MashaAllah. Suggestion: the first link should be a link to your original article, and the rest should come afterwards. That way this page can be the one click link for anyone to follow your discourse on the issue.
Just came across a book called Al-Ilmaam biqawaaid taqreer altawheed asl alislaam. It basically gives precedence from salaf and classical scholars on the 4 principles in miaw's qawaid arba. It also answers dozens of shibuhaat regarding them, including the istiqlal argument. I think it should be translated into English. Here's the contents: https://bit.ly/3L7zO3G
وكل من كان به أعرف، إذا عرف ما جاءت به الرسل، وعرف ما في القرآن من التوحيد العظيم، والعناية العظيمة بذلك، ومذمة الشرك على اختلاف أنواعه؛ عرف بعض قدر ما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وتبين له كثرة الشرك في بني آدم، الذين لا يعرفون، بل يظنون أن العرب كانوا يعتقدون في آلهتهم أنها شاركت الله في الخلق، وهذا من غاية الجهل والكذب بمن يظنه بهم، وذلك لأن الشرك الذي كانوا فيه قد وقع هو وأمثاله في نوع منه، وهو لا يعرف أنه الشرك، يعتقد أن التوحيد هو الإقرار بأن الله خالق كل شيء، لم يشاركه في الخلق أحد، فهذا عنده غاية التوحيد، كما تجد ذلك في كلام كثير من الناس من متكلميهم، وعبّادهم، فإذا رأى هذا هو التوحيد؛ كان الشرك عنده ما يناقض ذلك.
وقد علم بالتواتر، وإجماع المسلمين، ونص القرآن،: أن العرب كانوا مشركين، وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دعاهم إلى التوحيد، ونهاهم عن الشرك، وكان هذا من /٦٠أ/ أعظم أسباب معاداتهم له، ولمن آمن به، فيظن هذا الذي لم يعرف حقيقة الأمر، أن ذلك الشرك، أنهم جعلوا آلهتهم شركاء لله في خلق السموات والأرض، وإنزال المطر، وخلق النبات، ونحو ذلك.
ولو كان هذا يفهم القرآن، ويعرف ما كانت عليه العرب، ويعرف التوحيد، والشرك؛ لتبين له أن ما يقرُّ به من التوحيد كان المشركون (١) يقرّون به أيضًا، وهم مع هذا مشركون؛ حيث أحبّوا غير الله كما يحبّون الله، وحيث دعوا غير الله، وجعلوه شفيعًا لهم، وحيث عبدوا غير الله يتقربون بعبادته إلى الله، فهذا وأمثاله كان شركهم، مع إقرارهم بأن الله خالق كل شيء، وأنه لا خالق غيره، ولهذا قال عمر بن الخطاب: إنما تنقض عرى الإسلام عروة عروة إذا نشأ في الإسلام من لا يعرف الجاهلية.
فمعرفة المسلم بدين الجاهلية هو مما يعرفه بدين الإسلام، الذي بعث الله به رسله، وأنزل به كتبه، ويعرف الفرق بين دين المسلمين الحنفاء أهل التوحيد والإخلاص، أتباع الأنبياء، ودين (٢) غيرهم، ومن لم يميّز بين هذا وهذا فهو في جاهلية، وضلال، وشرك، وجهل
قاعدة عظيمة في الفرق بين عبادات أهل الاسلام والإيمان وعبادات أهل الشرك والنفاق
138-139
Notice how Ibn Taymiyyah says that the Mutakallimin have not understood the reality of Tawhid in Islam and the Shirk of the Mushrikin and affirm the same Tawhid the Mushrikin affirimed and have fallen into the same Shirk the Mushrikin fell into without even knowing. So, in other words, the Asharis and Maturidis misunderstood the Shirk of Quraysh and as a result they have fallen into the same Shirk without knowing. So how can some fools then claim Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t believe Istighathah is Shirk unless one does so believing the buried person is a god that independently benefits, harms, and creates? No Sufi Ashari intentionally worships the Prophet ﷺ while believing he is independent of Allah. This is the most ridiculous claim I’ve seen from these Istiqlalis throughout this Ibadah discourse. May Allah guide them.
Apparently it is argued that the polytheists affirming Tawheed Rububiyyah was actually a smokescreen on their part and they didn't really believe in it.
Assalamualaikum I recommend a book called, "Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy" by Lowell K. Handy to have an understanding of how polytheists in the Levant believed about their gods. Considering the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula neighbor each other it's quite likely that there was a shared belief. Sure enough there was this concept of a High Deity who is inactive yet OWNS creation and the lesser gods and authorizes discretionary powers to the latter over the former according to their apportioned tasks. It is believed they possess authority over cosmic and earthly affairs but are still subordinate to that High Deity and his rules. I think this fits with the Qurayshi belief as demonstrated in their talbiyah as well.
In a nutshell it works as a hierarchy :
Authoritative Deity - El
Active Deities - 70 sons of El
Artisan Deities
Messenger Deities - function similarly to angels with no free will
It mirrors a social stratification in human society :
Aristocracy - King, Queen, bourgeoisie
Royal servants - Recipients of land grants for service like dukes, viscounts, barons etc.
Salam u alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu brother Bassam thank you so much for your beneficial write ups.
1. I had one question that confuses me, did Iblis commit shirk in Rububiyyah although he believed in Allah and knows he created everything, but chose to stubbornly disbelieve? Also did the action of not prostrating in Q2:34 cause Iblis to be labeled a disbeliever or was he a disbeliever before that?
2. Also I apologize for asking another question but in the verse 9:31 “Rabbis and monks as Lords”, why can’t this apply to the Quraysh and then be said “Quraysh acknowledged and believed in Allah but like the Jews their were mushriks in Rububiyyah although they acknowledged his Rububiyyah”?
Barak’Allah feek for your time, may Allah bless you.
wa alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Baarak Allahu feekum.
We need to make sure we are on the same page when we say "Shirk in Rububiyyah." Scholars like Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah followed a two-tiered classification of Tawheed (Uluhiyyah + Rububiyyah), while Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab followed the popular three tier (Uluhiyyah + Rububiyyah + Asmaa' wal-Sifaat). So when Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab spoke about Shirk in Rububiyyah, he mainly had Allah's ultimate supremacy and dominion in mind. He crafted this response with the specific aim of rebutting those who insisted on their istiqlalist approach by demonstrating that Shirk can take place without such kind of Shirk.
However, if you take a looser understanding of Rububiyyah with a more expansive scope as referring to any attribute that is exclusive to Allah alone, then yes, you can affirm that Shirk in Rububiyyah takes places without istiqlalism.
Therefore, in this light, yes, the Quraysh were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah in tahkeem. Shaykh Sultan al-Umayri even points this out in his book on Ibadah, but instead of Surah 9:31, he appeals to Surah 6:138-139. But what Shaykh Sultan negates in these specific instances is that the conditions of istiqlalism are met.
Salafi scholars would say that those doing istighatha day are *also* guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah, but again, without the istiqlalism bore in mind. They are not disagreeing with Shaykh MIAW either, it's just different points of empahsis on which attributes are being alluded to.
As for your questions regading Iblis, I have not thought deeply about this. Did Iblis commit major kufr by directly refusing to prostrate or was it due to the kufr of rejection stemmed by arrogance that made him a kafir and led him to not make sujud? I would incline to the latter, but again, I have not thought deeply about this. So perhaps you may ask someone else more knowledgeable, but either way, I do not see it related to this broader Ibadah discussion.
Assalamu Alaikum. According to Yasir Qadhi virtually all the polytheistic religions we know of in antiquity ascribed powers of rububiyah to their gods and at the same time believed that Allah is the Ultimate Creator and Rabb. Why should we think that the Quraysh were any different? How would you respond to this?
The point is that what is meant by "Rububiyyah." Saint venerators who believe their saints control every atom in the universe, have the power of "kun fa ya kun," and can assist you in your tribulations and tragedies, are also guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah in my eyes. Even the Mutakallimun would agree that creation ex-nihilo is an inherent Rububiyyah characteristic (without any qualification of "independence").
The problem with certain people is that they collapse Rububiyyah into "independence" only. That's it. That's the problem. So, when we say "Rububiyyah," we don't even mean the same thing. They only mean "independence." And if anybody claims all the polytheistic religion ascribed independence to their gods, well, then, they are plainly wrong.
You can email me if you have any more questions inshallah.
There is a guy on Twitter. His @ is ClassicalMuslim. He responded to your point on the talbiyah of the Quraysh. According to the talbiyah of the Quraysh, Allah OWNS whatever their gods have created. He said that Allah "owning" here doesn't mean that their gods were dependent on Allah. Rather, both their gods and Allah had an EQUAL share over their creations. In other words, their ownership didn't depend on Allah's permission. And @ClassicalMuslim on Twitter says that 30:28, 17:111 and 12:106 were revealed as a response to their talbiyaha and he mentions evidence for this. And he also says that if the Quraysh say that Allah owns the creations of their gods in their talbiyah and Allah responds with "No there are no lords besides me"(30:28, 17:111, 12:106), then this means that Allah is refuting their shirk of rububiyah. In other words, Allah refutes the shirk in Rububiyah of the Quraysh.
Having said all that,
I have two questions:
Q1)Generally speaking most salafi preachers INITIALLY say that the Quraysh believed in Allah's rububiyah. But then when Yasir Qadhi came up with his arguments, salafis CHANGED their INITIAL POSITION of "Their gods couldn't create" TO "The creations of their gods were under the possession of Allah as said in their talbiyah".
My first question is: Why change your position in this manner?
Q2) Why did Allah reveal 30:28, 17:111 and 12:106? Was it in response to the talbiyah or not? If it wasn't in response to the talbiyah what's your evidence? And if it was in response to their talbiyah how do you then maintain your position that the Quraysh had belief in Allah's rububiyah? Because in those verses Allah basically says "There are no LORDS besides me". Did the Quraysh believe in lords besides Allah or not?
It makes no sense to say that one does not depend on his owner. How can you be independent from the one who owns you?
30:28 touches upon equality of treatment in terms of how they feared their gods like Allah, not equality of ascribing power.
17:111 doesn’t touch upon independence. It can also involve believing that God gave permission to others to sustain and govern the universe (just as many Sufis and Shias believe about their saints and Imams).
I don’t see what’s relevant about 12:106 for this discussion.
Also, what is “Shirk in rububiyyah” according to this person? If it necessarily involves independence, then the Quraysh are not guilty of this. If it does not, then why aren’t many today also guilty of it for ascribing powers to their saints like the ability to create from nothing, control the universe, etc. ?
Plenty of Salafi scholars have clarified that the Tawheed of Rububiyyah that the Quraysh affirmed was in relation to its asl/foundation, which is Lordship over the universe. Otherwise, many Salafi scholars even call istighatha today Shirk in Rububiyyah as well. All way well before Yasir Qadhi made a video. So judge Salafis by their scholarship, not laymen.
Salam Bassam. You said in the first paper (among other positions that I believe you deem to be false), "Hanbalis declaring the denial of literal ‘uluww or the creation of Qur’an as major kufr". Does this mean you think denial of literal 'uluww and believing the Qur'an is created are not major kufr? If so, what would they be then?
MashaAllah. Suggestion: the first link should be a link to your original article, and the rest should come afterwards. That way this page can be the one click link for anyone to follow your discourse on the issue.
Masha'Allah...... May the Almighty Allah richly bless you more yaa Akhi
Just came across a book called Al-Ilmaam biqawaaid taqreer altawheed asl alislaam. It basically gives precedence from salaf and classical scholars on the 4 principles in miaw's qawaid arba. It also answers dozens of shibuhaat regarding them, including the istiqlal argument. I think it should be translated into English. Here's the contents: https://bit.ly/3L7zO3G
These are very important words by Ibn Taymiyyah:
وكل من كان به أعرف، إذا عرف ما جاءت به الرسل، وعرف ما في القرآن من التوحيد العظيم، والعناية العظيمة بذلك، ومذمة الشرك على اختلاف أنواعه؛ عرف بعض قدر ما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وتبين له كثرة الشرك في بني آدم، الذين لا يعرفون، بل يظنون أن العرب كانوا يعتقدون في آلهتهم أنها شاركت الله في الخلق، وهذا من غاية الجهل والكذب بمن يظنه بهم، وذلك لأن الشرك الذي كانوا فيه قد وقع هو وأمثاله في نوع منه، وهو لا يعرف أنه الشرك، يعتقد أن التوحيد هو الإقرار بأن الله خالق كل شيء، لم يشاركه في الخلق أحد، فهذا عنده غاية التوحيد، كما تجد ذلك في كلام كثير من الناس من متكلميهم، وعبّادهم، فإذا رأى هذا هو التوحيد؛ كان الشرك عنده ما يناقض ذلك.
وقد علم بالتواتر، وإجماع المسلمين، ونص القرآن،: أن العرب كانوا مشركين، وأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم دعاهم إلى التوحيد، ونهاهم عن الشرك، وكان هذا من /٦٠أ/ أعظم أسباب معاداتهم له، ولمن آمن به، فيظن هذا الذي لم يعرف حقيقة الأمر، أن ذلك الشرك، أنهم جعلوا آلهتهم شركاء لله في خلق السموات والأرض، وإنزال المطر، وخلق النبات، ونحو ذلك.
ولو كان هذا يفهم القرآن، ويعرف ما كانت عليه العرب، ويعرف التوحيد، والشرك؛ لتبين له أن ما يقرُّ به من التوحيد كان المشركون (١) يقرّون به أيضًا، وهم مع هذا مشركون؛ حيث أحبّوا غير الله كما يحبّون الله، وحيث دعوا غير الله، وجعلوه شفيعًا لهم، وحيث عبدوا غير الله يتقربون بعبادته إلى الله، فهذا وأمثاله كان شركهم، مع إقرارهم بأن الله خالق كل شيء، وأنه لا خالق غيره، ولهذا قال عمر بن الخطاب: إنما تنقض عرى الإسلام عروة عروة إذا نشأ في الإسلام من لا يعرف الجاهلية.
فمعرفة المسلم بدين الجاهلية هو مما يعرفه بدين الإسلام، الذي بعث الله به رسله، وأنزل به كتبه، ويعرف الفرق بين دين المسلمين الحنفاء أهل التوحيد والإخلاص، أتباع الأنبياء، ودين (٢) غيرهم، ومن لم يميّز بين هذا وهذا فهو في جاهلية، وضلال، وشرك، وجهل
قاعدة عظيمة في الفرق بين عبادات أهل الاسلام والإيمان وعبادات أهل الشرك والنفاق
138-139
Notice how Ibn Taymiyyah says that the Mutakallimin have not understood the reality of Tawhid in Islam and the Shirk of the Mushrikin and affirm the same Tawhid the Mushrikin affirimed and have fallen into the same Shirk the Mushrikin fell into without even knowing. So, in other words, the Asharis and Maturidis misunderstood the Shirk of Quraysh and as a result they have fallen into the same Shirk without knowing. So how can some fools then claim Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t believe Istighathah is Shirk unless one does so believing the buried person is a god that independently benefits, harms, and creates? No Sufi Ashari intentionally worships the Prophet ﷺ while believing he is independent of Allah. This is the most ridiculous claim I’ve seen from these Istiqlalis throughout this Ibadah discourse. May Allah guide them.
Assalamualaikum ustadh can you respond to the following?
https://islamqa.org/shafii/darul-iftaa-jordan/228882/ruling-on-dividing-tawheed-into-three-categories/
Apparently it is argued that the polytheists affirming Tawheed Rububiyyah was actually a smokescreen on their part and they didn't really believe in it.
wa alaykum assalam,
This has been addressed multiple times throughout my writings. Just read the intro piece https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/defining-ibadah
Assalamualaikum I recommend a book called, "Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy" by Lowell K. Handy to have an understanding of how polytheists in the Levant believed about their gods. Considering the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula neighbor each other it's quite likely that there was a shared belief. Sure enough there was this concept of a High Deity who is inactive yet OWNS creation and the lesser gods and authorizes discretionary powers to the latter over the former according to their apportioned tasks. It is believed they possess authority over cosmic and earthly affairs but are still subordinate to that High Deity and his rules. I think this fits with the Qurayshi belief as demonstrated in their talbiyah as well.
In a nutshell it works as a hierarchy :
Authoritative Deity - El
Active Deities - 70 sons of El
Artisan Deities
Messenger Deities - function similarly to angels with no free will
It mirrors a social stratification in human society :
Aristocracy - King, Queen, bourgeoisie
Royal servants - Recipients of land grants for service like dukes, viscounts, barons etc.
Royal laborers - Skilled craftsmen
Private slaves
Salam u alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu brother Bassam thank you so much for your beneficial write ups.
1. I had one question that confuses me, did Iblis commit shirk in Rububiyyah although he believed in Allah and knows he created everything, but chose to stubbornly disbelieve? Also did the action of not prostrating in Q2:34 cause Iblis to be labeled a disbeliever or was he a disbeliever before that?
2. Also I apologize for asking another question but in the verse 9:31 “Rabbis and monks as Lords”, why can’t this apply to the Quraysh and then be said “Quraysh acknowledged and believed in Allah but like the Jews their were mushriks in Rububiyyah although they acknowledged his Rububiyyah”?
Barak’Allah feek for your time, may Allah bless you.
wa alaykum assalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. Baarak Allahu feekum.
We need to make sure we are on the same page when we say "Shirk in Rububiyyah." Scholars like Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah followed a two-tiered classification of Tawheed (Uluhiyyah + Rububiyyah), while Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab followed the popular three tier (Uluhiyyah + Rububiyyah + Asmaa' wal-Sifaat). So when Shaykh Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab spoke about Shirk in Rububiyyah, he mainly had Allah's ultimate supremacy and dominion in mind. He crafted this response with the specific aim of rebutting those who insisted on their istiqlalist approach by demonstrating that Shirk can take place without such kind of Shirk.
However, if you take a looser understanding of Rububiyyah with a more expansive scope as referring to any attribute that is exclusive to Allah alone, then yes, you can affirm that Shirk in Rububiyyah takes places without istiqlalism.
Therefore, in this light, yes, the Quraysh were guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah in tahkeem. Shaykh Sultan al-Umayri even points this out in his book on Ibadah, but instead of Surah 9:31, he appeals to Surah 6:138-139. But what Shaykh Sultan negates in these specific instances is that the conditions of istiqlalism are met.
Salafi scholars would say that those doing istighatha day are *also* guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah, but again, without the istiqlalism bore in mind. They are not disagreeing with Shaykh MIAW either, it's just different points of empahsis on which attributes are being alluded to.
As for your questions regading Iblis, I have not thought deeply about this. Did Iblis commit major kufr by directly refusing to prostrate or was it due to the kufr of rejection stemmed by arrogance that made him a kafir and led him to not make sujud? I would incline to the latter, but again, I have not thought deeply about this. So perhaps you may ask someone else more knowledgeable, but either way, I do not see it related to this broader Ibadah discussion.
Allah knows best.
Jazak’Allah khair akhi, that explanation was very very clear. May Allah reward you and make it a means for you to enter Jannah. Salam
Assalamu Alaikum. According to Yasir Qadhi virtually all the polytheistic religions we know of in antiquity ascribed powers of rububiyah to their gods and at the same time believed that Allah is the Ultimate Creator and Rabb. Why should we think that the Quraysh were any different? How would you respond to this?
wa alaykum assalam.
The point is that what is meant by "Rububiyyah." Saint venerators who believe their saints control every atom in the universe, have the power of "kun fa ya kun," and can assist you in your tribulations and tragedies, are also guilty of Shirk in Rububiyyah in my eyes. Even the Mutakallimun would agree that creation ex-nihilo is an inherent Rububiyyah characteristic (without any qualification of "independence").
The problem with certain people is that they collapse Rububiyyah into "independence" only. That's it. That's the problem. So, when we say "Rububiyyah," we don't even mean the same thing. They only mean "independence." And if anybody claims all the polytheistic religion ascribed independence to their gods, well, then, they are plainly wrong.
You can email me if you have any more questions inshallah.
Salam.
There is a guy on Twitter. His @ is ClassicalMuslim. He responded to your point on the talbiyah of the Quraysh. According to the talbiyah of the Quraysh, Allah OWNS whatever their gods have created. He said that Allah "owning" here doesn't mean that their gods were dependent on Allah. Rather, both their gods and Allah had an EQUAL share over their creations. In other words, their ownership didn't depend on Allah's permission. And @ClassicalMuslim on Twitter says that 30:28, 17:111 and 12:106 were revealed as a response to their talbiyaha and he mentions evidence for this. And he also says that if the Quraysh say that Allah owns the creations of their gods in their talbiyah and Allah responds with "No there are no lords besides me"(30:28, 17:111, 12:106), then this means that Allah is refuting their shirk of rububiyah. In other words, Allah refutes the shirk in Rububiyah of the Quraysh.
Having said all that,
I have two questions:
Q1)Generally speaking most salafi preachers INITIALLY say that the Quraysh believed in Allah's rububiyah. But then when Yasir Qadhi came up with his arguments, salafis CHANGED their INITIAL POSITION of "Their gods couldn't create" TO "The creations of their gods were under the possession of Allah as said in their talbiyah".
My first question is: Why change your position in this manner?
Q2) Why did Allah reveal 30:28, 17:111 and 12:106? Was it in response to the talbiyah or not? If it wasn't in response to the talbiyah what's your evidence? And if it was in response to their talbiyah how do you then maintain your position that the Quraysh had belief in Allah's rububiyah? Because in those verses Allah basically says "There are no LORDS besides me". Did the Quraysh believe in lords besides Allah or not?
Wa alaykum assalam,
It makes no sense to say that one does not depend on his owner. How can you be independent from the one who owns you?
30:28 touches upon equality of treatment in terms of how they feared their gods like Allah, not equality of ascribing power.
17:111 doesn’t touch upon independence. It can also involve believing that God gave permission to others to sustain and govern the universe (just as many Sufis and Shias believe about their saints and Imams).
I don’t see what’s relevant about 12:106 for this discussion.
Also, what is “Shirk in rububiyyah” according to this person? If it necessarily involves independence, then the Quraysh are not guilty of this. If it does not, then why aren’t many today also guilty of it for ascribing powers to their saints like the ability to create from nothing, control the universe, etc. ?
Plenty of Salafi scholars have clarified that the Tawheed of Rububiyyah that the Quraysh affirmed was in relation to its asl/foundation, which is Lordship over the universe. Otherwise, many Salafi scholars even call istighatha today Shirk in Rububiyyah as well. All way well before Yasir Qadhi made a video. So judge Salafis by their scholarship, not laymen.
Salam.
Salam Bassam. You said in the first paper (among other positions that I believe you deem to be false), "Hanbalis declaring the denial of literal ‘uluww or the creation of Qur’an as major kufr". Does this mean you think denial of literal 'uluww and believing the Qur'an is created are not major kufr? If so, what would they be then?
Salam, no I don't disagree with that since I am Athari/Hanbali/Salafi/Taymiyyan (pick your preferred label) in theology.