Jump to content
اسلامی محفل
Sign in to follow this  

Disscussions On Hadith Of – O Servants Of Allah Help Me.

Recommended Posts




Quite a while back, I quite regularly frequented PalTalk Islamic public forums for exchange of ideas. During one of the visit, I heard a Wahhabi making Takfir of Muslims due to practice of Istighatha. After waiting for bit of time, I raised my hand in the forum, and eventually got upon the microphone. There I categorically stated Istighatha is not Shirk and only the Khawarij or those influenced by them charge the Muslims of committing Shirk. He challenged me saying; there was not a single verse of Quran or a Hadith which proves practice of Istighatha. I responded, I would be under the burden of establishing Istighatha with explicit evidences from Quranic or Hadith if I had stated/claimed Istighatha was commanded by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran or it is Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). I merely believe Istighatha is not Shirk and those who engage in this practice are Muslims. I said since you made the claim Istighatha is Shirk please quote me a single verse of the Quran or a single Hadith which establishes Istighatha is Shirk. Second time around, he attempted to justify his Takfir with arguments bereft of textual proofs – (1) dead cannot help therefore it is Shirk, (2) asking from a creation what is not in power of creation is Shirk, (3) asking the dead to help you is Dua, Dua is worship, worship directed to creation is Shirk. After waiting for about ten minutes I took the microphone again and I asked; where is the proof from Quran and Ahadith that Istighatha is Shirk, one Ayat or Hadith. Also where did Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) say in Quran or Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said which is recorded in Hadith that dead cannot help therefore seeking their help is Shirk? Can I have evidence from Quran and Hadith which establishes that asking from creation what is not in power of creation is Shirk? Lastly, where did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) say or Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says asking the dead to help you is Dua? Isn’t asking the living Dua as well? Do you not ask Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Living for your needs and is that not Dua? Asking the living to give you something is also in linguistic sense Dua (i.e. calling) of help. You believe calling the dead to help is Shirk because it is Dua yet the calling the living to help is also Dua – so why will you not make Takfir of those who call the living to help? He took the microphone again but did not answer the four points only tried to justify why he does not make Takfir of those who call the living to help. After which I took the microphone and repeated the demand of evidence and informed him the principles on which he is judging Muslims to be polytheists are without a base in religion of Islam. They are reprehensible innovations which have no backing of Kitabullah or Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). His failure to furnish evidence for his principles forced the Admin team to intervene. They red-dotted me and my Wahhabi opponent on the pretext of both of us were hogging the microphone and preventing others from engaging in constructive dialogue. My Wahhabi opponent contacted me via private-message wishing to continue our dialogue in private, to which I agreed but requested the dialogue should be in written format. Below is what transpired in our following discussions on the subject of Istighatha? Note the discussion is narrated in my own words while faithfully representing his views. In some places I have improved his line of argument to make it easily accessible for beginners.


PalTalk Discussion And Its Worth:


The PalTalk discussion narrated above was enough to demonstrate absence of evidence for his belief and Takfir. Yet this method of argumentation limits/restricts discussion from developing into meaningful dialogue. So I decided to abandoned the methodology of refutation by establishing lack of evidence. Instead I opted to target the principles of Wahhabism on which the belief and Takfir was based on and to do this Hadith had to be quoted to discontinue the earlier discussion and start a fresh. Therefore I quoted the following Hadith and from there discussion developed.


Other Important Information About Discussion:


The first discussion took place on PalTalk but the second discussion was a written one on yahoo messenger. The discussion in length was 341 A4 pages and lasted for roughly five months. Even though ocasionally his responses were brief, limited to yes, or no, or a sentence. There were exceptions where his responses amounted to few paragraphs. And this material over whelmingly related discussion on attributes of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This was not related to discussion hence it was omitted. At places his material did relate to topic but it was not related to the question hence that too is being omitted. Also original discussion did not have much refferences apart from few instances because both of were fully aware of material we were refering to. But now the refferences are being added so readers can relate to the material. I wish, I can name my opponent but as agreed per rules, I cannot release his name. He is highly educated secularly, with a PhD. Proudly refers to himself as talib ul ilm (i.e. student of knowledge). He also manages a website dedicated to propagating Wahhabism. Lastly, this was last edition on the subject and I will not be adding more material to this.


Rules We Agreed On:


There were certain rules suggested by me in order to keep the discussion limited. We agreed on the following rules: Sufi will cross-examine Salafi and Salafi will also be given opportunity to cross-examine Sufi, y questions and n answers, y can conclude or question further but n will not be permitted to rebut the conclusion, given answer will be direct to the point, questioner cannot be questioned in other words cross-examiner cannot be questioned, one being cross-examined is under no obligation to answer the question immediately rather time required will be allowed – maximum three days, answer will not exceed five lines, no referring to opinion of scholars, Tafsir of Quran with Quran/Hadith, Tafsir of Mufassireen can be utilized when interpretation of verse is disputed, preference to a particular interpretation over another commentators Tafsir is not allowed, an interpretation of Mufassir can only be rejected if it contradicts clear explicit text of Quran/Hadith, any principle not agree upon both sides needs to be supported with evidence if demand is made, agreed upon principles will not be brought into dispute, questioned cannot permitted present textual evidence Quran/Hadith unless asked, must paraphrase in own words, examiner cannot quote more than three pieces of evidence at a time, questioned cannot write in between while questioner is writing, questioner must explain the evidence of cross-examined in light of Quran/Hadith if he disagrees, questioner cannot quote evidence to merely contradict answerers evidence, every question asked must be answered, rare infringement of rules will be tolerated, interjections which contribute material can be omitted if material is posted internet, anything other posted on net will not be altered in a fashion which alters the meaning of content, other alterations such as spelling/punctuation allowed, names or others details which might assist to identify the individuals involved will be withheld unless permission is secured or revealing own personal information. The purpose of some of these rules was that we do not engage in copy pasting tons of material but due to limitations we think well about our answers and others were to ensure our discussion is systematic, , and fruitful.


The Hadith Which Propelled The Discussion:


“Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.” And this [Hadith] has been acted upon. [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam Al Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697]


Main Discussion: Discussion On The Hadith:


He said: I do not want to discuss the Hadith until its Sanad is authenticated. The Hadith you presented is Da’if. I said: Are you refering to the following Ahadith: “Narrated Hussain bin Ishaq Tustari, narrated Yahya As-Soofi, narrated Abdur Rahman bin Sahl, narrates from his father, Abdullah bin Isa, from Zaid bin Ali, from Utbah bin Ghazwan, from Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam). He said: ‘When one of you loses something or desires assistance while in a land where no person of assistance (is available) he should say “O slaves of Allah! Assist me; help me” for indeed Allah has many slaves who we do not see.”And this [Hadith] has been acted upon. [Ref: Tabarani, Mu'jam Al Kabeer, 17/177 - online Hadith 5469] He said: Yes! I said: I acknowledge Hadith has weakness in Sanad but there are few important points which you have noted considered. Imam Hakim in his Mustadrik - [1/320] – and Imam Bayhaqi in his Sunan Al Kubra - [3/52] - stated; when a Hadith is acted upon [by a Muhaddith, Mujtahid, Mujadid, Muhaddith, Mufassir] then Marfu Hadith is strenthened and is elevated to status of Hassan. In this case, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal has been reported to have acted on this Hadith: “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed) who said: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way I kept on repeating this until I came back on track.” [Ref: Shu’ayb ul Iman, Vol6, P128, H7697] According to Muhaditheen, a weak Hadith elevated to status of Hassan Li’Ghayrihi if it is corroborated from authentic Ahadith. In this regard we have Hadith from Sahih Bukhari. Seeking help from servants of Allah is coroborated from following Hadith: “When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, 'O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?" And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zamzam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place.” [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) took oath from Prophets that they will aid Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) : “And when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, "Whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him." [ Allah ] said, "Have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?" They said, "We have acknowledged it." He said, "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses." [Ref: 3:81] As a fulfilment of the promise made to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) Prophet Musa (alayhis salaam) aided Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) from reducing the prayers from fifty to five. This also coroborates the Hadith of, servants of Allah, and establishes the servants of Allah are not just the angels. In addition to this, Muhadditheen have stated, a Hadith reaching the status of talaqqi bil qubul is authentic - because Ummah will not agree upon error. According to another rule, multiple chains of narration, even if weak, togather elevate the strenth of a Hadith. And we have multiple chains available. Scores of jurists have utilised and employed these Ahadith in their commentaries despite criticising the Isnad of these Ahadith. And according to the principles laid by Muhaditheen, we have good ground to argue these Ahadith are Hassan (i.e. fair, good) and actable. He said: brother the Isnad of these Ahadith are weak then how can these be enactable? I said: I do not want to reason. If you can provide evidence of contradiction – meaning the Muhaditheen have stated, Hadith doesn’t become Hassan Li’Ghaybrihi even if this condition is fulfilled, isn’t actable even if talaqqi bil qubul, multiple chains do not elevate the strenth of Hadith, Muhaditheen acting upon weak Ahadith do not strenthen them, then present it. Otherwise your protest alone is not worth considering. He said: This needs to be investigated and I do not have the means to verify all these details. Therefore I will have to say, we have to agree to disagree to these principles. I said: So be it.


Main Discussion: Reluctance To Discuss The Matan Of Hadith:


[For about ten mins there was radio silence but then I had to initiate discussion.]


I said: Shall we proceed to discuss the Matan (i.e. text) of the Hadith? He said: There is no need to discuss the text of the Hadith when it is agreed that Hadith is weak. I said: Have not commentators explained countless Ahadith which they deemed Da’if? Is it not practice of scholars to classify a Hadith as Da’if yet still comment on its text? We have scholarly precedent to do so. He said: That is fine but if we discuss whatever is established from this Hadith it cannot be acted upon nor it would be evidence against me. I said: Decision would be yours.


Main Discussion: What Results Shirk Belief Or Action Or Both:


I said: What is your position on this Hadith? He said: The hadith is for desert and help sought from angels therefore it’s not Shirk. I replied, suppose a Wahhabi loses his way in desert. (1) Seeks help from the angel. Is he monotheist or polytheist? He replied: Monotheist! I said: (2) What if he seeks help from the angel believing the angel is god-partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Is he polytheist or monotheist? He replied: Polytheist because he takes angel as partner in God-hood! Is he polytheist due to belief or action? He replied: Action and belief! I enquired: Which action made him polytheist? He replied: He invoked the angel for help and this is worship, therefore Shirk. I said: Ok, polytheist for action of worship and for affirming belief of god-hood for angel. I agree he is polytheist due to belief and his action. In the scenario (1) the angel wasn’t taken as a god hence his request for help from angel wasn’t worship but in scenario (2) the angel was taken as god therefore the request of help was interested to mean worship. I enquired: So what was the primary factor which polluted Tawheed the action or belief? He replied: Both. I enquired again but he was confused. So I told him: The primary factor of Shirk was belief in god-hood of angel and it was this factor which leads them to action of seeking help from angel-god – into worship and into Shirk.


Main Discussion: What If Shirki Aspects Of Belief Were Removed:


I enquired: What if the polluting factor was removed will it then be Shirk? He replied: No, I see no reason for it to be Shirk. I then asked: What if belief of Tawheed is not changed as it was the case of seeking help from angel with Tawheedi belief but the place, the servant, and the help sought is different? Then will he be monotheist or polytheist? He said he didn’t understand what I intended to say so I said: The servant from whom the help is sought is Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala). The place is city of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and the help sought is regarding loss of a shoe. Will the person be polytheist or monotheist? He said: Polytheist! I said: In the scenario it was explicitly stated that Tawheed is not changed but; the servant, the help, and the place, are changed yet you declared it Shirk. One seeks help from a servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) upholding Tawheed and he is still polytheist, this makes no sense. [In order to find out his reasons] I asked: Is he polytheist because he sought help from a deceased human or polytheist due seeking help out of desert and in city Madinah, or polytheist for asking for the shoe? He replied: Polytheist, due to seeking help from a dead person and polytheist due to seeking a shoe from dead person. I asked: What about his seeking help in Madinah, Shirk or not? He replied: it’s innovation. I asked: Why is it innovation? He replied: Because help is sought outside of legislated/permitted area. I enquired: So help from Ibadullah (i.e. servants of Allah) should only be sought when in the desert? He replied: Yes! I said: Coming back to the topic of Shirk. Why is the person polytheist? He replied: He will be polytheist because he seeks shoe from someone who has no power to grant him or aid him to find it. I said: Even if one believes help given is bi iznillah ta’ala? He said: Polytheist, even if one believed the help is bi iznillahi ta’ala. I said: You said person is polytheist because he seeks help from one who does not have power to help. Firstly, what Quranic proof do you have that these are two criteria’s of determining Shirk?


[He went on telling me that I do not understand Tawheed Al Rububiyyah if I did I would understand the reason behind it. I assured him my understanding of Tawheed Al Rububiyyah is very refined and I still do not see this reason being valid reason. Bottom line - there was no evidence to substantiate his statement.]


Main Discussion: Shirk Primarily Is Warranted Due To Belief:


Secondly, I have already established; Shirk is warranted primarily due to polytheistic belief and if belief has polytheistic element then the action of seeking help will be interpreted to mean worship – which is Shirk. Therefore seeking help from Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) to find the shoe in Madinah cannot be Shirk because the belief was not polluted with Shirk. Seeking help from him is in same category as seeking help from an angel. If one seeks help believing Shaykh/angel is servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), angel/Shaykh will help be iznillah, Shaykh/angle is not partner in Ulluhiyyah, Rububiyyah, nor in Asma Wal Sifaat of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then how can this be Shirk? He replied: It is Shirk - one is worshiping the dead Shaykh by asking him for his help for which there is no proof, nor there is proof the dead can hear the call of help. I asked: Is he polytheist for seeking help from deceased Shaykh, or engaging in action for which there is no proof? He said: Both! I said: What is the Quranic proof that asking the dead Shaykh for help for which there is no evidence is Shirk? He replied: “And the false deities are unable to [give] them help, nor can they help themselves. “ [Ref: 7:192] I replied: Firstly, I have already informed you that we do not we did not take angle/Shaykh as gods/deities. This verse states the false deities of polytheists are unable to help the polytheists nor they can help their own selves against one who wishes to inflict harm upon them. We the Muslims do not take the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities but polytheists took their idols as deities’ partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore this verse cannot be applied to Muslims who profess Tawheed and openly say; there is no deity except Allah. Also this verse is not proof for the following statement of yours; seeking help for which there is no proof is Shirk. Secondly, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Are not the Awliyah-Allah (i.e. friends of Allah) from fold of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? You will agree they’re so the instruction to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is inclusive of angels, Jinn and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from Bani Adam (alayhi salaam). So one who seeks help from any of them without polytheistic creed has done nothing wrong.


Main Discussion: Dua Directed To A Deity Is Worship:


He replied: Seeking aid of the living is not Shirk at all but the people seek aid from the residents of graves, and this is Shirk. I asked: What proof do you have for this being Shirk? He replied: “And those they invoke other than Allah create nothing, and they [themselves] are created. They are, [in fact], dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.” [Ref: 16:21] He argued: The dead cannot hear and one who invokes other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) forgets that they are dead not alive. As such they invoke them and make them equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I replied: This verse was revealed regarding the polytheists of Arabian Peninsula. The verse is explained by another: Yet have they taken mindu’nillah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] This verse states polytheists invoked upon their idol gods which create nothing but themselves are created and they are dead and not alive. Invoking any deity requesting anything from one who is believed to be deity is worship of that deity. Therefore their invoking of their idol gods translates to worship but the primary reason of Shirk was; they invoked their idols believing them to be gods. Hence according to the verses quoted Shirk of polytheists was twofold, one they believed the idols to be gods and second they worshipped them. This verse does not apply to Muslims because we the Muslims do not believe the Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be gods. In context of our discussion the people do not seek aid of the deceased Awliyah-Allah believing them to be gods nor we the Muslims worship them hence there is no Shirk in belief and nor actions. He said: invoking a dead expecting them to hear your call of help is worship because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said invocation is worship. I replied: Yes, I am familiar with invocation being worshiped. If one calls a dead without expecting the dead to hear his call then will the call to help be worship or not?


[He got tangled in the issue of why would one call a dead person for help if he does not believe they can hear? I explained to him brother this is a hypothetical question to investigate your principles.]


Main Discussion: Belief Of Ilahiyyah And Intentions Makes Dua Worship:


He replied: It is still worship! I said: So calling the dead to help with belief they can/cannot hear is Shirk in both scenarios? He said: Yes! I said: That’s all I was trying to figure out. So in your belief call is worship and hearing and not hearing of dead does not affect it? He said: Yeah! I said: I want to address what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said regarding Dua. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said Dua is worship and that is only when a Dua directed toward a deity. You agree that Ilah means one that is worshiped, when one invokes a Ilah, implores a Ilah, beseeches a Ilah, requests a Ilah, asks a Ilah, or when one praises a Ilah, glorifies a Ilah, or exalts a Ilah, and then such invocation is worship. For Dua to be worship, one has to believe the one to whom the Dua is directed at is Ilah (i.e. one deserving of worship). If the Dua is directed toward one who is not believed to be Ilah then Dua is not worship and evidence for this is: do not make the calling of Prophet as calling of one another, in this verse the companions are told; when they call Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) from his house they should not treat the Dua/calling of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) as if they are calling out one another – as they called each other: O Muhammad! Come out! Rather observe proper manners which show respect, reverence and which are befitting the status of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). In this verse the word Dua has been used to mean calling in general sense and not in sense of worship.


[Mr. Wahhabi interjected, remembered alternative interpretation and on the basis of which argued that I Ali misinterpreted the meaning of verse; do not make the calling of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam.]


Main Discussion: Protest Ali You Have Misconstrued Meaning Of Verse:


He argued: The said you have misconstrued the meaning of verse; do not make the calling of Messenger (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). The verse means, Dua of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is not of a common person but he is held in esteem by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence the Dua will be accepted. I replied: This is a valid interpretation of said verse and this interpretation. He replied: Then your claim that Dua is not always worship is refuted. I replied: I have agreed with the validity of interpretation because the nature of Quran is that it is short expression wide in meaning hence I accept and hold to both interpretations. He said: None from the classical scholars interpreted the verse as you have interpreted it. I said: Would you like the evidence of Mufassireen to establish my interpretation? He replied: Only none Sufi Mufassireen. I said: We did not agree that Tafsir of none Sufis will be utilized. He said: Okay, quote Sufi Tafsir but it has to be backed by non-Sufi Mufassireen. I said: Again this was not condition stated in rules but anyhow I had no intention to quoting Sufi Mufassireen. Rather Mufassireen who are acceptable to you will be quoted to establish my point.


[Then I proceed to quote Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir of Jalal ad-Din Muhalli and Jalal ad-Din Al Suyuti.]


Main Discussion: Every Dua Is Not Worship Is Agreed:


I continued: Is there anything else you wish to discuss with regards to the verse of Quran? He replied: Nothing at the moment. I asked: Has that not convinced you every Dua/calling is not worship? He replied: I concede that every call is not worship. I asked: Then which Dua (i.e. call) is worship? [No answer.] So I said: Brother, Dua directed to a dead person is worship or directed to deity worship? He said: Both! I said: What makes the call to dead person an act of worship if every Dua is not worship? [No response.] I said: I can understand calling upon a deity/god is worship because one is calling on something which is believed by person to be a deity. I see no reason for calling of dead to be worship. Ok, brother! Provide evidence for your principle that calling dead is worship. [No answer.] I said: if calling upon dead was worship then in every prayer you recite: “As-salamu alayka ay’yu han’nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakaat.” Ay’yu is harf of nida (i.e. call), so you are saying; “Peace be upon you O Prophet …” In addition to this you read in the Quran; ya ay’yu ar’rasool, ya ay’yu an’Nabi, ya ay’yu al muzammil and mudassir. All these phrases begin with harf of nida hence each time you perform Salah and recite Quran you are invoking Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) who had departed from this world. Are you guilty of Shirk or not? He replied: Brother these are proven from Quran and Hadith hence their usage is not Shirk. I said: Did you not say calling of the dead is Shirk? What prevents you from declaring these as Shirk? If you abstain from declaring them Shirki then you contradict your principle and if you declare them to be polytheistic you will become a Kafir. I already told you that a polytheistic practice cannot become Tawheedi. It will remain polytheistic but will only divide Shirk to – permitted Shirk and prohibited Shirk. [No response.] End Of main discussion.


The First Chase: Khariji Implied The Belief Of Ilahiyyah:


[I had left from following to respond to his criticism: “In this verse the word Dua has been used to mean calling in general sense and not in sense of worship.” After clarifying his objection I continued from where I had left off. Following portion is continuation from the sentence highlighted with green in - Belief Of Ilahiyyah And Intentions Makes Dua Worship.]


I said: So [in conclusion] calling can be worship and can be just a call and both are determined by creed and intention. If one believes one whom he/she is calling is a deity – worthy of worship and intends to worship then calling of that deity is worship. But if one does not believe one who is calling to be deity and does not intend to worship the deity then calling is not worship. Yet you believe calling upon a dead servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is automatically worship even if the person does not believe the one being called is a deity – worthy of worship nor one intends to worship with the call of help. He replied: If one does not believe a dead person to be god – worthy of worship, and a lord besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then why would they call the dead person for help!


[He was going to continue but I could not hold my patience and interjected with my response.]


The First Chase: Judging Creed By Affirmation Of Tongue Or Actions:


I said: One invokes the dead Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for aid in time of difficulty. On the basis of this you deduced it must be that they believe in the deceased Wali Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be deity – worthy of worship? He replied: It is so obvious. I asked: What is so obvious? He replied: That they take the deceased Wali to be deity – worthy of worship like the polytheists took their Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities. I replied: So you judge the creed based on the actions and not the actions based on the creed? He said: I judge based on the creed. Those who invoke others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) do so believing their Awliyah are deities besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I replied: Bear with me for a little while, while I establish your inconsistencies. I continued: First of all, Muslims call the deceased Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for help because the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed; to ask help from the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Therefore your saying; asking the deceased Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) can be for no other reason than taking deity/lord – worthy of worship, is absolutely batil (i.e. false). We the Muslims do not take the Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities or lords besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor we believe worship of them is permissible nor we worship them.


The First Chase: Judging Creed By Actions And Not By Tongue:


Coming to your claim that you judge creed of Tawheed based on creed but before I get to that stage I have to ask some questions. I asked: My creed you know or I know? He replied: You really know what you believe and I only know about your creed due to what you tell me. I said: Thank you! Further asked him: Do you have knowledge of Ghayb? He said: Now you are being ridiculous! I said: You agree you don’t have knowledge of Ghayb? He replied: No, I don’t [have knowledge of Ghayb]! I don’t see how this is related to the discussion. I replied: Brother bear with me, I see it is related to discussion. I said: You don’t have knowledge of Ghayb so you cannot know the Ghayb - i.e. the creed of my heart, and you only know of my creed what I tell you. So when I declare to you; I do not believe in a Deity other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and I believe none has the right to be worshiped except for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), then why do you not believe me that this is indeed my creed? He replied: You act contrary to what you say what you believe and on the basis of this I am forced to reject what you declare to me. I asked: Which action of my is contrary to my belief? He told: Well, you invoke the dead for help, this indicate you take the deceased Wali to be a deity – worthy of worship and hence your call of help is interpreted to mean worship. I said: Thank you very much! You have established that you judge creed based on actions and not based on what tongue affirms. Yet in Islam what the tongue affirms and one states with tongue is considered the belief of person.


The First Chase: Actions Do Not Reflect The Creed Of Person:


I continued: Remember the hadith when a companion had killed a person who had recited the confession of creed but the companion had killed him thinking that the person is faking conversion to Islam. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) repeatedly said to him, you killed him when he said; there is no god but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), until the Sahabi felt so ashamed of himself that he wished he had not accepted Islam before that day. In Islam the belief is what the tongue affirms and unless there is no clear, explicit evidence which establishes contrary to what the person claims you cannot negate the belief of a Muslim based on actions. You invalidated my belief based on pure speculative knowledge. You believe one can only seek aid for the deceased Wali if he believes the Wali is a deity – worthy of worship. In Islam an action is not proof of what person believes but you do believe action is proof of what one believes. In Islam if a Muslim drinks alcoholic drinks. What do we assume about him and his creed? I will assume he is sinful Muslim and those who have good nature of giving benefit of doubt will assume, maybe he doesn’t know about it being haram. We don’t automatically assume he considers these alcoholic drinks as halal according to clear/explicit teaching of Quran/Hadith – do we? Of course not, because we know the actions do not reflect the creed of person. We cannot invent reasons based on dubious arguments and then attribute invented creed to an individual who categorically rejects it. To illustrate my point this is example, person faces Kabah, intends to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), prostrates in the direction of Kabah, obviously he is worshiping the Kabah because y believes Kabah is representation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Or, y is a Muslim, he was seen in going to a pub, in the pub he was seen holding a pint of beer, he was seen drinking the beer, he believes beer is Halal according to the teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Or y knows the beer is Haram but he believes he is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in the flesh of human and possesses the authority to abrogate all injunctions of Quran/Hadith, hence he Halaled the pint of beer for himself, hence he is Mushrik because he made himself Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Your action of invalidating the creed of Muslims based on your dubious speculations are proof of nothing but heretical ways. We have no authority to invent creed of people based on their actions and then attribute to them and force them to accept it. We simply cannot weave a sectarian perspective around an action/belief of person and then take that invented sectarian perspective to be the gospel truth. If we do, then if our perspective is negated/rejected by the one whom we attribute it to, then we should hold our tongue and remain silent. In such circumstances it is better to disagree/reject, and remain silent without Takfir, then charge with Takfir.


The First Chase: I Say You Are An Anthropomorphist:


I said: I want to ask you a question - Do you believe that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possesses a hand? He answered: Yes, He does have a hand but hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is nothing like His creation. Hand of Allah is Haqiqi (i.e. literal) and not as Asharis claim that hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is metaphorical expression. I asked: Do you believe in Yad of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or do you believe in hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He replied: Yad is Arabic for hand. I replied: Yes, I am familiar with Yad being English equivlent of hand but I was insinuating do you relegate the Yad or hand? He answered: Well Yad means hand so I relegate the meaning of hand. I said: You believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) in His image. Is this what you believe? He replied: Yes the Hadith attests to this so I believe it. I said: This tells me that you believe the hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is like the hand of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) created him in His own image. Is this correct deduction of your creed my brother? He protested: He has already stated that he does not believe in the hand of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) being anything like His creation. Instead I believe meaning of Yad is known but the interpretation isn’t known. This verse is from the ambiguous verses of Quran whose meaning only Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) only knows. Also the image/form of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is not like Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam). He is nothing like His creation. I said: Brother, you believe Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) was created in the form/image of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This indicates you believe in human nature of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Yet you say the form/image of Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) is not like Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I enquired: What I deduce is that you believe in human/adami nature of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but you are concealing your polytheistic belief. So my brother what I deduced is not your creed regarding this subject? He said: No! I said: Even though I justly deduced a conclusion from what you stated. Yet you have rejected it and you have indirectly stated that you do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) possessing hand of four fingers, one thumb, nails, bones, muscle, skin, veins, arteries and blood. Would I be justified if I charge you of Kufr on account of you attribute a human male hand to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He answered: Well how can your Takfir be justified when I do not believe in what you are attributing to me. I asked: So you are saying my deduction is incorrect? He said: Of course its batil (i.e. falsehood).


[He went on argue what the Hadith of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) creating Adam in His image means.]


The First Chase: Drawing Conclusion:


I asked: Should I abandon my investigated position because you deny what was deduced? He replied: I certainly do not believe in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) having male hand therefore it makes no difference to me so you can do as you please. I said: Brother, you attributed to Muslims that they take the Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities – worthy of worship besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This false charge I have categorically been refuting/rejecting but you have consistently stated we the Muslims take the Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worship them. I have attempted to explain; actions of people are not proof of what they believe, rather their creed is what they affirm with tongue and believe in heart. You, on other hand have warped methodology of determining what a Muslim believes from his action – in this context from act of Istighatha. Just as what I attribute to you regarding Yad of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cannot be what you actually believe about the Yad of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). In the same manner, what you falsely attribute to us Muslims regarding us taking Awliyah-Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as deities – worthy of worship besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), cannot be true representation of our creed. It’s value is nothing but a Khariji sectarian narrative weaved around an innocent action until it becomes repugnant little monster of Shirk. We the Muslims do not judge the creed of Muslims from their actions this was the methodology of the Khawarij. We believe the creed of Muslim is based on iqrarum bil lisaani wa tasdeequm bil qalb (i.e. affirmation with tongue and confirmation from heart).


[He gave me long response why his position against the Muslims was justified and why my position was unjustified. Had it been significant or any worth I would have bothered to narrate it here but it was nothing new and nothing which wasn’t said by him previously. Soon as he finished I recited, Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen and ended the discussion. After discontinuing the discussion I remembered an important part of the discussion which I intended to but was not discussed so I requested the brother to continue our discussion.]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Second Chase: Revisiting The Lost Shoe In Madinah:

So I said to him: Remember I told you a scenario about a man seeking help from Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) in city of Madinah regarding a lost shoe. He said yes. I said: Do you remember you said it was innovation for seeking help in Madinah. He said: Yes! I said: Okay, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) mentioned desert because he lived on a part of earth where most dangerous part of country was desert. So he instructed seeking of help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if one is in need of help in desert. What if a person is lost in a forest, suppose amazon rain forest? Is he permitted to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Him: He paused for few minutes and then wrote, that it will be innovation if one was to engage in seeking help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in rain forest. So I said: So brother, you will practice and you believe in strict literalism of Hadith. I said: Where did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) perform his prayers in Masajid in Arabian Peninsula or throughout the world? He replied: He performed most of his prayers in Masjid Nabvi. I said: So if he performs most of his prayers in Masjid Nabvi then why do you perform your prayers in the Masajid of UK? Should you not also be performing most of your prayers in Masjid Nabvi? He said: Brother we are commanded to worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and specification of in which Masjid it is to be performed has not been made in Quran or Hadith. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was to specify a particular Masjid for Muslims of entire earth then it would be impractical. No one would be travelling to perform prayers such vast distances.

The Second Chase: The Door Of Ijtihad:

I replied: You see brother, hukum of seeking help from the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in desert is impractical for one living in Brazil. There is chance of Brazilian Muslims getting lost in rain forest now if they seek help of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) they are guilty of innovation. Cannot it not be that they make Ijtihad via Qiyas, replace desert with forest and seek help in forest? Yes, holding to literal permission of Hadith is most correct but Ijtihad is also teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Do you remember when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) sent few companions  to x place and instructed them to perform prayers to x place. When they reached  y place the time of a particular came one group performed the prayers, on the grounds Prophets (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has instructed to perform the  n prayer at x place but did not prohibit performing b prayer at y place. The other group reasoned Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) has instructed to perform y prayer at x place he said nothing about performing the b prayer. Therefore we will not perform it and we will only perform y prayer at x place. Both groups referred the difference of opinion back to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) and he said both were correct. So the literal adherence and the Ijtihadi  understanding both were accepted by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). On the basis of this I reason that explicit instruction is for desert but one not living in desert country and one not in difficulty in desert can ask the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) where ever they maybe – in context of Brazil, rain forest.

[He thought about the line of argument and stated that he could respect such Ijtihadi understanding of Hadith of servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) providing the person does not abrogate the Sunnah-permission with Ijtihad and believes the servants of Allah are the angels.]

The Third Chase: Shirk Cannot Become Tawheed Due To Presence Of Evidence:

I said: According to you even if Tawheed is upheld and if one seeks help from Shaykh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) such person is guilty of Shirk. Your reason for this verdict were: (1) seeking shoe from dead person, (2) seeking help of dead person. Regarding the first you said in detail: “… he seeks shoe from someone who has no power to grant him or aid him to find it.” [In other words, seeking the shoe from the dead is Shirk because the dead does not have the power to help to grant the shoe, nor has power help recovering it.] Second one you expanded by saying: “… one is worshiping the Shaykh by asking him for his help for which there is no proof, nor there is proof the dead can hear the call of help.” [In other words, one is worshiping the dead Shaykh by asking a dead Shaykh to help. The reason for which it is Shirk/worship because there is no evidence to substantiate the practice.] In that discussion you failed to substantiate these principles with evidence of Quran/Hadith. Is there anything else which nullifies Tawheed of Muslims when they call the dead to help? He said: I cannot think of anything else. I said: I know you believe Istighatha is Shirk because lack of evidence from Quran/Hadith. What if there is proof for Istighatha – will it then be Shirk? He replied: There is no proof for Istighatha. I said: Brother, this is a hypothetical question just enquiring to gain knowledge about your principles. He replied: If there was proof, which there isn’t, then it would not be Shirk. I said: Brother, this establishes you judge Shirk not on making y partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Rububiyyah, Ulluhiyyah, and Asma Wal Sifaat. Instead you judge Tawheed based on presence of evidence and Shirk on absence of evidence. What is Shirk was never Tawheed, will never become Tawheed, and cannot become Tawheed. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had a son then the son would be Shareek of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And hypothetically speaking, if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was to command us to believe that He possessed a son then we would be believing in a Shirk on command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which sanctions this Shirki belief will never be proof that believing in son of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is a Tawheedi belief. It will forever remain Shirk which is sanctioned by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). The point is brother what is Shirk Haqiqi will remain Shirk no amount of scriptural evidence and prophetic words will make it Tawheed. Hypothetically speaking we could have had permitted Shirk and prohibited Shirk but we cannot have Shirk becoming Tawheed due to scriptural/textual evidence.

[I waited to see any sign of life on yahoo messenger i.e. – typing … So I realized this all went above his head. Wush! So I decided to write something which his intellect will grasp.]

The Third Chase: Back To Basics:

Brother, we both know very well, that Shirk is associating a partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and an action is not Shirk due to absence of evidence. There are many practices which do not have evidence from Quran or Sunnah of beloved Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). Yet we do not say these practices are Shirk and the ones engaging in them as Mushrikeen. Sunnah way fighting Jihad is; sword, spear, horse, camel, shield, bow and arrows etc. There is no evidence from Quran/Hadith for modern weapons. Do you declare the usage of these weapons as Shirk and those who use them as Mushrikeen? He replied: Jihad was commanded nowhere it was stated these weapons should be used for Jihad. Jihad conceptually is part of religion of Islam not the weapons with which we can fight them. I replied: Does not the Quran say way of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is best of examples then will you abandon his example – sword, spear, horse, camel, shield, bow and arrow, for what the Kuffar invented? And isn’t one of principles, innovation eliminates Sunnah? [No response.] I continued: Brother, there is indirect evidence for the use of these weapons. We can via Ijtihad legalize the use of these weapons. Rifle with bayonet, spear. Rifle with bullets, bow and arrow. Artillery, bow and arrow. We can approximate modern weapons with Prophetic Sunnah weapons with Qiyas and legalize their use. He said: Well, then these weapons are not truly without evidence hence no reason to declare their use as Shirk. I said: This is not explicit proof this is indirect evidence which I call Ijtihadi evidence. If you refrain from declaring something Shirk due to implicit evidence then I can at least present implicit evidence in regards to Istighatha – Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said, seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), the dead and the living are servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence Istighatha is established. First of all if existence of implicit evidence is valid reason to with-hold edict of Shirk then there is Hadith which implicitly establishes Istighatha. Secondly it is impossible for Shirk to become Tawheed on basis of existence of evidence. Shirk will remain Shirk even if there is evidence, the only difference would be permitted Shirk and prohibited Shirk. I believe this was sufficient to refute your position.

[There is more material, mention of which I have omitted. Insha Allah eventually all will be published.]

The Fourth Chase: A Practice Can Be According To Shirk And Tawheed:

[I directed the attention of brother toward an earlier part of our discussion – now situated under the heading: Main Discussion: What If Shirki Aspects Of Belief Were Removed.]

I said: Do you believe Shirk can be removed from Istihghathah? He said: The very practice of Istighathah is Shirk. I said: You mean to say that Istighathah cannot be seperated from Shirk? He said: Yes! To remove Shirk from Istighathah you have to remove Istighathah. [Here I wanted to pin him down and prove to him that Istighathah can be according to Tawheed and according to Shirk. So I fired my questions.] I said: Can Shirk enter into a practice and make it polytheistic practice? He said: Yes, there are many practices in which Shirk can enter. I said: Give me example, brother. He said: Prostration (i.e. Sajdah). I said: What are you basing this on? He replied: Angels prostrated to Prophet Adam on command of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and it was not Shirk. I said: Why was this free from Shirk? He said: Not Shirk because Allah does not command Shirk and angels don’t commit Shirk. I said: My brother, I am aware of this. Suppose, if angels hand belief that Prophet Adam was Ma’bud/Ilah. Then could their action be, worship and Shirk? [The answer should have been, yes.] He said: Why suppose the impossible! I don’t get involed in such hypothetical scenarios. [Just in order to smack him with reality I said to him – I am Atheist. He chucked in, you’re Mushrik because of Istighathah.] I said: As a Atheist, I prostrate to Allah, but do not believe Allah is Ilah/Ma’bud – have I worshipped Him? He said: No! [He went on to add, why would Atheist do this? I replied I am irrational Atheist and I do weird stuff, both sent smilies, at that.] I said: So here, there was no belief of Ilahiyyah, nor intention of worship, hence the prostration was not worship. If same action was acompanined with belief of Ilahiyyah – for Krishna - and intention of worship was part of it. Then I will be Mushrik due to belief and guilty of Shirk in Ibadah. What I was trying to get from you earlier was, the factor which changes the nature of a action and you weren’t cooperating. Anyway you see, Shirk can enter and Shirk can leave a practice. When it enters it, it becomes Shirk, and when it leaves it, it becomes Tawheed. You’ve stated Istighathah by very nature is Shirk and therefore it cannot be according to Tawheed. In fact no action by its nature is of worship, or Shirki, or Tawheedi. Actions become something due to belief and intention with which they are enacted. Hence your statement that Istighathah by very nature is Shirk is erroneous.

[This was check-mate. He just didn’t want to admit defeat so he continued.]

The Fourth Chase: Pointing Out The Evil Side Of Khariji Coin:

He said: Seeking from deceased something which is not in his power and with belief that he can hear, is Shirk. I said: What have you based your principle on? He said: Based on the fact that dead cannot help you and cannot hear you when you call upon them. I said: I gathered that the first time. What relevance does this have with Shirk! You and I both know Shirk is associating an Ilah-partner with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How does seeking help from deceased result in deceased being made Ilah-partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)! There is no equality between the deceased Awliyah-Allah and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – not unless you believe your Ilah has died, and you seek help from deceased Ilah, and only then seeking aid of deceased Awliyah-Allah can have some relevance with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Otherwise I do not see any relevance of your principle with Tawheed or Shirk. He said: I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from such blasphemous accusation. I said: I didn’t accuse you of anything. I merely indicated how there can be equality between Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Awliyah-Allah, leading to ‘Shirk’. If one was to consider your belief, Istighathah being Shirk, then naturally if we peel each layer, we come to foundation that the Ilah you believe is dead, and you seek and you seek help of the dead Ilah, and seeking help of deceased Awliyah-Allah therefore will mean sharing His right with creation.

[This was a massive blow to his principles and methodology. Had he understood the implications I am sure he would have repented and accepted the methodology of Muslims but again he continued …]

The Fourth Chase: Scrambling For A Response:

He said: Seeking help from the deceased itself is not Shirk but when one does so he worships the deceased – and this is Shirk. [Here he was scrambling a response because he didn’t quite expect my exposition.] I said: I am fully aware of your methodology and principles. Brother you are just damage controling, and just distorting the reality. Anyway, what makes the act of calling the deceased an act of worship? He said: The Mushriks invoked the dead – which Allah said is an act of worship. I said: Can you quote me evidence for this – in context? He said: “Those whom they invoke besides Allah have not created anything, but are themselves created. (They are) dead, not alive; and they know not when they will be raised up. Your Ilah is One Ilah. But for those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts deny, and they are proud.” [Ref: 16:20/22] I said: The verse does not in anyway indicate, invoking the deceased is worship, or invoking the deceased is Shirk. He said: The verse establishes that, those whom they invoked are dead and invocation to the dead is worship.

[I just had to compliment his ability to scramble something togather, and I did cause he got me. He basicly managed to surprise me with his response and I had to ask for a quarter which he granted. After we parted, I performed two Nawafil, made Dua for guidance, and went to bed. Next day, I woke up, and when I re-read the last discssion, I just couldn’t help but chuckle at my own mistake.]

The Fourth Chase: Clarifying The Evidence Employed For Principle:

I said: Firstly, those who invoked ‘the dead’ were polytheists. Secondly, ‘the dead’ about whom it is stated they did not create anything but themselves were created refers to gods of polytheists and evidence follows: Yet have they taken mindu’nillah gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.“ [Ref: 25:3] Their Shirk was they took Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and invoked their Ilahs as an act of worship to get to closer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), here: "We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allah." [Ref: 39:3] So they affirmed creed of Ilahiyyah, and intention, and action of worship, are all present, and this is why, their act of invoking ‘the dead’ - Idol-Ilahs - mentioned in the verse is worship. And this goes on to demonstrate the correctness of principles of Ahle Sunnat not yours. He said: I have proven my principle with sound reasoning and you have rejected it. We will have to agree to disagree on this then.

The Fourth Chase: Justifying The End With End:

[I remembered yesterdays bane so I thought I level the score with the brother before he gets too ahead of himself. I confide in him my honest thoughts, that I felt he got me, and that’s why I sought to retire. He replied that he did not realise this was the case. So he enquired on what ground have I rejected his established principle, and I was too kind to expound to it.]

I continued: You see, you wanted to prove this principle: invoking the deceased is worship, do you agree? He said: Ok! I said: This is what you wrote: “The verse establishes that, those whom they invoked are dead and invocation to the dead is worship.” In other words, the principle which you wanted to establish was part of reasoning through which you established it the principle. Its like trying to establish, crow is black, with reasoning, crow is black. He said: Give me bit of time to get my head around what you’re saying.

[Few mins later, he realised the futile attempt. He said that he did not realise how he managed this feet. And I didn’t seem it fit to pursue his defeat to point where he feels humiliated. Next day meeting he came back with modification to his reasoning.]

The Fourth Chase: Verses Establishe Islamic Principles:

He said: They invoked the dead, and invocation is worship, hence inovking the dead is an act of worship.I said: Firstly, it was established, the phrase ‘the dead’ refers to idol-gods of polytheists. And this same point is being in the following verse: “Have they feet wherewith they walk? Or have they hands wherewith they hold? Or have they eyes wherewith they see? Or have they ears wherewith they hear? Say: "Call your (so-called) partners (of Allah) and then plot against me, and give me no respite! “ [Ref: 7:195] Implying even though the idols of polytheists possess hands, feet, eyes, ears, they do not possess life, implying they are dead. Secondly, it was established that polytheists affirmed the intention of worshiping the idol-gods and worshiped them to get closer to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Alhasil, there is belief of Ilahiyyah, there is intention of worship, there is action of worship. And your principle ommits these factual points hence it cannot be correct. He replied: If the verse was not refering to human beings then why would Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) use the word dead its usage makes no sense. I said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states, earth is dead – here: “He brings the living out of the dead, and brings the dead out of the living, and brings to life the earth after its lifelessness. And thus will you be brought out.” [Ref: 30:19] “And a sign for them is the dead earth. We have brought it to life and brought forth from it grain, and from it they eat. “ [Ref: 36:33] If earth being dead makes sense to you then why would not idols being reffered as dead make sense to you – especially when the idols were made from dead earths material? He said: Point taken. I said: If your principle comprimised the following details: Invoking the dead [idol-gods], and invocation is worship [when directed toward a Deity with intention of worship], therefore inovking the dead [idol-gods] is an act of worship. This way all the details of verse are inclusive of your principle. He said: You tactfully presented your own principle here. I said: Indeed all the detail from the verses does establish my principle. He said: We will have to agree to disagree on this then. I said: I agree.

Fifth Chase: Invalidating Three Principles Of Wahhabism:

[I reffered him to following part of our discussion: Is he polytheist or monotheist? He replied: Polytheist because he takes angel as partner in God-hood! Is he polytheist due to belief or action? He replied: Action and belief! I enquired: Which action made him polytheist? He replied: He invoked the angel for help and this is worship, therefore Shirk. I said: Ok, polytheist for action of worship and for affirming belief of god-hood for angel. I agree he is polytheist due to belief and his action.” I told him I wished to discuss something relating to it. Apologised to him in advance and explained to him what will follow is rudimentry questioning and it is to ensure we are on the same level.]

I said: What is Dua? He Said: Dua is worship. I said: Every Dua worship? He Said: No! I said: Why isn’t every Dua worship? He Said: Dua is used in lingusitic and legal sense. In linguistic sense its not worship and in Shar’ri sense it is worship. I said: How do I differentiate between Duas of Tawheed And Shirk - according to Aalimi Minhaj? He Said: (1) Dua directed toward, dead Wali, is worship, and Shirk. (2) Dua in which ma fawq al asbab (i.e. against the means) type of help is sought is worship, and Shirk. (3) Dua directed to someone who cannot naturally hear you is worship, and Shirk. I said: Are these fundamental and only principles on which you judge Istighathah to be worship and Shirk? He Said: These are fundamental principles. I said: And only? He Said: And only! I said: So would you agree with the following principles: (1) Asking the living isnt worship, nor Shirk, (2) asking for which is in taht al asbab (i.e. according to means) isn't worship, nor Shirk, (3) and seeking help from someone who can hear you is not worship, nor shirk? He Said:Yes! I said: A Scenario: Aalim genuinely believes his friend Zalim is Allah. Due to his belief Aalim does the following. Aalim: O Zalim give me glass of water please. Zalim: Walks to him and goes here you go have one cold glass of water. According to your belief system: (1) Asking the living isnt Shirk, (2) asking for which is in taht al asbab (according to means) isn't Shirk, (3) and seeking help from someone who can hear you is not shirk. Question: Is Aalim a Mushrik?  If yes, then why Aalim is Mushrik? If no, why Aalim isn’t Mushrik? He Said: Aalim is Mushrik because he has affirmed Ilahiyyah for Zalim. I said: Is Aalim guilty of worship of Zalim? He Said: Yes, he is. I said: Here you have gone against your principles. You stated in your three principles; Dua directed toward dead, dua in which fawq al asbab help is sought, and Dua in which someone is expected to hear but has not means of hearing, are worship. And you agreed with my presentation of your principles as well. In your principles this is not an act of worship but in my principles it is worship.

[Note:This was check-mate. He sought permission to quiz me on this aspect. Even though it was not his turn to quiz me.]

Fifth Chase: Opponent Attests To Correctness Of Islamic Principles:

He said: What are your principles? I said: (1) Dua directed toward a Deity is worship. (2) Dua in which help of a Deity is sought is worship. (3) Dua in which intention of worship is part of, is Dua of worship. Hence according to my principles, Aalim believed Zalim  is Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), therefore he is Mushrik. Aalim also sought help from a deity (i.e.Zalim) hence he worshiped Aalim and this is second reason for his Shirk. He said: I agree with your first principle and third principle but not second. I said: The three principles which you mentioned. What is the purpose of them?  [I was hoping he would say, Ilahiyyah.] He said: Well they point out where Shirk is. I said: You didn’t understand what was being asked so I decided to tell him. Your three principles, make Istighathah Shirk, because according to your methodology, these three principles establish if an act is worship - which exclusive for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – and worship is of an Ilah/Ma’bud. So when a Muslim invokes a deceased Wali of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for help, in your methodology he has worshipped a creation. In your methodology, Muslim has made a Wali-Allah an Ilah/Ma’bud partner of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) when he seeks deceased Wali-Allah’s help, and that’s why you charge them of committing Shirk. So act of seeking help from deceased Wali-Allah is worship because Ilahiyyah is implied from the act. In your methology Ilahiyyah is implied after ‘action of worship’ – which is seeking of help. Where as in my principle (i.e. Dua in which help of a Deity is sought is worship.) Ilahiyyah is already believed and then help is sought. Your three principles leads to Ilahiyyah via actions. And my principle leads from Ilahiyyah to action. Fundamentally, Ilahiyyah is part of my and your methodology. In mine, Shirk is due to Ilahiyyah, and act of worship, and in your, Shirk is due to worship and Ilahiyyah. Rationale of your methodology is, three principles establish worship, worship is for Ilah, hence worship of creation, implies affirmation of Ilahiyyah for creation. You judge Shirk based on Ilahiyyah but which is implied from action. He said: No, in this regard I judge Shirk based on worship and not due to affirmation if Ilahiyyah. I said: By worship you specifically mean, invoking the deceased, or are you using it generally? He said: According to context of our discussion and generally. I said: You have already negated that you do not judge belief from actions but you judge belief from what person affirms with his tongue. And I already have refuted your judging creed from actions. Anyway! So you judge Shirk from worship? He said: Yes! I said: Does the belief of Ilahiyyah lead to worship or does worship lead to Ilahiyyah? Did you admit Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Ma’bud/Ilah first and then worshipped Him? Or did you worship Him and then believed He is your Ilah/Ma’bud? He said: Belief leads to worship and I worshiped Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) after believing, He is worthy of worship. I said: So your action is based on belief, the foundation of your actions is belief. And precisly this is what principle two of mine is based on. I continued: Think about it, for your self you’re on the methodology of Ahlus Sunnah, but against Ahlus Sunnah you employ the invented principlies and methodology of your sect. And this proves all my three principles are valid because your own action is according to it. He said: I need time to think about the discussion we had so far and refer to Ahlul Ilm in this regard.

[After Salam and Wa alayqum Salam, we parted and few days later he got back to me and acknowledged his mistake, and attested Dua in which help from a Deity is sought is also worship. He explained he did not object to the principle in context of Islamicly sanctioned acts of worship but only in context of Istighathah because my -Ali’s- second principle seemed to exonerate practioners of Istighathah from Shirk.]

Fifth Chase: Ijmah Is Upon Guidance So Adhere To Ijmah:

I said: Brother, when both of us agree on correct-ness of my principles. Should you not take heed from the following words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950] Implying that his Ummah will only unite/agree upon what is guidance. He said: The Hadith is weak, hence cannot be used for evidence. [He went to criticise Sanad of quoted Hadith.] I said: Brother, first of all, I did not intend to imply adherence to majority is obligation. I merely cited the Hadith to establish, Ijmah is upon guidance and not misguidance. You and I both agree, upon Ijmah being source of guidance. The principles mentioned by me are agreed upon by both parties hence these cannot be error. As per agreed rules which I quote:  “… any principle not agree upon both sides needs to be supported with evidence if demand is made, agreed upon principles will not be brought into dispute, questioned cannot permitted present textual evidence Quran/Hadith unless asked, …” We agree upon Ijmah and I expect that it will not be brought into dispute in future. You have agreed upon my first, second, and third principle, and I seek assurance you will not bring it into dispute in future. As for your three principles are disputed and unsubstantiated. We have already had discusion regarding them on PalTalk and I am more then willing to hand you the charge so you can establish them.

[He did not respond to this and about five mins later went off-line. His silence by me was interpreted as win of Ahle Sunnat’s principles and methodology over his and felt there was no need for it to be persued any further.]

Sixth Chase - Servants Of Allah Inclusive Of Deceased Awliyah-Allah And Karamat:

I said: If you recall in the beginning of our discussion you stated, servants of Allah, refers to angels and instruction of seeking help is from them. We also discussed about seeking help from servants of Allah in Brazil’s Amazon jungle and you stated  you would respect the decision of someone seeking help from angel  even though its not prophetic Sunnah. He said: I do. I said: What if his Ijtihad is that servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) are not just the angels according to Hadith but inclusive of deceased Awliyah-Allah? He said, the following Hadith has angels: “Indeed Allah possesses Angels besides the Hafazah (the Angels of Protection) who write (of even) the leaf which falls from a tree so when one of you suffers a limp in a deserted land he should call "Assist (me) O slaves of Allah"'  Commentators, including Imam Shawqani have stated it refers to angels and Muslim Jinn. I said: First of all, the Hadith explicitly did not state, seek help from angel or Muslim Jinn. The Hadith which you quoted only states, Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed angels to write everything that takes places on earth – including falling of a leaf. It does not in any way insinuate seek help of those or any angel or Muslim Jinn. Proof of this is, the call uses words, O slaves/servants of Allah. He said: Point noted, and I will get back to you on this. I said: Commentators have stated about the angels and Muslim Jinns and I have no problem with that either. I am all for including them in it but not restricting the phrase, slaves of Allah, for them only. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’la) states: “When My servants ask you about Me, (tell them that) I am indeed nearmost. I answer the supplicant’s call when he calls Me. So let them respond to Me, and let them have faith in Me, so that they may fare rightly.” [Ref: 2:186] “Indeed you will taste the painful punishment, and you will be requited only for what you used to do —[all] except exclusive Allah’s servants.” [Ref: 37:38/40] Mutliq (i.e. general) statement is all encampassing and exclusive of none. When RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said slave/servants then all which come into category of slave/servant are inclusive just as righeous Jinn and Bashr are included of these verses. He said: Brother this would be fruitful and beneficial Ahadith relating to this topic were Sahih or Hassan. Servants of Allah being inclusive of Awliyah-Allah, it will not establish permissibility for seeking help from the deceased Awliyah-Allah. I said: Would you agree that servants of Allah are inclusive of Awliyah-Allah? He said: They can be but chance of a person in desert and his call reaching a living-Wali is zero hence the likelyhood of help being granted by a Wali is zero.

Sixth Chase - Help From A Wali As An Act Of Karamah:

I said: Not even as an act of Karamah (i.e. saintly miracle)? He said: It is possible but has not taken place. I said: Are you thinking of Hadhrat Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu), O Sariya behind the mountain, Hadith? He said: Yes! If voice of Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) can reach Sariya (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) can see the event while it is unfolding. Then why wouldn’t a Wali hear a call of help if Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) wills for him to hear it? He said: As an act of Karamah a living-Wali can hear and as an act of Karamah can help someone in distress. I said: So if I seek help of so Shaykh believing he in Africa will hear my call of help, bi-iznillah, as an act of Karamah, and he can help me as an act of Karamah, can that be Shirk? He said: Karamah is possible hence it cannot be termed Shirk. I said: Ahlus Sunnah believe Awliyah-Allah hearing the call of help and providing help are acts of Karamah. He said: Even for the deceased? I said: According to Ahlus Sunnah Karamat of Awliyah do not cease even after their death. We have established the living Awliyah-Allah can help, can see, and even hear bi-iznillah. One of your principles is, requesting help from someone who cannot hear you through natural means is Shirk, and this principle has been refuted. He said: But the call will be heard through the means – super natural means but still has means. I said: Is there anything which is believed to take place without natural or super natural means, everything happens with natural means or super natural means. We never have removed means from seeking help – according to Ahlus Sunnah everything happens through means.

Sixth Chase - Ijtihad Of A Mujtahid Regarding Deceased Awliyah-Allah Helping:

He said: Brother you are prolonging the discussion. Actual dispute is over deceased Awliyah-Allah being able to help, or having the ability to hear the calls of help. I believe it is permissible and you believe it is impermissible because it is Shirk. This is what needs to be discussed but you are bringing into discussion aspects which are not disputed. I said: What if a Mujtahid has understood the phrase, servants of Allah,  to be inclusive of deceased Awliyah-Allah and seeking of help from them as permissible. Will he be guilty of Shirk? And those who follow his Ijtihad be guilty of major Shirk also? He said: None from the Mujtahideen have stated this. I said: Imam Ahmad Raza (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) the Mujadid of  fourteenth century. Amongst Mujtahideen, his maqam is stated to be, Mujtahid fil Masail, and some have stated he is Mujtahid fil Madhab. Out of seven levels of Mujtahid, he is upon the fifth (i.e. mujtadhid fil masail), and there is Ijmah of Ahlus Sunnah over this. Dispute is over his one level higher (i.e. mujtahid fil madhab). On subject of, principles of Tafsir he has penned around a dozen books. His footnotes on various Tafasir amount to seven. His status amongst Muhaditheen is of Hujjat Ul Hadith – which is one lower from the highiest. This Imam has stated phrase, slaves of Allah, is inclusive of Awliyah-Allah living and deceased, angels and Jinn, and has stated it is permissible to seek help from deceased Awliyah-Allah with belief the aid in haqiqi terms will come from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He said: He is not a Mujtahid, nor Mujadid only Ahlul Biddah claim this therefore it is of no value. I said: Ijmah is not of whole Ummah but of majority. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated follow the majority. And majority is in agreement of his maqam as Mujadid and Mujtahid. He said: The Hadith you are basing this on is Da’if. I said: But it is coroborated by Sahih Hadith: “It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya.” [Ref: Muslim, B20, H4559] Deviation from main body is death of Jahilliyah because main-body is, lion’s share, and majority.  Another Hadith from indicates majority is better then minority“Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] Out of three, two is majority,  and out of five three is majority. Therefore prophetic advice would be to stick to which is better (i.e. majority) and that majority would be the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah. In an another Hadith it is stated that we should follow the great majority and it is stated the Ummah will not unite upon misguidance -: Anas bin Malik said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing,  follow the great majority.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B36, H3950]  Prophetic advice to follow the majority could only be if the majority could not unite upon misguidance. He said: Brother these Ahadith refer to agreement over teachings of Deen not over disagreement/agreement over who is Mujadid or Mujtahid. I said: Birth of Mujadid every hundred years is part of teaching of Deen hence agreement over who is Mujadid is part of it - and part of instruction of following majority.  He said: Okay but your claim would be supported if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold about birth of Mujtahid, he said about Mujadid. I replied: Mujadid is responsible for reknewing religion of Islam. Every hundred years or so old needs to be dealt in light of new. How could Mujadid do his job if he does not have ability of Ijtihad! The pre-requisite for Mujadid is maqam of Mujtahid because he needs to re-knew with Ijtihad. Mujadid doesn’t search for the old books and publishes them again – here I am Mujadid cause I have reprinted books out of print. He carries out Ijtihad as a Mujtahid to fulfill his Mujadid duty. He said: Lol! Never thought about it this way. I said: Well I am glad I have helped with something. He said: In this case my position would be weakened. I said: Which position? He said: Istighathah being Shirk and its practitioners being Mushrik. I said: Glad you realised it.

[I also asked him to present a criteria on which a Mujtahid and Mujaddid can be determined. So the status of Sayyidi Ala Hazrat can be determined. He responded that he will try to find criterias. But didn’t get back to me nor I chased the issue due to forgetfulness.]

Sixth Chase - My Questions About Ijtihad And Muqallideen Of Mujtahid:

I said: I want to return to my questions – which you did not answer. He said: Which ones? I said: Ijtihad of Mujtahid leading him to believe, servants of Allah, is inclusive of living, deceasd, Awliyah-Allah, and also inclusive of angels and Muslim Jinn. And Mujtahid believing in permissibility of Istighathah practices it and so do people following his Ijtihad. Question was, is the Mujtahid and his muqallideen guilty of Shirk? He said: I do not believe Ahmad Raza is a Mujtahid. I said: That is not the question nor part of discussion. Even if we both come to agreement that Sayyidi Ala Hazrat is not a Mujtahid and Mujadid it will still not effect my point which I am intending to make. He said: If a Mujtahid arrives to this understanding. It would be his mistake and those who follow him will be following an error. I said: Major mistake in understanding of Tawheed and following his error of legalising major Shirk – would the Mujtahid be guilty of major Shirk/Kufr and those who follow him? He said: Ijtihad of Mujtahid is rewarded even if it is invalid. I said: And those who practiced what he legalised? He said: No comment – I need to investigate this part. I said: Suppose I Ali strive make every effort and come to same understanding as the Mujtahid – will I be Mushrik if I deem Istighathah permissible and practice it. He said: Yes, Shirk! I said: So in your understanding, Mujadid isn’t guilty of Shirk, and I am guilty of Shirk. So in this context you’re not judging Shirkness or Tawheedness of Istighathah based on criteria of equality with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but you are judging it on basis of Mujtahids Ijtihad vs Talibs effort. Mujtahids Ijtihad means his practice doesn’t nullify his Tawheed and his major Shirk becomes a rewardworthy error. Yet my practice becomes major Shirk despite the fact that I and the Mujtahid both will share exactly the same creed regarding Istighathah. So far we have come to understanding, that your criteria of Shirk is presence of evidence means Tawheed and absence means Shirk, Ijtihad of Mujtahid is error but Tawheed isn’t invalidated by his belief or action, but for same belief and same action a commons folks Tawheed is invalidated. Seeking help/something from one who has ability to help/grant is Tawheed and one who doesn’t have ability/item to help/grant is Shirk. What this establishes is you do not judge Tawheed/Shirk based on the definitions of Tawheed/Shirk rather idiotic blameworthy innovative principles – which have no foundation in Quran and Ahadith.

[Anoyed at the display of stupidity and abandonment of all theological principles I signed out of the Messenger to cool off.]

Seventh Chase - Impermissibility Discussion On Istighathah:

I said: You believe Istighathah is impermissible because it is Shirk. Hypothetically speaking, if it was established, it isn’t Shirk then would it be permissible?  He said: It is imperssible even if it was not Shirk. Would it be impermissible due to being Haram or innovation [which makes it Haram]? He said: Come again? I said: Is istighathah Haram because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared it Haram explicitly – like we find injuction alcahol, pig, donkey, interest etc? Or is it Haram because it would be a innovation – for which there would be no clear prohibition but it would be implied from it being innovation?[He required time to ponder over what was being asked so I allowed him to think about the answer. Few hours later he left me the following message.] He said: It is Haram because it is Shirk, like prostration to other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Haram and Shirk in our Shari’ah. I said: We already discussed Istighathah being Shirk and you provided no proofs for this nor for your principles in which you judge it to be Shirk. With regards to Istighathah being Haram due to Shirk. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has stated: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] We have clear evidence from many Ahadith; prostration to anyone beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is prohibited. There is no proof that Istighathah is prohibited. He said: Istighathah is prohibited because it is Shirk. I said: Where is the proof on basis of which you establish its prohibition?  He said: It is Shirk hence prohibited. I said: Brother, Prophet said all that which is Haram has been clearly stated to be Haram. We have clear evidence from which it is clear that prostration is Haram. If you quote me a single Hadith in which Prophet said, Istighathah is Haram, or Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) prohibited someone from seeking the help of deceased Awliyah-Allah then I will concede the point. He said: Brother! Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that we should not invoke those beside Allah and ask from Him this automatically implies we are forbidden to invoke others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I said: You stated Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has instructed that we seek His help and invoke none but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Invoking none but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) – the instruction to invoke beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is in context of not invoking idol-gods of polytheists. Surely, the living, the dead, and the angels, Jinn, and human are not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Then if your verses are considered, without context of Ilahiyyah then we are prohibited to seek help from all mentioned. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated: “And those who invoke not any other ilah (god) along with Allah, nor kill such person as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse - and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.” [Ref: 25:68] “So invoke not with Allah another ilah (god) lest you should be among those who receive punishment.” [Ref: 26:213] The punishment is for those who invoke an Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). With affirmation if Ilahiyyah for any of the mentioned we are prohited to invoke, seek, ask, for help from anyone of them because there is punishment. We are discussion, seeking help from the souls of deceased Awliyah-Allah, without affirmation of Ilahiyyah, and prohibition is for seeking help with affirmation of Illahiyyah. You’re implying the prohibition when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said prohibited matters are clearly stated. If it was prohibited it would be clearly stated as prostration is prohibited and clearly stated to be Haram in many Ahadith. Also you are, using a point which is not established to argue for prohibition – i.e. it is Shirk therefore Istighathah is prohibited. You first need to establish this contention of yours and then you can argue prohibition from it.

[He did respond to my points but there was no substence in his argument. It was repeat of what he said earlier. Yet the clear and true argument against him was established -: Prohibited are clearly stated, if it was prohibited we would find clear evidence establishing this. Therefore I did not respond to his response nor I will state what he argued.]

Seventh Chase - Prohibition of Istighathah Is Due To It Being Shirk Like Prostration:

I said: Apology for side tracking. You stated prostration was prohibited because it was Shirk in our Shari’ah to prostrate to anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Is there any evidence to suggest that it was prohibited because it was Shirk in Shari’ah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) to prostrate to anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). He said: It was prohibited obviously, because prostration of respect, may lead to Shirk. I said: It may lead to Shirk is not ground for arguing prostration of respect/honour performed for other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is Shirk. Its valid basis to argue; the Juhalaa could be misguided hence it could have become a, mean to worship of others beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), leading to Shirk. I believe prostration with respect to anyone other than Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) was prohibited because it was means to misguidance therefore it was declared Haram. And it was not declared Haram because of the reason which you gave. He said: On basis of what have you arrived at this position? I said: Sajdah is of two types, worship and respect. Prostration of worship for creation was prohibited in every Shari’ah of Prophets including in ours. Prostration of respect was not prohibited in our Shari’ah and eventually it was prohibited because it could have become source of misguidance for ignorant folk. He said: That is my point – In Islam when Sajdah of prostration of respect was forbidden/abrogated. [He meant, abrogated – that Islam abrogated previous Shari’ah.] Then only Sajdah of worship remained hence every Sajdah performed is considered worship. I said: Yes! Islam abrogated/prohibited the prostration of respect but it did not prohibit the intention of respect nor did Islam state from now on every prostration is of worship. Yes the person performs Haram action but his Haram action is with Halal intention of respect. You can’t judge the Haram action to be Shirk even when the intention is Halal – i.e. respect. Haram action with Haram intention (i.e. of worship) is Shirk. Our Shariah does recognise prostration of respect not being Shirk. Quran gives examples in context of prophet Yusuf and Prophet Yaqoob, and angels prostrating to Prophet Adam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states that He narrates old stories so the people of understanding learn lessons from them. We learn prostration of respect was not Shirk and to say it is Shirk is to distort Quranic teaching. Alhasil it does recognise that they are not Shirk. He said: Brother if something was prohibited then how does Islam accept it? Its abrogated. I said: My brother prohibition of prostration of respect is established and agreed upon by both of us. Abrogation of prostration of respect does not mean suddenly it has become Shirk. Even though prohibition of action is established yet this prohibition cannot lead to conclusion, suddenly every prostration is of worship. Intoxicants are Haram including alcohol. Does that lead to conclusion it is Shirk also? I repeat again, Islam has prohibited the action alone. It has not declared performing of prostration of respect as an act of Shirk. If someone performs this action, we reffer to Quran and come to conlusion that it is not Shirk, and we refer to Sunnah, and come to conclusion it is Haram.

[Both of us pretty much repeated the above few times until I gave up. There was no mutual agreement. On this but alhamdu lillah truth of Islam is clear to see.]

Seventh Chase - Permissibility And Istighathah:

I said: How do you establish permissibility of a practice and action in your Hanbali Madhab? He said: If it is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), or practice is found in his companions, or two succeeding generation. I said: I was looking for some principles but your answer is fine for what its worth. If you recall refferenced you some Ahadith about Haram and Halal. It was stated in them, issues on which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has remained silent are excused as favour by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) so we should accept His favour. Sunan Darqutni contains a Hadith in which it is stated: “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them. [Ref: Sunan Darqutni] Prohibition of questioning about them was because, then injunction regarding will be revealed – making it Halal, Haram, Fardh – and this would make life difficult for Muslims. On which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) remained silent were excused (i.e. permitted) due to His mercy: “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] Based on this it would be correct to argue that Istighathah is permitted because neither Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) nor Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not prohibited it. He said: These Ahadith refer to food items not the practices of worship. I said: Does not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibit fornication (i.e. Zina)? Did He not forbid lieing, and murdering unjustly, murder of minors, theft, interest on loans, marriage of Mehram with Mehram, Khanzir, drinking of blood, and dead animals? Did not Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibit associating of partners with Him, seeking of help from idols/gods, worship of idol/gods, dedicating of crops for their idols/gods? He said: “I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from acursed Iblees.” [Thinking he called me Iblees.] I said: “There is no might nor power except by Allah.” He said: It was not directed toward you. I forgot and what you stated reminded me. Forgetfulness is from Iblees so I sought refuge from him in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). [I apologised and wished to continue.] I said: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) prohibited so many things and so many practices. Yet He did not forbid Istighathah, nor He forgot about it, nor was He unaware of future. He left it untouched and this is proof it is permissible. He replied: There is Hadith in Sahih of Imam Bukhari, which states between Halal (i.e. lawful) and Haram (i.e. unlawful) are Mutashabihat (i.e. doubtful) and one falls into doubtful has fallen into unlawful: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things indulges in fact in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Bukhari, B10, H3882] Hence Istighathah is Haram. I said: First of all there is issue with translation in my understanding the words should be, “… and one who engages in doubtful will engage in unlawful …”, according to your translation the person has already fallen into Haram by engaging in doubtful. Logically speaking if doubtful are Haram then why are they termed doubtful! They should be under the category of Haram. Engaging in doubtful without concern for falling into Haram will eventually lead to Haram. In addition to this according to you Istighathah is an issue of major Shirk therefore Haram. Here you are arguing it is Haram because it is doubtful. This is contradiction. Presupposing you have changed your position, now you believe it is a doubtful matter, then doubtful matters are Haram but can doubtful be major Shirk? If Istighathah is clear Shirk it is not doubtful, and if it is doubtful then it is not Shirk. You can’t have it both ways. Moving on you have argued that it is Haram due to it being doubtful. Even if I conceede the point, you would have failed to prove it is Shirk because you have argued on it being Haram on basis of Istighathah being doubtful. What remains behind is, your understanding that it is Haram and my understanding that it is permissible. If your translation is correct [which I am very doubtful of because it contradicts common sense] then your position that Istighathah is Haram would be valid in my judgment – at least for you. And I certify permissibility of Istighathah based on the Ahadith I quoted.

[Again there was no mutual agreement. He attempted to push his position as the ONE AND THE ONLY. Personally knowing better, I had to bow out of discussion with grace. In my judgment issue is of Ijtihad, permissibility vs impermissibility. And Ghulu (i.e. extremism) of Khawarij has made it in issue of Tawheed and Shirk.]

Eighth Chase: Angels As Daughters Of Allah And Blockings Means To Shirk:

[Seeing that so much effort is being wasted and the man has yet to see the light of Islam. I decided to go to his Wahhabi side but with slightly more vigor for Tawheed.]

I said: Why do you think Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said that a Muslim should seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if Muslim is lost desert? He said: There are angels appointed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to provide help, so he just wanted the believers to know they will be helped. I said: Yeah! I get that but what I am asking is why didn’t Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) say seek help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) if you are lost in the desert? He said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) only permitted it because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permitted it. I said: My brother, I understand Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) does not permit anything which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not permit. You see when the polytheists were at sea and if there was a storm then they invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) alone but when they reached the safety of dry land they committed Shirk, established by following verse: “And when harm touches you upon the sea, those that you call upon besides Him are lost from you – except Him (Allah alone). But when He brings you safely to land, you turn away (from Him). And man is ever ungrateful.” [Ref: 17:67] He said: Yes they committed Shirk in Ulluhiyyah (i.e. Shirk in worship) not in Tawheed Al Rububiyyah (i.e. Tawheed of Lordship). I said: Brother, please don’t interfere, let me complete.

He promised he won’t interfere until his turn.]

Eighth Chase: In Hardship Polytheists Sought Help Of Allah:

I continued: Note the polytheists invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in time of difficulty but committed Shirk in time of comfort. Yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is asking the Muslims to seek help from angels in time of difficulty. Doesn’t this establish the polytheists understood role of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in receiving help and that’s why they sought His help alone. Yet Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) didn’t understand it. [Expecting a response from him, I paused but received no answer.] I said: If you look at the issue in the context of – polytheists taking angels as daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and believing them to be gods beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This seeking of help from angels, wouldn’t that reinforce the polytheistic belief of angel gods in your methodology? [No answer.] Don’t you think according to your methodology Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) is instructing Shirk by instructing to ask the servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to help in time of difficulty and not instructing to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? He replied: Naudu’billah min zalik! He continued: Brother help is being asked from the angels hence there is no Shirk because the help being asked is in power of angels. I said: You are familiar that polytheists took the angels as gods besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and worshipped them. So if the aid was to sought from angels then how was this different from polytheism of polytheists? [No answer.] I said: Brother, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) could have instructed the Muslims to seek the help from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in such circumstances and then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) would instruct the angels to provide the help being sought. We both know the angels do nothing but with permission of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hence seeking aid directly from angels is of no consequence. Instead of blocking the means to Shirk we find Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) opening the gate of Shirk. You believe Dua is worship so how can invoking the angels and leaving Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) not be Shirk, in your sects understanding? He replied: [After a long pause.] I don’t believe Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed Shirk but I do believe that he did not appropriately block the means to a Shirk in this case. I said: Ok! There is another issue connected with this topic of blocking the means to Shirk.

Eighth Chase: Not Adequetly Blocking Means To Shirk:

I continued: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed the angels to prostrate to Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) and story of Prophet Yaqoob (alayhis salaam) and his wife prostrating to Prophet Yusuf (alayhis salaam) are recorded in the Quran. Do you believe mention of these stories in the Quran supports the position that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not appropriately block the means to Shirk of worship? He said: Absolutely not! Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) clearly instructed that He alone should be worshipped throughout the Quran. I said: So just because throughout the Quran worship of creation is prohibited therefore you believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) appropriately blocked the means to Shirk. What do you think the Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did all his life? Did he not worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instructed His worship and forbade all types of Shirk? So how dare you say that he did not appropriately block the means to Shirk in this case? He said: Brother I only said that in light of the Hadith in discussion. I replied: Yet you wouldn’t say Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) failed to appropriately block the means to Shirk of worship in the Quran on basis of these verses which I mentioned.  If you loved the beloved Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you would not have dared to utter such Kufr.

At this stage I was too angry to continue. I was inches away from launching an abusive tirade against him for daring to say that the Messenger sallallahu alayhi was’sallam did not appropriately block the means to Shirk. Few days after, I regained composure I unblocked him. He came back on the yahoo Messenger so I planned to continue the flow with it to see how far this wave of Kufr can go. Or will the wave of Khariji Kufr stop and fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for once in his life.]

Eighth Chase: Khariji Said, Prophet Muhammad Faciliated Shirk:

I started again: Well my brother, note that polytheists invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in time of difficulty but at the time of ease invoked pious worshippers of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and yet they were Mushrikeen. On the other hand Hadith indicates that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed the pious servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to be invoked in time of difficulty to elevate the problem. Is this not turning people away from invoking Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instructing them to seek help from servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) as Mushrikeen invoked pious worshipers?  He replied: Brother this is not Shirk, asking the angels to help you what is in their powers is not Shirk. I said: Brother Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) was sent as a Prophet to spread the message of Tawheed and to instruct people to invoke Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) for all things. Yet in this Hadith if I judge according to your methodology then clear Shirk is being taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam). He said: This Hadith is Da’if (i.e. weak). I said: What if this Hadith is Sahih (i.e. authentic) or Hassan (i.e. Good), then will you agree Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) taught Shirk? He replied: [In the state of anger.] Yes! If this Hadith is Sahih/Hassan then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) facilitated Shirk unintentionally. I said: I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from the cursed Iblis! [At this stage I was furious for his this statement.] The Prophets are free from sin! He said: Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) committed Shirk because he named his son Abdul Harris instead of Abdullah – he obeyed Shaytan and obedience to him is Shirk according to Hadith. So even the Prophets can commit Shirk. Facilitating an act which is Shirk, is lesser offence, so it is quite possible Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) instructed this act of Shirk without knowing the effects it will have upon Tawheed Muslims. I said: In your sects methodology, obedience to Shaytan on issues of; Halal and Haram, Tawheed and Shirk, is akin to taking Iblees as a lord besides Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). This is Shirk which invalidates Tawheed. So you believe that Prophet Adam (alayhis salaam) committed major Shirk which invalidated his Tawheed? [He didn’t answer.]

Eight Chase: Who Is Responsible For Muslims Committing Shirk:

I asked: Two people engage in a fight and a third person hands a knife to one of them. The knife is used during the fight and one of the two fighting is killed. Now in court the murderer will be punished but the one who handed the knife over is also a criminal because he aided a criminal activity. You said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) facilitated the act of calling dead persons for help – which you believe is Shirk. Do you not think when the Sufi grave-worshippers will be punished in hell-fire eternally some punishment will be due for our Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) for his hand? He replied: Brother, this is Kufr system, Islam does not support the concept of – aiding a criminal activity is criminal act. I said: Prophet of Allah (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) said; one who innovates a reprehensible innovation and if others follow his innovation the originator of innovation will have sin increased each time others act on his innovation. By acting on the innovation people aid the innovation and as a result they and the creator of reprehensible innovation will be punished. Now will Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) be punished for his part in spread of polytheistic practice of seeking help from the dead?

[I received no response to this question of mine and after few minutes he seemed to go off-line. Since that day I have not seen him online. My guess is he has blocked me and does not wish to discuss with me anymore. My objective was not to force him to commit Kufr but to force him to think outside of the box. Force him to utilize non-Wahhabi principles to make excuse for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi was’sallam) but the foolish man traversed far from the boundary of Islam.]

Final Words:

The discussion as whole is a brilliant source for those Muslims who want to properly understand the Ikhtilaf between Muslims and Khawarij on subject of Istighathah. Discussion ended on a bad note – and partly I am responsible for this. Shaytan clouded my judgment and made me vindictive and angry. Result was that I took the course of destructive criticism which landed the brother in hot waters. I had to really struggle with myself to publish this last part but I decided to do so because it established long held notion that Khawarij are bey-adab (i.e. without manners, or disrespectful) toward Ambiyah and Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). I wish that discussion continued and he also had oppurtunity to quiz my side of belief as I had quized him. A lot would have been revealed and exposed about the belief of Khawarij but Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) willed otherwise. Any Salafi, interested in adhering to the rules stated in the beginning is welcome to quiz me on behalf of their Salafi brother and do what their brother could not do.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The First Chase – Part Two - Incident Of Bani Jadhima:

[At the end of – first chase drawing conclusion] He argued: actions which contradict Tawheed have to be judged on the apparent. He stated Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) killed a members of Bani Jadhima because they openly did not profess Islam by saying, aslamna (i.e. we submitted), instead they said, saba’na (i.e. we change our religion), he argued their this action was contrary to accepting Islam, he took their words as denial of accepting Islam even though they seemed to be professing Islam, and ordered them to be killed. Therefore similarly those who profess Islam but they act contrary to teaching of Islam we have right to judge them to be disbelievers like Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) doubted the conversion of members of Bani Jadhima. [Upon requesting refference and checking it the entire issue became clear.] I said: Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) indeed carried out the killings and did not accept their conversion to Islam. But in the same Hadith, when Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was informed of his, attempt of forced conversion, and murder of innocent, Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did say: "O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done." [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H628] This establishes Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) disaproved of his, attempt of forced conversion, murder of innocent people, and disaproved of his act of discrediting the acceptance of Islam by members of Bani Jadhima. There was and is no compulsion in religion of Islam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) said, la iqra fid-deen (i.e. there is no compulsion in religion) therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) rejected his compulsion. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) validated the Islam of person whom companion killed. Proving that once words which denote meaning, acceptance of Islam, are used by anyone then their Islam is to be accepted. And members of Bani Jadhima did use words which denoted their conversion. Therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) disproved the action of Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Killing of Muslims is forbidden and therefore Prophet (sallallahu  alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) rejected his actions. This cannot be valid evidence, the methodology of judgement employed by Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was rejected by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and is rejected by me also.

[He had no response to what I said but while searching for other versions of Hadith on which my opponent based his argument I came across a Hadith which had slipped my mind. And therefore I could not have used it in earlier discussions.Upon consulting an Aalim I found there is some weakness in Hadith but it can be lifted using principles of Muhaditheen.]

The First Chase – Part Two - Three Fundamental Roots Of Faith:

I said: On a issue for which there is no authentic Hadith available but only a Weak Hadith is available. Would it be better to adopt a position derived via Qiyas or adhere to weak Hadith? He said: if the Hadith is not against aqeedah of Tawheed then I have no objection following the injunctions derived from the Hadith even if it are based on Weak Hadith. I said: I agree! Is that rule of all Ahadith not relating to issue of Tawheed or just some? He said: All. I said: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated there are three things foundation of Eman, to refrain from killing anyone who profess first part of Shahadatayn, not to declare a Muslim as Kafir for his sins, and not to invalidate Islam of a Muslim for his actions. He said: There is no such a Hadith about actions and sins. You’re inventing this Hadith and you will reference it to some unknown book so your deception is not found out. I said: The Hadith is from six books of Ahadith. It is was narrated by: Anas bin Malik narrates from the Prophet  who said: Three things are the roots of faith: (i) To refrain from (killing) a person who says “there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah(ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] [He requested time to check the reference and came back.] He said: Allahu akbar! I said: Third - You declare a Muslim out of Islam for his (sinful and blameless) actions and but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not permit this. Second – You make Takfir of Muslims on actions which are either major sin such as prostration to ghayrullah. Or you make Takfir for actions are are blameless, such as seeking help from deceased servants of  Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Yet you were prohibited from doing this by Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).  First – And because of your two mentioned traits, you invalidate the belief of Tawheed of a Muslim and permit his murder and members of your sect murdered hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Arabia. And this is even when you have no right to do so, because they had professed, there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah. [He wanted to say something but prevented him from continuing and requested he let me finish.] And the basis on which your sect and you invalidate Tawheed were prohibited –: (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” Hence there is no valid excuse for you to invalidate Tawheed of a Muslim. Anyone who professes, there is no Deity worthy of worship except Allah, Muhammad is Messenger of Allah, he is Muslim, and his actions and sins do not invalidate his Islam but only if he professes a creed with his tongue which is contrary to Islam. He said: To invoke anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is act of worship and that does nullify the creed of Tawheed. I said: You’re judging the creed from his action. You have assumed, x seeks help therefore x has believed in a Ilah beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). You’re infering belief from action and based on this you are invalidating the Islam of Muslim. He said: I am not invalidating Tawheed based on his action I am invalidating it on his belief. I said: You’re using the action to deduce a belief. Khawarij did the same. They used a action and from it deduced a belief which was Kufr and they declared the Muslims as Kafirs/Mushriks based on that belief. Foundation on which you build your case is, action, like the Khawarij. It is due to this that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said do not declare a Muslim as Kafir due to his action. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said regarding them and those who follow their Minhaj: (ii) Not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits (iii) and also not to declare him out of Islam due to any of his action/deed.” He said: The Hadith is weak therefore I cannot accept it what is derived from it. I said: You have the right to not to accept it or reject but you have contradicted what you stated in the beginning, about prefering Da’if Hadith over Qiyas. Anyhow do you accept this would be a valid argument against Khawarij? He said: Yes of course. I said: So even the argument based on weak Hadith against Khawarij is acceptable to you but because it argument is against your sect and your methodology the same isn’t acceptable to you when it refutes your own sect?

[He did not respond and I had to leave the discussion at that point. It is evident that my opponent only intended hold to his methodology at all costs. And there is nothing one can do for a person whose interest in a discussion is to establish the truth, the only truth, nothing but the truth is my sect, alone. You can never make them believe in anything other then what agrees with their sectarian position. Another point worth mentioning is that, Hukum of Kufr, is always issued on belief. Action is only the tip of iceberg. Imagine someone is declared Kafir for a action i.e. kissing Kabah. Would it be acceptable to say, you’re Kafir for kissing Kabah – for no reason whatsoever apart from kissing it? Naturally when it is questioned, why is that Kufr, y will relate that action to a belief/teaching which has been negated according to his belief by the action of kissing Kabah. Therefore according to the Hadith negation of Islam via action is not just for sake of action alone but action is inclusive with belief. The action does not reflect the belief of person therefore Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said, not to invalidate Islam of Muslims due to their actions. The Khawarij employed an action and deduced a belief from it on behalf of the person and attributed that belief to the Muslim even when the person did not affirm what is being attributed to him, and they than made Takfir of Muslim.Now naturally, when a belief is infered which does not reflect the belief person affirms with tongue and believes in heart, but despite this person is being declared Kafir/Mushrik than person is being declared Kafir/Mushrik for his action and not for his belief. If he was being declared Kafir for his belief then it would have been the belief of person affirmed by him.]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...