What is Ibadah? (Discussion Part-2)

Ibadah.jpg

“What is Ibadah?” Part-2

(Abu Sulayman’s discussion with Wahhabi/”Salafis” on IA Forum)

From Thread Page 37: 

————————————

Quote: Die for Allah said:

This makes more sense than your previous response, but it does not fit entirely with the principal of complete independence etc, because those who follow the priests and rabbis in halal and haram obviously do not believe they are independent lords besides Allah but they give them rights which they have no authority or permission for, so going back to the example of istighatha where someone calls on others besides Allah and asks to be given from those things which only Allah azza wa jal can give the callers don’t believe the called upon have independent powers or capabilities but the shirk is the fact that they give rights to ghair Allah which they have no authority or permission for, so just as the priests and rabbis have no permission to legislate halal and haram the dead saints for example have no permission to bring benefit or harm.

——————————–

Abu Sulayman Reply:

You’re trying to connect two issues which have nothing to do with each other.

You say that Istighathah is Shirk because it is to ask for something that only Allah ta’ala can give, right?

Okay, let’s first of all mention the two main positions among the people of Islam regarding the actions of the servants (there are more positions, but let’s concentrate on those two):

– The first is that the Qudrah (power) of humans has no real effects/influence (i.e. that it has no Ta`thir), because Allah ta’ala has created all beings and their actions, and also because only Allah has real influence on the creation. This is what the Ahl al-Sunnah believes.

– The second is that the Qudrah (power) of humans has real effects, but that is because Allah ta’ala has given the person a Qudrah which is mu`athir and this Qudrah is connected to the Qudrah of Allah. This is the position of the Mu’tazilah.
It’s a deviant position, because it ascribes creating actions to other than Allah ta’ala, but Takfir is not made upon them.

As for the position of the Arab polytheists regarding the actions of their [false] gods:

They believed that the Qudrah of their false gods has real influence and is not connected to the Qudrah of Allah in every moment. (And their are a number of examples for this.)

Now I want to get an explanation from you how the one who has the the belief of the people of the Sunnah regarding the actions of the servants, has committed Shirk if he says “Help me, ya Rasulallah” or “al-Shafa’ah (intercession), ya Rasulallah”?

How is it possible for you to accuse such a person of “ascribing something that is special to Allah to other than Him”, while the person believes that all actions are created by Allah ta’ala alone?
This person expects help from Allah ta’ala by the Barakah (blessing) and Jah (rank) of Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and just because you don’t get that you accuse him of “Shirk akbar”.

Leading Shafi’i scholars* (and also from other Madhahib) have explicitly said that Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is allowed.
The scholars from all 4 Madhahib have even recommended to seek intercession with Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – unto his Lord if one visits his blessed grave.

*Were people like Imam Taqi al-din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) (click alsoHERE), Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d. 829 AH), al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH),al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH), Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), Shihab al-Din and Shams al-Din al-Ramli (d. 957 AH and 1004 AH), etc. all upon “Shirk akbar”? (Click at the names to read their statements in Arabic and it’s translation.)

Let’s take for example a statement by Imam al-Qastallani:
وأما التوسل به- صلى الله عليه وسلم- بعد موته فى البرزخ فهو أكثر من أن يحصى أو يدركباستقصاء وفى كتاب «مصباح الظلام فى المستغيثين بخير الأنام» للشيخ أبى عبد الله بن النعمانطرف من ذلك.
ولقد كان حصل لى داء أعيا دواؤه الأطباء، وأقمت به سنين، فاستغثت بهصلى الله عليه وسلمليلة الثامن والعشرين من جمادى الأولى سنة ثلاث وتسعين وثمانمائة بمكة زادها الله شرفا، ومنّعلىّ بالعود فى عافية بلا محنة، فبينا أنا نائم إذ جاء رجل معه قرطاس يكتب فيه: هذا دواء لداء أحمدبن القسطلانى من الحضرة الشريفة بعد الإذن الشريف النبوى، ثم استيقظت فلم أجد بىواللهشيئامما كنت أجده، وحصل الشفاء ببركة النبىصلى الله عليه وسلم

Source:al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyyah

Here he says that he had an illness that the doctors treated [without success] for years. Then on a night of the year 893 AH (he mentions the exact date) he seeked help with the Prophet -sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – while he was in Makkah (i.e. Istighathah from afar). And he says that [Allah] healed him by the Barakah of Rasulullah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

This is of course pure “Shirk” according to some people here, because according to them “he’s asking for healing from other than Allah”.
The response is: He’s from the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah, so we know with certainity that he believes that Allah ta’ala is the one who helps alone by creating and bringing fourth, while a creation can only help by being a mean (Sabab) and by the way of acquisition (Kasb).
This means that here Shifa` (healing) is expected from Allah ta’ala by the Barakah (blessing) of Rasulullah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

It’s just a form of Tawassul as has been explained by Imam al-Subki. (And the book where he explained that (i.e. “Shifa` al-Saqam”) was praised by scholars like Imam Al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), Imam al-‘Iraqi (d. 826 AH) and others.)
And it does not make a difference whether one uses the wording of Tawassul, Tashaffu’ or Istighathah, because it goes all back to the same meaning (i.e. asking by the rank of Rasulullah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

And this is something that has been quite common among the Muslims, their scholars and their laymen alike:
Imam Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) even used the fullfillment of one’s needs if one makes Tawassul with the Master of the first and the last – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – as a proof for his prophethood:

حتى لقد انتدب بعض العلماء لاستقصائها فجمع منها ألف معجزة وعددناه مقصرا إذا فوق ذلكبأضعاف لا تحصى فإنها ليست محصورة على ما وجد منها في عصرهصلى الله عليه وسلمبللم تزل تتجدد بعدهصلى الله عليه وسلمعلى تعاقب العصور وذلك أن كرامات الأولياء من أمتهوإجابات المتوسلين به في حوائجهم ومغوثاتهم عقيب توسلهم به في شدائدهم براهين لهصلىالله عليه وسلمقواطع ومعجزات له سواطع ولا يعدها عد ولا يحصرها حد

“In fact, one of the scholars attempted to enumerate these miracles, and counted one thousand; and even then, we consider him to have fallen short, for they are many multiples of that, and are, in fact, innumerable. They are not limited to only those that appeared at his hands during his life (peace and blessings of God be upon him); rather, they are continuously renewed after him (peace and blessings of God be upon him) with the turning of the ages; for the miracles (karamat) of the saints of his nation, and the answers to those who pray for the fulfilment of their needs by seeking intercession through him, and the succour which they find after seeking his intercession, by which they are delivered in the hour of their most dire need. . . all of these are unequivocal proofs of his greatness, and are to be counted as obvious miracles ascribed to him.As such, they have no limit!”

Source:Fatawa Ibn al-Salah” and translation taken from here: “Traditionalism against Scholasticism: The Debate Over “Curriculum” in Damascus Between 1150-1350

Seems like the people of Islam have been upon “Shirk akbar” since hundreds of years according to some people here.

———————-

Die for Allah said:  The person expects help from Allah by calling upon other than Allah? That makes sense to you? I follow a deen that is simple and straight forward, the messenger of Allah salalahu alayhi wasalam taught us to call upon Allah, if you want to call upon other than Allah that is up to you, you to your way, me to mine.

——————–
So when the people on the day of judgement ask different Prophets directly for intercession by saying “intercede for us to your Lord” (“اشفع لنا إلى ربك“) – as it is narrated in the Sahihayn – (and that is before the permission to intercede is even granted!), do they all commit “Shirk akbar” according to you?
And when they ask these Prophets do they not ultimately expect help from Allah?
Or are they “worshipping” the Prophets, peace be upon them?
And if they’re committing Shirk, then why is it that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala grants the permission to intercede to Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – after his Ummah have all committed “Shirk akbar” [by asking for intercession]?

————————–

Die for Allah said: Please post all the authentic narrations where the companions of Rasulullah salalahu alayhi wasalamused to call upon other than Allah for the fulfillment of their needs, Oh wait a minute there aren’t any, I wonder why that is?

————————–

The scholars from all 4 Madhahib have even recommended to seek intercession with Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam –unto his Lord if one visits his blessed grave.

See here to know the ruling for Tashaffu’ (qoutes are only in Arabic):
1 – Ruling according to the Hanafiyyah
2 – Ruling according to the Malikiyyah
3 – Ruling according to the Shafi’iyyah
4 – Ruling according to the Hanabilah

——————-

Die for Allah said:  The fact is that Allah azza wa jal has permitted the asking of Ambiya (as) for intercession on yawm al qiyamah, whereas there is absolutely no permission to call upon the dead for the fulfillment of needs, in fact there is a strict prohibition

——————–

Abu Sulayman Reply:

I don’t believe that anyone from among the creation – whether “alive” or “dead” – can fulfill any needs, because created beings and things do not have any real influence (Ta`thir).

But they can be a mean (Sabab) for the fullfillment of one’s needs.


As for your statement that it’s okay for the people to ask the Prophets
– peace be upon them – for intercession on the day of judgement, then may I use your own “logic” against you: Why are they asking created beings if they want help from Allah ta’ala? Please explain this to us.

And: Seeking intercession through the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is allowed in the time of his life in this world, as well as after his death in the period of the Barzakh, and after the resurrection on the day of reckoning. You don’t have a single Ayah, which says that this is forbidden in any of these times.

What I believe is that if one wants to perform Tawassul with the Master of the first and the last – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -, then the best way to do that is to use similar expressions as one can find in the Ahadith and Athar:

– In the Hadith of the blind man the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – teached the following expression:
Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. I turn through you (O Muhammad) to my Lord in this need of mine, that it be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me” (“اللهم إني أسألكوأتوجه إليك بنبيك ، محمد نبي الرحمة ، إني توجهت بك إلى ربي في حاجتي هذه لتقضى لي ،اللهم فشفعه في“)
– In the Hadith of the man in need ‘Uthman bin Hunayf – radhiallahu ‘anhu – teaches the following expression (this is after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam):
O Allāh, I ask You and I approach You through your Prophet Muhammad , the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I approach my Lord through you that my need be fulfilled,” (“اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبينا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة، يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فتقضي لي حاجتي“)
– When the people suffered a drought in the time of the Khilafah of ‘Umar bin al-Khattab – radhiallahu ‘anhu – Bilal bin al-Harith – radhiallahu ‘anhu – went to the grave of the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and used the following expression [as it’s narrated in the Athar of Malik al-Dar]:
O Messenger of Allāh, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” (“يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قدهلكوا“)
– Sayydina Adam – ‘alayhis salam – used the following expression:
O My Lord, I ask you through the right of Muhammad that you forgive me.” (“يا رب أسألك بحق محمد لما غفرت لي“)
– In the narration where the Khalifah Abu Ja’far al-Mansur (d. 158 AH) asked Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) whether he should turn his face to the Qiblah to supplicate or towards Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – (and this is in the context of standing in front of his blessed grave and after having greeted him), so Imam Malik answered:
How could you turn your face away from him when he is the means (wasila) of your and your father Adam’s forgiveness to Allah on the Day of Resurrection? Nay, face him and ask for his intercession (istashfi` bihi) so that Allah will grant it to you as He said: “If they had only, when they were wronging themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful (4:64).”” (“ولم تصرف وجهك عنه ، وهو وسيلتك ، ووسيلة أبيكآدمعليه السلامإلى اللهتعالىيوم القيامة ؟ بل استقبله ، واستشفع به ، فيشفعه الله ، قالاللهتعالى – : ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم [ النساء : 64 ] الآية“)
– In the narration of al-‘Utbi the following expression is used:
Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64], so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord.” (“السلامعليك يا رسول الله سمعت الله يقول ( { ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهمالرسول لوجدوا الله توابا رحيما } ) وقد جئتك مستغفرا من ذنبي مستشفعا بك إلى ربي”)
– etc.

What I also personally believe is that it is better not to use expressions which may make one appear as if one is expecting [real] help from other than Allah ta’ala.

As for statements like “Ya Fulan, have mercy upon me/forgive me my sins” or like “Ya Fulan, give me children/sustenance”, then this is forbidden.


It should be however noted that we don’t make Takfir upon such people except if they intend that the person himself can give that to them (i.e. if they have a Shirki intention/belief) and that is because the one who has entered into the religion with certainity does not leave it except with certainity, so the benefit of doubt is given to such people even if the apparent meaning of their statement is disbelief.

———————-

Die for Allah said:

I follow a deen that is simple and straight forward, the messenger of Allah salalahu alayhi wasalam taught us to call upon Allah, if you want to call upon other than Allah that is up to you, you to your way, me to mine.

———————

Just look how you’re presenting the view of your oppponent.Subhanallah, did I tell you worship other than Allah ta’ala?
“You to your way, me to mine” (translating it into Arabic: “Lakum dinukum wa liya Din”)… aren’t you brave enough to make open Takfir?

———————

Die for Allah said:  this whole thread has been about whether such a calling is classed as ibadah and therefor shirk or if it is of a lesser severity in terms of sin i.e absolutely haram and a means to shirk but not shirk in and of itself, they have been the 2 options as far as Im concerned throughout this discourse, but here we have Abu Sulayman confusing the matter of tawassul with that of istighatha and trying to claim that istighatha is permissible.

——————–

Is there any obligation upon me to follow one of the two options that you mentioned?

No.

And I’m not confusing anything here.
You should’ve already realized from my words that my understanding regarding whatIstighathah even is differs from yours.

And I’ve already given you the qoutes of a number of Shafi’i scholars in support of my position:

Abu Sulayman said:

*Were people like Imam Taqi al-din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) (click also HERE), Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d. 829 AH), al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH), Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH),Shihab al-Din and Shams al-Din al-Ramli (d. 957 AH and 1004 AH), etc. all upon “Shirk akbar”? (Click at the names to read their statements in Arabic and it’s translation.)

——————–

Logic lover said:

‘The new definition’ deals with a ‘belief-based’ system only (ie shirk can only occur in a particular form of belief, which is dubbed as istiqlal/independence from Allah’s rububiyya/Lordship’) – a long way from the understanding of the commoners like you and me.

——————–

Is it okay to say “al-Shafa’ah (intercession), Ya Rasulallah” or is it Shirk?

If you say that it’s Shirk then this means that the absolute majority of the believers who have preceded us in faith – the scholars of them and the laymen! – have been committing this very Shirk!

Were the scholars of all 4 Madhahib ignorant what Shirk is when they even recommended doing this during the Ziyarah?

Take this qoute as an example, which is by the major Hanafi scholaral-Imam ‘Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH) [it’s in the context of the Ziyarah], who’s buried near to Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH):

وقد قال الله تعالى : ( ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدواالله توابا رحيما ) وقد جئناك ظالمين لأنفسنا ، مستغفرين لذنوبنا ، فاشفع لنا إلى ربك ، وأسأله أنيميتنا على سنتك ، وأن يحشرنا في زمرتك ، وأن يوردنا حوضك ، وأن يسقينا كأسك غير خزايا ولانادمين ، الشفاعة الشفاعة يا رسول الله ، يقولها ثلاثا : ( ربنا اغفر لنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان) الآية .ويبلغه سلام من أوصاه فيقول : السلام عليك يا رسول الله من فلان بن فلان ، يستشفع بكإلى ربك فاشفع له ولجميع المسلمين

“Allah ta’ala says: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
So we’ve come to you, having wronged ourselves and asking [Allah] for forgiveness regarding our sins, so intercede for us to your Lord and ask Him that He lets us die upon your Sunnah, and that He gathers us [on the day of reckoning] among your group, and allows us to get to your Hawdh and drink from your bowl without disgrace or regret.
Intercession intercession, o Messenger of Allah (al-Shafa’ah al-Shafa’ah, ya Rasulallah) – he (the visitor) should say this thrice -, { “Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brothers who preceded us in faith” } [59:10] [till the end of] the Ayah.
[Then] he should deliver the greeting of those who have told him to do so by saying: ‘Peace be upon you, o Messenger of Allah, from Fulan bin Fulan, he seeks intercession through you unto your Lord, so intercede for him and for all believers‘.”

Source:al-Ikhtiyar li Ta’lil al-Mukhtar

——————–

Logic lover said:  What buffles me is the addressing of Rasulullah (saws) saying, ‘O Muhammad’. Is it good adab for you and me to call on Rasulullah (saws) by name?

———————

I also would address the Prophet – sallalahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – as Rasulullah and not just as Muhammad.

——————–

Logic lover said:  If one is not expecting help from other than Allah – why would one call on other than Allah? It does not make sense.

——————–

If that’s the case don’t go to the doctor and don’t take medicine if you get ill. Why are you taking medicine while Shifa` (healing) comes from Allah ta’ala alone? Isn’t the medicine a dead thing according to both of us?
Or is it that you believe that the medicine causes real effects? If you believe that it intrinsically causes effects, then this Shirk akbar and if you believe that Allah ta’ala has put some sort of power into it so that it causes real effects it’s still a deviant belief (but Takfir is not made in the second case).
(The second case is what most “Salafi” minded people believe.)

If I take medicine, then it’s because it’s a mean (Sabab) to get healed by Allah ta’ala and NOT because it has any real effects.

———————-

Die for Allah said:

Sorry akhi, I thought I stated that my understanding of istighatha is to call directly upon other than Allah and ask for some need to be fulfilled such as what you have stated above i.e rizq,forgiveness, etc. You are now agreeing that it is forbidden?

———————–

I believe in adressing the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – as one adresses a messenger of Allah (and he is the best of Messengers and Prophets!).

As for asking for Rizq or the the forgiving of sins, then it’s not allowed to ask this no matter whether it’s during his lifetime or after that, because as Muslims we’re asking him – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – as the Messenger of Allah and NOT as our Creator and Sustainer.

I recommend you to read the following for a better understanding:

Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) refuting Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH) mentioned what Imam al-Jazari said and added some comments to it:

“‘So the one of his own caste seeked assistance against the one who was of his enemies’ [quoting the verse from chapter al-Qasas, aya 15 of the Qur’an];

The Shaykh Shams ud-Deen alJazari, the commentator of theMinhaj in Usul alFiqh (the science of foundation of Legal Jurisprudence) used it [i.e. this verse] as evidence against Shaykh Taqi udDeen Ibn Taymiyyah and his reported statement “The assistance of the Messenger of Allah, May Allah send his peace and blessings upon him, is not sought as seeking assistance of Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, is from His specific characteristics and rights so it is not for other than Him just like (acts of) worship.’ ”

The aforementioned refutation is as follows:
He said, “It is necessary that one considers the true nature of seeking assistance.
What is it and what is meant by seeking help and calling for help?

We find this man from the tribe of Israel sought the assistance of Musa [may the peace and blessings be upon him and the Seal of Prophets], and sought and called for his help as is explicitly stated in the text of this verse. This is the seeking assistance of a created being from another created being and Musa affirmed the man from the tribe of Israel in it and Allah, the exalted and Mighty affirmed Musa doing so. Furthermore Muhammad, May Allah send His peace and blessing upon him, did not find fault in it when these verses were revealed. In other words, this was affirmation from Allah, the Exalted and Mighty, and His Messenger for the seeking assistance of one created being from another created being and as seeking the assistance of Musa is permissible then it even more so of Muhammad as he is by consensus superior.

He also uses as evidence the narration of Hajar, the mother ofIsmail, when she sought water for her son and did not find it. She heard a sound at the bottom of the valley and said, “[Oh whoever you may be,] you have made me hear your voice, [help us] if you can offer any help.” This statement conveys the meaning of her seeking the assistance of (the angel) Jibreel and the Prophet, May God send his peace and blessings upon him, affirmed her in this and did not disapprove of her.

Certainty in the oneness of God is one of the conditions of Islam. So when we find a Muslim seeking the assistance of a created being we know, without doubt, that he is not associating that created being with God, the Exalted and Mighty. Such an action is only his seeking help or turning to Allah by the blessing of that created being. People at the station of reckoning (on the Day of Judgement) will call for the help of the prophets seeking their intercession in bringing ease for themselves, hence it is permissable to call upon the prophets in other situations.

Shaykh Abu Abdillah anNu’maan has written a book that he titled, “The lamp in darkness of those seeking assistance by the best of mankind.” This book has become famous and the people of his time have agreed upon this book in consensus. The consensus of the people of every age is considered a proof such that the one who disapproves is considered to be acting against the consensus.

If it is said that the aforementioned verse is regarding the story of Musa and the man from the tribe of Israel and it is not relevant to the point in contention for two main objections.

The first being that Musa was alive at that time and we only decline to accept the seeking assistance of a dead being.

The second is that the companion of Musa sought his assistance in a matter that Musa was able to undertake and that was his help with an opponent and that is a natural matter. Yet we only contend with the seeking assistance of a created being in matters that are specific to God, the Exalted and Majestic, such as divine mercy, forgiveness, sustenance, giving life and so on. So one must not say, “Oh Muhammad forgive me or have mercy upon me or sustain me or answer me (and in another manuscript of the same text ‘give me life’ was mentioned) or give me money and a child” as all of that is associating a partner to God by consensus.

A response to the first objection is that if seeking of assistance of the living is allowed then so should it be allowed for the dead, if not even more so, as he they are closer than the living to God, the Exalted and Mighty for many reasons.

The first
of which is that he is in the abode of Generosity and Recompense and the living is in the abode of legal responsibility.

The second is that the dead person, unlike the living, has broken free from the natural world that cuts of from reaching the other world.

The third reason is that the martyrs in their lives are veiled and after their death are alive with their Lord being sustained (alluding to Surah 2 V 154).

In response to the second objection
it can be said that what you have mentioned is an agreed upon matter known to the youngest of Muslim let alone the eldest, i.e. that with regards to Divine Omnipotence another created being is not to be sought under any circumstance and that neither should be attributed to it. We have seen rabbles of people and their common-folk and the furthest of them from knowledge and divine certainty (gnosis) seeking refuge at the room of the Prophet (i.e. his resting place), may God send his peace and blessings upon him, and they do not go beyond asking for intercession and his being a medium, “Oh Prophet, intercede on behalf of us. Oh God, by the blessing of your Prophet, forgive us.” Hence such discussion about the matter becomes presumptuous and no one from amongst the Muslims is in need of it. If it is inevitable that by announcing this ruling it is feared that someone may fall into it then putting it another way do not delude yourself in finding fault in the Prophet, May God’s peace and blessings be upon him, or defect in his rank such as saying that which God has taken upon himself by Divine ability should not be sought from a created being at all and do not oppose the Prophet by stripping seeking assistance from Him unrestrictedly or restrictedly and do not mention him except by sending peace and blessings upon him and narrating from from and so forth.

This is that which concerns this matter and I have relayed it in a question and answer format with additional points from myself.”

Source:al-Isharat al-Ilahiyyah ila al-Mabahith al-Usuliyyah” 3/89-93 and translation taken from here: Najm Al-Din Al-Tufi Al-Hanbali quotes a refutation of his teacher regarding Ibn Taymiyya on Istighatha – Fiqh & Usūl al-Fiqh – Marifah Forums

I recommend reading the above qoute as it contains a good explanation of this issue.

(Note: I omitted the Arabic. You can read the complete comment with the Arabic qoute HERE.)

——————–

Logic lover said:

They will call upon entities which they will see/hear and can hear the response. This is different from calling upon the dead.

——————–

Abu Sulayman Reply:

Sorry bro, but are we atheists or Muslims?

– The Qur`an tells us not to regard those who have been killed in the way of Allah as dead and says that they’re alive while we do not perceive.
The Prophets are greater in rank than the martyrs, so they’re even more deserving of this description and honour and their life is even greater.
There are many authentic proofs that Prophets are alive in their graves.
Just look at the incidents of al-Isra` wal Mi’raj and how Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – met different Prophets and Messengers (who had already died a long time ago) and among them Musa – ‘alayhis salam – and how he spoke to him at different places.

The rank of Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and his blessing does not go away just because he died. He’s the best of creation at all times.

The Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – gets informed regarding the state of his Ummah and he supplicates for all of us.

If one goes to visit him and greets him, he hears that without any doubt.

The soul of the believer gets stronger when it leaves the body and there are proofs for this. This has been explicitly mentioned by scholars like Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH),Ibn Qayyim (d. 751 AH) and others.

– Death is just a transition from one kind of existance to another. It’s not like one does not exist anymore.

 

——————————

Thread Page:  38-39: Here

————————————

———————

Logic lover said:

People spoke and sought Krishna’s help when he was alive. Why should they be considered idol worshipers now for calling on him?

——————–

Abu Sulayman Reply:

Ascribing lordship/divinity to Krishna (for example by believing that he’s an incarnation of some sort of supreme being) is Shirk at all times.

But are you seriously trying to compare something likeTashaffu’ with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -, which is allowed according to the Jumhur of the scholars, to worshippingKrishna?

So the scholars of Islam were upon Shirk akbar?

———————–

Die for Allah said:

It cannot be understood from any of those narrations that help is being sought from other than Allah, asking Allah azz wa jal to accept ones dua due to the status of the messenger of Allah salalahu alayhi wasalam is a form of tawassul, it is not the istighatha which involves calling upon other than Allah and asking them to fulfill needs.

———————-

 Abu Sulayman reply:

Okay great.
So you agree with this statement (Bilal bin al-Harith – radhiallahu ‘anhu – asked this AFTER the death of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)?:
O Messenger of Allāh, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” (“يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قدهلكوا“)

—————

Thread Page,38:

—————-

————————

Sibawayh alFarsi said:
Wallahi this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about, but then what do you expect from a Zindiq who hunts for every shudhoodh including the Prophet knowing what is in our HEART (based on a Maliki Shaykh’s Zindiq statement) when we stand in front of his grave?!
Of course they ascribed shurakaa to Allaah by worshipping them they automatically did that this is because ibadaah is the haqq of Allaah alone. The talbiyyah IS a proof that they did NOT believed in istiqlaal. The quote of Imam Al-Qurtubi doesn’t support you, where does he say that they did so with the belief of istiqlal? In fact, they did so WASEELATAN so they can be their shufa’a. As Imam Al-Baghawi explains in his tafsir.

—————————-

Abu Sulayman Reply:

————————–

Sibawayh alFarsi said:

Wallahi this guy doesn’t know what he is talking about, but then what do you expect from a Zindiq who hunts for every shudhoodh including the Prophet knowing what is in our HEART (based on a Maliki Shaykh’s Zindiq statement) when we stand in front of his grave?!

—————————

As an information for the readers: I’ve once qouted Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-‘Abdari al-Maliki (d. 737 AH) regarding Tawassul and Istighathah with the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and it seems that this is enough for the above person to make Takfir upon me. (Read this here: “Tawassul and Istighatha by Imām Ibn al-Hājj al-`Abdarī“)
The ironic thing is that he does not dare to make Takfir uponImam Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852 AH) even though he explicitly praised the book “al-Madkhal” (from which I had qouted) in his “al-Durar al-Kaminah”.

And by the way: I did not say that the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – knows all of our thoughts, but rather that he’s informed regarding the deeds of those who sincerely believe in that which he was sent with and that he supplicates for them (and there are narrations regarding this issue).

Sa’id bin al-Musayyib (d. 93/94 AH), who is from among the Kibar al-Tabi’in, even said that the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – knows them (i.e. the members of his Ummah) by their names and appearances.
So if someone visits the blessed grave of our Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam -, but does not ask him to supplicate for him with his tongue, then the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – will still supplicate for him, because he – ‘alayhi salatu was salam – is aware of one’s needs and one’s state and is more merciful to one than oneself. Many scholars (like for example Imam al-Mawardi (d. 448 AH)would also mention the following Hadith in the context of the Ziyarah:
Whoever visits my grave, then my intercession will surely be granted to him.” (“من زار قبري وجبت له شفاعتي”)
And if you’ve a problem with me saying that he – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – is merciful, then know that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala has described him as bing kind (Ra`uf) and merciful (Rahim) towards the believers and know that there will come a day when everyone will only think about himself, but Rasulullah will say “Ummati, Ummati“. So may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him!

And how beautiful is the poem of one scholars of Lughah and Adab (Ibn al-Sayyid al-Batalyawsi (d. 521 AH)) that Imam Ibn al-Hajj qouted (the Arabic can be found here: “al-Madkhal“):

Unto you I flee from my slips and sins,
and when I meet Allāh you are the one sufficient for me

Visiting your grave that is visited by foot
is my longing and desire if my Lord wills

So if visitation of him is prevented by my body,
then I am not prevented from visiting him with my heart

To you oh Messenger of Allāh I send, from myself,
a salutation of a believer and lover.

– end of the qoute –

What I really don’t understand is why you make Takfir upon Ibn al-Hajj, while [your] Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) evenexplicitly said that the devils know what is in heart of humans (see: “Majmu’ al-Fatawa” 5/508).
But we don’t hear any Takfir against Ibn Taymiyyah from you?
Do you realize that the consequence of this would be that you regard the Shayatin as your lord? (Note: I’m not saying that this is what you believe, but only that it would be the consequence of your contradictory behaviour.)

—————————

Sibawayh alFarsi said:  The quote of Imam Al-Qurtubi doesn’t support you, where does he say that they did so with the belief of istiqlal? In fact, they did so WASEELATAN so they can be their shufa’a.

As Imam Al-Baghawi explains in his tafsir.

—————————

Abu Sulayman Reply:

Please don’t even try to mention the names of the above scholars. You know nothing about them, nor do you have any understanding of their words! If they would live in our time, you would either make Tabdi’ or Takfir upon them!

———————–

Abu Moussa said:

Salam alaikum,
i would like to add one point: If i remember correctly and your opinion has not changed, then some of you are of the view, that there is al-‘udhr bil-jahl in shirk. If we add to that your definition of shirk, that shirk occurs with the belief, that this object has some attributes of rububiyyah, then i ask myself, who can be a mushrik at all? Then anyone, who believes, that ‘Ali can give rizq independently, would be a muslim, if he is ignorantly? If anyone would believe, that ‘Ali answers the prayers independently, would be a muslim, if he is ignorant?

———————-

Abu Sulayman Reply:

Wa ‘alaykum al-Salam,

al-‘Udhr bil Jahl [wal Ta`wil] (the excuse of ignorance [and [mis]interpretation]) regarding the Ahl al-Qiblah only applies regarding issues which are outside that which is known as the necessary knowledge regarding the religion (Ma’lum min al-Din bil Dharurah).

Believing that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is One without any partners, and that He has no match/peer/equal/someone that is similar to Him, and that everything is dependent on Him in every moment while He’s completely free of need, etc. … all of that is from the necessary knowledge regarding the religion, which is known to everyone.

Based upon this: A person who is like the one in your examples is outside the fold of Islam and from the people of Shirk.

(Note: As for people who are not Muslims: If the religion has not reached them or not in it’s correct form, then there is the possibilty that they’ll enter paradise even if they’re not regarded as Muslims in this world. )

I’ve also a question: Why is that some people are searching so much for “Shirk akbar” among this Ummah (as if this Ummah is not the Ummah of Tawhid!), while forgetting the real Shirk that the polytheists are upon?

And what about the real Kufr that the atheists are upon?

——————

Thread page 39:

——————-

EBTEAX said:

Ibn Taymiyyah could also reveal one’s thoughts!
Ibn Qayyim says in Madarij al-Salekin ,Volume 2, page 490:
“On more than one occasion, he told me (Ibn Qayyim) about internal things regarding me from the things that I wanted to do but my tongue didn’t mention them.”
Umar bin Ali bin Musa al-Bazar says in Al-Alaam al-Alya, page 57:
During the days when I was in his company, whenever he began to discuss an issue, and a question came to my mind, before I raised it, he (IT) would answer it.

The Lofty Virtues of Ibn Taymiyyah
Quote: “The pious Sheikh Ahmad al-Herimi told me that he traveled to Damascus and he said: ‘When I arrived, I didn’t have money to use and there wasn’t anyone there whom I knew. So I kept walking hesitantly through the streets. Then suddenly a Sheikh came towards me in a speedy manner. He smiled to me and placed a bag of money in my hand and said: ‘From now on, use it, and do not worry about anything, Allah will not let you.’ Then he went as if he had only came for me. Then I prayed for him and felt happy. Then I asked about the Sheikh with whom I had met on my way. They replied: ‘You don’t know him?’ He is Ibn Taimiyah.”
Ibn Abdulhadi al-Maqdisi says: “Such as this wise man he could cite the commandments that came down from the heavens and earth.”
To him, Ibn Taymiyyah knew all the divine commandments from Adam (as) to Muhammad (S). But, we think that is unseen knowledge!” [Al-Uqood al-Duria, page 326]

———————–

ahsiddique said:

So knowledge of what is in the hearts of men is fitting for Iblis and for Ibn Taymiyya, but not for the Best of Creation (salallahu alayhi wa sallam)? And asserting such knowledge for him is manifest shirk but not for these lease beings?

——————–

(Edited by ADHM)

source

Advertisements

What is Ibadah? (Discussion Part-1)

What is Ibadah-1.jpeg

“What is Ibadah?”

(Brother Abu Sulayman’s discussion with Wahhabi/”Salafis” onIA Forum)

Thread titled:  (“What is Ibahah?”) from: Page 34-35:

Brother Abu Sulayman said:

Shaykh Hatim al-‘Awni has mentioned a definition for ‘Ibadah (worship) which is jami’ and mani’ and allows one to make a clear distinction between Tawhid and Shirk:

فـ(العبادة) بمعناها الخاص : هي تعظيمُ الذي بيده الخلقُ أو الملك أو التدبير أو المتصفُ بالكمال المطلق ، وهذه هي خصائص الربوبية
أو قل : العبادة هي : تعظيمك (بالحب والخوف والرجاء) المتصفَ بشيء من خصائص الربوبية

So ‘Ibadah (worship) with it’s specific meaning is: The veneration (Ta’dhim) of the one in whose hands creating (Khalq) or dominion (Mulk) or disposal (Tadbir) lies or of the one who is characterized with absolute perfection (Kamal mutlaq). And [what has been mentioned] are the attributes / characteristics of lordship (Khasa`is al-Rububiyyah).Or say: ‘Ibadah (worship) is your veneration with love, fear and hope for the one who is characterized with anything of the attributes of lordship (Khasa`is al-Rububiyyah).
Source: العبادة: بوّابةُ التوحيد.. وبوابة التكفير

(Read the article for a better understanding of the definition.)

(Note: It should be obvious that Mulk and Tadbir are only attributes of lordship if they’re with Istiqlal (independence).)

Conclusion:
Any action to venerate a being regarding whom one believes that he has at least some attributes of lordship (even if it is only one such attribute!) is ‘Ibadah (worship).

What I would really recommend are the following comments where the correct understanding of the meaning of ‘Ibadah is shown (in the last three comments the definitions that the Najdis use are also discussed):
[#42, #43, #46, #47, #48, #49, #50, #51]

These comments can be also found as one pdf-article here:
حقيقة العبادة – بين أهل السنّة والوهابية

—-

One of the links that I posted in the above comment contains an important statement, which I would like to post also here (because I’m sure that most people did not read the links):

The Shaykh Salamah al-Qudha’i al-‘Azzami al-Shafi’i (d. 1376 AH) said:

إنّ الغلط في تفسير العبادة ، المزلقةُ الكبرى والمزلَّة العظمى ، التي أُستحِلت بها دماءُ لا تحصى ، وانتهكت بهاأعراض لا تعد ، وتقاطعت فيها أرحام أمر اللّه بها أن توصل ، عياذاً باللّه من المزالق والفتن , ولاسيما فتنالشبهات.

فاعلم أنّهم فسّروا العبادة بالاِتيان بأقصى غاية الخضوع ، و أرادوا بذلك المعنى اللغوي ، أمّا معناها الشرعي فهوأخصّ من هذا كما يظهر للمحقّق الصبّار على البحث , من استقراء مواردها في الشرع ، فإنّه الاِتيان بأقصىغاية الخضوع قلباً باعتقاد ربوبية المخضوع له ، فإن انتفى ذلك الاعتقاد لم يكن ما أتى به من الخضوعالظاهري من العبادة شرعاً ، في كثير ولا قليل مهما كان المأتي به و لو سجوداً.
ومثل اعتقاد الربوبية اعتقاد خصيصة من خصائصها كالاستقلال بالنفع والضرّ ، و كنفوذ المشيئة لا محالة ولوبطريق الشفاعة لعابده عند الربّ الّذي هو أكبر من هذا المعبود.

و إنّما كفر المشركون بسجودهم لاَوثانهم و دعائهم إيّاهم وغيرهما من أنواع الخضوع لتحقّق هذا القيد فيهم ،وهو اعتقادهم ربوبية ما خضعوا له ، أو خاصة من خواصها كما سيأتيك تفصيله.

ولا يصحّ أن يكون السجود لغير اللّه فضلاً عمّا دونه من أنواع الخضوع بدون هذا الاعتقاد، عبادة شرعاً -كسجودالملائكة لآدم- ، فإنّه حينئذٍ يكون كفراً وما هو كفر فلا يختلف باختلاف الشرائع ، ولا يأمر اللّه عزّ وجلّ به , ((قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لا يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشاءِ)) الاَعراف- 28 , ((وَ لا يَرْضى لِعِبادِهِ الْكُفْر)) الزمر-7 , وذلك ظاهر إن شاءاللّه .

وها أنت ذا تسمع اللّه تعالى قد قال للملائكة: ((اسْجُدُوا لآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلاّ ابلِْيسَ أَبى وَ اسْتَكْبَرَ )) البقرة-34 ,وقال: ((أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْهُ)) الاَعراف-12, وقال: ((ءَأَسْجُدُ لِمَنْ خَلْقْتَ طِيناً)) الاِسراء-61 , والقول بأنّ آدم كان قبلةقول لا يرضاه التحقيق ويرفضه التدقيق في فهم الآيات كما ينبغي أن تفهم.

فإن تعسّر عليك فهم هذا -وهو ليس بعسير إن شاء اللّه تعالى- ، فانظر إلى نفسك فانّه قد يقضي عليك أدبك مع أبيكواحترامك له أن لا تسمح لنفسك بالجلوس أو الاضطجاع بين يديه ، فتقف أو تقعد ساعة أو فوقها , و لا يكون ذلكمنك عبادة له ، لماذا لاَنّه لم يقارن هذا الفعل منك اعتقاد شيء من خصائص الربوبية فيه , و تقف في الصلاة قدرالفاتحة وتجلس فيها قدر التشهد و هو قدر دقيقة أو دقيقتين فيكون ذلك منك عبادة لمن صلّيتَ له ، و سرّ ذلك هوأنّ هذا الخضوع الممثّل في قيامك و قعودك يقارنه اعتقادك الربوبية لمن خضعتَ له عزّوجل.

وتدعو رئيسك في عمل من الاَعمال أو أميرك أن ينصرك على باغ عليك أو يغنيك من أزمة نزلت بك و أنتمعتقد فيه انّه لا يستقل بجلب نفع أو دفع ضر، و لكن اللّه جعله سبباً في مجرى العادة يقضي على يديه من ذلك مايشاء فضلاً منه سبحانه، فلا يكون ذلك منك عبادة لهذا المدعوّ، و أنت على ما وصفنا، فإن دعوتَه و أنت تعتقدفيه أنّه مستقل بالنفع، أو الضرّ، أو نافذ المشيئة مع اللّه لا محالة، كنت له بذلك الدعاء عابداً، و بهذه العبادةأشركته مع اللّه عزّوجلّ، لاَنّك قد اعتقدت فيه خصيصة من خصائص الربوبية، فانّالاستقلال بالجلب أو الدفع ونفوذ المشيئة لا محالة هو من خصائص الربوبية، والمشركون إنّما كفروا بسجودهم لاَصنامهم و نحوه لاعتقادهمفيها الاستقلال بالنفع، أو الضرّ ونفوذ مشيئتهم لامحالة مع اللّه تعالى، و لو على سبيل الشفاعة عنده، فانّهميعتبرونه الربّ الاَكبر و لمعبوداتهم ربوبية دون ربوبيته، و بمقتضى ما لهم من الربوبية وجب لهم نفوذ المشيئةمعه لا محالة.

ويدل لما قلنا آيات كثيرة كقوله تعالى: ((أَمَّنْ هذَا الَّذِي هُوَ جُنْدٌ لَكُمْ يَنْصُركُمْ مِنْ دُونِ الرَّحمنِ إِنِ الْكافِرونَ إِلاّ فيغُرُورٍ)) الملك -20 , و قوله : ((أَمْ لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ تَمْنَعُهُمْ مِنْ دُونِنا لا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ نَصْرَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَ لا هُمْ مِنْهايَصْحَبُونَ)) الاَنبياء-43, و الاستفهام في الآيتين إنكاري على سبيل التوبيخ لهم على ما اعتقدوه.

وحكى اللّه عن قوم هود قولهم له (عليه السلام) : ((إِنْنَقُولُ إِلاّاعْتَراكَ بَعْضُ آلِهَتِنا بِسُوءٍ)) هود-54 , وقوله لهم: ((فَكِيدُوني جَميعاً ثُمَّ لا تُنْظِرُونِ*إِنّي تَوَكَلْتُ عَلَى اللّهِ رَبِّي وَ رَبِّكُمْ)) هود-55ـ56 .

و كقوله تعالى موبخاً لهم يوم القيامة على ما اعتقدوه لها من الاستقلال بالنفع ووجوب نفوذ مشيئتها: ((أَيْنَ ماكُنْتُمْ تَعْبُدُونَ* مِنْ دُونِ اللّهِ هَلْ يَنصُرُونَكُمْ أَوْ يَنْتَصِرُونَ)) الشعراء-92ـ93 , وقولهم و هم في النار يختصمونيخاطبون من اعتقدوا فيهم الربوبية و خصائصها : ((تَاللّهِ إِنْكُنّا لَفِي ضَلالٍ مُبينٍ* إِذْنُسَوِّيكُمْ بِرَبِّ الْعالَمينَ))الشعراء-97ـ98 , فانظر إلى هذه التسوية التي اعترفوا بها حيث يصدق الكذوب ، ويندم المجرم حين لا ينفعهندم. فالتسوية المذكورة إن كانت في إثبات شيء من صفات الربوبية فهو المطلوب ، و من هذه الحيثية شركهم وكفرهم ، لاَن صفاته تعالى تجب لها الوحدانية بمعنى عدم وجود نظير لها في سواه عزّ وجلّ.
وإن كانت التسوية في استحقاقها للعبادة فهو يستلزم اعتقاد الاشتراك فيما به الاستحقاق ، وهو صفات الاَُلوهية أوبعضها، و إن كانت في العبادة نفسها فهي لا تكون من العاقل إلاّلمن يعتقد استحقاقه لها كربّ العالمين ، تعالى اللّهعمّا يشركون.
وكيف يُنفى عنهم اعتقاد الربوبية بآلهتهم وقد اتّخذوها أنداداً و أحبوها كحب ّاللّه كما قال تعالى فيهم: ((وَمِنَ النّاسِمَنْ يَتَّخِذُ مِنْ دُونِ اللّهِ أَنْداداً يُحِبُّونَهُمْ كَحُبِّ اللّهِ)) البقرة-165 , و الاَنداد جمع “ند” وهو على ما قاله أهل التفسيرواللغة: المثل المساوي ، فهذا ينادي عليهم أنّهم اعتقدوا فيها ضرباً من المساواة للحقّ تعالى عمّا يقولون

Source:Furqan al-Qur`an bayna Sifat al-Khaliq wa Sifat al-Akwan” p. 111-114

(Note: He explained the issue of Sujud li ghayrillah a little bit more (p.111-112), but that part has been omitted in the above qoute.)

Abu Sulayman Reply: : Abuz Zubair, you’re a good example how one can completetly misunderstand and misuse the book of Allah ta’ala and the statements of the Ahl al-‘Ilm and then present these misunderstandings in a way that it looks academic to the simple laymen.
(Note: I haven’t read all of HH’s comments so I don’t know whether he also said weird things (like Hindus being not Mushrikin) or whether you’ve simply misunderstood him.)
Your posts are really long, so I can’t comment on all the things you wrote. I’ll only pick some points, which I regard as important.

————————–

 Abu Sulayman said:

The first issue would be the Talbiyyah of the Arab polytheists, because I’ve seen how you’ve [mis]used it more than once as an evidence for your position:

Here is their Talbiyyah as it is mentioned in Sahih Muslim:

لبيك لا شريك لك إلا شريكا هو لك تملكه وما ملك
“Here I am at your service! You have no partner, except a partner who is yours. You own him along with what he owns.”
– end of the qoute –

Look how they explicitly attributed a partner (Sharik) to Allah ta’ala.

How is it possible for anyone to claim that the Arab polytheists would not ascribe partners to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala in his essence, attributes or actions after knowing the above statement?
Did these Arab polytheists not know the meaning of the word Sharik?

As for their statement “you own him along with what he owns”which you think shows that the polytheists believed in the dependence of their false gods upon Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala:


What do you intend with “dependence”?:

If you mean the sort of dependence that is between ministers/princes upon their king or the sort of dependence that is between sons/daughters upon their father, then you’re correct! (Believing in this kind of dependence is obviously still Shirk and believing in this kind of relationship between the “Supreme god” and the “lower gods” is quite typical for people who are guilty of Shirk al-Taqrib (polytheism as a means of drawing close).)
– If you however mean the sort of dependence that is between a servant and his Creator, who has created him and his actions, then this is NOT what they believed.

Now, may Allah guide you, that the belief that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is completely independent from everything else in the existance, while everything else is completely dependent upon Him is a belief that is special to Muslims. This also includes believing that none has real influence (Ta`thir) on the creation except Allah ta’ala and that the actions of the servants are all created by Him subhanahu wa ta’ala.

But as for the the polytheists, they clearly believed that the will of their false gods may bring real effects. There are more than enough proofs in the Qur`an al-karim and the statements of the Mufassirun are also clear regarding this.

An example:

{ وَٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ آلِهَةً لِّيَكُونُواْ لَهُمْ عِزّاً }
{ They have taken gods other than Allah, so that they may be a source of might for them. }
[19:81]

Imam al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) said in his Tafsir regarding the above Ayah that they believed that these [false] gods may protect them from the punishment of Allah:
قوله تعالى: { وَٱتَّخَذُواْ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ آلِهَةً لِّيَكُونُواْ لَهُمْ عِزّاً } يعني مشركي قريش. و«عِزًّا» معناهأعواناً ومنعة؛ يعني أولاداً. والعِزّ المطر الجُودُ أيضاً؛ قاله الهروي. وظاهر الكلام أن «عِزًّا» راجعإلى الآلهة التي عبدوها من دون الله. ووحد لأنه بمعنى المصدر؛ أي لينالوا بها العز ويمتنعون بهامن عذاب الله
– end of the qoute –

Let us understand what it means that the Arab polytheists would view the relationship between Allah ta’ala and their false gods like the relation between a king and his ministers/princes/advisers:
A king needs ministers, princes, advisers, soldiers etc. in order to rule a land and that is because his own power is not sufficient. He has not knowledge regarding everything that his ministers do and his own decisions can be influenced by these ministers.


Now let everyone ask himself
whether this is the ‘Aqidah of the people of Tawhid and Tanzih regarding the Bari subhanahu wa ta’ala? Obviously no.

These are some of the beliefs of the Arab polytheists:

They believed in the existance of many gods, who are needed for the preservation of the creation:

{ وَعَجِبُوۤاْ أَن جَآءَهُم مٌّنذِرٌ مِّنْهُمْ وَقَالَ ٱلْكَافِرُونَ هَـٰذَا سَاحِرٌ كَذَّابٌ }
{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }

{ They (the pagans) wonder that a warner has come to them from among themselves. And the disbelievers say, “This is a magician, a sheer liar. }
{ Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:4-5]

We know that polytheists from different regions of the world believed in things like a “river god” or a “rain god” and so on. And from the above statement that Allah ta’ala narrates from the Arab polytheists, we see that they were not much different in their way of thinking than the rest of the polytheists.

Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) mentioned in the Tafsir of the above Ayah that they did not regard it as possible that one god alone could listen and know the prayers of all of his worshippers:

وقوله: { أجَعَلَ الآلِهَةَ إِلهاً وَاحِداً } يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: مـحمد ساحر كذّاب:أجعل مـحمد الـمعبودات كلها واحداً، يسمع دعاءنا جميعنا، ويعلـم عبـادة كل عابد عبدَه منا { إنَّهَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجابٌ
– end of the qoute –

And Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606 AH) mentioned in theTafsir of the same Ayah that they believed that the existance of many gods is necessary for the preservation of such a diverse world:

وقالوا: { أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وٰحِداً وَأَنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْء عُجَابٌ } أي بليغ في التعجب وأقول منشأ التعجبمن وجهين الأول: هو أن القوم ما كانوا من أصحاب النظر والاستدلال بل كانت أوهامهم تابعةللمحسوسات فلما وجدوا في الشاهد أن الفاعل الواحد لا تفي قدرته وعلمه بحفظ الخلق العظيمقاسوا الغائب على الشاهد، فقالوا: لا بد في حفظ هذا العالم الكثير من آلهة كثيرة يتكفل كل واحدمنهم بحفظ نوع آخر
– end of the qoute –

They doubted the knowledge of Allah ta’ala and that He’s All-hearing:

{ وَمَا كُنتُمْ تَسْتَتِرُونَ أَن يَشْهَدَ عَلَيْكُمْ سَمْعُكُمْ وَلاَ أَبْصَارُكُمْ وَلاَ جُلُودُكُمْ وَلَـٰكِن ظَنَنتُمْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ لاَ يَعْلَمُكَثِيراً مِّمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ }
{ وَذَلِكُمْ ظَنُّكُمُ ٱلَّذِي ظَنَنتُم بِرَبِّكُمْ أَرْدَاكُمْ فَأَصْبَحْتُمْ مِّنَ ٱلُخَاسِرِينَ }

{ And you had not been hiding your selves (when committing sins) from your ears and your eyes and your skins that would bear witness against you, but you thought that Allah did not know much of what you did. }
{ This thought of yours that you conceived about your Lord brought you to ruin, and you became among the losers. } [41:22-23]

And this here is a Hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari, where we get to know the reason behind the revelation of these Ayat:

حَدَّثَنَا الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، حَدَّثَنَا مَنْصُورٌ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ، عَنْ أَبِي مَعْمَرٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ـ رضى الله عنه ـقَالَ اجْتَمَعَ عِنْدَ الْبَيْتِ ثَقَفِيَّانِ وَقُرَشِيٌّ، أَوْ قُرَشِيَّانِ وَثَقَفِيٌّ، كَثِيرَةٌ شَحْمُ بُطُونِهِمْ قَلِيلَةٌ فِقْهُ قُلُوبِهِمْ فَقَالَأَحَدُهُمْ أَتَرَوْنَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَسْمَعُ مَا نَقُولُ قَالَ الآخَرُ يَسْمَعُ إِنْ جَهَرْنَا وَلاَ يَسْمَعُ إِنْ أَخْفَيْنَا وَقَالَ الآخَرُ إِنْكَانَ يَسْمَعُ إِذَا جَهَرْنَا فَإِنَّهُ يَسْمَعُ إِذَا أَخْفَيْنَا‏.‏ فَأَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى ‏{‏وَمَا كُنْتُمْ تَسْتَتِرُونَ أَنْ يَشْهَدَ عَلَيْكُمْسَمْعُكُمْ وَلاَ أَبْصَارُكُمْ وَلاَ جُلُودُكُمْ‏}‏ الآيَةَ‏

Narrated `Abdullah:
Two person of Bani Thaqif and one from Quarish (or two persons from Quraish and one from Bani Thaqif) who had fat bellies but little wisdom, met near the Ka`ba. One of them said, “Did you see that Allah hears what we say? ” The other said, “He hears us if we speak aloud, but He does not hear if we speak in stealthy quietness (softly).” The third fellow said, “If He hears when we speak aloud, then He surely hears us if we speak in stealthy quietness (softly).” So Allah revealed the Verse:– ‘And you have not been screening against yourselves, lest your ears, and your eyes and your skins should testify against you…” (41.22)” – end of the qoute –

They doubted that Allah ta’ala is All-Powerful and that he’s able to make them alive after they die:

{ أَوَلَمْ يَرَ ٱلإِنسَانُ أَنَّا خَلَقْنَاهُ مِن نُّطْفَةٍ فَإِذَا هُوَ خَصِيمٌ مُّبِينٌ }
{ وَضَرَبَ لَنَا مَثَلاً وَنَسِيَ خَلْقَهُ قَالَ مَن يُحيِي ٱلْعِظَامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيمٌ }
{ قُلْ يُحْيِيهَا ٱلَّذِيۤ أَنشَأَهَآ أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ خَلْقٍ عَلِيمٌ }

{ Did man not see that We have created him from a drop of semen? Then suddenly he stood as an open adversary (to Us). }
{ He has set up an argument about Us and forgot his creation. He said, “Who will give life to the bones when they are decayed?” }
{ Say, “These will be revived by the same One who had created them for the first time, and who is fully aware of every creation, } [36:77-79]

Imam al-Tabari
mentioned in the Tafsir of the above Ayah that these people were rejecting the power (Qudrah) of Allah ta’ala to revive them after their death:

فتأويـل الكلام إذن: أو لـم ير هذا الإنسان الذي يقول: { مَنْ يُحْيِـي العِظامَ وَهِيَ رَمِيـمٌ } أنا خـلقناه مننطفة فسوّيناه خـلقاً سَوِيًّا { فإذَا هوَ خَصِيـمٌ } يقول: فإذا هو ذو خصومة لربه، يخاصمه فـيـما قالله ربه إنـي فـاعل، وذلك إخبـار لله إياه أنه مُـحْيـي خـلقه بعد مـماتهم، فـيقول: مَنْ يحيـي هذهالعظام وهي رميـم؟ إنكاراً منه لقُدرة الله علـى إحيائها
– end of the qoute –

And Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala has clarified in his book that it’s easy for Him to revive the dead:

{ زَعَمَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوۤاْ أَن لَّن يُبْعَثُواْ قُلْ بَلَىٰ وَرَبِّي لَتُبْعَثُنَّ ثُمَّ لَتُنَبَّؤُنَّ بِمَا عَمِلْتُمْ وَذَلِكَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ يَسِيرٌ }

{ The disbelievers claim that they will never be raised again (after death). Say, “Why not? By my Lord, you will be raised again, and then you will be told about what you did. That is so easy for Allah.”} [64:7]

One could easily keep on mentioning much more Ayat, but the above should be enough for one to see that acting as if the polytheists would affirm the attributes of lordship completely for Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and without any partners is pure ignorance.
ALL polytheists ascribe a partner (Sharik) or partners (Shuraka`) to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala in his essence (Dhat), attributes (Sifat) or actions (Af’al). Saying otherwise is clearly wrong according to revelation and reason.
And insha`Allah we will also see how the Mukhalif distorted the statements of the scholars and how he added things to their statements that they didn’t say.

———————

Logic lover said: Abu Sulayman said:  ALL polytheists ascribe a partner (Sharik) or partners (Shuraka`) to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala in his essence (Dhat), attributes (Sifat) or actions (Af’al). Saying otherwise is clearly wrong according to revelation and reason.

Abu Sulayman! There is no disagreement in the above. But, what needs to be proved is that they designated independence (istiqlal) of their gods (aliha) in terms of rububiyya or certain aspects of it. True! They denied certain aspects of rububiyya from Allah (it is expected from the disbelievers anyway). So far, you have failed to prove that. I don’t think, you can do so and there is no need for you to make any attempt as you are not the one presenting ‘the new approach’ to ibadah.
Remember, they worshiped them in various ways (like taking them as intercessors with Allah, which is not an aspect of rububiyya). What we can say is that if it can be proven in a single instance that people can worship someone or something without designating any rububiyya to the object or person – then the ‘new definition’ becomes either deficient or nullified. Take the worshiping of Satan for example.How does the worshiper designate rububiyya with istiqlal in his belief?

———————-

Abu Sulayman Reply:

——————–

Logic lover said:

Abu Sulayman! There is no disagreement in the above

——————–

Are you sure?

Shirk = Ascribing a partner to Allah ta’ala [in his essence, attributes or actions] = Ascribing an attribute/characteristic of lordship to other than Allah

Do you agree?

————————-

Logic lover said:

But, what needs to be proved is that they designated independence (istiqlal) of their gods (aliha) in terms of rububiyya or certain aspects of it.

———————–

Brother it seems that you’re misunderstanding what “independence” and “dependence” in this context even means. The issue of independence is only important in order to be able to differentiate whether something is an attribute of lordship/divinity or not.

An example: We know that the Mala`ikah (angels) have some quite extraordinary abilities. But are these abilities attributes of lordship? No. Why? Because angels are created by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and their actions are also created by Him and they can not make anything except if Allah ta’ala has willed it. (And this is true regarding all created beings!)

If however one would believe that the angels are daughters of god – and this is among the beliefs of Arab polytheists as it is clear from the book of Allah – or that god somehow needs these angels to regulate the universe or that they can influence Allah or similar beliefs, then one has ascribed to them attributes of lordship and this is Shirk.

————————

Logic lover said:

So far, you have failed to prove that.

———————–

Abu Sulayman Reply:

Please read my last post again: It contains the Ayah 38:5, where Allah ta’ala narrated the statement of the Arab polytheists who disbelieved in the message* of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

{ أَجَعَلَ ٱلآلِهَةَ إِلَـٰهاً وَاحِداً إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عُجَابٌ }
{ Has he (not) turned all the gods into a single God? It is a very strange thing indeed.” } [38:5]

(*And that is: “La ilaha illa Allah”/”There is no God other than Allah”)

And we saw that Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH) explained that they regarded it as impossible for one god alone to be able to listen and to know the prayers of all his worshippers. And Imam al-Razi (d. 606 AH) said regarding the same Ayah that they believed that there have to exist many gods for the preservation of this diverse universe, because the knowledge and power of one god does not suffice.

Do you understand what this means? It means that they accepted some attributes of lordship for Allah and at the same time they also ascribed some attributes of lordship to many other beings. So for them Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala was a god among many gods.

—————————

Logic lover said:

True! They denied certain aspects of rububiyya from Allah (it is expected from the disbelievers anyway).

—————————-

It’s good that you’re admitting this. And now please start thinking logical:
If they did not accept all attributes of lordship for Allah, what does it mean?

It means that according to their understanding Allah alone can not regulate and preserve the universe and needs partners and helpers.

————————–

Logic lover said:

I don’t think, you can do so and there is no need for you to make any attempt as you are not the one presenting ‘the new approach’ to ibadah.

————————–

My understanding of ‘Ibadah is the following:

Worship (‘Ibadah) is the veneration (Ta’dhim) or the showing of submission/humiliation (Khudu’) towards something with the belief that it has [at least some] attributes of lordship (Khasa`il al-Rububiyyah).
And this understanding is a classical one. That’s why you will see that the scholars made a distinction between Sujud al-Tahiyyah (prostration of greeting) and Sujud al-‘Ibadah (prostration of worship).
And the reason why I mentioned that there must be the belief of ascribing an attribute of lordship to that being that one shows some sort of submission/humiliation/veneration, is because otherwise many normal actions or even actions which are commanded in our religion would also become Shirk.

——————-

Logic lover said:

Remember, they worshiped them in various ways (like taking them as intercessors with Allah, which is not an aspect of rububiyya).

——————

Believing in intercession itself is not Shirk, but thesepolytheists had already Shirki beliefs regarding these so called intercessors [and the way how they will intercede].

The problem with people who are influenced by the Najdi lack of understanding of intercession is that they mix up the intercession that the Muslims believe in and the intercession that the polytheists believe in and try to make look both like Shirk, while we know that the type of intercession that Muslims believe in is correct according to the religion of Allah.

As for the understanding of intercession of Muslims: We believe that it is allowed to ask created beings to supplicate for one to one’s Lord. Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala may accept such a supplication or not. This means there is no Shirk whatsoever involved in our understanding of intercession.
An example: There is a narration which is mentioned in the Sahihaynwhere it is mentioned that the people on the day of judgement will go to different Prophets – peace be upon them – and ask them for intercession by saying “intercede for us to your Lord” (اشفع لنا إلى ربك), but none of them will intercede. At the end they will go to our Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – and ask him for intercession, then he will fall in prostration until he’ll be given the permission to intercede.

As for the Arab polytheists: They worshipped other than Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and some of them claimed that they were doing this so that these [false] gods can bring them nearer to Allah (this is what some classical scholars would call as Shirk al-Taqrib). (See Ayah 39:3.)
This was based upon their understanding that Allah ta’ala is like a king or a father and that their [false] gods are like his ministers/princes or sons/daughters.

I would recommend you to read the following article: “Answering MIAW’s second principle of Shirk – hornofsatan


Conclusion:
They were also ascribing attributes of lordship to these so called intercessors.

An example: The Arab polytheist regarded Lat, Manat and ‘Uzza as daughters of Allah (and this means that they regarded them as divine like their “father”) and based upon this belief they worshipped them and regarded them as intercessors.

——————–

Logic lover said:

What we can say is that if it can be proven in a single instance that people can worship someone or something without designating any rububiyya to the object or person – then the ‘new definition’ becomes either deficient or nullified.

——————–

I’ve already mentioned my understanding of ‘Ibadah. What is yours?
And: It has already been proven that the Arab polytheists would ascribe attributes of lordship to other than Allah.

Shirk = Ascribing a partner to Allah ta’ala [in his essence, attributes or actions] = Ascribing an attribute/characteristic of lordship to other than Allah

Here are some proofs for the above understanding:

From Sahih al-Bukhari:
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ أَبِي وَائِلٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُرَحْبِيلَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ،قَالَ سَأَلْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَىُّ الذَّنْبِ أَعْظَمُ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ قَالَ أَنْ تَجْعَلَ لِلَّهِ نِدًّا وَهْوَ خَلَقَكَ ‏‏.‏قُلْتُ إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَعَظِيمٌ‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىّ قَالَ ‏”‏ ثُمَّ أَنْ تَقْتُلَ وَلَدَكَ تَخَافُ أَنْ يَطْعَمَ مَعَكَ ‏”‏‏.‏ قُلْتُ ثُمَّ أَىّ قَالَ ‏”‏ ثُمَّ أَنْتُزَانِيَ بِحَلِيلَةِ جَارِكَ

“Narrated `Abdullah:
I asked Allah’s Messenger (S) “What is the biggest sin in the sight of Allah?” He said, “To set up rivals unto Allah though He alone created you.” I said, “In fact, that is a tremendous sin,” and added, “What next?” He said, “To kill your son being afraid that he may share your food with you.” I further asked, “What next?” He said, “To commit illegal sexual intercourse with the wife of your neighbor.””
– end of the qoute –

Look at the word that Rasulullah – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – used: Nidd.

And look what Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala says:
{ ٱلَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ ٱلأَرْضَ فِرَٰشاً وَٱلسَّمَاءَ بِنَآءً وَأَنزَلَ مِنَ ٱلسَّمَآءِ مَآءً فَأَخْرَجَ بِهِ مِنَ ٱلثَّمَرَٰتِ رِزْقاً لَّكُمْفَلاَ تَجْعَلُواْ للَّهِ أَندَاداً وَأَنْتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ }

{ He is the One who made the earth a bed for you, and the sky a roof, and sent down water from the sky, then brought forth with it fruits, as a provision for you. So, do not set up rivals to Allah when you know. }[2:22]

The word that is used here is Andad and it’s the plural form of Nidd. There are many other Ayat where this word is also used (see 2:165, 14:30, 34:33, 39:8, 41:9).

The meaning of al-Nidd is rival, peer, match, equal or something that is similar.

———————-

Die for Allah said:

@Abu Sulayman, the idol worshipers at the time of Ibrahim alayhi salam accepted that their idols do not harm or benefit yet their devotion of them is described as being shirk in the book of Allah, what say you about that?

———————-

Abu Sulayman Reply:

This is not correct. They ran away from answering the questions of Sayyidina Ibrahim – ‘alayhis salam – and said that they found their forefathers worshipping idols.

But even if they would have said that their idols do not harm or benefit, then you should know that idol can refer to two things:

1) The statue/stone itself

2) That which this statue/stone represents

Regarding 1): The polytheists usually knew – with the exception of the very very idiotic ones among them – that the statue/stone itself could not harm or benefit, because these statues were formed by their own hands.

Regarding 2): The polytheists believed that these statues represented things like heavenly bodies (i.e. the sun, the moon and the stars), angels, jinn, prophets, etc., whom they ascribed divinity and of course they believed that they may bring benefit and harm.


There are also polytheists (like for example Hindus) who believe that some sort of divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
All of this is Shirk.

And by the way: We know that the people with whom Ibrahim – ‘alayhis salam – was discussing viewed the heavenly bodies as divine beings.

———————

Die for Allah said:

It is also shirk to obey in halal and haram people in those matters which oppose what Allah azza wa jal made halal and haram, those who obey their priests and rabis do not ascribe lordship to them, they follow them in that which they make halal for them and what they make haram for them, this shows that shirk can occur without necessarily ascribing attributes of lordship to other than Allah, what say you?

—————————

The right of making something halal or haram is that of Allah ta’ala alone. Giving this to other than Allah is like taking that being as a lord besides Allah ta’ala and therefore Shirk. That’s why for example secularism is Shirk.

(Note: In The Ayah that you’re alluding to it’s mentioned that they took their rabbis and priests as Arbab besides Allah ta’ala. Arbab is the plural form of Rabb.)

———————

Expergefactionist said:

@Abu Sulayman – If you admit you haven’t read my argument because it is too long, it doesn’t give you the right to regurgitate the comments that have been sufficiently responded to, and clutter the thread.

———————

Abu Sulayman Reply:

————————

Die for Allah said:

Your response does not make sense, if they accepted their idols could not benefit or harm what difference does it make whether they meant the actual idols themselves or that which they represent? Why didn’t they tell Ibrahim alayhi salam that their idols represent heavenly bodies or angels etc and that they had divine qualities and that is why they worshiped them? Yes they had shirki beliefs but here we are speaking specifically about the exchange that took place between them and Ibrahim alayhi salam which Allah azza wa jal made mention of in the Quran,

—————————–

You’ve basically no idea what you’re talking about. May I ask how it’s allowed for you to interprete the Qur`an al-karim by yourself? Is this a guessing game to you?
And are you honestly trying to tell us that these people believed that the things that these idols represented did not harm nor benefit? And you’re saying all this after admitting that they had Shirki beliefs?

Allah ta’ala says:
{ وَحَآجَّهُ قَوْمُهُ قَالَ أَتُحَٰجُّوۤنِّي فِي ٱللَّهِ وَقَدْ هَدَانِ وَلاَ أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ إِلاَّ أَن يَشَآءَ رَبِّي شَيْئاً وَسِعَرَبِّي كُلَّ شَيْءٍ عِلْماً أَفَلاَ تَتَذَكَّرُونَ }
{ His people argued with him. He said, “Do you argue with me about Allah while He has already led me to the right path? I do not fear that which you associate with Him, (because it cannot harm me), unless, of course, something is willed by my Lord. My Lord encompasses everything with His knowledge. Would you, then, take no lesson? } [6:80]

Go look into some Tafsir books to know why Sayyidina Ibrahim – ‘alayhi salatu was salam – said { I do not fear that which you associate with Him, }.

———————–

Die for Allah said:

I was going by the previous translation posted in the other thread

——————–

Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala revealed the Qur`an in Arabic and NOT in English.

——————–

Logic lover said:

Let me now address the issue of the Arab mushrikeen ascribing daughters to Allah and then seeking their intercession.

———————

If one would want to be more accurate one could say: They seeked their intercession by worshipping them (and that is because their understanding of intercession differs from that of Muslims).

——————–

Logic lover said:

There is no disagreement that they committed shirk. As to what type of shirk that was, is the matter of contention.

——————–

Ascribing daughters to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is Shirk. Believing in the way of intercession in that they believed is also Shirk.
It’s not correct to say that a person with such beliefs is accepting the lordship of Allah ta’ala completely and without any partners.

——————–

Logic lover said:

I suggest that their shirk was not solely upon rububiyya with istiqlal (lordship with independence from Allah’s authority).

——————-

Brother I’ve already told you that you’ve misunderstand the issue of “independence” and why it was mentioned. It was mentioned in order to be able to differentiate when an action or ability/power can be regarded as an attribute of lordship and when not.

It seems to me that the only “independence” you mean is that of gods which are completely independent from each other. This would be for example what the Majus believed.
But as for the majority of the polytheists: They believed in the existance of many gods who may influence each other and each one of them has some attributes of lordship. That’s why you will see them believing in things like a “rain god”, “river god”, “mountain god” etc.

———————

Logic lover said:

What if I say that they might well have believed that their gods had authority from Allah to do things for them (thus dismissing the notion of ‘rububiyya with istiqlal’ and nullifying the new definition)?

———————

If someone ascribes lordship/divnity to other than Allah, then it’s not important what a kind of justification he uses. It remains Shirk.

But let me answer what you mentioned:
First I remind you that those who committed Shirk al-Taqrib were believing that the relationship between Allah ta’ala and their [false] gods is that of a king to his ministers/princes (or a similar relationship).
Since a king has not enough knowledge nor enough power he needs his ministers and princes in order to rule his lands. So if a kingauthorises one of the princes to rule over one of his lands, then will he know everything that this prince will do there? No.
Does that prince rule by his own power or by the power of the king? By his own power, because otherwise the king would not be in need of him.
(And the above contains a form of independence.)

If you say: “What is your proof that they (Arab polytheists) believed that the power of their [false] gods causes real effects and is not connected to Allah’s Qudrah in every moment?”

My answer is: It has been already shown that the Arab polytheists believed that the existance of many gods are necessary for the preservation of this world. The only way how this statement could be true [by their point of view] is if they believe that the power of their gods cause real effects, because otherwise they would’ve believed that Allah ta’ala alone can regulate and preserve the world.

———————

Logic lover said:

We don’t have any proof of such belief of that particular group of people. As you say that they ran away from answering the question (as to whether the idols caused benefit or harm) by merely saying, ‘we found our forefathers doing so (ie worshiping the idols)’. This was possibly a form of ‘shirk of imitation’ – one of the categories put forward by Imam Sanusi?

——————–

Please brother try to think logically and don’t deny established facts.

– As for Shirk al-Taqlid: Yes it is among the types of Shirk that Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) mentioned. But what does it mean? It means to make Taqlid in Shirk, i.e. to believe in the same Shirkiyyat as one’s forefathers but without knowing the philosophical foundations and the so called “proofs” for those beliefs.
Imam al-Sanusi has explained all six types of Shirk in his “Sharh al-Muqaddimat” (see p. 90-110 of the book or p. 95-115 of the pdf) (see p. 97-98/102-103 of the book/pdf; it’s regarding Shirk al-Taqlid).

– It’s a fact that the polytheists believe that idols represent something [like an angel, a heavenly body, a jinn, a prophet, etc.] whom they regard as divine and/or they believe that some divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.

– It’s also a fact that the polytheists worship these idols because they believe that the things that these idols represent can bring benefit and harm. Or do you think that these statues were simply normal stones to them who don’t represent anything and that they were calling upon them and putting all their trust upon them and fight for them just for fun?

 

————–

From Thread Page 36:

————–

———————–

Logic lover, said: Abu Sulayman said:  Please brother try to think logically and don’t deny established facts.

Show me the verse please, where it is confirmed, the people questioned by Ibrahim a.s. believed that their idols could cause benefit or harm.

———————-

———————-

Quote: خالد ابن الوليد said:

Here are some tafaaseer on these ayaat, إن شاء الله we can come to some kind of agreement.

Here is what al-Baghawi رحمه الله said about these verses:
( قالوا بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون) معناه : إنها لا تسمع قولا ولا تجلب نفعا ، ولا تدفع ضرا ، لكن اقتدينابآبائنا . فيه إبطال التقليد في الدين .

Here is what al-Tabari رحمه الله said:
وقوله : ( أو ينفعونكم أو يضرون ) يقول : أو تنفعكم هذه الأصنام ، فيرزقونكم شيئا على عبادتكموها ، أويضرونكم فيعاقبونكم على ترككم عبادتها بأن يسلبوكم أموالكم ، أو يهلكوكم إذا هلكتم وأولادكم ( قالوا بل وجدناآباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) . وفي الكلام متروك استغني بدلالة ما ذكر عما ترك ، وذلك جوابهم إبراهيم عن مسألتهإياهم : ( هل يسمعونكم إذ تدعون أو ينفعونكم أو يضرون ) فكان جوابهم إياه : لا ما يسمعوننا إذا دعوناهم ، ولاينفعوننا ولا يضرون ، يدل على أنهم بذلك أجابوه . قولهم : ( بل وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) وذلك رجوع عنمجحود ، كقول القائل : ما كان كذا بل كذا وكذا ، ومعنى قولهم : ( وجدنا آباءنا كذلك يفعلون ) وجدنا من قبلنا ،ولا يضرون ، يدل على أنهم بذلك أجابوه ، قولهم من آبائنا يعبدونها ويعكفون عليها لخدمتها وعبادتها ، فنحننفعل ذلك اقتداء بهم ، واتباعا لمنهاجهم .

Here is what Ibn Kathir رحمه الله said:
يعني : اعترفوا بأن أصنامهم لا تفعل شيئا من ذلك ، وإنما رأوا آباءهم كذلك يفعلون ، فهم على آثارهم يهرعون .

As we can see, here are three of the GIANTS of tafseer agreeing that Ibrahimعليه السلام’s people admitted their idols did not benefit nor harm them and rather they did this because they found their forefathers doing so. Now, of course this does not negate that they thought these gods represented other gods, but nowhere in Allah’s condemnation of their shirk do we see this mentioned. In fact, Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people did not say, “these idols don’t benefit us, rather what benefits us are the gods they represent.” As such, while anyone who claims that any other gods have استقلال/independence is obviously shirk, the majority of people, both based on Qur’aanic evidence and everyday experience, will deny that they believe actually has qualities ofربوبية. The conclusion then is obvious, belief in the استقلال of a god is not the only cause for an act to be labeled shirk.
والله أعلم
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

———————-

خالد ابن الوليد said:

Abu Sulayman said:

Please brother try to think logically and don’t deny established facts.
– As for Shirk al-Taqlid: Yes it is among the types of Shirk that Imam al-Sanusi (d. 895 AH) mentioned. But what does it mean? It means to make Taqlid in Shirk, i.e. to believe in the same Shirkiyyat as one’s forefathers but without knowing the philosophical foundations and the so called “proofs” for those beliefs.
Imam al-Sanusi has explained all six types of Shirk in his “Sharh al-Muqaddimat” (see p. 90-110 of the book or p. 95-115 of the pdf) (see p. 97-98/102-103 of the book/pdf; it’s regarding Shirk al-Taqlid).
– It’s a fact that the polytheists believe that idols represent something [like an angel, a heavenly body, a jinn, a prophet, etc.] whom they regard as divine and/or they believe that some divine being indwells in the idol when one worships it.
– It’s also a fact that the polytheists worship these idols because they believe that the things that these idols represent can bring benefit and harm. Or do you think that these statues were simply normal stones to them who don’t represent anything and that they were calling upon them and putting all their trust upon them and fight for them just for fun?

———————-

خالد ابن الوليد said:

The tafaaseer contradict what you say brother. They admitted their gods don’t benefit or harm as per the majority of the mufassreen.
I think your problem is youre trying to make sense out of shirk when in reality, you should know better than anyone else that there is no logic behind shirk and ilhaad
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

———————

Abu Sulayman Reply: 

———————–

Quote:

خالد ابن الوليد said:

Here are some tafaaseer on these ayaat, إن شاء الله we can come to some kind of agreement.

———————–

I already know that there are different interpretations of the Ayah among the Mufassirun, but none of these Tafasir disproves my point and that is when they used to worship their [false] gods and seeked their help they did this with the belief that they can help them.
Why else were they asking them for help? Just for fun?
If we accept the Tafsir that their statement “bal” means an affirmation that the idols indeed do not harm or benefit, it just means that they admitted this AFTER Ibrahim – ‘alayhis salam – had refuted their false Madhhab and they did not know how to respond.

This has been already discussed in another thread (see here: “Did the People of Ibrahim have Shirk in Rububiyyah?“), so there is no point to repeat all that. The brothers Justabro and Nazeelu have already clarified the issue in that thread.

And I’m still waiting for someone to tell me why Sayyidina Ibrahim – ‘alayhis salam – said the following to his people: { وَلاَ أَخَافُ مَا تُشْرِكُونَ بِهِ } / { I do not fear that which you associate with Him, } [6:80].
(See also what is written in Tafsir books.)

———————–

خالد ابن الوليد said:

the majority of people, both based on Qur’aanic evidence and everyday experience, will deny that they believe actually has qualities of ربوبية.

———————-

This is soo wrong.
So christians deny that ‘Isa bin Maryam – ‘alayhis salam – has qualities of lordship?
And the Hindus deny that some beings – who have qualities of lordship – indwell in their idols when they worship them?
And the Arab polytheists who ascribed daughters to Allah, believed in the existance of many gods who are needed for the preservation of this world, maybe even cursed Allah when one cursed their [false] gods, where they not ascribing attributes lordship to many beings?
What about the Majus?
What about the ancient Egyptians?
What about the ancient Greeks?
What about those so called “earth religions”?
What about all those who ascribed lordship to heavenly bodies?
Should I keep on?

———————-

خالد ابن الوليد said:

Now, of course this does not negate that they thought these gods represented other gods, but nowhere in Allah’s condemnation of their shirk do we see this mentioned. In fact, Ibrahim عليه السلام’s people did not say, “these idols don’t benefit us, rather what benefits us are the gods they represent.”

———————-

Your statement would mean that Allah ta’ala only refuted them from one side and this is not correct.
Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala refuted idolatry from all sides.

First of all: Idolatry is idiotic. If they wanted to worship a star or an angel, what’s the point of making a statue that represents these beings and to treat these idols as if they were these very beings? (And this is what they did!)

Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala clarified that these idols where nothing but lifeless stones which could not harm or benefit one:

{ أَلَهُمْ أَرْجُلٌ يَمْشُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ أَيْدٍ يَبْطِشُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَآ أَمْ لَهُمْ آذَانٌ يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا قُلِٱدْعُواْ شُرَكَآءَكُمْ ثُمَّ كِيدُونِ فَلاَ تُنظِرُونِ }
{ Do they have legs to walk with? Or do they have hands to grasp with? Or do they have eyes to see with or do they have ears to hear with? Say, “Call to your associate-gods, then, plot against me and allow me no respite. } [7:195]

{ وَلاَ تَدْعُ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُكَ وَلاَ يَضُرُّكَ فَإِن فَعَلْتَ فَإِنَّكَ إِذاً مِّنَ ٱلظَّالِمِينَ }
{ And do not invoke, other than Allah, what neither benefits you nor harms you, for, if you do so, then you will surely be one of the unjust.} [10:106]

As for the things that they claimed that it represents: Allah ta’ala clarified that these names were just invented by them and their forefathers:

{ إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ أَسْمَآءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَآ أَنتُمْ وَآبَآؤُكُم مَّآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلاَّ ٱلظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَىٱلأَنفُسُ وَلَقَدْ جَآءَهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ }
{ These are nothing but names you and your fathers have invented; Allah has sent down no authority attached to them. They are following nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, while guidance from their Lord has surely reached them. } [53:23]

And if the polytheists were to say “what about angels? don’t you believe in their existance”, then Allah ta’ala has clarified that they’re his servants and not divine beings as they claimed:

{ وَقَالُواْ ٱتَّخَذَ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ وَلَداً سُبْحَانَهُ بَلْ عِبَادٌ مُّكْرَمُونَ }
{ لاَ يَسْبِقُونَهُ بِٱلْقَوْلِ وَهُمْ بِأَمْرِهِ يَعْمَلُونَ }
{ يَعْلَمُ مَا بَيْنَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَمَا خَلْفَهُمْ وَلاَ يَشْفَعُونَ إِلاَّ لِمَنِ ٱرْتَضَىٰ وَهُمْ مِّنْ خَشْيَتِهِ مُشْفِقُونَ }
{ They said, “The All-Merciful has taken children for Himself.” Pure is He (from having children). They are but (His) honored servants. }
{ They do not precede Him in speech, and only under His command they act. }
{ He knows what is in front of them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves, and in awe of Him they are fearful. } [21:26-28]

————————

خالد ابن الوليد said:

The reality is these acts (prostrating, bowing, sacrificing, supplicating) are acts of shirk when done to other than Allah, however, the person can only be a mushrik if these acts accompany a belief that negates Tawhid.

————————

To say that prostrating to other than Allah is Shirk is wrong, because it would mean that Allah ta’ala has commanded the angels to commit “Shirk” (and this is impossible). And that Ya’qub – ‘alayhis salam – committed “Shirk” when he prostrated in front of his son Yusuf, ‘alayhis salam. It is forbidden in our Shari’ah, but it was allowed in the law of the earlier prophets.
(To prostrate for an idol or the sun or the moon etc. is Kufr.)

As for supplicating?
What does that mean? If you mean Du’a` al-‘Ibadah, then I agree.
If however you mean Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah, then I completely disagree.

———————–

خالد ابن الوليد said:

As far as Hindus, then we have already had the discussion that according to Hatim al-Awni’s madhhab (and apparently yours, please correct me if I’m wrong بارك الله فيك), that Hindus would NOT be mushrisks because their belief is nothing like you are presenting. Here is a sample:

“Allegory is a key element of Hindu religion. Each attribute of the God as imagined by the devotee is depicted in form of a deity such as purity and potency in linga, fierce ruthlessness towards evil in durga, cosmic force in Vishnu, amenable kindness and auspiciousness in Ganesha, extreme and indomitable power and pride in Murugan, power in Hanuman. The multiple heads or limbs of Lord Vishnu or goddess Durga often seen in Hindu art, for example, would be intended to represent divine omniscience and omnipotence, whereas the use of an animal icons for vehicle would seek to allegorically represent particular abstract qualities associated with that animal/bird such as astuteness, agility or power. Gestures (mudra) the hand or the holding of a certain object are also heavily weighted with meaning. Certain tenets such as non-violence and search for God in all beings living and non-living led to depiction of several other forms.”

Notice how they believe that their idols represent Allah or His Attributes نعوذ بالله. Apparently, this would not be shirk since they don’t believe their idols are independent gods.

———————–

Abu Sulayman Reply:

Look brother, you can repeat the word “independent” thousand times, but it will not help us in the discussion, because it still seems that none of you wants to understand why the issue of independence was even mentioned. I won’t repeat myself regarding that.

As for the above beliefs: How exactly is that Tawhid? These people believe in a god who has many forms and they believe in hulul (indwelling) and other than that.
If this is Tawhid, then what is Shirk?

…Continue:

Part- 2 Discussion : Here

(Edited by ADHM)

source

1967-2015: Israel’s ongoing legacy of assaults on Al-Aqsa

Last two years have seen dramatic escalation in number and scale of Israeli violations against Jerusalem’s iconic Al-Aqsa Mosque, according to Palestinian sources

thumbs_b_c_3e45d3d5a9183cc2a4ffd1b6dfb7da9a.jpg

JERUSALEM

Israeli violations against Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque have continued unabated since the city was occupied in 1967. According to Palestinian sources, however, the last two years have witnessed a noticeable uptick in both the number and scale of these violations.

The most serious assault on the mosque occurred in August of 1969, when Jewish-Australian Denis Michael Rohan set fire to the building, partially damaging it.

Until today, the Islamic Waqf in Jerusalem — which is linked to Jordan’s Ministry of Awqaf (religious endowments) and is responsible for managing Jerusalem’s Muslim sites — has continued to work on repairing the damage caused by that fire.

Attacks have not been limited to the mosque, but have also targeted worshipers. In April of 1982, an Israeli soldier indiscriminately opened fire on worshipers inside the mosque, killing two and wounding six.

And in October of 1990, Israeli police killed 21 Palestinians and injured another 150 after clashes erupted when Jewish extremists tried to place the foundation stone of a Jewish temple inside the mosque.

Since the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, Israel has carried out “archaeological” work in the vicinity of the mosque without disclosing the exact nature or details of these excavations.

Palestinian objections to the excavations reached a fever pitch in September of 1996, when the Israeli government opened a tunnel under Al-Aqsa’s western wall.

The move drew massive Palestinian opposition, sparking days of demonstrations in the Israeli-occupied territories, during which 63 Palestinians were killed and some 1,600 injured.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque was also central to the eruption of the second Palestinian Intifada (“uprising”) in September of 2000, when controversial Israeli politician Ariel Sharon — accompanied by hoards of security forces — provocatively entered the Al-Aqsa courtyard.

The resultant uprising, which went on until 2005, saw hundreds of Palestinians killed and thousands injured throughout the occupied territories.

Following Sharon’s fateful visit to the flashpoint site, the Islamic Waqf closed the mosque to non-Muslims until Israeli authorities reopened it from one side in August of 2003.

Since then, groups of extremist Jewish settlers have stormed the mosque compound with increasing frequency and in increasing numbers.

The provocative visits, say Palestinian sources, escalated dramatically in 2014 and 2015.

“There is no doubt that 2015 was the most difficult year — for the Al-Aqsa in particular and the Palestinian cause in general — due to the Israeli occupation’s intransigence and the excesses of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist right-wing government,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the mosque’s head imam, told Anadolu Agency.

According to the Islamic Waqf in Jerusalem, over the course of last year, more than 11,472 Israeli settlers have forced their way into the Al-Aqsa compound.

Waqf spokesman Firas al-Dibs told Anadolu Agency that September of 2015 saw a record 1,575 settlers enter the mosque compound — compared to less than a thousand settlers who had entered the site in previous months.

The uptick in settler intrusions that month coincided with the Jewish New Year holiday on Sept. 13, when extremist Jewish groups called on followers to converge on the mosque compound.

Palestinian Muslim worshipers, for their part, confronted the intruding settlers in many instances, prompting Israeli security forces to storm the compound with a view to protecting the settlers.

A number of Palestinians were injured in the subsequent melee, triggering yet another popular uprising in early October, which once again rocked the occupied territories.

That uprising, which some observers — including some Israeli officials — are calling a “third Palestinian intifada”, continues to this day.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has repeatedly said that the “status quo” at Al-Aqsa would remain unchanged — i.e., non-Muslims would remain barred from performing religious activity inside the mosque compound.

Palestinian observers, however, are skeptical, suspecting that Israel secretly plans to divide the mosque between Muslims and Jews — a scenario that was openly discussed at an internal Israeli parliamentary session in August of 2014.

In the meantime, many Palestinian Muslim worshipers — known as “Murabiteen” — are maintaining a presence in the Al-Aqsa compound with the express purpose of confronting future incursions by Jewish settlers.

source 

Robley’s Eccentric Collections: Maori Heads.

Robley is perhaps most well known for his eccentric collection.

The Maori mummified the tattooed heads of their tribesmen and Robley decided to acquire as many as possible. Over the years he built a collection of 35. In 1908 he offered them to the New Zealand Government for £1,000 but his offer was denied. Today, 30 of his heads are in the collection of the Natural History Museum in New York.

Horatio Gordon Robley: wikipedia

Mokomokai: wikipedia

Yıl 1931

Yıl 1931.
Vahşi İngiliz avcıları, Aborjinlerin kafalarını kesip aksesuar diye evlerinin duvarlarına asıyordu.

Ve o yıllarda, batı için “muasır medeniyet” ifadesi kullanılıyordu!
İnsanlığını kaybetmiş milletler,dünyadaki gözyaşı ve akan kanın sebepleridir.

12509784_596006057213364_8558234152268962292_n.jpg

Evliyâ Dedemiz Sultan Abdülhamid Han !

Emin.jpg

Evliyâ Dedemiz Sultan Abdülhamid Han !

• İlk defa elektriği, gazı getiren, ilk modern eczanemizi açtıran,
• İlk otomobili getiren, 5 bin km kara yolunu yaptırtan,
• Dünyanın ilk metrolarından birini Karaköy-Taksim arasına yaptıran, atlı veelektrikli tramvaylar kuran,
• Kudüs-Yafa, Ankara-İstanbul ve Hicaz demir yollarını yaptıran (Haydarpaşa Tren İstasyonunu da tabi),
• İstanbul’un binlerce fotoğrafını çektiren, Arkeoloji müzeciliğini başlatan,
• Chicago’daki turizm fuarına ülkemizi ilk kez sokan,
• Kuduz aşısının bulunmasından sonra Ülkemizin ilk Kuduz Hastanesini (İstanbul Darü’l-Kelb Tedavihanesi) açtıran,
• Polisiye romanların ülkemize girişini sağlayan, (14 yıl içinde basılan 4000 kitaptan sadece 200 kadarı dinle ilgili idi..)
• Okullara (Hristiyan okulları dahil) gönderdiği emirde, Türkçe’nin iyi öğretilmesini isteyen, Azerbaycan okullarında Türkçe yasağını kaldıran, Paris’te İslam Külliyesi kuran!
• Teselya savaşı sürerken saraylı hanımlara askerler için çamaşır diktiren de, hastaneleri ziyaret edip hastaların ihtiyaçlarını soran da, sarayın bahçesinde bile hastalara hizmet ettirten de!
• Midilli adasını eşi Fatma Pesend Hanım’ın şahsi mülkünden ısrarla verdiği para ile Fransızlardan geri alanda O!
• Israrla yerli kumaş giyen, Hereke bez fabrikası ve Feshaneyi kuran,
• Ziraat Bankasını kuran, Ticaret, Sanayi ve Ziraat Odalarını açtıran,
• Yıldız Çini fabrikasını, Beykoz ve Kağıthane kağıt fabrikalarını,
• Toplu sünnet merasimleri yaptırıp her bir çocuğa çeyrek altın gönderen, bu yüzden yaz aylarında toplu sünnetleri moda eden,
• Mezuniyet törenlerinde öğrencilere hediye kitap gönderen,
• Yoksul halkına kendi cebinden ödeyerek kömür dağıtan,
• Ermeni Onnik’in mektubu üzerine kendi parasından takma bacak yaptırtan,
• Biriktirdiği parasından bir kısmını her sene borç yüzünden hapse düşenleri kurtarmaya tahsis eden,
• Modern matbaa makinelerini Türkiye’ye getirten, ücretsiz kitap dağıttıran, 6 bin kitabın çevrilmesini sağlayan, Beyazıt kütüphanesini kurup 30 bin kitap bağışlayan (10 bini el yazmasıdır),
• Yabancı bilim adamı ve yazarlara Nişanlar veren,
• Her yıl 30 bin saksı satın alıp çiçek ektiren,
• Bizim Hekimbaşı çöplüğü dediğimiz yerde gül yetiştiriciliği yaptıran da (Isparta’daki gül yetiştiriciliği de O’nun öncülüğünde başlamıştır),
• Türkiye’nin birçok yerinde saat kuleleri yaptıranda O dur! (İzmir,Dolmabahçe..),
• Hindistan, Cava, Afganistan, Çin, Malezya, Endonezya, Açe, Zengibar, Orta Asya ve Japonya ya elçiler ve din adamları gönderen,
• Latin Amerika ülkeleri ile diplomasiyi başlatan,
• Yalova Termal kaplıcalarını kurduran, Terkos’un sularını İstanbul’a taşıtan, Bursa’nın bir köyünde bile çeşme yaptırabilen O dur, (Sadece İstanbul’a 40 çeşme yaptırmıştır),
• Kendi elleri ile yaptığı marangozluk eşyalarını hediye etmeyi seven,
• Kendisine yapılan bombalı suikast de 26 kişinin ölmesine, 58 kişinin yaralanmasına rağmen Ermeni katili affedip Avrupa da hafiyelik yapmaya gönderen de O dur.
• Doğu Türkistan’a gönderdiği askeri yardım ile Çinlilere karşı onları örgütleyen, Çin’in göbeği Pekin’de Hamidiye Üniversitesini kurdurtan da,
• Beş vakit namazını aksatmadan kılan, hiçbir evrakı abdestsiz imzalamayan (hatta yere bile basmayan [yatağının dibinde teyemmüm tuğlası bulunduruyordu]),
• Yeni gemiler alan, toplar(Çanakkale Savaşı’ndaki çoğu top), tüfekler getirten de!
• Telefonu Avrupa’dan 5 yıl sonra ülkemize getiren de O dur!
• Kiliselere, sinagoglara yardım eden (hatta Vatikan’da kilise yapılmasına bile yardım eden),
• Peygamberimize, dinimize veya Osmanlıya hakaret içeren oyunları kaldırtan (Fransa-İngiltere-Roma-ABD) (Bir piyes için bile Alman İmparatorunu devreye sokmuştur),
• ABD’nin Erzurum’da konsolosluk açmasını reddeden, İzmir limanına izinsiz girmeye kalkan ABD savaş gemisini top ateşine tutturan,
• İstanbul boğazı için iki köprü projesi çizdiren (bir tanesi tam bu günkü Fatih S.M.köprüsünün bulunduğu mevkidedir),
• Darülaceze yaptırıp içine sinagog, kilise ve cami koyduran,
• Çocuk hastanesi (Şişli Etfal [çocuklar] Hastanesi) açtıran,
• Kendisine “Allah’ın belası”diyen Namık Kemal’i Rodos ve Sakız adası valiliklerine atayan, parasını cebinden ödediği yerde kabir yaptırtan,
• Posta ve Telgraf teşkilatını kurduran (Sirkeci Büyük Postane binası..),
• Abdülhamit ve Abdülmecid (dünyanın ilk torpido atan denizaltısı) adında denizaltılarımızı Taşkızak tersanesinde yaptırtan da (üstelik kendi cebinden..), O!
• İlkokulu zorunlu tutan (kız ve erkeklere), ilk kız okullarını açtıran,
• Öğretmen yetiştirmek için okullar yaptıran (32 tane) (ör.şimdiki adı ile Bursa Çelebi Mehmet okulu), Kız Öğretmen Okullu açan (Daarül Malumat),
• Cami yaptırdığı her köyde birde ilkokul yaptıran (Mesela sadece Sivas’taki ilkokul sayısı 1637), okuma yazma oranının 5 kat arttıran, (1900 yılında ilkokul sayısı 29.130’u bulmuştu, sadece Anadolu’da 14 bin ilkokul vardı)
• Orta okul (Rüşdiye)sayısı 619’a çıktı, Fransızca dersleri konuldu,
• Lise eğitimi için İdadiler açan (109 tane), (İstanbul Erkek-Kabataş Lisesi..)
• İstanbul’da Darülfünün (Üniversite) açan, Dünyanın ilk Dişçilik okulunu kuran,
• Ayrıca Deniz Mühendis Okulu, Askeri Tıp Okulu (GATA’nın atası), Kuleli Askeri okulu, Mekteb-i Harbiyeler (Harp Okulları yani) ,Askeri Baytar Okulu, Kurmay Okulu, Mekteb-i Mülkiye (Siyasal Bilgiler Fak.), Mekteb-i Tıbbıye-i (Marmara Ünv.Tıp Fak.), Mekteb-i Hukuk, Ziraat ve Baytar Mektebi, Hendese-i Mülkiye (Yüksek mühendis okulu), Daarül Muallim-i Adliye (Yüksek Adalet Okulu), Maliye-i Mekteb-i Ali (Yüksek Ticaret Okulu), Ticaret-i Bahriye (Deniz Ticaret Okulu), Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi (Güzel sanatlar fak.), Hamidiye Ticaret Mektebi (İktisadi ve Ticari ilimler akademisi), Aşiret Mektebi (Osmanlılık fikrini yaymak için), Bursa’da İpekböcekçiliği okulu, Dilsiz ve Âmâ Okulu, Bağcılık ve Aşıcılık Okulu, Orman ve Madencilik Okulu, Polis Okulu onun tarafından kurulmuştur.
• Unutmadan birde Ankara’da Çoban Okulu var.

Üstad Kadir Mısıroğlu

Up ↑