Q and A: Feedback on the book, Divine Lightning

Salaam alaikum,

Thank you for the books and the blog. I had some questions about divine lightning because I am speaking with some salafis and they have made some statements. They claim that Muhammad bin abdel wahhab never used to make takfir on everyone and he even denied that he did. They quote

“And Allah knows that the man has fabricated statements from me that I never said nor that ever occurred to my mind. This includes his statement that I said that the people

have not been on anything [of the truth] for six hundred years or that I declare as disbeliever the one who seeks closeness to Allah via the pious or that I declared al-Boosairi a disbeliever or that I declare the one who swears by other than Allah a disbeliever… My response to those issues is that I say, ‘Exalted be You [O Allah] this is great slander.’” Muallifaat, vol. 7, pp. 11-12.

They also say that he did not denounce the madhhabs and agreed with them and followed one. The salafi gave me a quote where he said

“We, and all praise be to Allah, are followers and not innovators, upon the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Muallifaat, vol. 7, p. 40.

“We are followers of the Book, the Sunnah, and the pious predecessors of the Nation and what is supported in the opinions of the four Imams, Abu Hanifah al-Numaan ibn Thaabit, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idrees [al-Shafi’ee] and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on them.”

Wa `Alaikum us-Salaamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

Thank you for your reading of the book and may Allah reward you. I am glad to hear that you are reading through it. What I would say to you and every other reader – salafi or not – is to read the entire text through with its associated notes first. Then upon completion of the book to ask the questions.

I ask this because it may be that most of the questions you have asked will be answered by the author or in the notes that are at the bottom with references to what he said.

Now let us look at the quotes. All of these are coming from al-Mu’allafat, which means, “The authored works.” These are supposed to be collected writings that were put together after his death by his followers.

The problem is that these quotes were 100 years after the author. There are even other issues if we want to be specific. Let us look at each quote:

“And Allah knows that the man has fabricated statements from me that I never said nor that ever occurred to my mind. This includes his statement that I said that the people have not been on anything [of the truth] for six hundred years or that I declare as disbeliever the one who seeks closeness to Allah via the pious or that I declared al-Boosairi a disbeliever or that I declare the one who swears by other than Allah a disbeliever… My response to those issues is that I say, ‘Exalted be You [O Allah] this is great slander.’” Mu’allifaat, vol. 7, pp. 11-12.

Let’s put this next to statements that he has made that buttress this point. He said at one point,

“The best spoken word that could be said was the case of a Bedouin coming to us one day saying he had heard something about Islam. He said, ‘I bear witness that we were kuffar (he meant all the desert Arabs) and I bear witness that the guard who came to tell us about things is of the People of Islam’.

So the man bore witness that he was an unbeliever.” Majmu`at ut-Tawhid: Sharh Sittah Mawadi` min as-Sirah, pp.25-26.

This indeed shows that this creed was taught to the people. Further could be said by his son and first successor, `Abdullah Ala Shaikh, who stated:

“Indeed, major shirk has become the norm for most of these people due to ignorance spreading and knowledge disappearing.” Al-Kalimat un-Nafi`atu fil Mukaffirat il-Waqi`ah, pp.15-16.

There is further evidence for Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab’s theology and beliefs when we mention a few more points. It was mentioned by Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab:

“It has been explicitly stated that idolatry would happen in this Ummah to the vast throngs of the people. The good news is that the truth will always be present, even as it has been in the past.

There will always be a small group upon it. The great sign is that even though people may oppose, abandon or kill them, it will not harm them, and this state will remain until the Hour is established.

It was prophesied that there would be a Victorious and Aided Group upon the truth, which has already happened, just as was foretold.” Kitab at-Tawhid (Ar.), pp.48-49, mas’alahs 7-12.

`Abdur-Rahman ibn Hasan, one of the successors of The Brotherhood movement, made this clear when he gathered the opinions of his grandfather and uncles together then commented:

“So this tribulation of worship of idols was brought about, to the point that no one in these later ages knew that they were supposed to reject it.

This was the case until shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy on him, established that worship of idols was to be repudiated and forbidden. He forbade idol worship.

He then called the people to leave it, to worship Allah alone in His Lordship, Divinity, Names and Attributes.” Qurrat `Uyun il-Muwahhidin, pp.125-126.

We thus know for a fact that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab taught the theology regarding the Ummah, their being in idolatry, how long they have been in idolatry, that one must bear witness against himself and his ancestors have committed idolatry and so forth.

We know this from the works quoted above which encompass his works, those of his sons and grandsons, those who took from him directly or took from those who took from him. This counts as primary and secondary evidence. There are also those who were enemies of his that state virtually the same thing.

This therefore counts as proof and establishes a historical reality for the time period. There is the second quote:

“We, and all praise be to Allah, are followers and not innovators, upon the school of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhaab, Muallifaat, vol. 7, p. 40.

“We are followers of the Book, the Sunnah, and the pious predecessors of the Nation and what is supported in the opinions of the four Imams, Abu Hanifah al-Numaan ibn Thaabit, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idrees [al-Shafi’ee] and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on them.”

But what does he mean by this following? How is he respecting the Imams and revering them? How does he go about doing this? We can go to the one who said the aforementioned words himself. Please read the following:

Also remember this statement of his,

“Most of what is in The Satisfaction and The Uttermost Boundary contradicts and opposes the madhhab of Imam Ahmad and his explicit statements and more so the explicit statements of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, so whoever knows that indeed knows it and whoever does not, does not know.”

He said at another point, “The same holds true for the books of the latter day scholars of the other madhhabs.” Hashiyat ur-Rawd il-Murbi`, vol.1, pp. 17-18.

This man has nothing to do with the madhhabs, Hanbali or otherwise. If he does not accept the books, then he also will not accept their authorities, living or dead.

This was made absolutely clear when Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab told two of his harshest critics, Imams `Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Basri and `Alawi al-Haddad:

“The Shari`ah is one. What is wrong with these people who have made it into four madhhabs?

Here we have the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. We do not act except by these two things. We do not take our orders or obey the judgements of the people of Sham, Egypt, India or anyone else for that matter.”

Imam `Abdullah ibn Dawud al-Basri said: “He was referring to the scholars of the Hanbali School and the other schools as well.”

As-Sawa`iq war-Ra`ud fir-Raddi `al ash-Shaqi `Abdul `Aziz ibn Sa`ud, chapter 2; Misbah ul-Anam, pp.129-130, respectively. This same claim was repeated to Imam Zayni Dahlan (1232-1308 AH (AD 1816-1890) only some years later by the successors of the movement’s founder. Please see Imam ad-Dahlan’s ad-Durar as-Sanniyah fir-Radd `al al-Wahhabiyyah, pp.44-45.

And further to this, if we take the apocryphal statements attributed to Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab as proof and disregard what is historically established, how do the advocates of Salafiyyah reconcile the mu’allafat that they quote as proof with another text where Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab remarks,

“I, praises be to Allah—neither calling to a Sufi way, fiqh or theological school. Nor am I calling to any of the Imams that I hold in high regard, be it Ibn al-Qayyim, adh-Dhahabi, ibn Kathir or others for that matter.

Rather, I call to Allah alone, who has no partners, and I am calling to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, which he advised his Ummah from the beginning to end to follow and hold onto strictly.

I hope that I never reject any truth that should come to me. In fact, I call to witness Allah, His angels and all of His creation that if any word of truth should come to me from him I should then accept it with a complete submission.

I should completely discard any statement from my Imams that contradicts it—this is the same for everyone except the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who only spoke the truth.” Al-Mu’allafat, vol7, pp. 250-252

That he sees himself as an absolute mujtahid to independently interpret the texts is discernible both from his writing style and how he saw himself. And what is more, merely claim to something does not mean someone’s membership to it.

Early Ahmadiyyah and Ahl ul-Hadith (the jama`ah in Patna) both claimed to be real Hanafis as did the Salafi Bengalis Hajj Shariatullah and Titu Mir. However we know that their theology and actions had nothing to do with the Hanafi school.

Sources cited: The Wahhabi Movement in India, pp. 21-32; 42-45; Muslim Societies in Transition, pp. 44-45; History of the Fara’idi Movement in Bengal, pp. 1-5; 6-12; 13-15; also see pp. xxxvii-liii of History of the Fara’idi Movement in Bengal

Abu Bakr Bashir and the Jameah Islameah in Indonesia (a splinter from the first Salafis who came in the beginning of the 20th century) claim to be the real Shafi`iis yet we know that they have more in common with Betty Crocker than the fiqh of Imam Ash-Shafi`ii or his school.

Sources cited: Buhuth Nadwah Da`wat ish-shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, vol. 2, pp. 391-422, Riyadh: Muhammad ibn Sa`ud University, 1991,

As-Sa`iqah (the Lightning Bolt) and SGPC (Salafi Group for Propagation and Combat), Salafi groups from Morocco and Algeria respectively, both claim to be the proper Malikis.

Source cited: Ramadan 1423 comminique on Our `Aqeedah (Ar. `Aqidatuna) and also As-Saif ul-Battar (written by the GIA-Armed Islamic Group, which SGPC splintered off from)

Yet they know nothing of the school of Imam Malik except what their imaginations tell them. They don’t study accurately, memorise or implement yet they are entitled, nay obliged to give opinions.

The Mu`tazilah, including those that tortured  scholars like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, from Ibn Du’ad all the way to the executioners and inquisitors in the Inquisition, claimed to be Hanafis, so much so that the Imams denounced them as having disgraced their madhhab.

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah be pleased with him, said of the Hanafis in his time,

“The People of Ra’ii are a group of astray innovators and enemies to the Sunnah and Authentic Narrations. They negate the Hadith and refute the Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

They have taken claim of Abu Hanifah and whoever speaks with his words as an Imam for them and judge by their religion. Every astrayness is clear from the one who spoke in this way.

So the one who has done this, has he then truly left the words of the Messenger and his Companions and gone to the words of Abu Hanifah and his companions. Sufficient is the state of such a person to show their wrong doing, evil and transgression.”

Source cited: Tabaqat ul-Hanabilah, vol.1, pp. 36-37

Jarullah Az-Zamakhshari claimed to be Hanafi and said that parts of the Qur’an were from the Angel Jibril, peace be upon him; but he is denounced today.

Mansur al-Hallaj, executed by the command of Imam Junaid al-Baghdadi, may Allah be pleased with him, for idolatry, claimed the Hanafi madhhab; but they recognised no part of him at all in connection to themselves.

Imam `Abdul Qadir al-Jilani, may Allah be pleased with him, denounced the Hanafis in his area in his time, as they were all Mu`tazilah. He said of them,

“As far as the Hanafiyyah are concerned, they were a group among the followers of Abu Hanifah An-Nu`man ibn Thabit. They professed the doctrine that faith is the recognition and acknowledgement of Allah and His Messenger, and of everything, as a totality, that has come to us from His Presence.”

Source cited: Al-Ghunya Li-Talibi Tariq il-Haqq, vol.1, under the chapter, Al-Murji’ah (Ar.); Sufficient Provision for Seekers of the Path of Truth, vol.1, pp. 425-426

The reason for this is that up until the early Ottoman period, in the Muslim west, Hanafis were almost always Mu`tazilah; but in the Muslim east, they were upon the Orthodox creed due to the valour and bravery of Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and other scholars of repute.

Those cultists who claimed the madhhab were not from it for the most upright advocates did not accept their pledges and claims. The same holds true for any cult.

Yusuf al-Qardawi claims to be Hanafi but he is denounced continually as he has nothing to do with the fiqh. The same counts for Mahmud Shaltut who said that the Prophet `Isa is dead and will not return, mortgages are compulsory and that democracy is from Islam.

Source cited: Al-Fatawa, pp. 58-60 under the chapter, Was `Isa Raised or Is he Dead?

So in ending, it is not always important what you claim, but what you truly are in reality. If you claim to belong to something and the people who are the heads and leaders of that outfit state that you are not, then you simply are not.

Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab’s name only appears in Salafi literature. Any of the literature in Arabic that is an independent eye witness account, his name does not appear under any scholar lists. The few times it does appear in literature, it is negative.

So to state again, Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, as mentioned by 60 scholars in their response literature, is a false teacher, false prophet and the scholars rightly fought him. Salafiyyah, to buttress its claims, needs to bring independently verifiable proof of his credentials.

Salafiyyah is unable to do this; but why should they. It should be every Salafi’s goal to stop following and being devoted to the wrong Muhammad and follow the right one.

And with Allah is every success,

Brother in Islam,

Al-Hajj

Advertisements

8 responses to “Q and A: Feedback on the book, Divine Lightning

  1. Salam alaykum brother, I bought divine lightning due to brothers telling me the booked talked about the definition of “ilah” and how salafis got the definition wrong etc when reading I came across a number of things p.98,234,236 you talked about the real definition of Ilah etc which you stated from was god and worship from ibn manzur lisan ul arab but why did you not include ibn manzur actual definition of Ilah which is found on volume 1 which is:

    “Ilah; Al-Ilah – Allah Azzawajal – Everything that is worshipped(Ma’bud) besides Him is Ilah for the one who takes it.”

    Doesnt the above back the salafi opinion that there are false ilahs by name and Allah is the only one worthy of worship you state in the book that salafis on major kufr in saying there are other Ilahs in existence. But the Word Ilah changes context in the Quran and madudi wrote a whole book on it: (free read)

    http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_four_term/

    Madudi states:

    Invoke not; or pray to, any ilah along with Allah. There is no ilah but He.[ It should be borne in mind that the word Ilah is used in the Qur’an in two different senses, namely, the object or being, etc., to whom worship is actually being given, irrespective of whether rightly or wrongly, and the Being who is really worthy of worship. In this verse, the word is used in the first sense on the first occasion and in the other sense on the second. – A.A.Maududi](Quran 28:88)

    La Ma’bood illAllah (there is no deity in existence except Allah)’La Ma’bood BiHaqqin
    La Ma’bood BiHaqqin illAllah’ (there is none truly worthy of being worshiped except Allah)
    La ma’buda bi haqq (He alone is worshipped in truth)

    I am the opinion that all three are accepted definitions and are just linguistic definitions for English speakers to understand the true meaning of shahada.

    But I would really like a clarification on this important subject brother.

    Jazakallah khair

    Hamza

    • as-Salaamu `Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

      Noble brother,

      Thank you for your e-mail and may Allah reward you. I would advise to look at the original Lisan ul-`Arab and read the whole section and not any translation. I have quoted the whole section with the exception of some linguistic references in the translated text you mentioned. As for Al-Mawdudi, he was not a mufassir but a journalist. You should not poison your theology or waste your time on him. Maybe al-tafsir.com would be a more worthy endeavour for you versus the time you would have wasted studying al-Mawdudi.

      was-Salaam,

      al-Hajj

  2. Jazakallah khair for the clarification also brother I looked at al-tafsir.com and backs mawdudi and salafi case…

    Here is the Image backing what is in volume 1

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/202/lisan.png/

    Below are the scholars who gave meaning of Ilah as Ma’bud which will disprove false opinion that the salafi opinion is wrong?

    1. Tafsir Tabari

    Tafsir of Verse 2:133

    . { قَالُوا نَعبدُ إلهَكَ } يعنـي به: قال بنوه له: نعبد معبودك الذي تعبده، ومعبود آبـائك إبراهيـم وإسماعيـل وإسحاق إلهاً واحداً، أي نـخـلص له العبـادة ونوحد له الربوبـية فلا نشرك به شيئاً ولا نتـخذ دونه ربـاً.

    {“They Said we will worship Your Ilah” } meaning : His sons said ” We worship the Ma’bud that you worship and the Ma’bud of your Fathers Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq , the one Ilah i.e. we are sincere to him in worship and single him out in Rububiya and We do not associate with him nor do we have accept anyone as Rabb except Him”

    2. Tafsir Zadul Maseer – Ibnul Jawzi
    { وَإِلَـٰهُكُمْ إِلَـٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ لاَّ إِلَـٰهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ }

    قوله تعالى: { وإِلهُكُمْ إِله واحد }

    قال ابن عباس: إن كفار قريش قالوا: يا محمد صف لنا ربك وانسبه. فنزلت هذه الآية، وسورة الإخلاص. والإله بمعنى: المعبود.
    and Ilah means Ma’bud

    3. Tafsir Imam Tabarani

    قولهُ تعالى: { وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِي فِي ٱلسَّمآءِ إِلَـٰهٌ وَفِي ٱلأَرْضِ إِلَـٰهٌ }؛ أي هو معبودُ مَن في السَّماوات ومَن في الأرضِ، لا معبودَ غيرهُ ولا إلهَ إلاَّ هُوَ، { وَهُوَ ٱلْحَكِيمُ }؛ في أمرهِ وقضائه، { ٱلْعَلِيمُ }؛ بخلقهِ وتدبيرِهم.
    {And it is Allah who is Ilah in the heaven, and on the earth Ilah .} that is Ma’bud of those in heavens and those in the earth , No M’abud except him and No Ilah except him.

    4. Tafsir Tha’labi
    { وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِي فِي ٱلسَّمآءِ إِلَـٰهٌ وَفِي ٱلأَرْضِ إِلَـٰهٌ } يعني يعبد في السّماء ويعبد في الأرض
    {And it is Allah who is Ilah in the heaven, and on the earth Ilah .} Meaning the one is worshipped in the heavens and the earth

    5. Tafsir Qurtubi

    { وَهُوَ ٱلَّذِي فِي ٱلسَّمآءِ إِلَـٰهٌ وَفِي ٱلأَرْضِ إِلَـٰهٌ وَهُوَ ٱلْحَكِيمُ ٱلْعَلِيمُ }

    هذا تكذيب لهم في أن للّه شريكاً وولداً؛ أي هو المستحق للعبادة في السماء والأرض

    {And it is Allah who is Ilah in the heaven, and on the earth Ilah .} This is that their takzeeb that ALlah has a partner and a son. that is He is the only one deserving of worship in the heavens and the earth.

    * al-Tabari in his tafseer 3/336 said: “(everything in heavens and earth) submitted to Allah with worship, and admitted His uniqueness in Ruboobiyyah, and followed Him with sensere Tawheed and Uloohiyyah, willingly or unwillingly.”

    * al-Tabari in his tafseer 5/77 said: “surrender to Allah with obedience, and admit His uniqueness in Ruboobiyyah, and be sincere to Him by adhering to His order and staying away from His prohibitions. And do not take a partner with Him in Ruboobiyyah or worship.”

    * al-Tabari in his tafseer 16/39 said: “(let him) be sincere to Him in worship and admitting uniqueness in Ruboobiyyah.”

    Is there any book which goes

    * al-Tabari in his tafseer 23/182 said: “nothing deserves to be worshiped and deserves unique Ruboobiyyah except Allah.”

    • as-Salaamu `Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

      Noble brother,

      Thank you for your e-mail and may Allah reward. Please look at the full quote from Lisan ul-`Arab cited in the Divine Lightning, pp.98-100 as it not only discusses the fact of what ilah means but also how someone goes about making something an ilah. For Salafis, someone takes something as an ilah by worshipping it. However for the Sunnis (and the quote from Ibn al-Manzur), which can even be seen in the notes you gave from Imams at-Tabari and others, is that something can only be taken to be a god when it is believed to be creator, sustainer and designer for the worshipper. Again, please refer to the full quote in The Divine Lightning, pp.98-100.

      For Salafiyyah, the three tawhid’s are key and so is the understanding they have of ilah; but for Sunnis the matter is that Tawhid is one and that if one affirms the Lordship of Allah and affirm the Testimony of Faith, that worship of Allah is contained within the Lordship of Allah. so if one affirms the testimony of faith, they are Muslims. Salafis state that this is not the case and that the early unbelievers and Quraish had the Lordship of Allah.

      Fortunately, this false creed (which leads to major shirk) was discussed and destroyed by all the scholars of the Sunnis, particularly in the book, the Divine Lightning. Please refer back to the chapter in the book and all the notes and read them fully; and finally, I warn you away from taking your tafsir knowledge from journalists (Mawdudi) as this is theological poison that will damage/destroy your mind.

      was-Salaam,

      al-Hajj

  3. Ok jazakallah for your feedback in page 99 you mention ibn manzur definition of tauhid I understand and also Imam Abu hanifas view but I dont see why salafis and abdul wahabs view is wrong in the issue for example the definition of Ilah changes due to the context in the quran and this is proved by a number of sunni scholars? I only read one book of madudi thats it he is not a personality I take Ilm from but I dont see how you say it is major shirk or kufr brother please clarify deeply….

    • as-Salaamu `Alaikum wa Rahmatullah,

      Noble brother,

      Thank you for your e-mail and may Allah reward you for your message. There are a number of issues that you will need to consider that are paramount.

      1. The reason why the view of Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab and Salafiyyah is wrong is because they have given a different definition of ilah and Tawhid than what the Sunnis have given in fullness. As I said, the quotes you gave from the scholars of tafsir actually prove my point. According the Ibn Manzur and these other scholars, someone does not become an idol worshipper until the person takes the thing as creator, sustainer and designer. Then at that point they have taken it as an ilah.

      This is further seen when you compare the quote on pp. 98-99 with the practical application of Salafiyyah pp.234-236 in the Divine Lightning text, in both the discussion given by the author and the notes I provided that elucidate the point. Compare the understanding of the story of dhat anwat firstly from Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, his sons and grandsons, as on pp. 234-236 and then cross reference this back with pp. 98-99 (looking again at the definition of ilah) and then compare that with the position of the Sunnis (there is even a quote from Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah on pp.234-236 which further brings the issue into start relief) regarding the point that ilah means that something is not taken as an ilah until it is worshipped as creator, sustainer and designer. Before then someone cannot assign worship to someone until the person believes the object is just that.

      2. You then sent a lengthy quote from someone in Egypt in which these matters have already been dealt with in full in the book. Please make sure to read the book all the way through as many of the points you have may have already been answered in other parts of the text by the author himself. My annotated notes are merely to show the source of the reasoning and why. I have not reproduced it in full as it is 1) too long 2) was dealt with four years ago when there were forums and 3) has already been addressed by Imams Mustafa ash-Shatti and Sulaiman ibn `Abdul Wahhab in their perspective books with the footnotes.

      3. Imam at-Tahawi (d. 329 AH) never mentioned the three Tawhids in his creed text and nothing in the text leans to this at all. I memorised this text in seminary and was taught it and there is nothing in there of the sort. in the text, the only words used are Rububiyyah and Wahdaniyyah and not Uluhiyyah. You would have to read that into the text. Please tell whoever sent you this to find where the text has all three forms of Tawhid. If we take what the claimant has said literally, then the statement, La ilaha ghairu would mean, there is no god worshipped with him, which we know is not true as there are other people associating partners with him. It also contradicts what he said in the beginning if we hold the Salafi meaning. Please read the Bayan us-Sunnah by the Imam as there is no mention of this in the text. Please stop sending material like this as it is indefensible.

      4. The quote from Imam Ibn Battah is also wrong as nowhere in the text does he define the three tawhids the way that Salafiyyah does and the quotes are scattered and out of context. There is no statement from Imam Ibn Battah that someone can associate partners with Allah but does not become a mushrik because he did not worship them (please see pp. 234-236 for the context of what I am saying). The Imam never said that Muslims today are worse than the idol worshippers of the past and that they are more in shirk than them. He also never said that the dhat anwat was worship. Read Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali when he comments upon this in his discussion on at-Tirmidhi and you will also get further food for that. To get an accurate picture of the Salafi understanding of shirk, ilah and such that story illustrates.

      5. The Companions, according to Salafiyyah, were asking for another god to be made just as the Israelites had asked their prophet which meant that they made another god with Allah; but because they did not worship it they are still in the faith. So it is valid to affirm other than Allah and believe in gods and take another god besides Allah; but just don’t worship them. This is actually consistent with the Salafi definition of Tawhid. Please feel free to refer back to the page numbers I cited in the Divine Lightning and also observe their Salafi sources that I cited.

      6. Please also remember that all the other authorities that you have cited are 1) out of context by the person that gave them to you, 2) do not prove the creed of salafiyyah as I mentioned above in the difference between Salafis and Sunnis and 3) most importantly, remember that in the time of Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, he never cited these as proofs for his authority, even though these books were extent and all the literature was in circulation. So let’s not fall prey to redaction here. Use the documentation that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab, his sons and grandsons used and adhere to the argumentation that he used.

      7. One of the worst mistakes of redaction is when the reader takes his/her understanding in another time and redacts this back into history on his opponent/advocate. Stick to the arguments that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab used and literature he espoused. Most of his arguments were limited to Imams Ibn Kathir, Taqi ud-Din Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ul-Qayyim, the later two being the most important. Had he believed the three tawhids were present in these other works, he would have cited them as proof of his creed and the fact that he believed; but as he has not, let us not make the mistake of putting words into the discussion not utilised by the one in question.

      8. Furthermore, the quotes that you gave from the ancient worthies props up what Shaikh ul-Islam Sulaiman ibn `Abdul Wahhab said along with other authorities. Here is why:

      a. A score of scholars of the madhhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal are quoted in The Divine Lightning, pp. 89-96 as discussing the ways that someone apostates. Never once is there any mention of shirk in uluhiyyah or `ibadah. Only shirk in wahdaniyyah (Uniqueness and Oneness) and Rububiyyah. Further to this, our elders inform us nothing of the violation of the three tawhids theory and the way that Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab quotes. Please keep in mind these worthies are not just before Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab but they are during and after them and are at the rank of marja`.

      b. Please see pp. 270-272 of the Divine Lightning regarding the hadith of Dimam ibn Tha`labah, the Bedouin who came to Islam. When did he become Muslim? No mention of the three tawhids or shirk in Uluhiyyah; but even more glaring is the question…when did he become Muslim? Was it when he singled out Allah alone in worship? If that is the case, then that was never done in the hadith as he was only asking questions…unless we read into the hadith that he prayed or what have you when he returned to his people…or did he become Muslim at the beginning of the hadith? If this is the case (which is the Sunni position), this would mean that the affirmation of Rububiyyah and Wahdaniyyah is enough to be Muslim (as Sunnis state with boldness) and that Uluhiyyah is inside of and an extract that comes from Rububiyyah and not separate from it.

      c.this would therefore mean that someone affirming Allah as his Lord has already affirmed everything else. Remember…Am I not your Lord? Surat ul-A`raf (7), ayah 172. Why not…am I not your god? This is because affirming the Lord affirms the god as well. This is the position the shaikh laid down in his books and also the other ancient worthies. Indeed in the very second extract you sent me is proof of the Sunni position so again those quotes undergird what I have said, not cause doubt to it.

      9. What authorities of the past had the exact same creed of Muhammad ibn `Abdul Wahhab and said that rabb and ilah are the same and that ilah has different meanings throughout the Qur’an? Please cite them in their full context.

      was-Salaam,

      al-Hajj

      please be sure to read the whole book through as this will save unnecessary questions that may already be answered. This is one of the reasons I took the pains to bring these scholars into English. Please read the whole text then
      comment.

  4. seems as if brother hamza has brought all the quotes of the sunni mufasirun, have you a response akhi, it seems he has settled the issue. ilah is a ma’bud and allah is the only ilah bi haq.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s