act of worship, such as Dua, to a creation.

Sunni: And what did you discuss with brother Umar?

Salafi: About what path Salafi scholarship took to establish Shirk of one who practices Istighathah. We both came to agreement that I have not followed methodology of Salaf in this regard so I have left it.

Sunni: It takes a lot of courage to admit fault after vehemently sponsoring/supporting it. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reward you for your good. Ameen.

Umar: Brother Abdullah and the other …

Salafi: Ameen. Another thing. I have repented about opposing evidence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) having Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permission and [Allah’s granted] right to legislate religion. I believe the verses are true and the Ahadith you quoted are true. I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from Shaytan and Kufr.

Sunni: Verse of taking ego as god cannot be literal because one could easily be claiming role of a Nabi and not Ilah. And universally principle is that Ihtimal (possibility) refutes/invalidates Istidlal (derived evidence) so what you have deduced from verse, taking desire as god, is invalid.

Sunni: This means you believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is legislator of religion. Negate if I have deduced wrongly.

Salafi: (i) I have already conceded my understanding of verse, Q25:43, is wrong but you haven’t specified what the verse actually means if the literalism isn’t correct. Brother Umar tells me you have answer in regards to this problem. (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been given authority to legislate religion. My question is why did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say they are taking ego as god? Why didn’t He also/instead say they are taking ego as a prophet? I know for this problem you have no answer for. For everything fall into place convincingly there has to be a good/strong evidence for this.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you have derailed yourself alone. Come to Kufr is Shirk, Shirk is Kufr issue.

Salafi: I completely forgot. I have realized that not every major Kufr is Shirk and not everyone guilty of major Kufr is also guilty of major Shirk. Brother Umar explained how this belief was connected with, taking ego as god. Now I acknowledged my understanding of verse is incorrect so I by default that principle [every Kufr is major Shirk and other way around] is wrong as well. We still have to hash out meaning for the verse and why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said legislating religion  is taking ego/desire as a god and not a Prophet.

Sunni: Are you all done?

Salafi: Yes. All done and dusted.

Sunni: Can I respond to some of the issues which you raised. It was so hard to sit and watch you type all alone. Smiles.

Salafi: OK.

106 - Why Allah Didn’t Say Mushrikeen Take Desires As Prophet/Messengers:

Salafi: Jazakallah khayr. At first explain why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t say Mushrikeen are taking desires/ego as their Prophet/Messenger.

Sunni: I quote the verses in discussion again so we can make reference to them without having to search for them.

Sunni: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23]

Sunni: These verses have been interpreted mainly in two ways: (i) and what the verse means, (ii) in context of historical event.

Sunni: I quoted both aspects of Tafsir previously but I repeat again: (i) “‘Have you seen him who takes his own lust as his god …’, who abides by his lust, and whatever his lust portrays as good he implements it, and whatever his lust portrays as evil, he abandons it!” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 45:23, here.] “’Have you seen him who has taken as his god his own vain desire?’ Meaning, whatever he admires and sees as good in his own desires becomes his religion and his way. As Allah says: ‘Is he then, to whom the evil of his deeds is made fair seeming. So that he consider it as good. Verily, Allah sends astray whom he wills.’ (35:8) [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 25:43, here.] (ii) “(Hast thou) O Muhammad (seen him who chooseth for his god his own lust) who worshipped his god ( i.e. al-Nadr and his host) out of the whim of his ego? (Wouldst thou) O Muhammad (then be guardian over him) a protector against going out for such corruption?” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Abbas, 25:43, here.] “(Hast thou seen) O Muhammad (him who maketh his desire his god) the one who worships a deity because of the whim of his ego; whenever his ego desires something, he worships it.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn al-Abbas, 45:23, here.] “Have you then seen inform Me about him who has taken as his god his own desire that is whatever new stone he may desire after having desired some other stone considering this new one to be better and whom God has led astray knowingly on His part …” [Ref: Tafsir Jalalayn, 45:23, here.] These Tafasir are fundamental to explanation I will provide. My conclusions are based what is stated in these two Tafasir types.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] And these verses are better explained by following: “Have you then considered Al-Lat, and Al-'Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs). And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the other third? Is it for you the males and for Him the females? That indeed is a division most unfair! They are but names which you have named - you and your fathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to them the Guidance from their Lord!” [Ref: 53:23] This establishes Mushrikeen followed their desires/ego in choosing/naming a god and naming it without an permission. This Tafsir provides scriptural backing for Tafsir of Ibn Abbas and Tafsir Jalalayn quoted above.

Sunni: There is one main reasons why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said deciding religion on basis of ego/desire is taking ego/desire as a god and not, taking ego/desire as a Prophet/Messenger.

Sunni: (ia) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is uncontrolled and He is in control of all decisions making including for his Prophets, He decides for all, none decides on his behalf, nor there is anyone to over-ride His injunctions except what He permits. In this context, person taking ego/desire as his god, means a person legislating religion without being subject to control of anyone thus being able to legislate whatever he/she desires as his religion without any confinements.

Sunni: (ib) A Prophet/Messenger even though has power to legislate religion but he is limited/restricted to confines of legal laws/Fiqh and if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) desired he could void the decisions of Prophets/Messengers but they cannot do other way around. Prophets and the Messengers are dependent upon Wahi/revelation from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and are in complete control of His will and command. Prophets are subject to Wahi and their Ijtihadaat are subject to Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) approvals/disapprovals.

Sunni: (ic) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not say, have you seen he who takes his desire/ego as a Prophet, because this would insinuate Mushrik’s ego/desire is subject to authority of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), under control and approval of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is not meaning Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wants to convey because this was not true depiction of behavior of Mushrikeen. Mushrikeen legislated  religion as they desired/willed without any control whatsoever including what/who they should take as Ilah and worship in their religion. Saying Mushrikeen taking ego as their god indicates total lack of control in regards to deciding what is religion and this reflects reality and actual behavior of Mushrikeen. Where as saying, have you seen him who takes his ego/desire as a Prophet, does not convey required meaning.

Sunni: (ii) Right to appoint an Ilah, a Ma’bud, a Rabb … and who is not an Ilah, Rabb, Ma’bud is exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and none beside Him can decide this. And any who legislates X is an Ilah/Rabb and deserves to be worshipped out of desire/ego has usurped an exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is literally major Shirk Amr takes an exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for himself. And doing that is comparable to claiming Ilahiyyah hence Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) phrased the verse as we read it.

Sunni: For details you need to refer to earlier discussion if you have it saved. Or to discussion between I and brother Umar, here, from 40.2 to 46.7.

Sunni: I have incorporated what Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) and what the Tafsir of two Jalal’s (Allah be pleased with them) has stated. And to these Tafasir I added my understandings to provide you the response to your question.

Umar: That was a very good explanation.

Umar: Why didn’t you tell me you have unraveled the mystery that got better of you once before?

Sunni: Because I didn’t resolve the problem until after last session.

107 - Resolving Seeming Contradiction, It Was Kufr, Now It Is Shirk:

Salafi: There is contradiction. You said legislating religion against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Kufr but not Shirk and now you said it is Shirk.

Sunni: Brother matters in which a Prophet’s/Messenger’s will/desire can play part, such as Fiqhi issues, such as Haram/Halal. Legislating against such injunctions it is Kufr but realm of who is an Ilah/Rabb and who isn’t and who is to be worshipped is absolutely unique to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). No Prophet, or Messenger can petition Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), O Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can you make it Halal for us to take a cow as an Ilah and worship of cow Halal for us. Prophets, Messengers cannot alter Tawheed due to their authority given to them. They cannot say, OK, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is three in one, from today because I have spoken. This realm is uniquely of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and only He has legislative authority on matter of who is/isn’t an Ilah/Rabb and none beside Him. And anyone beside Him exercising this authority has committed Shirk by taking usurping His right.

Salafi: Why didn’t you say this before?

Sunni: Because I am only human being. Not everything becomes clear to me immediately. More I delve on a verse more valid ways of interpreting the verse I find. Last time I was completely stomped by this subject and now I have a explanation.

Salafi: I will not disagree with your explanation because I love it, smiles, but is there evidence which can help.

Sunni: There is evidence but one within my reach at the moment is not so clear. It can be turned toward the topic through reasoning and Tafsir rules.

Salafi: I will hear you out.

Sunni: I am not sure I will be able to convey clearly or you be able to make connection as clearly as I envision them in my head.

Umar: Its worth a try brother Ali. We small people will try to tune our minds to your higher learning. Smiles.

Salafi: Smiles.

Sunni: “And satan will say when the matter has been concluded, "Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I promised you, but I betrayed you. But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me. So do not blame me; but blame yourselves. I cannot be called to your aid, nor can you be called to my aid. Indeed, I denied your association of me (with Allah) before. Indeed, for the wrongdoers is a painful punishment.” [Ref:14:22]

Sunni: Satan says I denied your Shirk of me with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) because he legislated for them all aspects of their religion. This is including what to and how to worship. Deciding who/what Ilah is elevating himself to level of an Ilah because he interfered in something which was exclusive for Him so he elevated Himself to level of an Ilah. Realizing he behaved as god and was taken as a god beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Satan makes excuse: “But I had no authority over you except that I invited you, and you responded to me.”
 

Edited 4 مارچ 2022 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

108 - Brother Umar, If Satan Is A False-Ilah, Then Following Verses Are Literal:

Umar: This has raised another thorny issue. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (Allah) call but upon females (goddesses): They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60] All the verses of which you have made Taweel and said they are not literal are all of sudden literal if your explanation is correct. This would mean belief of Ilahiyyah can be inferred even in absence of direct/explicit affirmation.

Salafi: Someone is fighting in my corner finally. Smiles.

Umar: I am not fighting in his or your corner.

Sunni: You have to make distinction between Satan; (i) being a false-Ilah, or taking role of an Ilah, (ii) and Satan being believed to be an Ilah by Mushrikeen. Yes, Satan took for himself the role of Ilah, legislated religion for Mushrikeen, and this cannot be denied. Yet the Mushrikeen did not directly/inwardly/outwardly/explicitly/verbally profess Satan to be their Ilah nor they believed worship was due to Satan, or he should be called upon instead of their gods. Therefore not a single verse out of three establishes Mushrikeen believed in Satan to be their Ilah and worshipped it intentionally.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says in verse 117 Mushrikeen have abandoned Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for idol-goddesses (i.e. Lat, Uzza, Manat) and instead call upon them: “(The Mushrikeen) leaving Him (Allah) call but upon females (goddesses): …” [Ref: 4:117] He tells you what they invoke goddesses and then He adds from Himself that they in reality and in His judgment: “… They call but upon Satan the persistent rebel!” [Ref: 4:117] How can calling upon Satan be literal action of Mushrikeen when Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) makes it clear they invoke goddesses?  Obviously not literal and not belief of Mushrikeen but in reality and in His judgment this is what the Mushrikeen are doing. And Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) turned the verse away from literal reading: “‘and they invoke nothing but Shaytan, a persistent rebel’ means, Shaytan has commanded them to do this and made it seem fair and beautiful in their eyes. Consequently, they are worshipping Shaytan in reality, just as Allah said in another Ayah …” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 4:117, here.] “Of which one part is worship of goddesses and second part is worship of Satan; meaning of which is obeying him (i.e. Satan). Therefore in idiomatic (usage) worshipping other than Allah on instruction of Satan is understood/deemed as worship of Satan.” [Ref: Tafsir Kamalayn Sharh Tafsir Jalalayn, by Shaykh Muhammad Naeem Deobandi, Volume 1, Pages 622/623, Surah 4 Verse 117, archive, scribd.] A Sunni Aalim of sub-continent Allamah Ghulam Rasool Saeedi (rahimullah) has following to say on this verse: “Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) has stated: ’They only worship (through invocations) rebellious Satan.’ Apparently this Hasr (mention of only-ness) is in contradiction with first Hasr. Because first it was said: ‘They only worship female (deities).’ The second Hasr (i.e. they only worship through invocations rebellious Satan) was employed because worship of these idols was ordered by Satan and they in obedience to him worshipped them. Therefore first Hasr is based on Haqiqat/literal and second is based on Majaz/metaphor.” [Ref: Tibyan ul-Quran, Surah 4 Verse 117, Vol 2, Page 802, here.] In layman’s terms he is saying, first verse says, they ONLY worship females, and second says, they ONLY worship Satan. Both of these words employ word of Hasr/exclusion. I ONLY ate one apple. Hasr/exclusionary word in this case, ONLY, excludes everything else. He says both verses are saying, ONLY worshipped this, which is contradictory. He says this contradiction can be resolved if we take first part of verse as literal and second part of verse as a metaphoric expression of same. In other words contradiction can be resolved if we understand first part of verse is referring to actual belief of Mushrikeen, they only worship females, and second part of verse as a metaphoric expression in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) called idol worship as Satan worship and employed these words to show the Mushrikeen reality of their worship.

Sunni: (i) In verse 44 Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) is stated as saying, O my father do not worship Satan. Shaykh Ibn Kathir has following to say about it: “’O my father! Worship not Shaytan.’ This is means, do not obey him by worshipping these idols. He invites to this (idolatry) and he is pleased with it.' This is as Allah says …” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 19:44, here.] He isn’t supporting literal reading of the verse rather a figurative interpretation of verse and that is enough to refute your position. (ii) Any how from this verse you deduced his Azhar was worshipping Satan, or one can accuse an Amr of worshipping X even though Amr does not directly affirm Ilahiyyah for X or direct worship to X.

Sunni: We have already discussed that if there was flagrant Shirk like Azhar taking Kabah as an Ilah and worshipping it. And in this context someone said O Azhar your Ilah is Satan and you worship Satan. I could say, Ilahiyyah from here was transferred to there, and worship of X was transferred to worship of Z. This would result in proof of major guilty of taking idol as an Ilah = guilty of taking Satan as Ilah. Guilty of worshipping a false-Ilah = guilty of Satan worship. This is not Shirk in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah but this is belief of Ilahiyyah transferred for another being. We get the following logic from verse; idol is your god therefore Satan is your god. And this logic does not agree with Istighathah because Shaykh isn’t believed to be an Ilah yet Salafi says you committed major Shirk for taking Shaykh as an Ilah. Any how I have already presented Tafsir of Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) to prove the verse isn’t literal and I do it again: “’O my father! Worship not Shaytan.’ This is means, do not obey him by worshipping these idols. He invites to this (idolatry) and he is pleased with it.' This is as Allah says …” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 19:44, here.]

Sunni: You quoted following verse: “Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.” [Ref: 36:60] And Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) says following about it: “’Did I not command you, O Children of Adam, that you should not worship Shaytan Verily, he is a plain enemy to you.’ This is a rebuke from Allah to the disbelievers among the sons of Adam. Those who obey the Shaytan even though he was a plain enemy to them, and they disobeyed Ar-Rahman Who created them and granted them provision. Allah says: ‘And that you should worship Me. That is the straight path.’ Meaning, I commanded you in the world to disobey the Shaytan, and I commanded you to worship Me, and this is the straight path, but you followed a different path and you followed the commands of the Shaytan.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 36:60, here.] Shaykh made Taweel of worship to mean obey/obedience. Clearly part of verse important to our discussion is not literal in understanding. The only difference between my Taweel of literalism and understanding of these verses and Shaykh Ibn Kathir’s (rahimullah) is that I hold to position that words, worship of satan are synonym for idol worship. And this is evident from what Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) said to his father: “Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods/Ilahs? For I see thee and thy people in manifest error." [Ref: 6:74] “Behold he said to his father: "O my father! Why worship that which heareth not and seeth not, and can profit thee nothing?” [Ref: 19:42] And in this context now read the following verse: "O my father! Worship not Satan: for Satan is a rebel against ar-Rahman.” [Ref: 19:44] It is evident that Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) made equaled idol worship to Satan worship.

Sunni: Lastly I repeat again, Satan took the role of an Ilah, of course he was a Batil Ilah, because he legislated for his misguided followers matters which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can legislate. The verses we discussed do not indicate Mushrikeen believed him to be an Ilah, or are guilty of actually believing Satan to be an Ilah as well as their idols. The right to decide who is an Ilah and who deserves to be worshipped is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone and one who partakes in this has committed Shirk in Ilahiyyah and assumed authority of Ilahiyyah. Satan did assume this authority and he is a false-deity.

109 – Substantiating Ilahiyyah Is Exclusive Right Of Allah And None Else:

(i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun.”  [Ref: 3:151] "You do not worship besides Him but only names which you have named (forged) - you and your fathers - for which Allah has sent down no authority. The command (or the judgment) is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him that is the (true) straight religion, but most men know not.” [Ref: 12:40] "These our people have taken for worship alihah (gods) other than Him (Allah). Why do they not bring for them a clear authority? And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah.” [Ref: 18:15] “And they worship besides Allah others for which He has sent down no authority, and of which they have no knowledge; and for the Zalimun there is no helper.” [Ref: 22:71] These verses indicates that Ilahiyyah is exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone and He alone has authority over it. Had He willed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) could have chosen god partners from His creation to be His partners. (ii) The right, the authority, the power of Ilahiyyah is exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). For someone to appoint himself as god, or others as gods is taking an exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And usurping exclusive rights of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is making establishing equality in God-hood therefore Shirk.

Umar: Mash Allah.

110 - Travel To Pakistan And Break In This Discussion:

Sunni: Taweel and Tafsir of verse, Q25:43, I will mail it shortly.

Salafi: Jazak Allah Khayran.

Sunni: We all agree that appointing an Ilah is exclusive right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and there is no authority above His authority in this regard in light of quoted verses?

Salafi: Agreed 100% brother Ali. I will be waiting for Tafsir/Taweel of verse, Q25:43.

Sunni: Just to let both of you brothers know I will be travelling to Pakistan on this Saturday [23^rd Oct 2021] and I will be returning 16^th December. While I am in Pakistan I will try to put our discussion into reader friendly mode.

Salafi: That was sudden announcement Brother. Can’t we continue our discussion while you’re in Pakistan?

Sunni: I have been planning just before the outbreak of Covid-19 but the uncertainty and restrictions came in the way. They have eased off now and I found reasonable priced tickets and I couldn’t pass the chance. I really need to see my terminally ill mother. Maybe last chance for her to see me and my two little gems.

Umar: May Allah give her good health and Iman. Ameen.

Salafi: Ameen.

Sunni: She lost 80% function of both kidneys and her eye sight is almost lost too. Result of not controlling sugar intake even after diabetes. I wish I could [continue our discussion] brother Abdullah but I have just two months with my elderly parents. This discussion itself is two fulltime jobs especially when I am writing for all three of us.

Salafi: Laughs.

Umar: Smiles.

Sunni: I just want make most of these two months I have with them.

111 - Taweel And Tafseer Of Verse Taking Ego/Desire As God Beside Allah:

Sunni: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?” [Ref: 45:23] Another way of saying the same as verse, in other words Taweel, would be: Have you seen one who has taken his ego/desire as his Imam/leader. Reasons for this Taweel are similar to following explanation.

Sunni: (ii) Taking ego as god has a very particular meaning. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is unlimited, unrestricted, uncontrolled and is in control of all decisions making, He decides for all, none decides for Him, or over-rides Him, all are dependent upon Him, and He is dependent upon approval of none. In this context, person taking ego/desire as his god, means a person legislating religion without being subject to control of anyone thus being able to legislate whatever he/she desires as his religion without any confinements. And in this light my Tafsir of verse is: Have you seen him who has imposed no limitations/restrictions upon his ego/desire like the true Ilah has no controls over His will. This Taweel and Tafsir both negate literalism and convey meaning of each other to a degree.

Sunni: (iii) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him? Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are (even) more astray in (their) way.” [Ref: 25:43/44] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says Mushrik took his ego/desires as his god and says they are like livestock unable to hear/accept and reason. What is the connection between the two? Mushrikeen are described as livestock because livestock is purely guided by whims, desires, egos, and impulses. As such livestock does not follow instruction/commands unless forced and typically behave as they like. And Mushrikeen are said to be taking their desires/egos as gods because they legislate what is religion for themselves as they like and do not follow commands of their Lord.

Sunni: This explanation makes it clear that verse 44 does not establish Mushrik was a cow/sheep, or was deaf, nor it was establishing Mushrik had no ability to hear, or reason whatsoever. Just as Mushrikeen being al-An’am/livestock and unable to hear/reason isn’t literal in similar way Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Mushrikeen taking egos as gods isn’t literal.

Sunni: In addition to this I have looked into Arabic Tafasir of this verse. And with embarrassment and shame say with aid of Shaykh Google’s translation feature no Mufassir has interpreted this verse in literal meaning or said that it establishes Shirk of those who follow their ego/desires instead of commands of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Those who interpreted this verse in light of major Shirk said it refers to a Mushrik choosing an Ilah to worship, or one instead of another out of desire/urges. In fact author of Tafsir Bahr ul-Uloom breaks it down so now doubt remains for a reader: "'Have you seen him who takes his own desires as a god?' Means: He takes his own desires as a god. Meaning: He does whatever his desires call him to." [Ref: Tafsir Bahr ul-Uloom, by Abul Layth al-Samarqandi, Verse 25:43, here.] Brother Abdullah you have already accepted that your understanding of verse, Q25:43, was incorrect. I hope this material goes to strengthen your conviction. Ameen.

Salafi: Salam alaykum, Can you quote me a verse in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said something but meant something else and that intended meaning is evident from the verse, context, or by another verse. EMail me the text. Note I am not back tracking on my admission I just want convincing proofs.

Sunni: Wa alaykum Salam. I will but after I return from Pakistan. I have  less then week left and shopping for kid’s stuff; milk, nappies, wipes, clothes for kids and gifts for family, and meds still on, to do list. On top of that I need to research Covid-19 fit to fly tests, book them, get tested, fill in Pass Track forms, pack stuff … Long list of things that need to be done. In Sha Allah when I return …

112 - Examples Where Literalism Wasn’t Intended And Intended Wasn’t Literal:

Sunni: I wanted to follow Email with extensive list of examples where literalism wasn’t intended meaning of verse but I have changed my mind. Instead I will provide two examples: (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And whoever is blind in this life will be blind in the Hereafter and even more astray.” [Ref: 17:72] Meaning of the verse is obvious that those blind/astray in this world will be raised on judgment day as they were astray in life of earth. So the literal meaning of the verse is not intended. (ii) Similarly Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) says following about sun, moon, and star/Venus: "Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the heavens and the earth that he be one of those who have Faith with certainty. When the night covered him over with darkness he saw a star. He said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "I like not those that set." When he saw the moon rising up, he said: "This is my lord." But when it set, he said: "Unless my Lord guides me, I shall surely be among the people who went astray." When he saw the sun rising up, he said: "This is my lord. This is greater." But when it set, he said: "O my people! I am indeed free from all that you join as partners. Verily, I have turned my face towards Him Who has created the heavens and the earth Hanifa and I am not of Al-Mushrikun." [Ref: 6:75/79] Literalism indicate Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) was upon Shirk for at the very least 12 hours. There is Ijmah of Ummah and Jammah every Prophet even before Prophet-hood was upon Tawheed. Also note the incident has taken place after Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has shown Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) wonders. Indicating he was a Nabi and the events of verses 76, 77, and 78 transpired after event of verse 75 so the literalism and logical deduction is impossible. Taweel of literalism has to be made. And in this context some said negatory Hamza of Istifham is Muhzoof/omitted hence, his my Lord, should be read: Is this my Lord! Anyhow literalism isn’t intended meaning of this phrase. (iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said on who looks toward sky during supplication his sight will be taken away from him: “Abu Huraira reported: People should avoid lifting their eyes towards the sky while supplicating in prayer, otherwise their eyes would be snatched away.” [Ref: Muslim, B4, H863, here.] The intended meaning is he will get distracted because something will catch his attention and he will loose concentration. (iv) This demonstrates sometimes exaggerated language was used to convey a meaning other then literal. And verses in discussion are also part of this genre of speech.

Salafi: I agree that second evidence you quoted isn’t literal belief of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) but the first evidence is suspect in my judgment. I looked into Tafsir Ibn Kathir and found nothing supporting what you said.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And whoever is blind in this life will be blind in the Hereafter and even more astray.” [Ref: 17:72] I have looked into English translation of Shaykh Ibn Kathir’s (rahimullah), here, and found Tafsir of this verse has been tempered with. You should take note of the fact that English translation of Tafsir Ibn Kathir hosted by many websites is basically a reduction/abridgment by Shaykh Safi ar-Rahman Mubarakpuri of his Tafsir. This English translation of abridgment was published in 2003, here. Under the guise of abridgment Shaykh Ibn Kathir’s (rahimullah) Tafsir was altered to support Salafism. I present translation of original Arabic: “And the Almighty’s saying: ‘And whoever is blind …’ in this verse. Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Qatadah, and Ibn Zayd said: ‘And whoever is blind in this …’ Meaning in the life of this world. ‘Blind’ from the proof of God, His verses and His clear proofs, will be likewise. That is, he is more astray than he was in this world, God forbid.” [Ref: Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Verse 17:72, here.] Safe to say this is evidence evil Sunnah practiced by Salafis i.e. converting deceased scholars to Salafism through altering their books. You also over looked the last part of Ayah, and even more astray/misguided. Blindness is misguidance. And whoever is misguided in life of this world will be misguided in hereafter and even more misguided then life of this world.

Salafi: Jazak Allah Khayran brother. I will look into your claim and if I find it supported by Shaykh Ibn Kathir (rahimullah) then I will agree with your understanding of verse.

Sunni: Wa iyyaka. I will wait for your EMail.

Salafi: I had closer look at the verse and blindness mentioned in it is definitely misguidance. I say the verse explains itself what blindness means. I am not back tracking but following verse has no contextual support for meaning you ascribe to: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43]

Sunni: Brother I have already explained the relationship between verse 43/44 because both are interconnected in meaning and insinuation. I will just repost my earlier material instead of writing anything else.

Sunni “Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him? Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are (even) more astray in (their) way.” [Ref: 25:43/44] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says Mushrik took his ego/desires as his god and says they are like livestock unable to hear/accept and reason. What is the connection between the two? Mushrikeen are described as livestock because livestock is purely guided by whims, desires, egos, and impulses. As such livestock does not follow instruction/commands unless forced and typically behave as they like. And Mushrikeen are said to be taking their desires/egos as gods because they legislate what is religion for themselves as they like and do not follow commands of their Lord.” Verse, Q17:72, explains itself and verse, Q25:43, is explained by verse, Q25:44.

Salafi: Jazak Allah Khayran brother. You’ve been very patient with me.

Umar: That was decisively won by brother Ali. Smiles.

Salafi: He has produced a good explanation of both verses.

Sunni: Jazakallah Khayran brothers. Are we now in total agreement that verses are not literal?

Salafi: Agreed.

Sunni: I will be back in an hour or so. Salam alaykum.

113 -  He Admits Methodology Of Assuming Belief Of Ilahiyyah Is Incorrect:

Sunni: (i) Brother Abdullah [in section 064] you quoted following two verses Q9:31, Q25:43, and then [in section 074] you quoted following three verses Q4:117, Q19:44 and Q36:60. Based on your understanding that Jews, Christians, Mushrikeen did not literally believe their Rabbis, monks, and Satan to be god but due to their worship of x, y, z they became guilty of taking these as an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You attempted to support your belief that Ilahiyyah can be assumed as belief of a person on basis of their actions even when he/she explicitly does not affirm a certain creation is his/her Ilah. Your main objective was to establish Istighathah is major Shirk because  practice of Istighathah warrants Ilahiyyah even if it wasn’t directly/explicitly affirmed for whom help is sought in Istighathah. (ii) We have come to agreement that these verses are not upon literally read meaning but are in fact metaphors expressing various meanings explained and detailed in previous sections. And this agreement establishes your understanding that Ilahiyyah can be assumed as belief from actions is not supported by any evidence of Quran/Sunnah therefore it is invalid.

Salafi: Brother I have already said [section 105] that my position was wrong and that Shirk in Istighathah is due to Dua being directed to a creation. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, supplication is worship, and he did not say supplication with belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah is worship. We go by what he said and not what you Pagans have innovated to protect your Pagan practices and misguide others.

Sunni: Brother I am aware but everything I write is not for your consumption alone. Remember I have intention of publishing contents of this discussion. And it is important for readers to know what happened and how. You and I are fully engaged in this discussion so we remember each others points but onlookers, in this case readers, will not be able to remember why and how discussion developed. And how the agreements effect each others positions so I like to present a summary to discussion which both of us can relate to, in case we have forgotten something, and readers can do as well. Contextualization of our agreements gives us better understanding of discussion we have had and which way to steer it.

Salafi: Jazak Allah Khayran.

Sunni: The Hadith you quoted, supplication is worship, means, supplication in essence is worship. This means actions in Salah alone are not worship but core of Salah is supplication.

Salafi: We will discuss this Hadith but in Istighathah discussion. Where it will be my key evidence.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you have to appreciate brother Ali’s explanation of prophetic statement.

Salafi: I will appreciate his understanding of Hadith when he supports his understanding with evidence of Quran/Sunnah and scholarly support. I cannot appreciate what I fear is a Biddah.

Sunni: No problem brother Abdullah. I have few questions if you don’t mind …

Salafi: Make it short and quick, please.

114 – Establishing Our Agreements And Setting Up A Trap On Issue Of Dua:

Sunni: Do you agree that verses mentioned above do not say people committed major Shirk due to taking monk’s, Rabbi’s, Satan as Ilahs? And these verses are indicating another meaning not apparent literal reading of text?

Salafi: Yes and meaning of these verses is not literal reading of text.

Sunni: You admitted your/Salafi understanding of the verses is invalid and you also admitted your personal ‘fault’ that Shirk of Istighathah is due to Ilahiyyah. What I want to know is: Are you at fault for believing verses we discussed support the concept that Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah can be inferred/assumed as belief of person from his actions of declaring Haram as Halal, and creating a religion based on ego, desires, and urges.

Salafi: I am having hard time grasping your unnaturally long sentence.

Sunni: Never mind the above. (i) You believed: Even though practitioner of Istighathah (i.e. seeking help from a deceased Nabi/Wali) does not explicitly believe a creation to be an Ilah/Rabb but despite this; practitioner is guilty of affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah from whom help is sought in Istighathah (i.e. Nabi/Wali). (ii) Your principle: Belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah can be derived from actions of Amr and then ascribed to Amr as his beliefs (beliefs Amr does not ascribe to and categorically rejects them😞 Is this principle correct? (iii) I hope the contextualization has helped a bit. Read (i) and (ii) together, and (ii) as continuation of previous.

Salafi: Jazak Allah Khayran.

Umar: Brother Ali simplified it by making it longer. Smiles.

Sunni: Smiles.

Salafi: Brother the principle is invalid.

Sunni: Smiles. Why is it invalid?

Salafi: You have demonstrated why it is invalid, but now you’re asking me, why.

Sunni: Can you demonstrate why such a principle would be problematic?

Salafi: Why do I need to do that bro? The issue has been resolved. You and I both know why this principle is wrong.

Umar: Brother Ali I presume is testing whether you understood one of the key point of discussion so far. Or he has plan to blind side you with a sledge hammer. Smiles.

Sunni: Don’t get involved, please.

Umar: OK. Sorry!

Sunni: Brother, I will present a case, and you give me verdict. Won’t require Mujtahid level learning. Hellooo? Anyone here?

Salafi: Yeah, we are still here.

Sunni: A Muslim professing Shahadatayn is seen drinking wine from bottle of wine and it is certain contents of the bottle are Haram/wine. What I want to know is: (i) Would it be natural and correct to deduce Amr has Halaled a Haram for himself? (ii) Would it natural and correct to assume that Muslim has assumed for himself role Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah?

Salafi: Not natural and not correct in both cases.

Sunni: We both are in firm agreement that we cannot make judgment of someone’s belief from their actions.

Salafi: Agreed.

Sunni: Just one more example. Seventy-two sects of hell, they invented innovations against teaching of Quran/Sunnah, which took them to hell. My questions are: (i) Is it natural and correct to assume their leaders assumed role of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah by inventing teaching against religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (ii) Is it natural and correct to assume that Qaideen Ahlul Biddah (i.e. leaders of innovation) believed they are Ilah/Rabb partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? (iii) Is natural and correct to assume those who obeyed Qaideen Ahlul Biddah in their deviation and adhered to their teachings have taken these Qaideen as their Ilahs/Rabbs and worshipped them as such?

Salafi: My response is same as before.

Sunni: ???

Salafi:  Unnatural and incorrect in all three questions.

Sunni: Then we are in total agreement that beliefs cannot be assumed on basis of actions alone.

Salafi: Agreed.

115 – Spring A Trap, Refuting Misguidance, And Explaining Hadith Meaning:

Sunni: How will you establish my alleged major Shirk and Halal my blood, property, and women based on Hadith, supplication is worship, without assuming Ilahiyyah as my belief?

Salafi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] Supplication, plea, petition is worship and Istighathah in essence is a petition plea and supplication. Worship of Ghayrullah is Shirk no doubt. Do you disagree with that?

Sunni: Brother you have said, inferring belief of others from actions is unnatural and incorrect.
In this context I was expecting you to realize and own up to: I [the Salafi] will be assuming you [the Sunni] profess belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for Nabi/Wali due to practice of Istighathah because Istighathah is a plea/petition of help and petition by it’s very nature is worship. Or in other words you will own that you will assume my belief on my behalf which you know is un-natural and incorrect.

Salafi: Respond to what I said …

Umar: Sometimes the cookie doesn’t crumble in your favor. Don’t cry and move on bro. Smiles.

Sunni: You said, worship of creation is Shirk. Truth is that worship of Ghayrullah is Kufr but not Shirk. And belief which precedes worship, i.e. Ilahiyyah, is actual cause of Shirk and real cause of Fatwah; Amr is Mushrik.

Salafi: You have denied that worship of Ghayrullah is Shirk. This is clear cut Kufr.

Sunni: Don’t issue judgments on you’re yet to grasp. I am still writing, let me finish, and then we can chat. I believe there is Shirk committed in worship i.e. Shirk in worship. I do not believe there is such thing as Shirk of worship. Shirk of Worship and Shirk in Worship are two different concepts.

Salafi: Things are getting weirder every passing second. Smiles.

Sunni: Worship would only warrant Shirk if worship was part of Essence (Zaat), or Sifaat (attributes) of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And worship is not Ism, or Sift, or Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Had it been so you could have argued Ibadah is exclusive … therefore by ascribing Ibadah to a creation Shirk as been committed because creation has been given His Ism, and Sift. Ibadah of Ghayrullah would be Shirk if it was a belief equal to belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and it is none of these. Worship is action which has resulted due to a belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. We do not judge beliefs from actions but actions are result of beliefs and beliefs are judged on basis of what a believer professes with his tongue and confesses in his heart.

Umar: Brother you’re making perfect sense to me but I suspect you’re making zero sense to brother Abdullah.

Salafi: He isn’t making any sense to me.

Umar: To understand above you really need to understand their definition/understanding of Tawheed. Without that you won’t be able to make sense.

Salafi: You understand where he is coming from?

Umar: I do and I agree with him. Brother Ali can you abandon you lengthy explanation and instead explain difference between Shirk of/in worship. That is likely to make more sense to brother Abdullah then your technicalities.

Sunni: Shirk Of Worship denotes meaning, Ibadah, is exclusive Sift, Ism, or Zaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We all will agree when an exclusive Sift, Ism is ascribed to a creation, and a creation is made part of His Zaat (like Christians have made Prophet Isa alayhis salam part of His Zaat in Trinity) then Shirk occurs. And we all should agree that Ibadah is not a Sift of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) such as Malik, Khaliq, Hayy and … Nor Ibadah is His exclusive Ism such as Rabb, Ilah, Rahman … therefore it cannot be ascribed to a creation therefore there is no such thing as Shirk Of Worship.

Sunni: Shirk In Worship is a belief of Shirk, i.e. affirmation a creation is Ilah/Rabb, leading Mushrik to perform/direct actions of worship to his/her assumed Ilah/Rabb. And this Mushrik performs actions and utters words of Shirk affirming his belief of Shirk during worship. We have example of Mushrikeen performing Tawaf around Kabah and committing Shirk in worship: “Here I am at Thy service, there is no associate with Thee.” The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Woe be upon them, as they also said: “But one associate with Thee, you possess mastery over him, but he does not possess mastery (over you).” They used to say this and circumnavigate the Ka'ba.”[Ref: Muslim, B7, H2671] This one example where the Mushrikeen invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) along side their assumed Ilahs/Rabbs. Other instance can be where the Mushrik only invokes his assumed Ilah/Rabb. Both are proof of Shirk in worship but not of worship.

Salafi: Mushrikeen did not commit Shirk in Rububiyyah.

Sunni: We will come to that after this discussion [that Dua is worship without Ilahiyyah] and issues surrounding it.

Salafi: What you call Shirk In Worship is what we call Shirk Of Worship. I guess we have difference in terminology.

Sunni: … and of theology. Can I explain why?

Salafi: No, not really. Smiles

Sunni: Tough cookies then. You believe worship leads to Shirk that is why you quoted Hadith of, supplication is worship. This could be for three reasons: (i) You assume Amr has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for creation from action. (ii) Or you believe Ilahiyyah isn’t important part of worship and we can worship without Ilahiyyah. (iii) Or you believe; belief before action, Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah before worship.

Umar: A logical break down of options available.

Sunni: First two options are problematic for you and clear cut reprehensible, evil, sinful innovations. Number (i) is a problem because you’ve agreed belief cannot be assumed from an action especially unnatural deduction about belief. Number (ii) I don’t even have to explain why it is wrong to you, or anyone else. The third (iii) option is correct (i.e. belief before action and Ilahiyyah before worship) and provides correct understanding of Prophetic statement; supplication to an Ilah is worship. Yet by choosing this you will first have to establish belief of Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, one or both, to prove Istighathah is Shirk.

Sunni: We believe; belief leads to worship and to Shirk in worship. We believe belief is before actions. No belief in Islam, Tawheed, Allah’s Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah … means no action of worship, charity, enjoining good, forbidding evil would benefit will be accepted, nor valid.

Salafi: Brother belief and action are essential combination in Islam. Principle of belief follows action is for Islamic practices but not for practices which are innovations such as Istighathah. All the examples you’re giving are of Islamic practices which found/performed upon basis of belief.

116 – Brother Claim’s I Didn’t Address His Presented Argument:

Salafi: You dodged my post because were unable to refute to my initial post and I suggest you read it again: “Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] Supplication, plea, petition is worship and Istighathah in essence is a petition plea and supplication. Worship of Ghayrullah is Shirk no doubt.” You’ve rampaged about meaning of underlined but you have not responded to key aspects of my post.

Sunni: Brother Umar have I, or have I not responded to brother Abdullah’s post?  I let you decide and if you say I haven’t I will address any aspect not dealt previously.

Salafi: You tell him brother.

Umar: You have and you haven’t dealt with the core evidence.  I would advise that you refresh your mind and let brother Abdullah dictate what he wants you to refute. You’re working on your own assumptions and agenda. What might seem perfectly natural to you others might not be able to grasp. Brother Abdullah please go ahead and what you want brother Ali to address.

Sunni: It is true that I haven’t clearly addressed brother Abdullah’s content but I was hoping he will be able to deduce refutation of entirety of his post. Since both of you agree can I have my case heard because my ego can’t take this slap lightly. Smile. I will put everything in perspective and after that brother Abdullah can suggest what he wants me to address/refute and I will.

Umar: Your call brother Abdullah.

Salafi: I have to leave. In Sha Allah tomorrow. Salam alaykum.

117 – Contextualizing How Brothers Post Was Refuted:

Sunni: I will Email my clarification then tomorrow we can start with what you want me to refute.

Sunni: Salam Alaykum. My response is divided into three parts: (i) “Brother expecting you to realize and own up to; I will be assuming you … realized that you have said, inferring belief of others from actions is unnatural and incorrect.” (ii) From here: “You said, worship of creation is Shirk. Truth is that worship of Worship of Ghayrullah is Kufr but not Shirk. And belief which precedes worship, i.e. Ilahiyyah, is actual cause of Shirk and real cause of Fatwah; Amr is Mushrik.” To here: “… and of theology. Can I explain why?” (iii) And from here: “You believe worship leads to Shirk that is why you quoted Hadith of, supplication is worship. This could be for three reasons: (i) You assume Amr has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah …” To here: “We believe; belief leads to worship and to Shirk in worship. We believe belief is before actions. No belief in Islam, Tawheed, Allah’s Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah …” I will put everything in perspective.

Sunni: (i) First and third are connected with the second part. And first is connected with my question which had asked before brother Abdullah’s post: “How will you establish my alleged major Shirk and Halal my blood, property, and women based on Hadith, supplication is worship, without assuming Ilahiyyah as my belief?” (ii) In all three combined I refuted your principle of assuming belief from action (i.e. Istighathah) and refuted your misunderstanding that Ibadah by itself is worship. (iii) The third and last part, (iii), directly deals with why literalism of Hadith isn’t natural intended meaning. I stated three options you have: “(i) You assume Amr has affirmed Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for creation from action. (ii) Or you believe Ilahiyyah isn’t important part of worship and we can worship without Ilahiyyah. (iii) Or you believe; belief before action and Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah before worship.” You have already conceded and gone against (i) by admitting that beliefs of Shirk cannot be assumed from actions. You cannot accept number (ii) because belief of Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah is essential to worship. This means only true understanding of, supplication is worship, is number (iii) option which stipulates Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah is before worship. I precisely told you why you quoted the Hadith of, supplication is worship, and then stated three reasons. Then went on to refute two impossibilities: “Number (i) is a problem because you’ve agreed belief cannot be assumed from an action especially unnatural deduction about belief. Number (ii) I don’t even have to explain why it is wrong to you, or anyone else. The third (iii) option is correct (i.e. belief before action and Ilahiyyah before worship) and provides correct understanding of Prophetic statement; supplication to an Ilah is worship.  Yet by choosing this you will first have to establish belief of Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, one or both, to prove Istighathah is Shirk.” Leaving only true/possible option: “(iii) Or you believe; belief before action, Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah before worship.” In the end I accept that refutation was all over the place and bit complex but everything that needed saying was said.

118 – Brother Feedback And Advice On How To Precede With Un-Addressed Content:

Sunni: Salam alaykum. Did you have look at EMail?

Umar: Wa Alaykum Salam. Yes.

Sunni: How was that for clarification.

Umar: Smiles. Just trying to figure out from were each part starts and ends was hard enough.

Sunni: Hmm I have to agree. Even I had hard time figuring out how it refutes his post.

Umar: You complicated the refutation because of your pre-planned agenda. It did come together nicely at the end but keep it simple. I didn’t even get it until I read your EMail. You have to understand, I value your opinion and academic worth. Consequently hen I read something I don’t understand I will read it two three times until it makes sense to me. I only re-read because your opinion, understanding means something to me. On the other hand Brother Abdullah’s view of you is improving but hasn’t improved enough to hold your Feham worthy of respect. It is unlikely he will pay close attention to what you write. Definitely not when complexity of your refutations requires mind of a code breaker.

Sunni: There is something else. He wrote this:  “Brother belief and action are essential combination in Islam. Principle of belief follows action is for Islamic practices but not for practices which are innovations such as Istighathah. All the examples you’re giving are of Islamic practices which found/performed upon basis of belief.” I didn’t get chance to address it. Should I drop it, or address it? What do you suggest?

Umar: He got to have his say as agreed and after that you can. Or else send an EMail now and if he wants to delve into this statement then continue otherwise go with what he wants you to respond to. Mind you he feels his position mentioned in the post is quite strong so unlikely he will allow you to divert the topic.

Sunni: I will send him an Email.

119 – EMail Addressing Issues Wasn’t Able To Address During Heat Of Discussion:

Sunni: (i) You also said my understanding that, supplication is worship, meaning supplication is core of worship is an innovation: “I will appreciate his understanding of Hadith when he supports his understanding with evidence of Quran/Sunnah and scholarly support. I cannot appreciate what I fear is a Biddah.” My understanding is supported by following Hadith: “Anas bin Malik narrated that the Prophet said: ‘The supplication is the essence of worship.’” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3371, here.] And supported by other textual evidences of Quran/Sunnah. (ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said supplication is worship and it means supplication is essence/core of worship. Because Salah and other Ibadaat are based on action and supplication. In some cases it is permissible to leave some/all actions in Salah but not supplication because leaving supplication results in no-Salah. The corner stone of all Ibadah is supplication without supplication there is no Ibadah but without actions performed in Salah in some circumstances, i.e. total paralysis, Salah can be performed via supplication only. Therefore the Hadith, supplication is Ibadah, means, supplication is true core of Ibadah. The prophetic statement, supplication is Ibadah, is similar in meaning, Hajj is Arafa’at, which means true core of Hajj is staying at Arafa’at: “Abdur-Rahman bin Ya'mar narrated that: Some people among the residents of Najd came to the Messenger of Allah while he was at Arafat. They were questioning him, so he ordered a caller to proclaim: "The Hajj is Arafah. Whoever came to Jam during the night, before the time of Fajr, then he has attended the Hajj. ” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B4, H889, here]

Sunni: Salam alaykum. Brother you wrote the following: “Brother belief and action are essential combination in Islam. Principle of belief follows action is for Islamic practices but not for practices which are innovations such as Istighathah. All the examples you’re giving are of Islamic practices which found/performed upon basis of belief.” Brother you said, principle of belief is before action is for Islamic practices but not for practices like Istighathah. Can you quote me evidence in support of this?  (i) From what you said, I have deduced and contextualized Istighathah into it to arrive understanding that in your belief Ilahiyyah isn’t essential requirement for Istighathah to be Shirk. Your logic is; Istighathah is petition by its very nature therefore it is worship. Worship of Ghayrullah is Shirk [in your belief] therefore Istighathah leads to Shirk. Your deduction that Istighathah can warrant major Shirk even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah is wrong. Why? (ii) It is wrong because your understanding is based on a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) quoted Ayah and in the Ayah Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is saying to believers supplicate to Me: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] This refutes you because it establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) paired, supplication is worship, with a verse where Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is saying, call on Me and I will respond to you. The Ayah means, call on Me (i.e. your Ilah/Rabb) and I (i.e. your Ilah/Rabb) will respond to you. In context of Ayah prophetic statement can only mean, supplication to Ilah/Allah is worship. This prophetic statement, supplication is worship, is not just an ordinary petition/call. Instead it is a Shar’ee supplication, petition. Shar’ee supplication is always directed toward an Ilah/Rabb, it is accompanied with intention of worship, and every such supplication is worship.

Sunni: (i) You said that supplication by itself, without Ilahiyyah/Niyyah, is worship: “Brother I have already said [section 105] that my position was wrong and that Shirk in Istighathah is due to Dua being directed to a creation. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, supplication is worship, and he did not say supplication with belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah is worship. We go by what he said and not what you Pagans have innovated to protect your Pagan practices and misguide others.” You said making belief of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah essential pre-requisite of worship is an innovation. (ii) I have already established Ilahiyyah is part of worship because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made his statement in context of verse in which instruction is to direct Dua to Ilah/Allah. Therefore your claim that Ilahiyyah is not fundamental requirement of Ibadah is refuted. What remains is your saying Niyyah being requirement of Ibadah is an innovation. (iii) Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) regarding, supplication is worship, Hadith says: “Regardless, worship whether its dua or not, it still must be connected with the intention to please Allah and be away from earning His anger. Also, supplicating to Allah is worship when a person asks Him for an increase in worldly affairs, being cured of illness or being relieved from pain.” [Ref: Mura’tul Mafatih Sharu Mishkat ul-Masabih vol 9/pg 281, here.] Even though intention is not explicitly stated in the Hadith, supplication is worship, yet Imam (rahimullah) says it has to be part of Salah and Dua in general. His understanding has backing of Hadith: “It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “People will be resurrected (and judged) according to their intentions.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B37, H4229, here.] “Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah's Messenger saying, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated ...” [Ref: Bukhari, B1, H1, here.] Hence your saying that Niyyah is not essential pre-requisite for Ibadah is against the prophetic Sunnah and an evil innovation. And if you examine what Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) wrote he states Dua directed to and Ilah/Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is worship. Therefore in his understanding Ilahiyyah and Niyyah are essential for Dua to be worship along side asking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for worldly things. And to his statement I want to add Dua in which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is praised is also worship. Such Dua is from the bests of Duas because desire/intention is to only praise Him and not want/need.  (iv) In reality belief of Ilahiyyah, Niyyah and action of worship are essential otherwise no worship. Salah without intention of worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not worship of Him and definitely not without belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. (v) Your stance that for innovations of worship and Istighathah; Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship does not need to be part of action for it to be worship; is not worthy of consideration because it goes against what is obvious from Quran/Sunnah. I will, ONLY, establish/reason what is traditional Islamic understanding and I will, ONLY, judge by what is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is based on what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed, and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) explained.

[Following was not sent to brother Abdullah but it was part of Email sent to brother Umar. Why? Brother Umar advised against sending it and asked me to remove it. He reasoned doing so would likely turn this into either a shouting match, calling each other names, or change the focus of discussion.]

Sunni: You Said: “Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, supplication is worship, and he did not say supplication with belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah is worship. We go by what he said and not what you Pagans have innovated to protect your Pagan practices and misguide others.” (i) I have done my best to avoid saying anything which would jeopardize civility of our discussion but you have been rude beyond limits of my tolerance. You could have made the same point without Pagan this, Pagan that, and without being too direct. And here goes wrench in the works … By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) it is not we Muslims who have innovated but Salafis with tiny spec of Islam on them despite spectacular outward piety, here, the Najdi group of Satan, here, the group of Kufr in East, here, the group of people who have left Islam – never to return in fold of Islam, here, the Khawarij. The people whose most accurate characteristics have been revealed by Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in a Hadith eleven centuries before: "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.] Meaning you and your Wahhabis innovated evils, without support from books of early/later Muslim scholars, to protect/promote Kufr of Wahhabism. And adopted methodology of Khariji apostates and thus became part of them. (ii) Khawarij are/were group of Kufr because Kharijism is group unjustified Takfir. Kharijism is group of Kufr Wa al-Irtad (disbelief and apostasy) because they kill Muslims and killing Muslims unjustly (i.e. without Shar’ee legality), here. Desiring to annihilate Kharijis is a prophetic Sunnah. He said if I were to meet [in battle] them I would utterly destroy them like nation of Thamud in another version Aad, here, here, here, and here. (iii) Khawarij existed in life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Hear me out before you scream, rubbish. The founding father of Kharijis, Abdullah aka Dhil Khawaisirah at-Tamimi, nearly got his head chopped off but Prophet prohibited it and revealed he had companions of these characteristics: “Umar said: "O Allah's Messenger ! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "Leave him, for he has companions who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs.” [Ref: Bukhari, B56, H807, here.] And these were the characteristics which Khawarij also exhibited at Nahrawan. This means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was aware of existence of Kharijism in his life-time but despite it he did not order killing of them. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not permit his killing because: ”Upon this Umar b. Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) said: Permit me to kill this hypocrite. Upon this he (the Holy Prophet) said: May there be protection of Allah! People would say that I kill my companions. This man and his companions would recite the Qur'an but it would not go beyond their throat, and they swerve from it just as the arrow goes through the prey.” [Ref: Muslim, B32, H6255, here.] This reveals these apostates keep outward appearance of Islam and do not fight the Muslims we’re not allowed to kill them because it would seem we’re killing Muslims. We only kill them in battle because we have no other choice [they came to kills us and will if we don’t kill them]. (iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) described Khawarij as, Qarn ash-Shaytaan, i.e. the group of Satan. Why? Khawarij are allies of Satan, an accessory and partner in Satan’s global mission. Satan wants everyone to abandon Tawheed and commit Shirk. Satan couldn’t turn the Muslims away from Tawheed but he decided to possess an idiot, turned him away from Islam, he embodied attributes of worst creatures in creation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), as revealed in quoted Hadith above. This idiot was none other then your Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. He innovated understanding of, principles of, Tawheed and Shirk, Islam and Kufr. Judging by whom only handful of idiots following him remained in Islam and everyone in Ummah was upon major Shirk/Kufr. Satan is keeping people away from Islam and is taking Muslims out of Islam one by one. Mean while his minions/Qarn/group has out done their Abba. With the help of innovated understanding Tawheed/Shirk, innovated principles and methodology of determining Shirk have kicked, entire Ummah out of Islam, for one reason or another. Behold the spectacle of disbelievers in partnership on agenda of Kufr - keeping people away from Islam and removing people from Islam.

[Readers will notice lack of response from brother Abdullah in regards to above content this is because this content was not passed on to brother Abdullah. I should’ve removed this but I spent best part of hour an half writing this so it is hard to let go. Plus sometimes it is best to let an opponent face his own barbarity, meaning lack of civility, in raw form. Brother Abdullah, or anyone else wishing to discuss Khariji core of Wahhabism, or Wahhabism originating from Najd as group of Satan, can contact me without any hesitation. I am hoping someone takes this offer.]

120 - Brother Abdullah Responds To My Refutation:

Salafi: (i) Hadith, Dua is essence of worship is Da’if/weak because Ibn Lahee’ah is weak so it cannot be your evidence. You had no excuse the Hadith has been graded as Da’if and grading is clearly mentioned on Sunnah.Com but embarrassingly you still tried to capitalize on it. Your explanation of, supplication is worship, has no support from Quran and Sunnah because the Hadith is just about Dua/supplication and not about Salah and Hajj related Ibadaat. (ii) You said Hadith, Hajj is Arafah, means core of Hajj is staying at Arafah but Hadith says no such thing. Instead it tells that Hajj is stay at Arafah and other practices performed with Hajj are not part of Hajj but additional optional practices can be performed while performing Hajj. (iii) What Imam Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) wrote and indirectly revealed is correct in context of religion of Islam. Our disagreement is about matter which is not associated with Islam. It is an innovation for which Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not required but action of Dua being directed to a deceased person is enough to warrant Shirk. (iv) You said: “Your stance that for innovations of worship and Istighathah; Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship does not need to be part of action for it to be worship; is not worthy of consideration because it goes against what is obvious from Quran/Sunnah. I will, ONLY, establish/reason what …” You’re refusing to address my position because you cannot refute it. There is no evidence of Quran/Sunnah [which says Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential for all practices including innovated acts of worship/Istighathah] against Salafi stance and nothing to support your belief. (v) You have accused me of denying belief of Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, and Niyyah being part of worship. Yet in reality I said actions of innovation like of Istighathah require no belief of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah. I quote what I had said earlier: “Brother, bbelief and action are essential combination in Islam. Principle of belief follows action is for Islamic practices but not for practices which are innovations such as Istighathah. All the examples you’re giving are of Islamic practices which found/performed upon basis of belief.” (viA) Brother Ali you have attempted to change the direction of discussion. You made an agreement that you will respond to things I want answers of and even brother Umar agreed with me that you have not responded the content. Can you man-up and respond to the following: “Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] Supplication, plea, petition is worship and Istighathah in essence is a petition plea and supplication. Worship of Ghayrullah is Shirk no doubt.” I have three questions for you: (a) Is invocation, supplication, petition worship according to statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Dua is worship? (b) Is Istighathah an innovation, petition, supplication, plea of help or not? (c) Is Istighathah worship of Ghayrullah? (viB) I am expecting you will say Istighathah is not Shirk and so I would like you to prove following and I will admit defeat: (a) Invocation is not worship. (b) Istighathah is not an invocation/petition.

121 - Responding To Refutation, Dua Is Core Of Ibadah, Hadith Is Weak:

Sunni: (i) You said [in section 120/(i)]: “Hadith, Dua is essence of worship is Da’if/weak because Ibn Lahee’ah is weak so it cannot be your evidence. You had no excuse the Hadith has been graded as Da’if and grading is clearly mentioned on Sunnah.Com but embarrassingly you still tried to capitalize on it.” According to Imam Tirmadhi (rahimullah) it is Gharib/strange he did not say Da’if. Ahlul Hadith [a Ghayr Muqallid Salafi sect’s] scholar Shaykh Zubair Ali Zaee classed it Da’if. Shaykh Shuayb al-Arna’ut graded it Hassan li’ghayrihi i.e. Hassan due to others, here. Shaykh al-Bani in Mishkat ul-Masabih, Hadith 2331, classed this Hadith as Da’if. Zubayr and al-Bani classed this Hadith as Weak is because Ibn Lahi’ah had weak memory. Ibn Lahee’ah was a Thiqa narrator. Weakness in memory developed in later stage of his life and not early causing the scholars to questions Ahadith narrated in later life but Ahadith narrated before are/were accepted as Sahih. I do not know if this Hadith was graded as Da’if considering this fact or without it. Anyhow the meaning of, supplication is essence of worship, is corroborated by Hadith of, supplication is worship, here. How it corroborates the meaning was explained by me earlier. Principle is when a Da’if Hadth is substantiated by an authentic Hadith then Da’if Hadith benefits from Sahih and is graded Hassan li’Ghayrihi. Take note Ahadith of, supplication is core of worship, is technically a Khabr Wahid and only Ahadith corroborating it are Ahadith of, supplication is worship. This also explains why Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut graded Hadith of, supplication is core of worship, as Hassan li’Ghayrihi. Meaning Shaykh Arna’ut graded Hadith of, supplication is core of worship, as Hassan/Good due to authentic Ahadith of, supplication is worship.

Sunni: (ii) Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab employed the Hadith in his booklet, Three Fundamental Principles. See underlined here:“… Saying of Him: “And whoever worships along with Allah any other object of worship has no proof for that; his reckoning will be with his Lord.  Indeed the unbelievers will never prosper.” (Soorat al Mu’minoon: 117) In the hadeeth there occurs: “Invocation is the core of worship.” And the evidence for this is the Saying of Allah: “And your Lord said: "Invoke Me, I will respond to your (invocation). Verily! Those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell in humiliation!" (Soorat Ghaafir: 60) he evidence for reverential fear (khawf) is the Saying of Allah ..." [Ref: Three Fundamental Principles, First Principle, Page 8, here.] Take note that Shaykh al-Najd quoted same Ayah as support which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) quoted for Hadith of, supplication is worship. To me this is an indication/insinuation and subtle way of indicating that in understanding of Shaykh al-Najd both Ahadith mean the same.

Sunni: (iii) Shaykh Fawzan said meaning of Hadith, supplication is worship, and Hadith, supplication is core/essence of worship, is same in following audio/translation: "And there occurs in the Hadeeth that the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam said: “Du‘aa is the core of worship” And in one narration: “Du‘aa is worship”  So this shows the tremendousness of Du‘aa and that it is the greatest of the types of worship because the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam said: “it is the core of worship” And in one narration: “Du‘aa is worship” And the second narration is more authentic than the narration: “Du‘aa is the core of worship” And the meaning is one and the same." [Ref: Explanation Of Three Fundamental Principles, Principle #1, Explanation 14#, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, here.]

122 - Responding To Refutation, Hadith Is About Supplication Only:

Sunni: You Said [in section 109:(i)]: “Your explanation of, supplication is worship, has no support from Quran and Sunnah because the Hadith is just about Dua/supplication and not about Salah and Hajj related Ibadaat.” Brother you have no clue what scholars have said about both these Ahadith in Shuruhaat and worse you do not know what scholars of your own sect have said about this Hadith: “Meaning that the standing in Arafah in Hajj is the greatest pillar from the pillars of the Hajj. It doesn’t mean that the whole of the Hajj is just, Arafah, but rather that the standing in Arafah is the greatest of the pillars of the Hajj. And likewise, worship is not restricted to just being Dua, but rather supplication is the greatest of its types. Therefore he said: “Dua is worship” To show the greatness of supplication, and to clearly show its status.” [Ref: Explanation Of Three Fundamental Principles, Principle #1, Explanation 14#, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, here.] He is saying Dua is not the only form of worship, Salah, Tawaf, and others … are also Ibadaat but Dua part of them is core/greatest type of worship. And in his understanding standing in Salah is worship but Duas recited while standing in Salah greater/core of this aspect. Action of Sujud is worship when performed with intention of worship but greater/core of this worship is what is recited in position of Sujud. This is deduced from following: “It doesn’t mean that the whole of the Hajj is just, Arafah, but rather that the standing in Arafah is the greatest of the pillars of the Hajj.” What is Shaykh implying here? Is he contextually not denoting: It doesn’t mean that whole of Ibadah/Dua is just supplication but rather that supplication is the greatest pillar of the Ibadah/Dua? Is that not what I stated or what I stated? Is he not implying Dua is greatest/core of Ibadah and not just Ibadah by itself?

123 - Responding To Refutation, Hajj Is Arafah Means What It Says:

Sunni: (i) You said [in section 120:(ii)]: “You said Hadith, Hajj is Arafah, means core of Hajj is staying at Arafah but Hadith says no such thing. Instead it tells that Hajj is stay at Arafah and other practices performed with Hajj are not part of Hajj but additional optional practices can be performed while performing Hajj.” Brother I am not unique in the understanding. You’re not familiar with what the scholars of Ummah have said about meaning of this in Shuruhaat. Major scholars of Ummah before me/Salafism, and after Salafism have stated Hadith of, supplication is worship, carry’s same basic meaning as, Hajj is Arafah. I will quote Salafi scholars who have said the same as me. You’re saying stuff which is bang out of order and by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), if you was not engaged in this discussion [where you find your self in difficult position] then you would not even have contemplated nor uttered this monstrosity: “Instead it tells that Hajj is stay at Arafah and other practices performed with Hajj are not part of Hajj but additional optional practices can be performed while performing Hajj.” By Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you will regret this and Salafis will condemn you for uttering this evil innovation. Part of Hajj is not just stay at Arafah but Tawaf around Kabah and Tawaf of Safa/Marwa. There are components of Hajj but two examples would suffice. This discussion is not worth destroying your Islam/Iman. I do not want to be part of discussion where my/your deviation is increasing then decreasing and so evidently. I hope following will help you repent. Quran instructs Tawaf of Kabah and Safa/Marwa but I cannot remember if it was optional or Fardh part of Hajj. Depending on which out of two that they are instructed you’re upon evil innovation, or Kufr. I am not delving any further into this aspect but I do advise you look into it for your Islam/Iman.

Sunni: (ii) Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan has refuted you on both points: “ … because the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam said: “it is the core of worship” And in one narration: “Dua is worship” And the second narration is more authentic than the narration: “Dua is the core of worship.” And the meaning is one and the same. So the Hadith with its two narrations clearly shows how tremendous Dua is, and that it is the greatest of the types of worship. Just as he sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam said: “The Hajj is Arafah.” Meaning that the standing in Arafah in Hajj is the greatest pillar from the pillars of the Hajj. It doesn’t mean that the whole of the Hajj is just, Arafah, but rather that the standing in Arafah is the greatest of the pillars of the Hajj. And likewise, worship is not restricted to just being Dua, but rather supplication is the greatest of its types. Therefore he said: “Dua is worship” To show the greatness of supplication, and to clearly show its status.” [Ref: Explanation Of Three Fundamental Principles, Principle #1, Explanation 14#, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, here.] In case you couldn’t gather what was said by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan. He said Dua in Ibadah is core/greatest part of worship like core and greatest part of Hajj is Arafah. He also refuted your evil innovation that Hajj is only Arafah by saying following: “It doesn’t mean that the whole of the Hajj is just, Arafah, but rather that the standing in Arafah is the greatest of the pillars of the Hajj.” You suspected, I was not Salafi, yet your own knowledge of Salafiyyah is pretty weak.

124 - Responding To Refutation, Ilahiyyah And Niyyah Not Needed For Shirk:

Sunni: You Said [in section 120 and in (iii) of subdivision]: “What Imam Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) wrote and indirectly revealed is correct in context of religion of Islam. Our disagreement is about matter which is not associated with Islam. It is an innovation for which Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not required but action of Dua being directed to a deceased person is enough to warrant Shirk.” (i) Brother you do not believe in what Imam Mullah Ali al-Qari (rahimullah) taught because his teaching is inclusive of practices of Islam and innovated practices. In other words he believes/teaches Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential requirement for Ibadah. I say you do not believe what he taught is because he has never make Takhsees that you have innovated and none before you/Salafism has ever made this Takhsees.

Sunni: (ii) You have repeated your claim following claim for number of times, for innovation of Istighathah Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not required for major Shirk of Ibadah. What I want is evidence of Quran/Hadith in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) directly said, you people are Mushrik even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah for creation and intention of worship. Or if you don’t have direct evidence then a verse/Hadith in which a person, group was charged of major Shirk in absence of ascribing Ilahiyyah directly, or indirectly by worshipping. Or prove that scholars before Salafism have stated this principle and employed it to judge major Shirk. Rest assured there is no evidence for this evil innovation of yours. Even in your own methodology, Ilahiyyah is essential pre-existent requirement without which there can be no Shirk.

[Readers should see section 126 sub-section (ii), there I have demonstrated brother Abdullah is contradicting earlier his earlier stance. And I have refuted his innovation in light of his/Salafi methodology, 126 sub-section (iii).]

125 - Responding To Refutation, Not Addressing Because Cannot Refute:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you said [in section 120 and in (iv) of subdivision]: “You said: “Your stance that for innovations of …” You’re refusing to address my position because you cannot refute it. There is no evidence of Quran/Sunnah [which says Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential for all practices including innovated acts of worship/Istighathah] against Salafi stance and nothing to support your belief.” (i) Brother Abdullah you have made the claim Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not essential for Shirk of worship. And I am under no burden whatsoever to provide any proof, or support position contrary to yours. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, proof is incumbent upon claimant, here. I do not like to enforce, I am not burdened but you’re so you prove it but sometimes it is unavoidable.

Sunni: (ii) To a degree both I/you are in agreement, Ilahiyyah/Niyyah is essential for Ibadah. I say beliefs of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential requirements for practices of worship sanctioned in/out of Islam. You say beliefs of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential for Ibadaat/practices sanctioned by Islam but not out of Islam. In other words, there is agreement, that both are essential for Ibadaat ordered in Islam. This means you have made a unique claim, Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not essentials for Ibadaat outside of Islam. And your inability to prove your innovated claim, will definitely result in establishing of truth of belief on which we both have agreed upon. Until there is no evidence for your innovation there is only one/true belief.

126 - Responding To Refutation, I Believe In Ilahiyyah/Niyyah For Ibadaat:

Sunni: (i) You said [in section 120 and in (v) of subdivision]:  “You have accused me of denying belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, and Niyyah being part of worship. Yet in reality I said actions of innovation like of Istighathah require no belief of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah. I quote what I had said earlier: “Brother belief and action are essential …” I know that you believe Ilahiyyah/Niyyah is essential pre-requisite for actions of worship sanctioned in Islam. Your Takhsees Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not fundamental requirements for innovated actions of worship and Istighathah is without evidence. In my EMail I have established with evidence of Quran/Sunnah that Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential requirements of Ibadah. And generally Quran/Sunnah are proof that Mushrikeen affirmed Ilahiyyah for creations and worshipped them [with intention of worship]. In other words I have established with evidence of Quran/Sunnah following general principle: Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are fundamental requirements of worship without any of two there is no worship be it Islamicly sanctioned act of worship, or innovated act of worship. In contrast to what I have proven, you believe, Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are only fundamental requirements for Ibadaat sanctioned by Islam but not for innovated practices. Your Takhsees requires evidence of Quran/Sunnah because it goes completely against what Quran/Sunnah instructed the Muslims and reveals about beliefs, practices, intentions of Mushrikeen. There is not a single verse in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) charged an individual of major Shirk in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah. Where ever He levelled charge of major Shirk due to Ibadah it was on basis that Mushriks affirmed belief in false-Ilahs, had intention of, and performed action of worship. And to be honest what you’re espousing goes against what you have agreed/stated earlier in the discussion.

Sunni: (ii) In the underline you wrote: “Salafi: Brother our definition of Tahweed al-Uluhiyyah incorporates both [belief and action] and same applies to definition of Shirk. Sunni: You’re saying that both belief and action are combined to make Salafi definition of Tawheed Uluhiyyah and Shirk Uluhiyyah? Salafi: Yes!” In the same section you said the following: “Salafi: Belief in Uluhiyyah has always been a pre-requisite and a essential part of Salafi definitions of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah, even if not expressed, due to evidences which our scholars use to prove these definitions.” [Ref: 015 - Problem With Defining …] Your saying/belief; for innovated practices [like Istighathah] to be Shirk belief/intention does not need to be part of them, is contradicted/refuted by what you said/agreed with me in the beginning of our discussion.

Sunni: (iii) It is contradicted and refuted by you because in the first statement you said Shirk Uluhiyyah is based on belief of Uluhiyyah as well as action. In the second you said belief in Uluhiyyah is part of Salafi definitions of Shirk/Tawheed Uluhiyyah as a default and as a pre-existent belief. Istighathah is practice of Shirk according to Salafism and it is therefore by default related to your definition of Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. And pre-requisite of Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is belief as you said above. Kindly dig yourself out of this grave. Smile.

Sunni: (iv) You cannot make any excuse on this account because your classification of Tawheed/Shirk is Uluhiyyah, Rububiyyah, Asma Wal Sifaat. Istighathah has to be Shirk according to these three categories. And you believe Istighathah is Shirk due to it being act of Ibadah. In other words Istighathah in your understanding is Shirk of Uluhiyyah. How can you have Shirk in Uluhiyyah and without belief of Uluhiyyah? It is impossible like having Tawheed Uluhiyyah without belief in Uluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Can you be a Muwahid on basis of Ibadah in absence of belief of Uluhiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)?  No you cannot. Belief in Ilahiyyah is a pre-existent condition of Ibadah. Without which neither you can have a Muwahid nor Ibadah.

127 - Responding To Refutation, Attempting To Change Course Of Discussion:

Sunni: You said [in section 120 and in (viA) of subdivision]: “Brother Ali you have attempted to change the direction of discussion once again. You made an agreement that you will respond to things I want answers of and even brother Umar agreed with me that you have not responded the content. Can you man-up and respond to the following: ...” I am sorry if it seemed I have tried to change the subject, by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), I had no such intentions brother Umar is witness to this so you should enquire from him.

128 - Responding To Three Questions:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you also said [in section 120 and in (viA) of subdivision]: “I have three questions for you: (a) Is invocation, supplication, petition worship according to statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Dua is worship? (b) Is Istighathah an innovation, petition, supplication, plea of help or not? (c) Is Istighathah worship of Ghayrullah? Please pay close attention to my answers. (a) Your 1^st question was: “Is invocation, supplication …” Invocation is worship when it is connected with practices of Islam and performed as commanded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). When invocation/petition is part of an innovated practice it is not worship. (b) You asked: “Is Istighathah an innovation, petition, supplication, plea or not?” Istighathah is an invocation, a petition, a supplication of help no doubt. (c) You asked: “Is Istighathah worship of Ghayrullah?” Istighathah is definitely not practice of worship because it is an innovated petition of help.

129 - Responding To Two Questions:

Sunni: You said [in section 120 and in (viB) of subdivision]: “I am expecting you will say Istighathah is not Shirk and so I would like you to prove following and I will admit defeat: (a) Invocation is not worship. (b) Istighathah is not an invocation/petition.” In order for me to prove you wrong, you said I need to prove: (a) “Invocation is not worship.” (b) And: “Istighathah is not an invocation/petition.” I will answer both: (i) Invocation is worship but it is not worship. It is worship because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, invocation is worship, but it is not worship because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) calling/Dua you and he did not worship companions even though his call was a Dua: “(Remember) when you (fled and) climbed (the mountain) without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind.” [Ref: 3:153] It is not worship because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said to companions when you Dua/call  Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then do not call him like you call each other but call him with respect: “Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah ...” [Ref: 24:63] And they the companions did not worship Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) even though their call was termed a Dua. And in following verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructs the believers to answer the Dua of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam😞 “O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” [Ref: 8:24] He the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not worship the companions and did not worship the Muslims in general. I have proved to you that invocation/Dua is not worship.

Sunni: (ii) Istighathah is invocation/Dua but it is not an invocation/Dua like the Hadith uses word invocation/Dua: “Anas bin Malik narrated that the Prophet said: ‘The supplication is the essence of worship.’” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3371, here.] Instead Istighathah is an invocation/Dua in following sense of word invocation/Dua: “(Remember) when you (fled and) climbed (the mountain) without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind.” [Ref: 3:153] “Do not make (your) calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah …” [Ref: 24:63] “O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.” [Ref: 8:24] In coming discussion if opportunity availed then I will provide textual proofs why one is worship and why other isn’t worship.

[In section 138 sub-section (iii) I have established that Dua of worship is one which is directed toward a Deity/Ilah. And this establishes calls/invocations directed to one who is believed to be a creation of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and His servant and not an Ilah/Rabb partner of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala then such invocations/calls of help are not worship.]

130 - Explaining Shar’ee Dua Ibadah But Not Innovated And Why Evil Principles:

Umar: Brother Ali what the hack is this: “When invocation/petition is part of an innovated practice it is not worship.” You seriously don’t believe in this do you? I am thinking it is some kind of windup but I am unsure.
Sunni: Brother Umar I am only acting on Sunnah of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) in my own way. I had to say something outlandish for the Mushriks (i.e. Salafis) to realize their innovated idols (i.e. principles) are senseless. And they can appeal to them whenever they like but all their efforts will be futile.

Sunni: Following was actually part of my response but I had removed it because didn’t need to be included yet: “In case you’re planning to ask me, where is evidence for your statement invocation outside of Islamicly sanctioned practices is not worship, I want you to first give me evidence for this: “Brother belief and action are essential combination in Islam. Principle of belief follows action is for Islamic practices but not for practices which are innovations such as Istighathah. All the examples you’re giving are of Islamic practices which found/performed upon basis of belief.” You innovated so I acted on, monkey see monkey do, monkey do. In other words you/Salafis innovated a principle to ensure Istighathah becomes Shirk and I innovated equally evil innovation to make sure you cannot make it into Shirk.” I removed it because I wanted to wait for him to advance his point.

Salafi: Why did you say your principle is was evil? I can see why his would be so but why yours?

Sunni: Brother Salafi principle is primed to aid Salafi belief that, Istighathah is Shirk. We both know it is not Shirk in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship. (a) It [the Salafi principle Shirk can be warranted without belief of Ilahiyyah because Ilahiyyah itself is established on Ibadah and this] can lead to anything/everything becoming worship. You kissed baby. Kissing is Ibadah because kissing Hajr al-Aswad is Ibadah. Therefore kissing baby is worship therefore Shirk because kisser established Ilahiyyah for baby through worship. Without belief of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah anything and everything can be termed worship as long as it has some resemblance to worship. (b) My EVIL principle not only establishes Istighathah is not worship/Shirk but it also goes a step further, just as his innovated principle did. And unintentionally produces result that even with belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship no INNOVATED action can be of worship.

Umar: Can I forward your clarification to brother Abdullah as well?

Sunni: No, please don’t.

Sunni: I re-read my response to the five questions and I am not satisfied with some. I want to address them seriously. Give me a day, or half if you don’t get anything send what you already got.

[I couldn’t rectify the issues until few days after and by then brother Umar had already forwarded my EMail to brother Abdullah.]

131 - Responding Abdullah’s Question Directly And Justifying My Answer:

Sunni: First question brother Abdullah asked: “(a) Is invocation, supplication, petition worship according to statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that Dua is worship?” (i) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said supplication is worship and quoted Ayah in support of his statement: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says call upon me and I will respond to you. Meaning call upon Me who you believe is the One, the Only Ilah, and I will answer your call. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) then says those who have contempt for worshipping Him, i.e. dislike of supplicating to Him, they will surely enter hell in humiliation. In conclusion in light of prophetic statement and Ayah is that supplication is worship when invocation is directed to the/an Ilah and belief of Ilahiyyah is affirmed in heart.

Sunni: (ii) Affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Ma’budiyyah for a being, or the Being leads to worship so belief of Ilahiyyah for object of worship has to pre-exist for invocation to be worship. Now I will provide interpretation of Ayah in context of this principle. When Ayah is interpreted in context of Mushrikeen it means: (a) “Call upon Me [with belief I am the One and the Only Ilah] and I will respond to you.” When the Ayah is interpreted in context of an Atheist it means: (b) “Call upon me [believing I am your Ilah and your Rabb] and I will respond to you.” In context of Muslims because Ilahiyyah is already part of our belief therefore the Ayah exhorts: “Call on me [with desire, intention of worshipping Me, and without committing minor Shirk while invoking me] and I will respond to you.”

Sunni: (iii) Interpretations (a) and (b) provide understanding that for new Muslims their rudimentary knowledge of rules of Ibadaat is enough to validate their Ibadaat and gain approval of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Interpretation (c) demonstrates as Muslims we require greater knowledge and Taqwa to gain favour with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And interpretations (a)/(b) and interpretation (c) demonstrate belief of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are essential element of Ibadah. Your questions: “(b) Is Istighathah an innovation, petition, supplication, plea of help or not?” Istighathah is indeed a petition of help there is no question about it. Your last question was: “(c) Is Istighathah worship of Ghayrullah?” Istighathah is not worship because the fundamental component of belief i.e. Ilahiyyah is absent. In other words one being asked for help is not believed to be an Ilah/Rabb, nor intention of worship exits.

Umar: Salam Alaykum. I was wondering where you’re heading with your three interpretations but you nicely contextualized them. I will send this now.

132 - Brother Abdullah Demands Hard Copy Of Evidence:

Salafi: You quoted work of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan from a website to support your understandings in some parts of your rebuttal. I cannot accept quoted content as his until quoted text is from a published book. You will have to provide either an Arabic version, or published translation, not a link of page.

Sunni: Brother I had PDF copy of Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan’s explanation but I cannot find it because it hasn’t been named appropriately. I have nearly 2500K PDF files in Urdu/English so sifting through them to find it will take time.

Salafi: No rush brother. Anyhow Shaykh didn’t mean what you attributed to him? You have misunderstood his intent. He is only saying Dua is greatest types of worship out of many Ibadaat.

Sunni: Like I said, I will need time to find published reference. And this discussion can only continue meaningfully then. Send me your response via EMail. Salam Alaykum.

Salafi: This suppose to be a discussion/chat not an internet forum style mass-dump of information type of discussion. I won’t be addressing everything you wrote. It is just too much.

Sunni: You write your response don’t worry about quoting any evidence. While editing where-ever I judge your evidence needs to be inserted I will. Insha’Allah you will find published versions of your responses will be better presented and with your evidences where you didn’t quote. Only condition is that, for me to add a textual support, you must narrate the text of Ayah/Hadith, or hint at it. 

Sunni: Salam Alaykum. The quoted material is from published work and link to translation is provided in reference section: “In another narration: “Supplication is worship.” This illustrates the magnitude of Dua, and that it is the greatest form of worship because the Messenger said (that it is); “Supplication is the essence of worship.” And in another narration: “Supplication is worship.” The second narration is more authentic than the narration: “Supplication is the essence of worship.” However, the meaning is the same. So, this  Hadith with its two narrations clarifies the greatness of Dua and that it is the greatest type of worship. This is similar to when he  said: "Hajj is Arafah.” This means that standing at Arafah during Hajj is the greatest pillar of Hajj. And the meaning is not that the entire Hajj is Arafah. Rather, the standing at Arafah is the greatest pillar of Hajj. Likewise, the entirety of worship is not restricted to only Dua. However, it is the greatest of its types. Due to this, he said: “Supplication is worship.” [Ref: The Three Fundamental Principles, Pages 155/156, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, Translator Raha Batts, here.]

Salafi: Thank you. I will look into it now and if it checks out be warned parts written before verification will remain as they were and those after it will be produced based on verification. I won’t have time to edit. Before I leave I want to know something. The prophetic statement, supplication is worship, is it specifically about Salah types of Ibadaat, or inclusive of Salah types of Ibadaat?

Sunni: Supplication is Ibadah is inclusive of Salah types of Ibadaat. Inclusive of ordinary Dua/supplication, as well as Ibadaat in which Dua/Amal are combined together such as Salah and Tawaf.

133 - Brother Abdullah’s Rebuttal:

Salafi: During our chat I enquired: “The prophetic statement, supplication is worship, is it specifically about Salah types of Ibadaat, or inclusive of Salah types of Ibadaat?” You responded with saying, supplication is worship, gives meaning that supplication is inclusive of Salah type Ibadaat. In other words you hold to understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made the statement, supplication is worship, about ordinary Dua is and Salah types of Ibadaat: “Supplication is Ibadah is inclusive of Salah types of Ibadaat. Inclusive of ordinary Dua/supplication, as well as Ibadaat in which Dua/Amal are combined together such as Salah and Tawaf.” Your Takhsees, supplication is core/essence of worship, would have only benefitted you if it was the only meaning of Hadith. Then Takhsees would have meant Hadith of, supplication is worship, cannot be applied to Dua of Istighathah because Hadith is not about Dua.

Salafi: Brother Ali you said: “Brother you have no clue what scholars have said about both these Ahadith in Shuruhaat and worse you do not know what scholars of your own sect have said about this Hadith: “It doesn’t mean that the whole of the Hajj is just, Arafah, but rather that the standing in Arafah is the greatest of the pillars of the Hajj. And likewise, worship is not restricted to just being Dua, but rather supplication is the greatest of its types. Therefore he said …” [Ref: Explanation Of Three Fundamental Principles, Principle #1, Explanation 14#, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, here.] He is saying Dua is not the only form of worship, Salah, Tawaf, and others … are also Ibadaat but Dua part of them is core/greatest type of worship. And in his understanding standing in Salah is worship but Duas recited while standing in Salah greater/core of this aspect. Action of Sujud is worship when performed with intention of worship but greater/core of this worship is what is recited in position of Sujud. This is deduced from following: “It doesn’t mean that the whole of the Hajj is just, Arafah, but rather that the standing in Arafah is the greatest of the pillars of the Hajj.” What is Shaykh implying here? Is he contextually not denoting: It doesn’t mean that whole of Ibadah/Dua is just supplication but rather that supplication is the greatest pillar of the Ibadah/Dua? Is that not what I stated or what I stated? Is he not implying Dua is greatest/core of Ibadah and not just Ibadah by itself?” Shaykh does not say what you claim. He said supplication is greatest act of worship out of many types of Ibadaat like standing in Arafat is greatest part of worship in Hajj.

Salafi: You said in your EMail: “You have repeated your claim following claim for number of times, for innovation of Istighathah Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not required for major Shirk of Ibadah. What I want is evidence of Quran/Hadith in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) directly said, you people are Mushrik even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah for creation and intention of worship. Or if you don’t have direct evidence then a verse/Hadith in which a person, group was charged of major Shirk in absence of ascribing Ilahiyyah directly, or indirectly by worshipping. Or prove that scholars before Salafism have stated this principle and employed it to judge major Shirk. Rest assured there is no evidence for this innovation of yours because even in your own methodology, Ilahiyyah is essential pre-existent requirement without which there can be no Shirk.” Brother Ali I did present evidence in support of my position. Quranic verses proved that Jews/Christians were charged of taking their monks/Rabbis as gods [even though they did not believe them to be gods]. Other verse says one who legislates his religion according to his desire has taken his ego/desire as a god [and this too is proof that Ilahiyyah is warranted in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah]. Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also established Jews/Christians did not worship them directly but were charged of worshipping monks/Rabbis because Jews/Christians obeyed them [and this is proof that there can be worship without intention of worship]. You rejected apparent of these verses and logical conclusion these verses lead to and instead interpreted them against the apparent of Quranic text.

Salafi: You said: “ (i) Brother Abdullah you have made the claim Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not essential for Shirk of worship. And I am under no burden whatsoever to provide any proof, or support position contrary to yours. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, proof is incumbent upon claimant, here. I do not like to enforce, I am not burdened but you’re so you prove it but sometimes it is unavoidable.” Brother Hadith you quoted is about legal issues involving property disputes and not theological. We both are required to prove our beliefs and practices from Quran and Sunnah.

Salafi: “ … that both belief and action are combined to make Salafi definition of Tawheed Uluhiyyah and Shirk Uluhiyyah? Salafi: Yes!” […] “Salafi: Belief in Uluhiyyah has always been a pre-requisite and a essential part of Salafi definitions of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah, even if not expressed, due to evidences which our scholars use to prove these definitions.” [Ref: 015 - Problem With Defining …] Your saying/belief; for innovated practices [like Istighathah] to be Shirk belief/intention does not need to be part of them, is contradicted and refuted by what you said/agreed with me in the beginning of our discussion.“ I am not going to lie and say that I always know what I am saying, clearly I don’t. I don’t have anything to say, or offer an excuse, other then I have got confused because I could not keep track of what was said.

Salafi: You said: “(iii) It is contradicted and refuted by you because in the first statement you said Shirk Uluhiyyah is based on belief of Uluhiyyah as well as action. In the second you said belief in Uluhiyyah is part of Salafi definitions of Shirk/Tawheed Uluhiyyah as a default and as a pre-existent belief. Istighathah is practice of Shirk according to Salafism and it is therefore by default related to your definition of Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. And pre-requisite of Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is belief as you said above. Kindly dig yourself out of this grave. Smile.” (i) I made mistake when I said belief in Uluhiyyah is a pre-existent requirement. (ii) Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah is to worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only. Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) along side others, or to worship another instead of Him. (iii) The essence of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah is worship and Tawheed Uluhiyyah is established on basis of worship and negated on basis of worship. There is no need to separate belief from action/worship because action/worship itself is best demonstration of belief. (iv) Invocation is worship. Istighathah is invocation by its very nature therefore Istighathah is worship of others beside Him. Shirk in Uluhiyyah is worship of others beside Him and as result Istighathah warrants Shirk of Uluhiyyah and practitioner has committed Shirk al-Uluhiyyah.

Salafi: Brother Ali I’ll quote your response:  “(a) Your 1^st question was: “Is invocation, supplication …” Invocation is worship when it is connected with practices of Islam and performed as commanded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). When invocation/petition is part of an innovated practice it is not worship. (b) You asked: “Is Istighathah a innovation, petition ... ?” Istighathah is an invocation, a petition, a supplication of help no doubt. (c) You asked: “Is Istighathah worship of Ghayrullah?” Istighathah is definitely not practice of worship because it is an innovated petition of help.” (i) Brother Ali you said invocation is worship when invocation involves practices sanctioned in Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not make this distinction and you have no right to do so. What was even more perplexing that you said: “When invocation/petition is part of an innovated practice it is not worship.” In context of your statements would you say Christians are not worshipping Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) in their churches? Christians do not perform Salah to please Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Their entire worship is invocations directed to Jesus and singing his praises. Quran is replete with Quranic verses stating that invocations of Mushrikeen are worshipped their deities via invocations. (ii) In response to Q3 you said Istighathah is not worship because it is an innovated practice. Your answer is just continuation of answer given in Q1. I don’t know what to say to you except that you have no support for principle on basis of which you reasoned Istighathah is not Shirk.

Salafi: (i) Brother Ali I haven’t responded to content which required lengthy explanations. I do not have luxury of time like you. Another thing I did not respond to your content you mailed on 23rd because by the time it arrived I had already completed writing of my response. I assumed you wanted me to respond to the latter version instead of earlier one. I would prefer that we return to discussing on PalTalk like we did before. Amount of content you’re throwing at me through EMails is just ridiculous. Forget responding to you I am not even getting time to read all of what you write. You have to seriously cut down on how much you write, or condense it. (ii) [In section 129 of the discussion] You said invocation is worship and invocation is not worship. It is worship because Prophet (peace be upon him) said it and it is not because Quran uses word invocation in linguistic sense without meaning worship. You’re playing word games like you’re some immature kid. We are debating subject of Istighathah and Shari usage of word Dua/invocation and not linguistic. In Istighathah call of help is comes into category of worship. Hence call/Dua is Shar’ee and application of evidences of it being worship is justified.

134 - Response – Dua Is Worship Meanings Dua Is Core Of Worship:

Sunni: Brother you did not address issue of Hadith, supplication is essence/core of worship. In your latest rebuttal you have not raised objection to grading of Hadith, nor question meaning text of Hadith, nor you’ve objected to Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan’s saying Ahadith of, supplication is worship, and Hadith of, supplication is essence/core of worship, have same meaning as each other. To me this indicates you have accepted my interpretation, supplication is worship, actually means, supplication is core/essence of worship.

135 - Response – Takhsees Does Benefit Me But Not As You Assumed:

Sunni: You said Takhsees does not benefit me: “During our chat I enquired: … You responded with saying, supplication is worship, gives meaning that supplication is inclusive of Salah type Ibadaat. In other words you hold to understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made the statement, supplication is worship, about ordinary Dua is and Salah types of Ibadaat: … Your Takhsees, supplication is core/essence of worship, would have only benefitted you if it was the only meaning of Hadith. Then Takhsees would have meant Hadith of, supplication is worship, cannot be applied to Dua of Istighathah because Hadith is not about Dua.” It does not benefit me according to your contextualization. It does benefit my stance because if it is inclusive of Ibadaat which are combinations of actions and invocations. And Ibadaat like Salah two requirements are essential belief in Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship. Also the statement, supplication is worship, was explained in light of Ayah quoted, to be inclusive of Ilahiyyah/Niyyah [in section 131]. My objective was to demonstrate statement, supplication is worship, was made in context of Islamic Ibadaat and based on pre-existing belief of Ilahiyyah of Muslims and Niyyah of worshippers. And I have demonstrated this that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made statement, supplication is worship, in context of Islamic Ibadaat etc. It is shame that you’re distorting the reality and context in which this statement, supplication is worship, was made it.

136 - Response – Shaykh Said Dua Is Greatest Type Of Worship:

Sunni: I quote: “Brother Ali you said: … Shaykh does not say what you claim. He said supplication is greatest act of worship out of many types of Ibadaat like standing in Arafat is greatest part of worship in Hajj.” (i) Originally you said Hadith of supplication is worship, and supplication is core of worship is only relating to regular Dua and not with Ibadaat like Salah. I refuted your claim by citing Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan’s statement. And now you have said I did not represent his position correctly. I will let the readers decide if I did or did not represent his understanding of subject.

Sunni: (iia) Shaykh Salih established two meanings. One that meaning of statement, supplication is worship, is same as statement, supplication is core of worship: “In another narration: “Supplication is worship.” This illustrates the magnitude of Dua, and that it is the greatest form of worship because the Messenger said (that it is); “Supplication is the essence of worship.” And in another narration: “Supplication is worship.” The second narration is more authentic than the narration: “Supplication is the essence of worship.” However, the meaning is the same.” [Ref: The Three Fundamental Principles, Pages 155/156, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, Translator Raha Batts, here.] The same-ness of meaning for both Ahadith results, in both meaning, supplication is core of worship.

Sunni: (iib) I have annotated his statement for ease of understanding for you and readers: “In another narration: “Supplication is worship.” This illustrates the magnitude of Dua,and that it is the greatest form of worship because the Messenger said (that it is); “Supplication is the essence of worship.” And in another narration: “Supplication is worship.” The second narration is more authentic than the narration: “Supplication is the essence of worship.” However, the meaning is the same. So, this Hadith with its two narrations clarifies the greatness of Dua and that it is the greatest type of worship. This [prophetic statement] is similar to [in meaning to] when he said: "Hajj is Arafah”. This means that standing at Arafah during Hajj is the greatest pillar of Hajj. And the meaning is not that the entire Hajj is Arafah. Rather, the standing at Arafah is the greatest pillar of Hajj. [Just as entirety of Hajj is not restricted to only standing at Arafat:] Likewise, the entirety of worship is not restricted to only Dua. However, it is the greatest of its types [from many other Ibadaat]. Due to this, he said: “Supplication is worship.” [Ref: The Three Fundamental Principles, Pages 155/156, by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, Translator Raha Batts, here.] I leave you and readers to decide if Shaykh said, supplication is worship  means supplication is core of worship. And I leave it upon readers and brother Abdullah to decide if Shaykh Salih said worship is only Dua.

Sunni: (iii) I hope it is known and clear to you that Hajj is made up of many practices each with many components of just like Salah is made up of many components. Each component of Salah and standing at Arafat is worship in its own right but Duas in these are core of these Ibadaat. In Salah we recite al-Fatiha, Tashahhud, Salawat Ibrahimi, and Dua Rabbi Ja-alni. Yet Duas are not the only part of Salah it includes, Qayam, Takbir, Ruku, Sujud, Tashhahud, raising finger, Salam etc. All these aspects are all worship but the essence, the core of Salah is worship. A conventional Dua has two main components such as raising of hands, and supplication, and as per prophetic statement invocation in Dua is the core of worship: "Narrated Salman al-Farsi: The Prophet said: Your Lord is munificent and generous, and is ashamed to turn away empty the hands of His servant when he raises them to Him." [Ref: Abu Dawud, B8, H1483, here.]

137 - Response – Meaning Of Ego As God And Rabbis/Monks As Lords:

Sunni: “You said in your EMail: “You have repeated your claim following claim for number of times, for innovation of Istighathah Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not required for major Shirk of Ibadah. What I want is evidence of Quran/Hadith in which …” Brother Ali I did present evidence in support of my position. Quranic verses proved that Jews/Christians were charged of taking their monks/Rabbis as gods [even though they did not believe them to be gods]. Other verse says one who legislates his religion according to his desire has taken his ego/desire as a god [and this too is proof that Ilahiyyah is warranted in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah]. Hadith of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) also established Jews/Christians did not worship them directly but were charged of worshipping monks/Rabbis because Jews/Christians obeyed them [and this is proof that there can be worship without intention of worship]. You rejected apparent of these verses and logical conclusion these verses lead to and instead interpreted them against the apparent of Quranic text.” (i) Verses you quoted have been discussed in great/great detail therefore I feel no reason to discuss them once again and especially after you have admitted your understanding of these verses was wrong. I understand that it difficult to let go of things which you have agreed/know are wrong. You have to remind yourself. We’ll not continue to reinvent wheel every time you mention those verses.

Sunni: (ii) Your incorrect understanding of verses in discussion stems from flaw in your methodology. You cannot hold to literalism of verses and interpretation at the same time and then combine interpretation and literal reading of verses to make a new understanding. Try this for an example. Amr is a football virgin = Amr has never played football. Combine the two  = Amr is a virgin who has never played a football. By combining literal and intended meaning of phrase we have arrived at understanding that Amr is virgin in sexual sense but also hasn’t played football. And this was not the intended meaning of, Amr is a football virgin, rather a distortion. In other words literalism of, give me hand, plays no part after intended meaning, help me, is derived from it. We do not deduce, Amr asked for help, therefore he literally asked Bakr to give Amr his literal hand. To combine the two and make such deductions demonstrates lack of knowledge of Tafsir as well as everyday common sense. I say the bald one is an idiot, you ask me, you mean James, say yes James who else. You have understood, James is idiot, which was what I wanted to convey. You no longer employ words, the bald one, because to use them would convey, James the bald one is idiot. And this indirectly implies there is another James with hair and he isn’t idiot. Words, the bald one, were description of James. In other words I meant, James is idiot. You cannot employ indirect words once intended meaning of indirect description is known. You have to substitute one for the other and not combine both.

Sunni: (iii) Tafasir provide intended meaning of the phrases based in context of revelation. And have provided explanations which turned readers away from literal meaning of these verses. (iv) The verse: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] It means: They took their Rabbis/monks as Hukama (legislators) instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this is evident because Jews/Christians accepted Haram/Halal as Halal/Haram when their esteemed members of their community decided so.  The verse of taking ego as a God beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] This Ayah means: Have you seen the one who has elevated himself to degree of Hakim/legislator?

Sunni: (v) Adding to what I have already said about the verse, Q9:31, being an example of exaggerated rhetoric to convey a very specific meaning. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says the Jews/Christians took their seniors as Arbab/Lords: “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] And He says this on account of Jews accepting what the seniors legislated against teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In other words they usurp a components of Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) namely, al-Hakimiyyah, which is NOT in entirety of Rububiyyah. Despite this Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has charged them of taking their Rabbis/monks as Lords. This is another proof  the Ayah is a rhetorical device and not literal. How can affirming Hakimiyyah  by default warrant Khaliqiyyah, Razzaqiyyah, others and entirety of Rububiyyah? None can believe entirety of Rububiyyah just by affirming al-Hakimiyyah. The notion that Jews/Christians affirmed entirety of Rububiyyah by only affirming al-Hakimiyyah is outrageous. This would mean in Islam entirety of Rububiyyah is ONLY al-Hakimiyyah. And any who believes entirety of Rububiyyah is al-Hakimiyyah is no doubt an apostate, or a Kafir, but not a Muslim.

Sunni: (vi) The verse of an Amr taking his ego/desire as an Ilah. Ilahiyyah strictly is Ma’budiyyah and Ilah/Ma’bud isn’t warranted through legislating what one should do and what one should abstain from. If Ilahiyyah was only al-Hakimiyyah then act of legislating would have by defaulted warranted Ilahiyyah and then literalism of verse would have been accepted. We all know and believe that Ilahiyyah is composed of all Asma and Sifaat including Rabb, Hakim, Malik, Khaliq, Raziq … Therefore this verse also is not upon literal meaning but rather it means: Have you seen one who has taken himself, or his ego/desires as his legislator/guide. (vii) Absolute literal reading of these verses does not establish Shirk due to absence of Rububiyyah/Ilahiyyah instead they prove Jews and Christians were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah/Ilahiyyah. And my demand was for you to prove Shirk in absence of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah not in presence of it.

138 – Response – Meaning Of Hadith, And Dua Is Directed To A Deity/Ilah:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah in regards to my comments [in green] you said [in maroon] Hadith is about property disputes: “ (i) Brother Abdullah you have made the claim Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are not essential for Shirk of worship. And I am under no burden whatsoever to provide any proof, or support position contrary to yours. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, proof is incumbent upon claimant, here.” Brother Hadith you quoted is about legal issues involving property disputes and not theological. We both are required to prove our beliefs and practices from Quran and Sunnah.” (i) Yes the Hadith is in context of property disputes but it also applies to theological issues. State found in Ahadith of intention, actions are judged according to intentions, is contexted to marriage/migration. Yet the context doesn’t restricts its application so why should the statement, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, be restricted to context? Anyhow I will not argue over the technicalities with issues not essential. (ii) I would have appreciated if you had provided evidence for your belief. Instead you engaged and ‘refuted’ me on something which was not related.

Sunni: (iii) Since you said I am also under burden to prove what/why I believe I will respond accordingly. In the following Ayahs of Quran Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) connects invocation being directed to god/gods of various types. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “We wronged them not, but they wronged themselves. So their Alihah (gods), other than Allah, whom they invoked, profited them naught when there came the Command of your Lord, nor did they add aught to them but destruction.” [Ref:  11:101] This Ayah indicates the gods they invoked did not benefit them at all. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says:  “They (the Arab polytheists) invoke nothing but female deities besides Him, and they invoke nothing but Shaitan (Satan), a persistent rebel!” [Ref:  4:117] This Ayah establishes the Mushrikeen invoked female gods such as al-Laat, al-Uzza, al-Manat and angels whom they believed to be daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says:  “So invoke Allah making (your) worship pure for Him, however much the disbelievers may hate (it).” [Ref: 40:14] This Ayah instructs us to direct our pure invocations toward the Ilah i.e. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allah, any other Ilah (god), of whom he has no proof; then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely the disbelievers will not be successful.” [Ref: 23:117] This Ayah like previous ones establishes invocation is directed toward an Ilah for it to be worship. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Say: ‘I have been forbidden to worship those (those gods) whom you invoke besides Allah.’ Say: ‘I will not follow your vain desires. If I did, I would go astray, and I would not be one of the rightly guided.’" [Ref: 6:56] In the previous four Ayahs it is established invocation of worship is directed to a god, or gods. Ayah Q6:56 builds on that and provides support for understanding invocation is worship along side the notion invocation of worship is directed toward Ilah/Ilahs. Virtually entire Quran is refuting your innovation. And with this I have also substantiated my position that invocations of worship in Islam and out of Islam require an Ilah is invoked and invoked Ilah is believed to be as a Ilah.

139 - Inventing Salafism And Reverting To Salafism As He Goes:

You Said:  “I am not going to lie and say that I always know what I am saying, clearly I don’t. I don’t have anything to say, or offer an excuse, other then I have got confused because I could not keep track of what was said.” (i) Brother Abdullah excuse that you couldn’t keep track of what was said is pointing to the fact that you’re inventing understandings which you’re then passing as Salafism. And then you can’t keep track of those invented/innovated stances and end up contradicting and confusing yourself. Otherwise why would you get confused in a fundamental matter of creed! (iii) Traditional Salafi definition of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah is as you would know worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone and worshipping others beside/instead of Him. According to this definition a Mushrik who believes another Ilah beside/instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not guilty of Shirk until Mushrik worships false-Ilah. Under pressure you then changed the definition and said, belief is part of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah by default. Which meant a Hindu who believes in a idol as a god but doesn’t worship he is Mushrik even without devoting actions of worship to it.

Sunni: (iii) And now when your contradiction became evident without batting an eye you reverted back to traditional Salafi definition of Shirk Uluhiyyah. Which in a nutshell is; action/Ibadah alone, even in absence of belief of Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah, leads to Shirk Uluhiyyah. Evidence of that reversion is in section 129, next one. In an effort to ensure Istighathah is Shirk you’ve taken Hindu non-worshipper of false-god out of major Shirk because he doesn’t worship his invented deity. You have to be praised because did after-all ensure Ahlul la ilaha il-Allah are Mushrikeen worse in Shirk then Mushrikeen of Jahilliyyah. (iv) You should have known a Mushrik not guilty of worshipping his false-deity is Mushrik on account of his belief of Ilahiyyah even in absence of action of worship and remains upon Shirk after worshipping false-deity. The common in both cases is belief and it is this tether which connects with Shirk and establishes Shirk al-Uluhiyyah/al-Ilahiyyah. Wallah il-Azeem you’re doing a great disservice to Islam by refusing to accept that belief in Ilahiyyah is essential and fundamental core of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah/al-Ilahiyyah.

140 - Brother Changing Goal Posts And Unfairly Applying Verses/Ahadith:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you wrote: “(i) I made mistake when I said belief in Uluhiyyah is a pre-existent requirement. (ii) Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah is to worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only. Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) along side others, or to worship another instead of Him. (iii) The essence of Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah is worship and Tawheed Uluhiyyah is established on basis of worship and negated on basis of worship. There is no need to separate belief from action/worship because action/worship itself is best demonstration of belief. (i) Summary of what has happened so far. You started with traditional Salafi Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah then I forced you to change it through arguments and you made BELIEF part of Tawheed/Shirk Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah. Then you were unable to justify charge of Shirk for practitioners of Istighathah due to lack of belief Ilahiyyah while engaging in Istighathah and lack of intention to worship. And this caused you to argue for innovated practices like Istighathah belief isn’t required but rather belief  of Ilahiyyah is essential for practices/Ibadaat sanctioned by Islam. And now when I have demonstrated your contradictions you have once again reverted back to traditional Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah which basically is what you said above. I just pray previous section helps you understand Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. And then you’re forced to make distinction between beliefs of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah and actions/Ibadaat which result due to belief.

Sunni: (ii) You wrote: “(iv) Invocation is worship. Istighathah is invocation by its very nature therefore Istighathah is worship of others beside Him. Shirk in Uluhiyyah is worship of others beside Him and as result Istighathah warrants Shirk of Uluhiyyah and practitioner has committed Shirk al-Uluhiyyah.” You said Istighathah is invocation therefore worship and Shirk Uluhiyyah is worship of Ghayrullah therefore Shirk in Uluhiyyah is established. Before I refute you it is important you re-read content of verses … and explanation mentioned earlier – see section 138 sub-section (iii). (iii) Istighathah is not a Shar’ee Dua rather a Dua in linguistic sense of word ask/call similar to usage of Dua in these verses … and explanation – see section 129 sub-section (i). Istighathah would warrant Shar’ee application of Dua if practitioner of Istighathah affirmed belief of Ilahiyyah for one whom he/she seeks help and then with intention of worship invoked his/her Ma’bud meaning Ilah. You’re rather callously measuring a matter with Shar’ee yardstick when it has nothing to do with Shar’ee usage of word Dua. And there is absolutely is no need to apply verses/Ahadith of Ibadah on it. Simply because Istighathah is not based upon two foundations which would make call of Istighathah worship, namely belief and intention. And I cannot stop you but I have warned you to stop. You will be answerable for your excess in hereafter. (iv) Can you quote me a source in which a Salafi scholar clearly said Ilahiyyah isn’t belief but Ibadah/action. Or from a text where this meaning can be deduced incontestably.

141 – Not Mocking,  No Evidence, Regression To Worse, And Christians:

Sunni: You wrote: “(i) Brother Ali you said invocation is worship when invocation involves practices sanctioned in Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not make this distinction and you have no right to do so. I get the impression you said this to mock me. What was even more perplexing that you said: “When invocation/petition is part of an innovated practice it is not worship.” In context of your statements would you say ...” (i) I had no intention to mock you but only to demonstrate I can too invent principles and rules out of thin air to protect what I believe to be correct. (ii) Brother Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not make distinction that practices of Islam require belief Ilahiyyah and intention of Ibadah and practices outside of it do not. Yet you made this distinction even though you have no Quranic/Hadith evidence to back your evil innovation. And now you have regressed toward another evil position that Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah is Ibadah and it is established through it. (iii) Trinitarian Christians are definitely guilty of worshipping Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and guilty of Kufr on this account and [guilty of] major Shirk due to affirming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for him.

142 – Distinction Between Shar’ee And Lughvi Dua Is Not Word Games:

You Said: “(ii) [In section 129 of the discussion] You said: Invocation is worship and invocation is not worship. It is worship because Prophet (peace be upon him) said it and it is not because Quran uses word invocation in linguistic sense without meaning worship. You’re playing word games like you’re some immature kid. We are debating subject of Istighathah and Shari usage of word Dua/invocation and not linguistic. In Istighathah call of help is comes into category of worship. Hence call/Dua is Shar’ee and application of evidences of it being worship is justified.” Brother Abdullah you’re being way to unfair here. I am not playing word games. I merely established that word Dua has been used in linguistic and Shar’ee usage. When it is used in Shar’ee usage it is worship because its Shar’ee usage is in context of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship. Look at the contexts in which it has been employed and on basis of which I simplified, worship because Prophet said it, and not worship because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Statements, supplication is worship, is Umoom (i.e. general) and Umoom is all inclusive. Meaning statement supplication is worship insinuates meaning, every innovation is worship, hence Takhsees was needed. I made Takhsees on basis of evidences to distinguish between Shar’ee and Lughvi (linguistic) supplication. And I have been making it clear that Shar’ee meaning of Dua is when Ilahiyyah/Niyyah are part of Dua. Istighathah can only be Kufr if it was practiced in Shar’ee sense but it is without belief of Ilahiyyah and Niyyah of worship therefore not Shar’ee Dua. And Hukm of Istighathah in context of Tawheed/Shirk is same as Salam of Tashahhud. Addressing Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) during Tashahhud with words, as salamu alayka ayyu han nabiyyu wa rahmatullah wa barakaat, is not worship and not Shirk. Why is it so? In both cases belief of Ilahiyyah is not affirmed for the one be addressed, nor the addresser has intention to worship the invoked.

143 – Brother Abdullah Quits And Remains In Discussion In Token:

(i) Brother Umar informed me brother Abdullah has no intention to continue this discussion. He excused saying, life is too busy to read and respond lengthy content which will only get lengthier. And plainly made it clear he will not respond content he received via EMail. I pleaded for brother to at very least respond to content of sections 137 and 138 subsection (iii) but to no avail. Fortunately after two weeks of insulting me and scholarship of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah he agreed to return to the discussion but on condition that all our future discussion would take place either on GMailChat, or PalTalk. I stipulated discussion will take place on these platforms in text format and any textual support not possible immediately, or too lengthy will be communicated via E-Mail as it was done before. There was great deal of negotiations on what we need to discuss. After much hullaballoo brother Abdullah agreed to discuss the pillar, the cornerstone, classifications of Tawheed. (ii) Readers would take note that brother Abdullah has token presence and responses that is because he has lost the will to continue our discussion. He abused me and scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah including Imam Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki (rahimullah). Sayyidi Imam Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi (rahimullah), Shaykh Ramdhan Buti (rahimullah). When that could not get his desired reaction he resorted to insulting Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi (rahimullah) for expounding Tawheed/Wahdat ul-Wujud. And that didn’t get him bacon either so he resorted to insulting Hujjat ul-Islam Imam al-Ghazali (rahimullah). (iii) I had to bite my tongue because I figured brother Abdullah only wants way to escape discussion and any hostile reaction would give him excuse to leave. He owed me nothing and has no connection with me but he is friend of brother Umar and to keep his respect brother Abdullah needed my harsh/angry reaction to justify his exist. Brother Abdullah did apologize to me but refused to repent for slurs and insults directed to Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And words of wise scholars are, one who insults Awliyah is in danger of dying upon major Kufr, and there is no doubt Abdullah is.

144 -  Brother Abdullah Misunderstands What I Wanted To Discuss:

Salafi: Scholars before him divided Tawheed into Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah, Rububiyyah, and Asma Wal Sifaat. You want to discuss our/your classifications of Tawheed because you have axe to grind against Shaykh ul-Islam [Ibn Taymiyyah]. You are brainwashed by extreme Sufis to hate Shaykh ul-Islam. I can understand why you would oppose us on issue of Istighathah but you’re attacking our understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. You said, you’re an ex-Salafi, how can you have so much hate for us. I am offended.

Sunni: There are number of things I will respond to. (i) I am not attacking your understanding of Tawheed, or negating you believe in Tawheed. I do believe Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, adherents of Wahhabi movement hold to correct beliefs regarding Shirk as far as what is clearly/explicitly mentioned in Quran/Sunnah. Despite this your methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk and your definitions of Tawheed Uluhiyyah, Rububiyyah, Asma Wal Sifaat are defective to such great extent that they lead to major Kufr. Your sects teaching Mushrikeen were upon Tawheed al-Rububiyyah in my understanding is clear cut emphatic major Kufr. One who dies upon this belief dies Kafir. Before you say we don’t believe in Tawheed Rububiyyah of Mushrikeen you better look at the definition you hold to and read Qawaid al-Arba and then come back to me.

Sunni: (ii) Suppose I was attacking your belief in Tawheed and suppose I did say you’re guilty of major Shirk, and you’re Mushrik, and your blood and property is Halal for state authority who rules/judges by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed. Suppose I said that and I believe that. Why would you object and take offense this belief and sentiment of mine when your Wahhabis have butchered hundred thousands of Sunni Muslims in Arabia and continue to do so throughout the world right now. You’re offended because you thought I have questioned your belief of Tawheed. When in reality I was merely challenging your definitions of Tawheed/Shirk. You and your kind have no care, love, compassion, or mercy for anyone but for your own and yourself. Have you thought about how many millions you have declared as worst Mushrikeen then Mushrikeen. How about the butchering countless Sunni Muslims and kidnapping of their women which lead to almost certain rape, destroying their property. Your sentiments are hurt at assumed nullification of your belief in Tawheed. Do you give a damn about sentiments of others but your own? I do not believe Salafis are lacking in Tawheed to a degree that takes them out of Islam. Nor I believe Salafis are upon major Shirk. Any Muslim who has read the Quran even once, just the translation, would end up ticking all boxes of affirming Tawheed and negating Shirk. A Muslim who attends Jummah and is in company of Muslims will have enough knowledge of Tawheed/Shirk to be a Muslim.

Salafi: You’re taking too long. I am not here to listen to your never ending sermon. It was suppose to be a discussion.

Sunni: I did not tolerate two weeks of insults to stop when you say. I WILL FINNISH FIRST. I demand the respect I deserve and courtesy I have accorded you. We agreed I/you will have our cake and eat it and we will wait until other is done. Did we not?

Salafi: Brother Ali you will never stop writing if you had your way. You’re over whelming me with so much material I don’t have time nor the will power to refute everything I disagree. On top of that I find it difficult to understand what you’re saying. [He went offline.]

Sunni: (iii) You’re totally misinformed about my motives and objectives. I have zero interest in arguing Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s division of Tawheed into three is a problem. Zero interest, and zero problem with dividing Tawheed into three categories. I have problem with how he defined each category and how Tawheed/Shirk in each category is established. It is perfectly, OK, to divide Tawheed/Shirk into categories so we can systematically understand it. I divide Tawheed into two main categories. Tawheed al-Zaat and Tawheed al-Sifaat [all Asma are Sifaat so no reason to make distinction between them]. I also have defined Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah right at the beginning of our discussion. Both are extension of Tawheed Asma Wal Sifaat. Rububiyyah is encompassed by Ilahiyyah meaning Rububiyyah is part of Ilahiyyah and not separate and evidence of that: “And those who recite the message. Indeed, your God is One. Lord of the heavens and the earth and that between them and Lord of the sunrises.” [Ref: 37:3/5] The Ayah establishes the One Ilah is Lord of universe thus establishing my position. Division of Tawheed into two/three categories is not a problem at all. And no one sane enough will ever object to it.

Sunni: (iv) The scholars who have objected to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s division do so due to how he defined each category. I am not Arabic speaker/reader [except script of Quran with aids] so I don’t even know what the scholars have said about it. And there is nothing in Urdu which discusses this subject and I have read a lot. I became aware of antagonism against Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s division from what Salafis wrote in defense of his divisions. And long after I learnt and naturalized Sunni definition of Tawheed/Shirk I began to figure out the problems with his definitions. Salafis have been presenting the Ikhtilaf as, Sufis object to Shaykh ul-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah dividing Tawheed into three categories, and look so and so scholar divided it like him. The actual Ikhtilaf is not over number of divisions but how each division is defined.

145 - Unknown To Me, Scholars Have Objected To Dividing Tawheed:

Salafi: According to Abu Sulayman dispute is over not over the content of divisions but over Tawheed being divided into three: “The problem is not the usage of words like Rububiyyah and Uluhiyyah, but rather to make a strict division of Tawhid into three and build Ahkam (rulings) based upon it. This is exactly what Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) did and this is nothing but an innovation! The problem with this innovation is not just that it later on (i.e. in the time of the bloodthirsty criminal Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)) lead to completely unjustified Takfir and the spilling of blood of many Muslims on the Arabian peninsula and the regions around it, but also that it leads to ignorance regarding real Tawhid. The people who follow this innovation are so obsessed about secondary issues, that they've forgotten what actually Tawhid is. Let them read Surat al-Ikhlas and ponder about it and then ask themselves why the Tawhid in the Qur`an al-karim is different from the so called "Tawhid" that ibn abdul Wahab Najdi blind followers teach them.” [Ref: SalafiAqeedah, here, by Abu Sulayman] I am sure you know brother Abu Sulayman. What he says is completely against what you are saying.

Sunni: Yes I do know who brother Abu Sulayman is and I have great respect for this brother. He single handedly in my estimation turned the tide of battle fought against Salafiyyah due to his intimate knowledge of barbarity and clear Takfir and excess in books of Shaykh al-Najd, his immediate followers.

Umar: Deal with the real issue brother Ali.

Sunni: Sorry! I will but I need time to digest what he said. I will be back in 15 mins.

Salafi: We will wait for you. Smiles.

Sunni: I was not aware it was Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah who started division of Tawheed and Shirk into three. And because brother Abu Sulayman says it was Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. I regret saying dispute was not over division of Tawheed/Shirk into three. And Salafis about whom I said they are misrepresenting the dispute were wrongly accused so by me. I say I so sorry. Smile. I genuinely didn’t know that was the case.

Umar: Jazakallah Khayr. I like how you owned up to the mistake.

146 - Possible Reasons Due To Which Opposition To Division Of Tahweed/Shirk:

Sunni: After being corrected I will still say division of Tawheed into three categories by Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah could have survived criticism if content which made each definition was in accordance with Quran/Sunnah [which they clearly are not]. I also noted Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s division hasn’t encompassed Tawheed/Shirk al-Zaat. If Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah was indeed the first one to attempt to systemize Tawheed/Shirk and classify it he did a poor job because he missed out Tawheed al-Zaat.

Sunni: Dividing Tawheed into three without Tawheed al-Zaat has a side effect and to illustrate it. Antnag says Krishna was hearing/seeing from eternity past and will be to eternity future. This is Shirk in Sifaat but by default it is Shirk al-Zaat as well because His Sifaat are connected with His Zaat and cannot exist outside of Him, or independent of Him. In other words Shirk in Sifaat is by default Shirk in Zaat and Shirk in entirety of Tawheed. And such Shirk necessitates that Zaat must also have existed from eternity past and will continue to exist into eternity future. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s division and definitions provide no hint of this due to lack of Tawheed al-Zaat.

Sunni: There is another issue that by separating Tawheed into two/three there is a chance we will not look at it as whole but judge Shirk in parts. Those who oppose division of Tawheed/Shirk into two/three divisions are likely opposing it due to this. Due to divisions we might realize Antnag’s Shirk in Sifaat but our division of Tawheed into three will blind us from realizing Shirk al-Zaat which was warranted by default. Separating Tawheed into divisions has its problems but nothing which cannot be overcome with correct fundamentals. I personally have had no objections to Tawheed/Shirk being divided into two/three divisions if they were defined correctly and were in accordance with Quran/Sunnah.

Sunni: There is another issue which brother Abu Sulayman mentioned. STRICT division of Tawheed into three categories is a problem and a defect if you deem it the beginning and end of all divisions of Tawheed/Shirk. This strictness is completely wrong because Tawheed al-Zaat is missing from Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s division. To have Tawheed Asma Wal Sifaat and not have Tawheed al-Zaat is beyond me because Asma and Sifaat exist in Zaat. Issues such as son/mother/father/daughter/wife and finer details such as Yad/Hand issue are connected with Tawheed/Shirk al-Zaat in one sense.

Sunni: In my understanding if would be better to divide Tawheed and Shirk into following categories: Tawheed/Shirk as al-Zaat and Asma Wal Sifaat. And then divide Asma Wal Sifaat as Tawheed/Shirk and then further divide each Ism/Sift as Tawheed Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, Rahimiyyah, Rahmaniyyah … Shirk Ilahiyyah, Rububiyyah, Rahimiyyah, Rahmaniyyah …

Sunni: Another objection that could be that Tawheed is One-ness, Wahdaniyyah, and Ahadiyyah. And by dividing Tawheed into two/three categories we defeat the objective of Tawheed. And answer to that is Tawheed divided into two/three or more is to understand the One and His One-ness better and not for purpose of dividing the One and His One-ness into two/three, or more. Following principle will prevent any/every deviation which could result from dividing Tawheed into categories: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Zaat and Sifaat. His Sifaat exist in His Zaat. His Sifaat cannot exist outside of Him but exist in Him as His. Together His Zaat/Sifaat complete Him and without the one or the other He would not be Him. Objective [of this principle] is to see His Zaat/Sifaat together as one and not to understand each independently of the other.

Sunni: The real issue is not division into three but how Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah are defined as and how these were employed. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t argue Mushrikeen were upon Tawheed in Rububiyyah but the marsupials claiming his teachings have established Tawheed al-Rububiyyah of Mushrikeen. Which is contrary to teaching of Quran/Sunnah. This misguidance stems from the defective definitions of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Salafi: Basically you have performed a complete three-sixty from your earlier position.

Sunni: Brother I haven’t. I have maintained that with correct fundamentals division of Tawheed/Shirk into two/three categories is not a problem and not a problem if divisions were defined correctly. I have held to my initial judgment but I have explained why others could be objecting to it and I have provided solution. My error was that I assumed scholars did not object to division of Tawheed into two/three categories. And there was a reason for this because Sunni scholarship of subcontinent has never raised any objection to division of Tawheed/Shirk into two/three categories. In fact Sunni scholarship of subcontinent has divided Tawheed/Shirk into categories.

Sunni: [Material which brother Abu Sulayman is basing his objection.] These polemic were part of early refutation of Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah which resolved themselves in the decades and centuries that followed. Scholarship of subcontinent has moved past these and has resolved division of Tawheed/Shirk into two/three isn’t a problem. Sunnis of Arab world speak, Arabic, and directly benefit from books of scholars of classical era. They achieve great benefits from early works but also end up recycling polemics of past which due to greater input understanding have become redundant at present. We in subcontinent are Sunnis in principle, methodology and beliefs but have developed differently compared to Arab scholarship. And our fallback literature isn’t Arabic classical but fairly evolved/modern, or contemporary Urdu literature. And in literature of subcontinent scholarship I find nothing refuting division of Tawheed/Shirk into two/three categories.

[Brother Umar and I realized that discussion was at an end due to brother Abdullah not responding to anything and just limiting his exchanges to small talk, mostly resorting to snarky comments. Over which I have exercised liberty and expunged them from record and mention. Brother Umar was tasked by me to discuss with brother Abdullah and get straight answer if he wants to continue discussion or not. Brother Abdullah grieved discussion was suppose to be about definition of Tawheed/Shirk and since it was not he did not take part. Despite his excuse brother Umar and I both were convinced the end is near.]

147 - Refuting Salafi Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah And Proving Islamic Understanding:

Sunni: (i) Brother Abdullah throughout our discussion I have consistently maintained belief is the only source of Shirk and belief as well as intention foundation of worship. Without belief Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah/Rubb there can be no Tawheed Ilahiyyah, or Rububiyyah. And without affirming belief that a creation is an additional Ilah/Rabb and partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) there can be no Shirk. Or without affirming belief a creation is THE Ilah/Rabb there can be no Shirk. Foundation of Tawheed/Shirk is BELIEF according to Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. And according to Ahlus Sunnah Ibadah is built upon belief and intention. On these two these two truths I have refuted your every innovation and exposed your distortions of Quranic verses and Ahadith. In this light our definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah is: To believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah/Rabb. And Shirk al-Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah is: To believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has an inferior/equal/superior Ilah/Rabb partner. Do you have any objection to our definition of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah on basis that it contradicts Quran/Sunnah?

Salafi: I will voice our understanding at the appropriate time now you must continue.

Sunni: Because we have restarted our discussion we start from beginning. And because I have already shared our versions of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah it would be appropriate to ask yours. Question to you is what is your definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah and Ibadah?

Salafi: “As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity/purity of devotional acts – e.g. Salah (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 9772, here.]

Sunni: (i) Your definition Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah has no mention of One-ness in your definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah. At minimum your definition of Tawheed Uluhiyyah must have two components of Tawheed and Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah. Miracle of your definition is that it doesn’t have mention of Tawheed, nor Uluhiyyah. And it does invite to purify worship of all Shirk but it doesn’t invite to only worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In other words, it is wrong to begin with, and what it does mention states it incorrectly, or rather partially.

Sunni: (ii) Following Ayaat make it clear worship is of Ilah and Ilahiyyah is not worship itself because they make clear distinction between Ilah and Ibadah: “Or were you witnesses when death approached Jacob, when he said to his sons, "What will you worship after me?" They said: "We will worship your Ilah (God) and the Ilah (God) of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaa, the one Ilah. And we are Muslims (in submission) to Him." [Ref: 2:133] “And when We took the covenant from the Children of Israel: "Do not worship except Allah; and to parents do good and to relatives, orphans, and the needy. And speak to people good and establish prayer and give zakah." Then you turned away, except a few of you, and you were refusing.” [Ref: 3:7] "Do not worship except Allah. Indeed, I am to you from Him a warner and a bringer of good tidings." [Ref: 12:2] “And We had certainly sent Noah to his people, (saying): "Indeed, I am to you a clear warner. That you not worship except Allah. Indeed, I fear for you the punishment of a painful day." [Ref: 12:25/26] These Ayaat also single Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) out for worship and negates worship of anyone/everyone else. Where has this Salafi definition only instructs to purify acts of worship which are directed toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: (iii) Your definition demands purity of worship for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). To sincerely/purely worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not same as to ONLY worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A man can purely/sincerely worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without joining anyone in worship except worship Him alone and yet be Mushrik and never enter Islam, not even Tawheed. IF Ilahiyyah is Ibadah then Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah definition must be; to sincerely, purely worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and to ONLY worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and to worship none along side Him and worship none in absence of Him. That would be true definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah IF Uluhiyyah was Ibadah.

Salafi: “The meaning of Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah (Oneness of Worship) is the dedication of all acts of the servants to none but Allah Alone, such as: Dua' (supplication), asking help, seeking refuge, fear, hope, reliance and all other forms of Ibadah (worship).” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 11843, here.] Brother Ali you’re being dishonest. You know too well that we specify that all acts of worship need to be directed to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and to no other beside Him.

Sunni: How am I being dishonest when I am actually being true to teaching of Shaykh al-Najd. Shaykh Najd deemed Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah to be purity and sincerity (Ikhlas) in worshipping Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In Qawaid he said Mushrikeen in hardship worshipped Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with Ikhlas: “The polytheists in our era are more severe in their (committing of) Shirk than the first polytheists (during the Prophet’s time). This was since the first polytheists used to ascribe partners to Allah at times of ease and worship Him sincerely during times of hardship. However, the polytheists in our era constantly commit Shirk in times of ease as well as in times of hardship.” [Ref: Qawa’id ul-Arba, Rule #4, by Ibn Abdul Wahhab] Qawaid al-Arba’s this statement reveals according to Shaykh al-Najd his understanding of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah was purity/sincerity in worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this is why Shaykh Ibn Baz has this definition: “As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity/purity of devotional acts – e.g. Salah (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 9772, here.] I am not claiming I know everything Shaykh an-Najd wrote but the onus is on you to prove Shaykh an-Najd held to second version also, or a version which is combinations of both.

Salafi: I will respond to you in our next meeting.

Sunni: I will hold you to that responsibility because you have signed it. Smiles.

Salafi: I isn’t going anywhere bro.

148 - Establishing True Tawheed Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah With Evidence Of Quran:

Sunni: The real point I made before you shot me down was that Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah is component of two Tawheed and Ilahiyyah. Your definition of Tawheed Uluhiyyah/Ilahiyyah mentions none. Definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah must instruct to readers to believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah and beside Him, and instead of Him there is no Ilah that is Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah in nutshell. I will EMail the related evidences.

Sunni: (i) Mushrikeen were shocked Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) brought forward understanding of Tawheed. In their amazement and misunderstanding of Tawheed said: “And they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves. And the disbelievers say: ‘This is a magician and a liar. Has he made the gods [only] one God? Indeed, this is a curious thing.’" [Ref: 38:4/5] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not declare their gods joined and became one Ilah rather he preached their Ilahs/Ma’buds were false and there was only the One and the Only Ilah. Following are direct/explicit evidences of Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah: “This is notification for the people that they may be warned thereby and that they may know that He is but one God and that those of understanding will be reminded.” [Ref: 14:52] “Your god is one God. But those who do not believe in the Hereafter - their hearts are disapproving, and they are arrogant.” [Ref: 16:22] “Say: ‘I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord - let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.’” [Ref: 18:110] “Say: ‘It is only revealed to me that your god is but one God; so will you be Muslims?’" [Ref: 21:108] “Say, ‘I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your god is but one God; so take a straight course to Him and seek His forgiveness.’ And woe to those who associate others with Allah.” [Ref: 41:6]“And for all religion We have appointed a rite (of sacrifice) that they may mention the name of Allah over what He has provided for them of animals. For your god is one God, so to Him submit. And  give good tidings to the humble.” [Ref: 22:34] “And do not argue with the people of the scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them. And say (to people of scripture): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims] to Him." [Ref: 29:46] “And those who recite the message. Indeed, your God is One. Lord of the heavens and the earth and that between them and Lord of the sunrises.” [Ref: 37:3/5] (ii) Following Ayaat are evidence for Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah and as well as refutation of Shirk al-Ilahiyyah: “And your Ilah (Deity) is one Ilah (Deity). There is no Ilah except Him, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.” [Ref: 2:163] “Indeed, this is the true narration. And there is no Ilah/Deity except Allah. And indeed, Allah is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” [Ref: 3:62] “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 from what they are saying ...”  [Ref: 5:73] “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one Ilah (God); there is no Ilah (Deity) except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] “And Allah has said, "Do not take for yourselves two deities. He is but one God, so fear only Me." [Ref: 16:51] “Say: ‘I am only a warner, and there is not any deity except Allah, the One, the Prevailing.’” [Ref: 38:65] Tawheed Uluhiyyah requires affirmation of One-ness of, Only-ness of Ilah. And Shirk Uluhiyyah requires affirmation of Ilah partner/partners with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or affirmation of Ilah instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Your definitions has nothing as such and both definitions leave out two core components Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. How can you have chicken noodles without chicken? Or without noodles? Or Chicken noodles without chicken and noodles? How can your definition be correct/valid when it is missing mention of a core components? Salafi definition of Tawheed al-Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah is defective and against Quran/Sunnah.

149 - Brother Finally Gives-Up The Fight But He Truly Was Representing Salafiyyah:

Umar: Brother can you allow me to intervene?

Sunni: On behalf of brother Abdullah I have no objection as long as he permits you.

Umar: He allowed it.

Sunni: OK.

Umar: I believe you’re fully aware that belief is part of Salafi definition of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah/Rububiyyah/Asma Wal Sifaat. Brother Abdullah has made mistakes in this regard which he regrets. He has got confused and is genuinely saying he is unsure if belief is part of Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah or not. Could you, please, do me a solid and not publish this discussion?

Sunni: Brother Umar I can understand why brother Abdullah wouldn’t want me to publish this discussion but why are you making this request? Is that what brother Abdullah wants?

Umar: Yes.

Sunni: Why?

Umar: He confesses his stance has been against Salafiyyah.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah what you’re on about? Speak for yourself brother.

Salafi: Brother we are talking about my stance that belief is not part of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah rather Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is found upon actions of worship.

Sunni: And now you believe it was an erroneous position?

Salafi: Yes.

Umar: We discussed and brother acknowledges he made mistakes.

Sunni: And you, brother Umar, agree with his understanding that in Salafiyyah belief is part of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah?

Umar: Yes brother Ali.

Sunni: No disrespect intended to knowledge of both of you brothers but I as a FAKE ex-Salafi know both of you’re completely wrong and have agreed with each other on ignorance. Traditional Salafiyyah promoted by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab did not deem belief to be part of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. LET ME FINNISH. Had you both thought about what he wrote in Qawaid al-Arba’s principle four you would have known in traditional Salafiyyah Tawheed/Shirk of Uluhiyyah is established on action alone and not belief.

Salafi: There is nothing there which would allow you to come to this conclusion.

Sunni: I am not an idiot.

Salafi: Neither am I.

Sunni: Then go read it again and think.

Umar: Brother Ali and Abdullah both of you calm down.

150 - Uluhiyyah Is Established Via Action Of Worship Is Core Wahhabi Teaching:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah has been representing and holding to typical Salafi understanding of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah. Now I have demonstrated belief is and belief in Ilahiyyah core part of One-ness, Wahdaniyyah, Ahadiyyah, Tawheed  and Shirk he wants to change the goal posts.

Salafi: I told you there was no point talking to him [meaning myself, Ali]. He doesn’t have anything to go on. Just because I have admitted my error he wants to take moral high ground and beat me down.

Sunni: Smiles. Wallahi I am not making this up. This content was suppose to be part of my response to Qawaid al-Arba’s fourth principle. I haven’t got around to completing my response fourth principle. It has been on to be completed list for nearly seven years.

Umar: Did you actually write response to first three?

Sunni: I wrote response to first two and posted that content of IslamiMehfil. I completed my response to third principle and planned to post it online after completing refutation of fourth. My USB got fried and lost everything on it including the completed article. And fourth principle I was working on when the calamity struck. What I will do is I will add finishing touches to little I wrote and share with you both here.

[1^st principle here. 2^nd principle here, here, here and here. Readers are advised to also read the following refutation of Qawaid al-Arba, here. This refutation has a mark above mine because it is easy to follow and grasp. Where as what I have penned is complex and requires quite bit of technical know-how to benefit from. It would be best study refutation at HornOfSatan.wordpress.com and then attempt mine.]

Salafi: Content has to be related to your claim.

Umar: True. We don’t want refutation of fourth principle but what to see how it supports your claim [that traditional Salafi Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah doesn’t consider belief but judges both on basis of action/worship alone].

Sunni: It will by will and permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). One thing before I leave. The content will come via an EMail.

Salafi: I am not going to respond to anything you send via EMail I have made that clear already.

Sunni: Trust me I will not loose my sleep over lack of your response. Smiles.

Salafi: I know brother this has been your desire all along. It doesn’t matter how much you write and try to gloss truth with your long responses. Sunnis/Salafis will not fall for your deviant tactics. Salafiyyah will out shine the mountains Shirk you are defending. No amount of darkness can crush light of Tawheed.

Sunni: Salam alaykum.

Umar: Wa alaykum salam.

151 - According To Shaykh Najd Tawheed Uluhiyyah Is Established Via Action:

Sunni: Shaykh Ibn Baz has defined Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah as: “As for Tawhid-ul-Uluhiyyah, it is the sincerity/purity of devotional acts – e.g. Salah (prayer), Sawm (fasting), Zakah (obligatory charity), vows and sacrificial animals.” [Ref: Majmoo al-Fatawah Shaykh Ibn Baaz, Fatwa No. 9772, here.] Sincerity in and purity of devotional acts directed toward Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah. Shaykh al-Najd says Mushrikeen in hardship purified and sincerely worshipped Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “The polytheists in our era are more severe in their (committing of) Shirk than the first polytheists (during the Prophet’s time). This was since the first polytheists used to ascribe partners to Allah at times of ease and worship Him sincerely during times of hardship. However, the polytheists in our era constantly commit Shirk in times of ease as well as in times of hardship.” [Ref: Qawa’id ul-Arba, Rule #4, by Ibn Abdul Wahhab] Shaykh an-Najd is basically saying Mushrikeen of Makkah in time of hardship became Muwahideen in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah. I have made required adjustments to demonstrate true/correct understanding of his statement: “The polytheists in our era are more severe in their (committing of) Shirk al-Uluhiyyah than the first polytheists (during the Prophet’s time). This was since the first polytheists used to commit Shirk al-Uluhiyyah at times of ease and adhered to Taweed al-Uluhiyyah during times of hardship. However, the polytheists in our era constantly commit Shirk al-Uluhiyyah in times of ease as well as in times of hardship.” Why is Shaykh al-Najd saying that? Quran is evidence that Mushrikeen invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in time of hardship, or danger but in time of peace, or comfort, or plenty, and security they called unto their gods only or along side Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In this context Shaykh an-Najd says Shirk of Mushrikeen was only in time of ease, comfort, security and during time of hardship, and danger they were upon Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah.

Sunni: It establishes according to Shaykh an-Najd’s understanding of Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah Shirk is not due to belief but only warranted due to action/worship. Had his understanding been inclusive of belief Shaykh al-Najd would not have said Mushrikeen were upon Tawheed in time of ease, security and plenty. Because then he would know/believe that belief is a constant. Person remains upon it all the time consciously and subconsciously. Are we only Muwahid, monotheists, until we are conscious of Ahadiyyah, One-ness, of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? And soon as we loose sight of it in our mind during sleep, or we get lost in Tilawah of Quran, or in our daily chores, then are we no longer believers of Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Belief is a constant in our hearts/minds and nothing changes our belief until we consciously change it. We remain upon Tawheed and Muwahid even when not consciously believing/thinking about it. Action is limited to a moment that moment can last seconds, or minutes, or hours, or a life time but it is a moment and it will pass. Hence conclusion is Shaykh of Najd believed Ilahiyyah/Uluhiyyah action and not belief. Let me be less technical and more direct.

Sunni: Salafi Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah is found/established on actions. As long as action of Shirk is committed, or as long as continuity of actions of Shirk has been maintained person remains upon Shirk. When this chain is broken via action of Tawheed then person would enter in Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah. Shaykh al-Najd says: “This was since the first polytheists used to ascribe partners to Allah at times of ease and worship Him sincerely during times of hardship.” This establishes two problems: (a) Mushriks entered Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah when they invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only in time of their hardship. (b) There is no question Salafis believe Mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. We have established Tawheed/Shirk al-Uluhiyyah of Arab Mushrikeen was transient in nature. And this shift between Tawheed/Shirk during times of calamity/security can only be if Tawheed/Shirk Uluhiyyah were found upon actions of worship and not belief. This establishes according to Salafi Tawheed/Shirk Arab Mushrikeen were upon Tawheed during the time of hardship/calamity and were Muwahideen as long as calamity/hardship lasted. (c) Any who believes transient Wahdaniyyah of Mushrikeen is a disbeliever because Mushrikeen who died upon major Shirk never were upon Tawheed. They lived and died upon major Shirk.

Sunni: Belief is a constant and in understanding of Muslims, the Mushrikeen of Arabia were upon major Shirk all day, entire day, every day, every week, month, year, and entire life until they repented from it and entered Tawheed. Mushrikeen purely and only invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) during the time of hardship, suffering, calamity of any/every kind would not enter them into Tawheed. This act does not and did not enter them into Tawheed because their Shirk was in belief. They believed there is an Ilah besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), there is a Ma’bud partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), there is a entity that deserves to be worshipped along side Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this belief alone warranted major Shirk. They remained upon this belief in hardship and in comfort and therefore they remained upon major Shirk in hardship and in comfort. The act of invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only/purely while holding to belief there is another Ilah, another Ma’bud, another being deserves worship does not enter anyone into Tawheed, nor Islam. And anyone who believes Mushrikeen were upon Tawheed al-Uluhiyyah due to only invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in time of hardship/threat such a person is guilty of major Kufr. And is a Kafir if this person rejects evidences of Quran/Sunnah and still remains upon Kufri innovation, i.e. Mushrikeen adopted Tawheed in time of calamity.

152 - Abdullah Showing Back And Heading For The Hills Once Again:

Unexpectedly brother Abdullah once again headed for the hills without looking back. Brother Umar called, the discussion has ended, but I wasn’t giving up on brother Abdullah. And to bring him back to discussion, I negotiated like every intelligent, educated, smart, sophisticated person does: ‘Run Wahhabi, run, this one has read Quran too. Said Wahhabi showing his back and high heels to battle.’ He responded saying it was Mushrikeen (Sunnis of Arabia) who ran from battle when armies of Ahlul Tawheed (Wahhabis) marched on their cities. This started back and forth exchanges once again and things cooled down once again. He suggested we discuss subject of Istighathah. I suggested we have already come to agreement there is two types of Duas. Dua in Lughvi sense and Dua in Shar’ee sense. You brother Abdullah prove how/why Dua of Istighathah is Shar’ee Dua and not Dua in Lughvi sense. And through that we would be discussing both Istighathah and Dua. He was thrilled with this suggestion of mine. Readers should go back into our discussion [section 142 and sections before] and see Dua Lughvi/Shar’ee discussion.

153 - Salafi Rules On Which Dua Is Ibadah, And Istighathah Is Call Of Worship:

Salafi: What are the rules on basis of which a Dua is not Shirk and Dua becomes Shirk in Salafiyyah?

Sunni: Are you serious! Why do I need to answer that question and why would I want to answer it for you?

Salafi: I am not asking for help bro. I am testing your Salafiyyah.

Sunni: Brother I was never a Salafi.

Salafi: You lied?

Sunni: I lied. Now move on.

Umar: Smiles. Brother Abdullah he has demonstrated his knowledge of these principles in our discussion [between me and brother Umar].

Sunni: Brother Umar, let me scratch his itch but on condition that he provides me Salafi version on which Dua becomes worship and I will do exactly the same.

Salafi: Right now?

Sunni: In our next meeting we will both share with each other our versions. Deal?

Salafi: You doubt my Salafiyyah?

Sunni: I don’t but I don’t want to do your homework for you. Take that deal and I will comply.

Umar: Brother has valid reason brother Abdullah.

Salafi: Deal. Do it now.

Sunni: Brother I have to think about what I write. I have habit of writing comprehensively so I need time to write everything.

Salafi: You will look into Salafi books and then write which defeats the purpose of this exercise brother.

Sunni: Brother I will likely because I had no claim to 100% knowledge retention. I assure you I will demonstrate greater understanding of it and better education about them then you. You’re massively under estimating my knowledge of Salafiyyah and how dedicated I was.

Sunni: Shaykh Najd’s books Kitab at-Tawheed, Three Principles (Thalathaat ul-Usool), Four Principles (Qawa’id ul-Arba), Nullifiers of Islam (Nawaqid ul-Islam), Removing/Unveiling Of Doubts/Criticism (Kashf ash-Shubuhaat). Wallah il-Azeem, I do not say this in boast but my knowledge of these books and Shuruhaat is better then what you know or will know.

Sunni: Your relationship with Salafiyyah was and is of an empty vessel, bowl, and rice pudding. Put rice pudding in the bowl and get out what you have put in. The vessel has added nothing to it. I on other hand, took Salafiyyah in, naturalized it, evolved it, and eventually chewed it and spat it out on the road.

Salafi: Bro you got triggered. Smiles.

Umar: You’re touching some raw nerves brother Abdullah. Smiles. Don’t question is Salafiyyah.

Sunni: Smiles. You can question my dance with Salafiyyah. It doesn’t bather me and isn’t important to me.

Salafi: Is that why you thump your chest and say, I am ex-Salafi, in everything discussion you have with Salafis?

Sunni: I state my dance with Salafiyyah because when Salafis discuss with me they by default assume I am misinformed about Salafiyyah because I haven’t read Salafi literature. Mostly that happens with discussions about Takfir of Shaykh al-Najd, his permitting, spill of blood of Muslims, confiscating property, and capturing Muslim women. People I discuss with either lie, or are genuinely unaware of truth of about Wahhabism so I have to tell me. Stop lying to me because, I am ex-Salafi, I know the insider stuff you don’t expect outsiders to know. I have not brought up my former dance with Salafiyyah in vain.

Umar: Understandable brother Ali.

Sunni: (i) To put it briefly as possible. Refer to Qawaid al-Arba. principle two. Following is explanation of portion of it. Dua is divided into two, of far/near, living/dead, able/unable, natural/supernatural. Dua to far, dead, unable, asking supernatural is of worship and prohibited. Dua directed to near, living, to able, and asking according to natural order of things is permitted except when it is associated with independence from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Independence from His bestowal and His permission then it is Kufr/Shirk. (ii) This expression isn’t Salafi but I am sure you will be able to connect them with technical jargon you already know. Comprehensively I will write and share tomorrow. (iii) Have I said anything against principles you know?

Umar: I can’t say you have.

Salafi: No!

Sunni: Now will you say you leeched of Salafi literature to solidify your former Salafiyyah when I present comprehensive version?

Salafi: You don’t need to brother Ali.

Sunni: Deal is a deal. Plus I haven’t been a Wahhabi since I left it so it would be good exercise to get into that mind set once again.

154 - Abdullah Quotes Salafi Scholarship How Dua Determined As Worship/Shirk:

Salafi: “So the noble Ayah proves that invocation/supplication is a worship, and if that were not the case it would not be said, “Those who disdain to worship Me alone …” (i) So whoever called upon anyone besides Allah, the Might and Majestic, requesting something which none but Allah has power over, then he is a Mushrik (one who worships others beside Allah), an unbeliever (Kafir), whether the one he calls upon is living or dead. (ii) Whoever requests a living person for something which he is able to do, such as the saying: ‘O so and so give me food.’ Or ‘O so and so give me a drink.’, then there is no harm in that. (iii) But whoever asks a dead person, or someone who is absent for that, then he is a Mushrik, since the deceased, or the absent cannot possibly do that. So in such a case his supplication to them shows that he believes that they have some control over the creation, and he is therefore a Mushrik.” [Ref: Explanation Of The Three Fundamental Principles Of Islam, Page 47, by Salih al-Uthaymeen.] “Supplication is divided in two types: (i) Supplication of worship: It is an indirect supplication; such as prayer, fasting, and Hajj. Directing it to other than Allah is major Shirk. (ii) Supplication for a need: It is a direct supplication such as saying: Curse me. Or saying ease my affair etc. Its ruling requires an explanation. (a) That which only Allah is able to grant. Asking anybody else besides Allah is Major Shirk. (b) That which human is capable of granting. It is permissible with four conditions: (i) The one being asked must be alive. (ii) The one being asked is present (Hadhir), or able to be reached. (iii) The one being asked to is capable of and able to respond. (iv) You believe that one who is being asked is only a means; he cannot bring about benefit, or repel harm himself independently of Allah.” [Ref: Explanation Of The Three Fundamental Principles, Sharh by Shaykh Haytham Ibn Muhammad Sarhan, Page 46.] “Al-Isti’anah means, seeking aid, and it is of two types: (i) Seeking aid in something which none is able to do except Allah. To give this to other than Allah is Shirk. He who seeks aid with the other than Allah in that which none is able to do except Allah, then he has committed Shirk, because he has given a type of worship to other then Allah. (ii) Seeking help in that which the creation has the ability to do. So you seek someone’s aid in constructing a wall, or in carrying your luggage, or that he should assist you in some permissible action. As the most High said: “Help you one another in al-Bir (righteousness) and at-Taqwa (piety) but do not help one another in sin and transgression.” (Q5:2) So as it relates to aid in customary affairs which the people are able to do, there is no harm in this type.” [Ref: Explanation Of The Three Fundamental Principles, Page 173, Sharh by Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan]

Sunni: I thought you would write from what you know but you just copy pasted in simple terms.

155 - What Did Shaykh al-Najd Say And My Understanding Of His Content:

Sunni: What did Shaykh al-Najd say?

Salafi: Did he?

Sunni:  You’re asking this from a phony ex-Salafi? Are you really that bad!

Umar: Smiles.

Sunni: “Intercession is of two types: Intercession that is negated and intercession that is affirmed: The negated intercession is that which is sought from someone other than Allah in matters that no one has the ability to carry out except Allah. The proof for this is … The affirmed intercession is that which is sought from Allah. The intercessor is one who is granted the honor of being able to intercede (by Allah), while the one who is interceded for is the one whom Allah is pleased with his statements and actions.(All of these occur) after Allah’s permission is granted as Allah says: …” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, Second Principle, by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab]

Sunni: What is your understanding of Shaykh al-Najd’s these two principles?

Salafi: It says what it says.

Sunni: Smiles. Brother have you studied Shaykh al-Najd’s Qawa’id al-Arba?

Salafi: I have read books of Shuruhat.

Sunni: After studying all that material what is prohibited intercession?

Salafi: Brother principle is very clear. There is nothing I can add to without distorting it.

Sunni: You’re poor excuse for a Salafi who is busy questioning other peoples Salafiyyah. I will share my insight is that good?

Salafi: What can you add to it that is not already apparent in it?

Sunni: I will copy paste what I wrote on the principle years ago. Give me sometime I will be back. Five mins.

Salafi: Sorry I had to leave.

Sunni: (1) Prohibited intercession is of two types: (i) Natural (ii) and supernatural. Natural is divided into two: (i) Natural and permitted – it is where intercession is to living, one who is near to event/person interceding, and intercessor possesses means material of to deliver what is asked. (ii) Natural and prohibited – it is where intercession is to dead, absent from event/person interceding, intercessor has no means and no access to material interceded for, and intercessor is believed to be independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) control, permission, and bestowal. Supernatural is divided into two: (i) Interceding for what is not owned by creation. (ii) And interceding to one who has no means of knowing call has been made, has no means to deliver what is asked. (2) Permitted intercession is of two types: Directly from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and indirectly from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 (i) Direct is to invoke/call Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to aid and grant need of person is distress, or in need of material. (ii) Indirect is where something which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has granted me and I grant it to someone who needs it. My action is indirect intercession on behalf of needy and He has power to prevent me but has permitted to provide it to another.

Sunni: That is my Biddah into Shaykh Najd’s principle. What do you say?

Salafi: I have to go but I will text brother Umar and he will let you know when I am available.

Sunni: Shall I EMail you principles on which Dua is worship?

Salafi: Share it here and brother Umar can EMail them if I don’t return in about half an hour.

156 - Brother Umar Enquires Why Write Qawaid al-Arba’s Explanation:

Umar: Why put so much energy into something you don’t believe?

Sunni: I, [we all do but some better then others,] register, organize, store, map and interconnect information in the head, here. This all works while I am committed to writing and alone. Any disturbance, or activity which requires me to leave my station results in I having to, come out of zone [so to speak in slang], out of character. And result of this is all connections, structures are lost and I have to remap everything in the head. To avoid leaning on smoke/thoughts in my head I produce a hard-copy and rely on that.

Sunni: I had to write this while I was refuting Qawaid al-Arba’s second principle. Did you get chance to read Qawaid al-Arba’s refutations?

Umar: Explains why you’re very methodological and you’re able to keep track of things. 

Umar: I haven’t had chance yet. They’re not my priority to be straight nor is Qawaid al-Arba.

Sunni: Why would that be?

Umar: I don’t associate myself with Najdi movement or their scholarship. I am Athari Hanbali in creed. I know you would disagree but ... Istighathah as you know I don’t deem Shirk but I don’t deem it permissible. Even though it is not Shirk it resembles practice of Mushrikeen. At worst in my understanding it is Haram and at best Makruh.

Sunni: Didn’t we resolve that it is not Haram?

Umar: I think under barrage of over-whelming content fired at my position I may have not responded.

Sunni: I will look into the matter.

157 - Phony Ex-Salafi’s,  Salafi Rules To Determine Dua Is Shirk/Worship:

Sunni: Traditional Salafi principle methodology on which Dua/Call would be deemed of worship and Shirk.

Sunni: Dua/Call is of two types: (A) Asking from a creation which that creation has power over and can comply with the demand of help is Dua/Call in accordance with Tawheed and Islam. And this type is categorized as Dua/Call of that which is in the means (i.e. Ma Teht al-Asbab) available to creation. (B) Asking creation what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to deliver is Dua/Call of worship and major Shirk. And this is also categorized as Dua/Call of that which is against the means (i.e. Ma Fawq al-Asbab) available to creation. (A) is divided in two main categories and both are sub-divided into four divisions: (1) Four rules determine such Dua/Call is in accordance with Tawheed and permitted: (i) One asked to help must be alive. (ii) One called for help is present/near to provide asked help. (iii) One asked to help has means and material to help with (iv) One asking for help believes the one being asked to help is only a mean/vessel bringing help with permission from and with dependence upon Allah (subhanahu a ta’ala). (2) And four principles according to which, ma teht al-asbab, Dua/Call is of worship/Shirk and impermissible: (i) Dua/Call directed toward dead. (ii) One called for help is absent from place and distant from one seeking help. (iii) One called for help doesn’t own material of help. (iv) And if it is believed one asked for help, benefit, harm brings it independent of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permission and His bestowal then such Dua is of worship/Shirk.

158 - Abdullah’s Verdict Regarding, I Am Former Salafi:

Sunni: Salam alaykum.

Salafi: Wa alaykum salam. I have read your systematic breakdown of Qawaid al-Arba’s negated/permitted intercession. Not embarrassed to say you’ve increased my understanding Qawaid al-Arba’s second principle. What you wrote above is [in section 157], in a round about way, reflection of content available on internet except that you have put it in your own words. I can’t say you didn’t know because you proved [near the end of section 155] you’re familiar with these rules in advance.

Sunni: Was I truly a Salafi back in the day or my claim to follow it is a lie? What do you believe?

Salafi: I believe you were.

Sunni: Sunni, or Salafi?

Salafi: You were Sunni and Salafi, but you became Sufi.

Sunni: Smiles. I am thrilled that you’ve admitted I was Salafi who has become Sunni.

Umar: Stop before this spirals out of control. Smiles. Both of you made your point clear.

Sunni: I have more to share on Salafi methodology. My own version result of my studies/debates.

Salafi: Brother you can stop. I believe you were Salafi.

Sunni: I just need to copy paste.

159 - My Version Of Salafi Principles On Which Dua is Determined As Worship/Shirk:

Sunni: Dua/Call is of two types: (1) Lughvi. (2) and Shar’ee. Lughvi Dua/Call is divided into two: (1) Of poetic-praise such as Naa’at/Nasheed. Or of sending blessings such as, as-Salamu Alayka Ayyuha al-Nabiyyu wa Rahmatullah wa Barakat. Of seeking help according to natural system set by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). (2) Shar’ee Dua/Call is divided into two and both are worship: (i) Dua Of Hamd/praise. (ii) Dua Isti’anah. Knowing the difference between Shar’ee Istia’anah and Lughvi Isti’anah: (A) Lughvi Dua/Isti’anah: Asking from a creation which that creation has power over and can comply with the demand of help is Dua/Call in accordance with Tawheed and Islam. And this type is categorized as Dua/Call of that which is in the means (i.e. Ma Teht al-Asbab) available to creation. (B) Shar’ee Dua Isti’anah: Asking creation what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to deliver is Dua/Call of worship and major Shirk. And this is also categorized as Dua/Call of that which is against the means (i.e. Ma Fawq al-Asbab) available to creation.

Sunni: The first (A) is divided in two main categories: (1) Four rules determine such Dua/Call is in accordance with Tawheed and permitted. (2) And four principles according to which, ma teht al-asbab, Dua/Call is of worship and Shirk. And both (1) and (2) are divided into four sub-divisions. (1) Permissible Dua/Call of Isti’anah in accordance with Tawheed is one where called is: (i) Is alive. (ii) Is present/near to provide asked help. (iii) Possess means of and material of help. (iv) One asking for help believes the one being asked to help is only a mean/vessel bringing help with permission from and with dependence upon Allah (subhanahu a ta’ala). (2) Impermissible Dua/Call of Isti’anah in Shirk, worship of creation is one where called is: (i) Is deceased/dead. (ii) Is absent from place and distant from one seeking help. (iii) One called for help doesn’t own material of help, nor has ability to help. (iv) And if it is believed one asked for help, benefit, harm brings it independent of Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permission and His bestowal then such Dua is of worship/Kufr.

Sunni: The second (B) is also divided into two categories: (i) One which is ordained by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), with power/permission coming from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and proof of it is in Quran/Sunnah. Such as Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam) asking who can bring him throne of Bilqis in a instant and it was brought to him in blinking of an eye. (Q27:38/40). This is in accordance with Tawheed and demonstration of favor granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). (ii) One which has no proof from Quran/Sunnah and one being asked has no such supernatural ability/power/means granted to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And this such call of Isti’anah (i.e. seeking help) is of worship of creation and therefore Shirk. And this is call of Istighathah, asking natural/supernatural from creations, who are unable to deliver.

[I intended to remove this part because I did not want it to be used by Khawarij to promote their Salafism, or learn it through this, but at the end I decided against it.]

160 - Sunni Version On Basis Of Which Dua Is Worship And Not Worship:

Sunni: Dua/Call is of two types:  (i) Lughvi (ii) and Shar’ee. We will skip detailed divisions of Lughvi and instead focus on Shar’ee. Shar’ee Dua/Call is built upon belief of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship. That is to say to whom the Dua/Call are directed is believed to be an Ilah/Ma’bud and caller has intention/desire of worship. And evidence of this Dua is prophetic saying: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] Shar’ee Dua is divided into two and both are worship:  (i) Dua Of Hamd/praise. (ii) Dua of help/Isti’anah.

Sunni: Directing Shar’ee Dua/Call to any creation [believed as an Ilah/Ma’bud/deity] is Kufr/Shirk. Shirk because a deity another then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is believed. Kufr is calling-on/worshipping an innovated Ilah instead of, or as well as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Shar’ee Dua of Isti’anah is inclusive of calling/asking of help: from living or dead, for something according to natural system of world and to ask for supernatural – not in control of creation, from one far/absent (i.e. Ghayb) from place of calamity, distant from person needing help, or from one near/present (i.e. Hadhir) at place of calamity, close to person needing help, from one who is able to or unable to help, from one believed is dependent upon, and independent of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), from one who helps with His permission and without His permission. All such Duas/Calls are worship and there is no exception because any/every Dua directed to an Ilah/deity is worship. Belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and intention of worship are sole criteria on which an act becomes worship, or no worship.

161 - Abdullah Mouth Piece Of Takfiri, Murderous Intentions And Looting:

Sunni: You guys read while I make tea. I am back.

Salafi: Another brother wants to join our discussion. Can I let him join?

Sunni: Not an issue but he cannot be part of our discussion.

Salafi: He wants to say something to you. Give you Naseeha (advice).

Sunni: I am not interested in his Naseeha.

Umar: Be respectful brother Ali. Just hear him out.

Salafi: “I seeing you were from people of Tawheed and then you left religion [of Islam]. Allah does not lead any astray until He has made clear to them what they should avoid. Your knowledge of Tawheed and awareness of Shirk, of its in’s and out’s, accords you no excuse on the day of judgment. It is shame and a tragedy that you have become a Taghoot from Tawagheet fighting against Tawheed and Islam. I encourage you to judge by what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed and following teaching of and methodology of Salaf as-Saliheen. You have the correct knowledge to make right decisions. Yet you have abandoned what you knew to be right and just. I am perplexed as to why someone so familiar with Tawheed and refutation of Shirk would actually leave Tawheed and join ranks of polytheists. Only intelligent conclusion I can make is that you have left Salafiyyah because desires of world got better of you. Or your desire to outstrip [Salafi] scholarship in knowledge regarding matters which they have explained has caused you to make mistakes and consequently lead you astray.”

Sunni: Thank you Abdullah.

Salafi: I didn’t say any of  the above. I just shared what brother said after reading your material.

Sunni: You don’t agree with what he expressed?

Salafi: I do.

Sunni: What difference does it make, he said it, or you said it?

Umar: I am lost for words brother Abdullah.

Sunni: Is killing me and looting my property Halal for Salafis or not?

Salafi: We don’t say it is Halal upon us.

Sunni: Not even Halal upon Caliph ruling according Minhaj al-Nabuwah and of Salaf as-Saliheen?

Salafi: There is no Caliphate nor a Caliph at this moment.

Sunni: Don’t dodge the question.

Salafi: We don’t issue such judgments because Sufis are a Firqa (sect) from Firaq within Islam.

Sunni: To you I am Muslim?

Salafi: I judge you to be Muslim as long as you say you’re.

Sunni: Did I demand an answer based on my claim or based on what you believe and teaching you hold dear?

Salafi: I told you what we believe.

Sunni: What is punishment for an apostate in Islam after all efforts to reconcile him/her with Islam have failed? Death sentence, or not?

Umar: He is not responding so let me. I, you, brother Abdullah all know it is death.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah you agreed with sentiment expressed by your Salafi brother. And he said about me that you have left Ahlul Tawheed and religion of Islam. Leaving religion of Islam is apostasy. In your judgment, I am an apostate, and my blood would be spilled and my property looted.

Salafi: We don’t teach this, nor believe it.

Sunni: It is OK brother I will not be reporting you to police for expressing what you believe. You can turn off your holy deception mode.

Umar: Smiles.

Sunni: And this is further corroborated in here: “That the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam ) was emerged among a people that differed from one another in their worship. Among them were those who worshipped the angels. And among them were those who worshipped the prophets and righteous people. And among them were those who worshipped trees and stones. And among them were those who worshipped the sun and the moon. However, the Messenger of Allah ( sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam ) fought against (all of) them and did not differentiate between any of them.” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 3^rd Principle, by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab.] “It is absolutely amazing! And more amazing is that 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.] Not only you believe I am apostate and a Mushrik of worst type but you also believe killing me is Halal and looting my property is Halal. My entire kind is believed to be worst Mushriks on earth and waging war upon whom without making any distinction [between us and other Mushriks] is and killing whom is Halal in your religion.

[Brother Umar requested not to press the issue any further due to anti-terrorism laws in UK. He said if brother Abdullah expressed his true opinion that could lead him into trouble with the law and that is not our objective. My objective was only to raise awareness of readers about what Salafis truly believe about great majority of Muslims and that was achieved. Hence pursuing the issue any further was futile. Brother Umar advised our future discussion should be centered around, principles which distinguish between Dua of Shirk/Ibadah and Tawheed/non-Ibadah. I will cutting all the crap in between and get to the point where it actually started.]

162 - Principles Of Dead/Absent And Three Fundamental Questions And Agreements:

Sunni: Out of the three versions [of principles on basis of which Dua in to be judged and] you quoted which would you be employing?

Salafi: “So the noble Ayah proves that invocation/supplication is a worship, and if that were not the case it would not be said, “Those who disdain to worship Me alone …” (i) So whoever called upon anyone besides Allah, the Might and Majestic, requesting something which none but Allah has power over, then he is a Mushrik (one who worships others beside Allah), an unbeliever (Kafir), whether the one he calls upon is living or dead. (ii) Whoever requests a living person for something which he is able to do, such as the saying: ‘O so and so give me food.’ Or ‘O so and so give me a drink.’, then there is no harm in that. (iii) But whoever asks a dead person, or someone who is absent for that, then he is a Mushrik, since the deceased, or the absent cannot possibly do that. So in such a case his supplication to them shows that he believes that they have some control over the creation, and he is therefore a Mushrik.” [Ref: Explanation Of The Three Fundamental Principles Of Islam, Page 47, by Salih al-Uthaymeen.] Or we can use what you wrote [in section 159].

Sunni: No you cannot because I will remove that because one who starts and evil Sunnah and those who follow it have equal sin/punishment.

Salafi: I said your version because it encompasses everything.

Sunni: Your objective would be to prove your principles are in accordance [with Quran and sunnah], and truly reflect what Shirk is in accordance with Quran/Sunnah.

Sunni: We both agree Shirk is to take a Shareek/partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His Zaat (essence), and Sifaat (attributes)?

Salafi: No doubt, it is.

Sunni: And we both agree according to Salafism Shirk of attributes can only be when an attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is common between Him and what He has created?

Salafi: I agree. Do you agree?

Sunni: Assumption that, I agree, is part of the question. What is not certain is you do or not hence the question is directed at you.

Salafi: How would that be?

Sunni: I am sorry, I made mistake. Smiles.

Salafi: Smiles.

Sunni: There is another and final question: Do the modifiers establish Dua [directed to dead, absent] has become worship? Or do they establish an attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has been shared with a creation hence Shirk?

Salafi: What difference would it make to the end result? It would be Shirk in both cases wouldn’t it!

Sunni: Brother I have the knowledge and fore sight to know there is [difference].

Salafi: It is Shirk because Allah’s attribute is shared with a creation and it is because creation is worshipped. Not one, or the other, but both.

Sunni: Just to recap everything so far. We got three fundamentals sorted: (i) Shirk is to take a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). (ii) Modifiers make Dua worship of person who directs Dua to dead/absent and also establish Shirk of attributes. (iii) And to establish Shirk trait/attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has to be given to His alleged Shareek.

163 - Salafi Attempts To Support His Principle,  Invoking Dead Is Shirk, Because:

Sunni: What is your proof that invoking dead is Shirk?

Salafi: “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.” [Ref: 16:20/21]

Sunni: Brother Abdullah it isn’t enough just to quote an Ayah. You need to establish why does it support point of view. You’re saying they committed Shirk because they invoked dead person?

Salafi: It is obvious, calling the dead Awliyah of their nation, was reason which made them Mushrik.

Sunni: You said they are Mushrik due to calling the dead people. This means due to Shirk they became Mushrik. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His alleged Shareek need to have a common trait for Shirk to be established. You agreed to this. There is nothing common between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His alleged Shareek according to the Ayah. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is al-Hayy (the Living) and the Ayah says they invoked dead.

Salafi: They believed ones whom they invoked were alive but Quran describes what they invoked is actually dead.

Sunni: What is your evidence? And explain your point of view from your verse.

Salafi: “Verily those whom ye call upon besides Allah are servants like unto you: Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are (indeed) truthful!” [Ref: 7:194]

Salafi: Mushrikeen were alive, they called upon them, and Mushrikeen and invoked are servants like each other, therefore both must be alive.

Sunni: Mushrikeen believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was alive. And they believed ones described as ‘dead’ in Quran are actually alive hearing their invocations and seeing their actions. Is that what you saying in full?

Salafi: Yes.

Sunni: IF this establishes Shirk then Shirk seems to be established on basis of attribute of living and not dead. And to conclude your principle is broken because you seem to be establishing Shirk due to calling on living yet it was suppose to be dead.

164 - Quoted Ayah, Q7:194, Is Implicit Evidence Calling Dead Is Shirk, Not:

Sunni: I am going to ask you again, did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say in the Ayah calling the dead persons is Shirk [because they become partner in my attribute]?

Salafi: What else could be the reason according to the Ayah then!

Sunni: I will tell you that when I get to that. Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say in this Ayah, or in any other Ayah calling to dead person is Shirk?

Salafi: Not as explicitly as you as want.

Sunni: You saying there is implicit evidence. Quote it.

Salafi: I have quoted the Ayah.

Sunni: This Ayah is not explicit/implicit evidence of what you claim. Actually it doesn’t even say anything about Shirk to begin with. Which word in the Ayah denotes meaning of Shirk?

Salafi: Invoking dead Awliyah was their Shirk.

Sunni: You’re taking your own desire/ego as a Ilah/Rabb beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 "Have you seen the one who takes as his Ilah/god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?" [Ref: 25:43] Because you admit there is nothing explicit in Quran/Sunnah which says explicitly calling dead Awliyah is Shirk. Yet you believe this is one of THE reason of Shirk. Had this been THE reason, or a reason Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would have stated it clearly.

Sunni: There are verses about how to handle an idiot, say Salam and hit the road, and there are Ahadith about clipping of nails. Yet Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) have provided us no explicit guidance saying, grave worship is Shirk, or calling upon dead Awliyah is Shirk. How insignificant is issue of Salam/nails compared to proper understanding of Tawheed and Shirk?

Sunni: Yet no guidance on what should have been part of core teaching of Islam and part of understanding of Tawheed/Shirk. Tell me if the following makes any sense to a intelligent Muslim and you.

Sunni: Invoking dead is Shirk, and it is as you say, but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) didn’t reveal a verse about it. And it was eleven hundred fifty years after revelation had ceased, another man born in Najd, pretended himself role of a Nabi in all respects except of overt claim. This man finally spells it out it is Shirk.

165 - Shirk Of Mushrikeen Is To Be Judged On Basis Of What They Believed:

Salafi: Implicit evidence of Shirk exists in the Ayah because invoking in the Ayah is of worship and invoking dead Awliyah would be Shirk.

Sunni: It was established [by you in section 162] that aid is being sought from living therefore, IF, Shirk is established it is on basis of living and not dead. Yet your principle says it is Shirk to seek help of dead. You cannot claw your way out of this brother Abdullah.

Salafi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says they invoked the dead so Shirk is on basis of what they invoked.

Sunni: Brother Shirk is to be judged on basis of what Mushrikeen believed about ones they invoked and not on basis of what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about the ones they invoked.

Sunni: We can make brother Umar judge on this. Shall we?

Salafi: Why?

Sunni: I can’t let this point remain hanging in air. Do you agree commonality is between living attributes?

Sunni: Brother Abdullah, I am not Shaykh Israr [who will not compel you to answer questions] and you will not behave [avoid answering questions] like Abdur Rahman with me.

Umar: Brother Abdullah answer him please. It has been five minutes already.

Salafi: Agreed.

Sunni: Than your principle is invalidated.

166 - Dead Mentioned In, Q16:20,  Were Idols And Invocation Was Of Worship:

Sunni: You said: “Implicit evidence of Shirk exists in the Ayah because invoking in the Ayah is of worship and invoking dead Awliyah would be Shirk.” Your this point is connected with worship, Shirk due to worship, we were discussing calling dead is Shirk due to giving attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to His creation but I will address it anyway.

Sunni: You said they invoked dead Awliyah of their nations. You quoted 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.” [Ref: 16:20/21] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reveals in following Ayah that dead, not alive, created but create nothing are Ilahs of Mushrikeen: “Yet have they taken besides Allah Ilahs/deities 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 Ilahs/deities that create nothing but are themselves created are deities formed into shape of idols: “And We took the Children of Israel across the sea; then they came upon a people intent in devotion to idols of theirs. They said: "O Moses make for us an Ilah (i.e. god) just as they have Aalihatan (i.e. gods)." He said, "Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly.” [Ref: 7:138] They invoked idols which they had taken as Ilahs and these idols Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) described as dead. The Ayah proves, Mushrikeen were invoking/worshiping their dead-idol-Ilahs. And IF, IF, IF, the Ayah you quoted was establishing direct/indirect Shirk, then Shirk was in invoking/worshiping dead-idol-Ilahs [and believing them to be Ilahs] but you don’t believe in what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed except when it supports you. And sign of Khariji is that they apply verses of disbelievers and ones about their idols upon Muslim: “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.” [Bukhari, Chapter Khawarjites, Ibn Hajr al Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari: That it’s Sanad is Sahih.]

Sunni: You want to add something this is your time or let me continue?

Salafi: I will respond later.

167 - Demanding Evidence For Principle, Calling Dead For Help Is Shirk:

Sunni: Quite sometime ago I asked you: “There is another and final question: Do the modifiers establish Dua [directed to dead, absent] has become worship? Or do they establish an attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has been shared with a creation hence Shirk?” And you answered my questions in the following way: “It is Shirk because Allah’s attribute is shared with a creation and it is because creation is worshipped. Not one, or the other, but both.” We have discussed about His attribute being shared with creation resulting Shirk. We need to discuss, Dua becoming worship, and Shirk therefore.

Sunni: Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say in Quran, or His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) in his Sunnah directing any Dua to dead Awliyah is worship?

Salafi: The Ayah 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.” [Ref: 16:20/21] Prophet said, invocation is worship, so the Ayah means they invoke in worship beside Allah which have not created anything but are created and they are dead, not alive…

Sunni: Did Allah or His Messenger say, seeking help from dead person makes, seeking help, into worship?

Sunni: Brother Abdullah I want answers not silence. You gave big Khutba about what should be our motives and intentions in this discussion. And how we both should help each other in reaching truth of Islam? I assume you wanted me to have idealistic motives and intentions while yours were to promote Salafism. Answer my question: “Did Allah or His Messenger say, seeking help from dead person makes, seeking help, into worship?”

Sunni: Answer the question brother.

Umar: Brother Abdullah you cannot ignore what is being asked from you. Or else brother Ali is getting his Munazra Rasheediyyah out.

Sunni: Answer my question: “Did Allah or His Messenger say, seeking help from dead person makes, seeking help, into worship?”

Salafi: I am not answering because he is asking me questions like I am some kid and expects me to respond on his demand.

Sunni: Brother this is a discussion. Discussion is question, answer and processing the information giving feedback, and asking question, getting answer … You haven’t had this problem before suddenly I have put you in tough spot and now your feelings are hurt.

Salafi: I refused to answer this [question] because it is something you would ask a child.

Sunni: Answer my question: “Did Allah or His Messenger say, seeking help from dead person makes, seeking help, into worship?”

Umar: Brother Abdullah I will have to say what I think and believe. What I am about to say is not because I have stopped believing Istighathah is Shirk, rather because it is absolutely clear to me, and will be to readers.

Umar: You’re dodging the question because it means admitting there is nothing in Quran, or the prophetic Sunnah which says, seeking help of deceased people is worship.

Sunni: Answer my question: “Did Allah or His Messenger say, seeking help from dead person makes, seeking help, into worship?”

Umar: Brother Abdullah, answer the damn question. Answer it or I am leaving you two to be stupid. I know the answer, brother Ali knows it, and you do too. Answer it.

Salafi: That is the point. We already know. Why does he want me to answer this question than? Answer is because he wants to control me like a kid.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah I want answer from you. Its like, you know your son/daughter loves you, but you want them to say, I love you. Your kids know you love them, but you express it, I love you.  To hear it from mouth of loved one is so much better then to just know it and believe it. I originally wanted to say this about wives but you/I reference too direct and would make it too personal.

Sunni: In conclusion, my dear loved one, i.e. brother Abdullah, answer this question: “Did Allah or His Messenger say, seeking help from dead person makes, seeking help, into worship?” I, you, he knowing the obvious isn’t same as my loved one saying it with his own mouth. Smiles.

Umar: I nearly spat my coffee back in the cup. Brother Abdullah just answer the question now. You’re a loved-one and not kid. You’re so special and your words mean a lot to him/me.

Salafi: No evidence in Quran/Sunnah that I know of.

Sunni: There isn’t that I was/am aware of and I am confident brother Umar isn’t any wiser on this matter. Are you?

Umar: Don’t drag me into this.

168 - Calling Dead Is Shirk Then Calling Blind, Deaf, Lame And Crippled Is Also Shirk:

Sunni: Brother Abdullah let me tackle you understanding of this Ayah from another angle.

Sunni: Suppose this Ayah said instead of what it says: “Those whom they invoke beside Allah have not created anything but are created themselves. They are blind, deaf, crippled-hands, and lame, they know not when they will be raised.” Will that mean calling the blind, deaf, a person with crippled-hands, and lame will become worship and Shirk due to it?

Salafi: The Ayah doesn’t say that brother Ali. You’re distorting the Ayah. This is what you Sufis/Asharis do, if this, if that, what if. You’re ignoring the reality of Ayah and basing your question on what you innovated.

Sunni: I am not distorting the Ayah. In actuality I am interpreting the Ayah in light of another Ayah which says the same about ‘the dead’.

Sunni: “Verily those whom ye call upon besides Allah are servants like unto you: Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are (indeed) truthful! Have they feet with which 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: 7:194/195]

Sunni: Any/every call of, near, far, natural, supernatural, present, absent, living, dead, only which is Allah able to do, that which creation is able to do, directed to, blind, deaf, lame, crippled-hand person: All would be Shirk if your methodology of determining Shirk/Ibadah is applied on this verse.

Sunni: Will that [input from verse] mean calling the blind, the deaf, and the one with crippled-hands, and one who is lame, to help will turn our call into call of worship and Shirk due to it?

Salafi: Brother this Ayah is about dead [people] and not about people not blind, deaf, lame, or crippled.

Sunni: First of all this Ayah is not even about bodies of deceased. It is about idols and the people whom the idols represent but I am going to ignore this so I can advance my refutation in accordance you’re your own methodology.

Sunni: You’re saying only intended target of this verse is dead, because they have eyes, ears, hands, feet which are not functioning. I say the Ayah is true about those living people who have mentioned organs but crippled hands, feet, eyes, ears, tongue. As a consequence they are dumb, deaf, blind, lame, unable to do anything with hands. Both interpretations on apparent of text are valid but not necessarily correct.

Sunni: This is not my methodology of interpreting the Quran but yours. Our method is to interpret Quranic verses in light of historical context and struggle between Tawheed/Shirk, idolatry and Islam so we wouldn’t come to these kind of interpretations. Correct interpretation is always backed up directly/indirectly and your interpretation of Q16:20/21 and my interpretation are without a valid basis. But I am adhering to your way of interpreting … apparent logical deduction.

Sunni: I ask once again in light of the Ayah (7:194/195) quoted above: “Will that mean calling the blind, the deaf, and the one with crippled-hands, and one who is lame, to help will turn our call into call of worship and Shirk due to it?” It is not hard question brother Abdullah. Straight answer please.

Salafi: It will only be worship and Shirk if sought is which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do.

Sunni: In conclusion your stance is: (i) Calling dead is Shirk irrespective of what you ask them: Ask them only what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can do, or which creation can do, it is worship and Shirk. (ii) Calling lame, crippled-hands man/woman, blind, deaf is Shirk only if asked of them is what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can only do. Am I correct in saying this?

Salafi: Yes.

169 - No Evidence In Quran, Sunnah, And In Shuruhaat For Takhseesat In Dua:

Sunni: Your Takhsees was if help sought is which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is capable of delivering then it is Shirk/worship: “It will only be worship and Shirk if sought is which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do.” [Readers should know that Takhsees literally means being-particular, giving-specific-meaning to a statement which can be interpreted in wide variety of ways.] And without evidence of this Takhsees it means literalism of verse stands. Which means asking help of all those, and all types [mentioned in previous paragraph] would warrant charge of Shirk/Ibadah.

Sunni: What evidence do you have from Quran/Sunnah for this Takhsees in Dua?

Sunni: You do know you cannot make a/any Takhsees without evidence from Quran/Sunnah to back it up. Takhsees requires clear text in support of it. Otherwise generality of text stands as it was revealed. That’s the rule and norm of Tafsir/Sharh.

Umar: Very valid point brother Ali. I would like to see how brother Abdullah refutes this point of yours.

Sunni: Brother Abdullah please respond. How can you make Takhsees of a verse, and Takhsees in types of Dua which should be directed to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), which can be directed to his creation, when you, nor your Salafis have evidence to negate what the verse says?

Sunni: Brother Abdullah what is this silence!

Salafi: I don’t know evidence but it doesn’t mean there isn’t. I will talk to Shaykh … and then I will respond.

Sunni: Brother I have read, and re-read relevant  parts of Shuruhaat of al-Usool al-Thalathaah in English and there exits nothing. Back in the day, during my days of, what should not be mentioned, I wasn’t given any evidence to back Takhsees of Dua. And biggest proof there isn’t any is that none of the Shuruhaat provide evidence.

Sunni: You cannot say Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not provide is complete guidance regarding what is Dua of worship? Yet indirectly you seem to saying, both, didn’t know Tawheed/Shirk good enough, and didn’t declare something Shirk which was, and we are plugging the gaps left in Tawheed/Shirk by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Sunni: There is no evidence of your Takhsees in Quran/Sunnah and I will prove what you believe goes clearly against Quranic text.

170 - Refuting Principle, Seeking Which Allah Is Able To Do From Creation is Shirk/Ibadah:

Sunni: Read this Ayah: “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 favor 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] Answer my question.

Sunni: Is act of bringing something far supernaturally to where I stand in blink of an eye comes in category of, (i) something which creation is able to do, (ii) or something which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can do?

Sunni: Second question: And if it is, something which Allah is able to do, then request for it is worship or not?

Salafi: Something which creation is able to do. Not worship.

Sunni: Did Prophet Sulayman not seek what only Allah can do from his creation and which is against his means … did he commit Shirk?

Sunni: Stop lying to me brother Abdullah and more importantly to your self. Transporting something from part of an earth to another is in realm of, something which Allah is only able to do, in your categorization of affairs.

Salafi: Yeah but it has proof therefore it is not Ibadah/Shirk.

Sunni: Where does Quran/Sunnah say if something has proof it is not Shirk? Do you judge Tawheed/Shirk on basis of existence and non-existence of evidence? This is not even way to determine Tawheed/Shirk.

Sunni: Yes. Presence of evidence proves incident mentioned was in accordance with Tawheed but your principle, something which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do, establishes action of Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam) was supplication of worship and Shirk.

Sunni: Either let go of the principle, something which Allah is able to do. Or let go of argument existence of evidence in Quran/Sunnah means it can’t be Shirk. Because both cannot come together without refuting the other.

Sunni: Existence of evidence is no guarantee something is in accordance with Tawheed/Shirk. Suppose for argument sake. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had taken a wife and He declared she is my wife from what He created. And we have that information via revelation in Quran. Will that mean to believe in her as His wife, and an equal partner, and a Goddess beside Him will mean we still believe in Tawheed? And we are not Mushrikeen? We would be Mushrikeen but our Shirk would be accepted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if He had instructed us to believe it. Existence of evidence would not have meant we are Muwahideen.

Sunni: You’re holding to principle judging via which we come to conclusion Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam) committed major Shirk due to Ibadah resulting from seeking from a creation which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do. And then you are saying it is Tawheed because there is evidence. Holding to both means, Prophet Sulayman (alayhis salam) committed Shirk but it was permitted major Shirk.

Sunni: I offer you an alternative, accept and believe, your methodology of determining, when a Dua has become worship, is erroneous and Kufr producing Kufr.

Salafi: I didn’t say anything as such. You’re just making assumptions on my behalf.

Sunni: Did I say I worship the Wali when I call him for aid? Did I say I believe Wali is my Ilah, Ma’bud, Rabb, or I intend to worship the Wali during my call of help?

Sunni: No. You make assumptions about my belief, practices based on your own principles, and I have not made any assumption regarding your belief/practice [based on Sunni methodology] other then pointed the logical ends while judging according to your own methodology.

Sunni: Leave all of that but you did say: “It will only be worship and Shirk if sought is which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do.” Quote me evidence from Quran/Sunnah for this.

Sunni: “Supplication is divided in two types: (i) Supplication of worship: It is an indirect supplication; such as prayer, fasting, and Hajj. Directing it to other than Allah is major Shirk. (ii) Supplication for a need: It is a direct supplication such as saying: Curse me. Or saying ease my affair etc. Its ruling requires an explanation. (a) That which only Allah is able to grant. Asking anybody else besides Allah is Major Shirk. (b) That which human is capable of granting. It is permissible with four conditions: (i) The one being asked must be alive. (ii) The one being asked is present (Hadhir), or able to be reached. (iii) The one being asked to is capable of and able to respond. (iv) You believe that one who is being asked is only a means; he cannot bring about benefit, or repel harm himself independently of Allah.” [Ref: Explanation Of The Three Fundamental Principles, Sharh by Shaykh Haytham Ibn Muhammad Sarhan, Page 46.]

Sunni: While you are at it quote me evidences for Shirki Takhseesat Dua mentioned in the above with exception of what we have already discussed.

Sunni: Never mind I am asking too much. Just this one: “It will only be worship and Shirk if sought is which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do.” Provide evidence for this.

Sunni: You have no evidences, no evidence, at all for any of your Shirki Takhseesaat of Dua. You have no evidence from Quran/Sunnah supporting these principles.

Salafi: Neither have you any evidence, IF, Salafiyyah doesn’t have evidence.

Sunni: You need to support this: “It will only be worship and Shirk if sought is which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do.” I want evidence which support this principle from Quran/Sunnah. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, Dua of worship is, seeking from creation which only Allah is able to do.

Salafi: Why are you repeating same thing over and over again?

Sunni: Because it proves only one point which I have been screaming you have no evidence for your methodology of determining Tawheed/Shirk. What you have is evil innovations of Shaykh al-Najd.

Sunni: In conclusion according to your methodology and logic of determining Tawheed/Shirk calling upon, dead, lame, blind, deaf, crippled is all major Shirk because you have no evidence of Takhsees.

171 - Some Light Hearted Humour To Break Do Away With Tension:

Sunni: You said, if Salafis don’t have proof then you Sunnis don’t possess any proof for our principles too. You’re very misinformed about our methodology.

Sunni: Ya copy paste al-help.

Sunni: Sorry. I committed Shirk of copy paste. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) protect all of us from Shirk of copy paste. Ameen.

Umar: My cheeks are hurting. Smiles.

Sunni: I said it and got away with it, I think, but brother Abdullah better not say, you committed Shirk of copy paste, because he will have to prove it from Quran/Sunnah.

Umar: I still laugh at, polytheists are Muslims in Tawaf, and I am adding this.

Salafi: Keep mocking.

Sunni: I am not mocking you.

Salafi: You’re mocking my belief that invocation is worship and through it you’re mocking me.

Sunni: Understandable. Sorry.

172 - Shirk Was To Affirm Gods/Deities As Partners Of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞

Sunni: Shuraka (partners) is plural form of Shareek (partner) and act of associating a partner/Shareek to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is termed Shirk (attributing partner). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says:  “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] In the previous Ayah it was established gods/deities of Mushrikeen didn’t create anything but were created [in form of idols by those who worship them]. Following Ayaat scores previously mentioned point about god-partners: “Say, "Have you considered your 'partners' whom you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created from the earth, or have they partnership (with Him) in the heavens?” [Ref: 35:40] “Say: "Invoke those you claim (as gods and partners) besides Allah." They do not possess an atom's weight (of ability) in the heavens or on the earth, and they do not have therein any partnership (with Him), nor is there for Him from among them any assistant.” [Ref: 34:22] And on the day of judgment the Mushrikeen will present their gods as partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala😞 “And when those who associated others with Allah see their "partners," they will say," Our Lord, these are our partners (to You) whom we used to invoke besides You." But they will throw at them the statement: ‘Indeed, you are liars.’" [Ref: 16:86] “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 it will be said, "invoke your 'partners' " and they will invoke them; but they will not respond to them, and they will see the punishment. If only they had followed guidance!” [Ref: 28:64]

173 - Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prohibited Shirk And Affirmed Only Him As God:

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited them from committing this Shirk and taking a Shareek with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by telling them repeatedly: “And your Ilah (Deity) is one Ilah (Deity). There is no Ilah except Him, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.” [Ref: 2:163] “Indeed, this is the true narration. And there is no Ilah/Deity except Allah. And indeed, Allah is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” [Ref: 3:62] “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 from what they are saying ...”  [Ref: 5:73] “They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one Ilah (God); there is no Ilah (Deity) except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.” [Ref: 9:31] “And Allah has said, "Do not take for yourselves two deities. He is but one God, so fear only Me." [Ref: 16:51] “Say: ‘I am only a warner, and there is not any deity except Allah, the One, the Prevailing.’” [Ref: 38:65] In conclusion Shirk of Mushrikeen was in belief that there are other gods besides/instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is why Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) dedicated countless Ayaat in, Nafi, refuting this polytheistic notion and affirming, Ithbaat, there is only One and the Only Ilah, Allah.

174 - Quranic Evidence Dua And Worship Is Directed Toward A Deity/Ilah:

Sunni: Due to affirming belief of Ilahiyyah the Mushrikeen invoked their partner-Ilahs. They said: “Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him (say to Muslims) "We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position." Indeed, Allah will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allah does not guide he who is a liar and disbeliever.” [Ref: 39:3] And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “Say” ‘Indeed, I have been forbidden to worship those you invoke besides Allah." Say, "I will not follow your desires, for I would then have gone astray, and I would not be of the guided.’" [Ref: 6:56] “Indeed they (the Jinn), from (revelations) hearing are removed. So do not invoke with Allah another deity and (thus) be among the punished. And warn your closest kindred.” [Ref: 26:212/214] “And do not invoke with Allah another deity. There is no deity except Him. Everything will be destroyed except His Face. His is the judgment, and to Him you will be returned.” [Ref: 28:88] “And We made firm their hearts when they stood up and said, "Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. Never will we invoke besides Him any deity. We would have certainly spoken, then, an excessive transgression.” [Ref: 18:14] “And whoever invokes besides Allah another deity for which he has no proof - then his account is only with his Lord. Indeed, the disbelievers will not succeed.” [Ref: 23:117] This Ayah proves invoking another Ilah/deity beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or instead of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is major Kufr and establishes individual/group involved in this act is Kafir/Kafirs. They will not succeed because Mushrikeen will be punished: “And those who do not invoke with Allah another deity or kill the soul which Allah has forbidden (to be killed), except by right (will earn mercy of Allah and enter paradise), and do not commit unlawful sexual intercourse. And whoever should do that will meet a penalty.” [Ref: 25:68] In conclusion: Most importantly this section proves Dua is directed toward a deity and Mushrikeen directed their Duas/invocations, invoked, called to, and worshipped what they believed to be an Ilah partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And Shirk is in invoking deities/gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and not invoking, dead etc.

175 - Brother Abdullah And Wahhabis/Salafis On The Methodology Of Khawarij:

Sunni: And one evidence you quoted to establish calling dead is Shirk and not necessarily Ilah/deities/gods. I have already refuted your evil Tafsir bir Ra’ee but once again won’t harm to prove it refers to calls directed to idols. (i) Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) 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.” [Ref: 16:20/21] “Say, "Have you considered your 'partners' whom you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created from the earth, or have they partnership (with Him) in the heavens?” [Ref: 35:40] The dead Mushrikeen invoked were attributed to Him as His partners. And the dead Mushrikeen attributed to Him as His partners were idols: “And We took the Children of Israel across the sea; then they came upon a people intent in devotion to idols of theirs. They said: "O Moses make for us an Ilah (i.e. god) just as they have Aalihatan (i.e. gods)." He said, "Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly.” [Ref: 7:138] And these are the same dead which create nothing but are created themselves nor have ability of benefit/harm: “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] (ii) You have applied this Ayah upon Muslims to establish belief/practice of Muslims was in no way different from the Mushrikeen of Arabia. And this is the way of Khawarij and you, your kind is one of them in methodology: “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.” [Bukhari, Chapter Khawarjites, Ibn Hajr al Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari: That it’s Sanad is Sahih.] Neither your prayers, fasting, Quran recitation will benefit you because: “It was narrated that Ibn Awfa said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'The Khawarij are the dogs of Hell.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H17, here.]

Sunni: You can read this in your own time.

176 - Principle, Only Allah Can Do, Is Based On Shirk Of Attributes:

Umar: Brother Ali I want to say something principle, requesting a creation which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do, itself has no evidence of Quran/Sunnah but what it is based on is, in principle, sound and valid.

Umar: Something which He is only able to do, is so because it is encompassed by His attributes, and giving His attribute to a creation is Shirk. Something which He is only able to do, this principle originates from Shirk as-Sifaat.

Umar: This is where you have been banging the wrong door. First you should have asked brother Abdullah to clarify his understanding of the mentioned principle and based on that demand of evidence should have been made. Instead you’re asking brother Abdullah to prove something which is result of another but the source which produces it.

Sunni: Brother I have absolutely no objection to what you said. This principle is indeed found upon Shirk al-Sifaat. How often have you seen a Salafi develop, that which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do, to is Shirk on due to this and that attribute of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has been shared with His creation? It starts with the principle, Shirk because sought is that which only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able to do, and end’s with it.

Umar: What you said is true but I and brother Abdullah would appreciate discussion on the source and not the outcome.

Sunni: I am absolutely fine with this suggestion of yours but on condition that we discuss it based on a scenario I purpose which will be agree-able to all parties.

177 - Calling Deceased For Help Why Shirk And Why Not Shirk In Attributes:

Sunni: Bakr died 500 years ago, in Japan, Amr living in England, says, Ya Bakr al-Madad, because he believes Bakr hears and sees all happenings on earth. Is this Shirk and why? Brother Abdullah you respond.

Salafi: Shirk because Amr has affirmed attribute of all- hearing, all-seeing for the dead, and believes dead has control over treasures of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: Based on what you said brother Abdullah. It is your belief that all-hearing and seeing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is limited to hearing/seeing of what is happening on earth. Shirk is established on basis of making creation equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in His essence, or attributes. And Shirk is not established by making Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) equal to His creation, that would be Kufr.

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was all-seeing, all-hearing from eternity past. Even before the creation, long before earth, he heard what you said, I said, all said, he saw what you did, I did, and all did. And then He hears/sees what, I, you, all say and do. And He hears/sees all that will take place in hell/paradise from eternity past, and He hears/sees all from here till events unfold. Time hides nothing from Him and reveals nothing to Him. He is all-seeing, hearing in the sense that nothing has increased His knowledge through hearing/seeing, and nothing has decreased what He saw/heard.

Sunni: That is hearing/seeing of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and for you to establish Shirk of attributes you need to make someone partner into His hearing/seeing, detailed above, and not making him partner with His creation.

Salafi: Going by your definition, mate, Shirk of attributes has never been committed.

Sunni: Trinitarian Christians are guilty of Shirk of attributes because they attribute to Jesus all the attributes of God the ‘Father’. Including all-hearing, seeing, and knowing from eternity, to eternity.

Salafi: True.

Sunni: In Quran/Sunnah Shirk of Mushrikeen mentioned is Shirk in Ilahiyyah (which is inclusive of Rububiyyah) but not Shirk of attributes. Not even Christians are said to be guilty of it but if you had any exposure to Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, or decent Christian literature you will know they are guilty of Shirk of attributes.

Salafi: You would hardly find a Da’ee not inspired by Shaykh Ahmad Deedat. I agree with you they are guilty of Shirk of attributes [in accordance with your definition].

Sunni: Those Christians who ascribe such [as mentioned above] detail of hearing/seeing to Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), are they guilty of Shirk of attributes according to Quran/Sunnah?

Salafi: They are [guilty of Shirk].

Sunni: Then we have agreement on my methodology but your is disagreed by me. Smiles.

Salafi: No one said your way was wrong.

Sunni: I am calling Ijmah on this then if brother Umar also agrees. Smiles.

178 - Demanding Evidence For Partial-Partnership, Limited-Partnership Warrants Shirk:

Sunni: My methodology establishes Shirk on absolute-equality, or what I call Twinity, or equal partnership. And evidence of this is, there is nothing like unto Him: “There is nothing like unto Him and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] To establish absolute likeness of Him in Zaat/Sifaat is Shirk in both.

Sunni: Your methodology establishes Shirk of attributes based on similarity/commonality. It goes something like this: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hears all that happens on earth. Amr believes Bakr hears everything on earth. Amr committed Shirk because he ascribed Allah’s hearing to Bakr.

Sunni: I want evidence from Quran/Sunnah which directly/indirectly establishes:

Sunni: (i) Shirk in Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) attributes is making Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) share His creation’s traits/attributes.

Umar: I realized the impossibility just by thinking about the question you asked.

Sunni: (ii) Or evidence which suggests directly/indirectly that if a certain percentage of Allah’s attribute has been shared with his creation, that it would amount to Shirk.

Salafi: I can’t continue this discussion anymore.

Sunni: To be honest I was about to call an end. It stopped being a discussion nearly a month ago. I only held back calling an end to it because it rather be on your head then mine. I want to continue complete my final argument and then it’s a wrap.

Sunni: I am confident you will agree there is no such evidence in Quran and Sunnah. And we both are in agreement absolute equality/Twinity in a attribute will establish Shirk and that happens to be methodology of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. And we both agree that result of this methodology is in agreement with teaching Quran/Sunnah. Say, no, if you disagree. On contrary your methodology of determining Shirk of attributes has no support from Quran/Sunnah. And Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not say any of the two mentioned above will establish Shirk of attributes. We only have evidence Twinity-ship of attributes would establish Shirk: “There is nothing like unto Him and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” [Ref: 42:11] And if your way was the correct way why would Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not provide evidence? There is no evidence which establish less then absolute-equality, absolute Twinity is major Shirk of attributes. No evidence of Takhsees what so ever. And this is enough to prove you’re upon error and misguidance.

Sunni: Just one last thing brother Abdullah:“And say: ‘Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood (by nature) ever bound to depart.’” [Ref: 17:18]

179 - The Last-Ditch Effort And Thundering Slap In Response:

Salafi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.] Istighathah is Dua and it is worship. Worshiping beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is clear Shirk. Your entire Madhab is based on Taweel (figurative-interpretation) which borders Tahreef (distortion). You should call your self, Ahlul Taweel.

[The Official End Of Discussion.]

Sunni: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will instruct the Mushrikeen to invoke/call on the day of judgment: “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] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says: “And it will be said, "invoke your 'partners' " and they will invoke them; but they will not respond to them, and they will see the punishment. If only they had followed guidance!” [Ref: 28:64] I believe neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed them to call in worship. Nor they will call in worship. My questions to you’re: Did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instruct them to worship their gods? Will Mushrikeen invoke their gods in worship? And will you make Taweel to avoid catastrophic consequences of literalism? No pressure, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “An-Nu`man bin Bashir narrated that: The Prophet said: “The supplication, is worship.” Then he recited: And Your Lord said: “Call upon me, I will respond to you. Verily, those who scorn My worship, they will surely enter Hell humiliated." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B45, H3372, here.]

180 - About The End And The Conclusion Of Discussion:

This was end of our discussion. Brother Umar told me he [brother Abdullah] was advised by Shaykh Lemon Ibn Squished to abandon discussion because harm of continuing is greater then benefit. It was not a surprise to me or brother Umar because his behaviour changed and interest waned rather dramatically obvious from lack of engagement. I cannot say it was/wasn’t due to consulting Shaykh Lemon Ibn Squished but I hope I contributed something toward crushing his arrogant and ignorant spirit. And his silence was due because the burden of truth weighed heavy on his shoulders and tongue. May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) make this discussion a means of guidance for brother Abdullah and those who read it. Ameen. Actions are judged according to intentions.

Wama alayna ilal balagh ul-mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.