Adressing AhlalHdeeth Forum Content In Thread Titled: Are Salafis Kharjis Based On These Ahadith?

[MuhammedAli]

Adressing AhlalHdeeth Forum Content In Thread Titled: Are Salafis Kharjis Based On These Ahadith?

Introduction:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) foretold the emergence of Khawarij from Iraq and Najd. The first appearance of Khawarij was from Iraq where the Khawarij abandoned Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and they went on to charge Ali (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and his party of committing major Shirk. They applied verses of disbelievers upon Muslims, declaring them Mushrikeen, and legitimized killing them under this pretext. This first major Khariji sect and its branches plagued the Muslims with violence throughout the centuries thereafter. Then era of second major Khariji assault started from Najd. It was lead by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab. They differed with first major Khariji sect. Yet are connected to it via ambilicalcord of fundamental principle methodology and cornerstone practices which are hallmark of Kharijism. This article will mainly attempt to shed light onto such two aspects: i) Verses revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks applying them on Muslims, ii) and Takfir via declaring Muslim is guilty of major Shirk therefore Mushrik.

0.0 - BackGround: Brother Rizwan Lets The Khariji Genie Out The Bottle:

A concerned brother enquired about two very important Ahadith. First states a person will attack his Muslim neighbor with sword under the pretext his neighbor is a Mushrik. The second Hadith states Khawarij apply verses of Quran upon Muslims which were in fact revealed for disbeleivers. His question is quite simple and important because brother knows on face value these Ahadith fit like glove to Salafis and Wahhabis:  “Assalamu Aleikum. How should we understand these Ahadith? Are these reports refering to Salafis? “Hudhaifa i.e. Ibn al Yaman said that the Prophet said: Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Qur'an so much that his face will become enlightened and he will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah desires. Then these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind his back and will attack his neighbor with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet was asked - which of the two will be deserving of such an accusation? - The attacker or the attacked? The Prophet replied - the attacker (the one accusing the other of Shirk).” [Narrated by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, Tahqiq Nasir Albani, Volume 001, Page No. 200, Hadith Number 81] Nasir Albani said: ‘This Hadith is Hasan.' Also see: Silsilat al-ahadith al-Sahihah - Albani Volume 007-A, Page No. 605, Hadith Number 3201. “Ibn Umar considered the Khawarij and the heretics as the worst beings in creation, and he said: They went to verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the Believers.” [Bukhari; Chapter Khawarjites. Ibn Hajr al Asqalani said in Fath ul Bari: That its sanad is sahih.] Today we see salafis who use verses from Al Quran and make takfir on sufis and call them mushriks. So I want to know what ulema have said about these ahadith. Can someone help?” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Brother 03:37 PM, here] In response to Hadith of Hudhaifa (radiallah ta’ala anhu) man attacking his neighbor on pretext he is Mushrik Rizwan responds and attempts to give impression majority of Salafis/Wahhabis do not engage in Takfir of Muslims. And those who do they are Jahil (i.e. ignorant/illiterate). He goes on to say members of other sects also make Takfir of Muslims and he names sects. On the second Hadith of, Khawarij apply verses of Kafirs upon Muslims, he says the Khawarij employ such verses and gives example of following verse: “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” [Ref: 5:47] And he ends with saying that both these Ahadith referr to Khawarij, a conclusion which, I Muhammed Ali Razavi agree with. It should be pointed out brother Rizwan does not apply this Hadith upon Salafis/Wahhabis because he deems this sect as true/pure Islam. For him some Khawarij are really insanely, extreme, over zealous, fringe, elements within Wahhabism but not mainstream. Without further delay here is what Rizwan wrote: 1) “Salaam. Simple answer is no because true Salafis don't. There may be a small minority that do 'Takfeer' but they don't kno what they are doing as they are Jahil and means they speak without Ilm. Plus the same could be said about Deobandis, Brailwees, certain Sufis who accuse Salafis and each other. So the answer is no. 2) The Hadeeth you quoted from Ibn Umar is true because the Khawarij use certain Ayah especially from Surah Maidah that were revealed about the Jews, according to the Mufasireen, and apply them to Muslims. Those who believed that Surah Al-Ma'idah V.47 refered to other … 3) Those Hadeeths look clearly like they are reffering to the Khawarij, not Salafiyah.” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Rizwan 04:18 PM to 08:02 PM,  here] Rizwan made admission that Khawarij apply verses of Quran revealed for disbelievers upon believers and his admission implies; he, al-Boriqee, and their Wahhabi kind in general are all Khawarij. Entire Wahhabism is based on disbeliever’s Ayaat/Ahadith being applied upon Muslims. For proof read any book of founder of Wahhabism , Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, and prove me right.

0.1 - BackGround: Attempt To Bottle The Genie Of Khariji Methodology:

Brother al-Boriqee was stung to action by admission of brother Rizwan and the implications it has for Wahhabism/Salafism. In response to what brother Rizwan admitted and context of Surah al-Maidah veres forty-seven al-Boriqee writes the following: "Asalamu Alaikum Akhee Rizwan.  You have to differentiate between: 1) The Sabab (reason) of the Hukm. 2) The Amm (generality) of the Hukm. Yes, the Ayaat of Allah regarding ruling by other than what Allah has revealed was indeed revealed about the Yahood primarily. The Sabab does not efface the fact that the action cannot happen with anyone else. In other words, the Sabab does not restrict the reality of such Kuffaric concepts happening beyond the realm of the Ahlul Kitaab. Al-Qurtubi mentions in his Tafseer: "If it were said that on this basis it is permissible to use as evidence when debating with Muslims verses which were revealed concerning the Kaafireen and it is known that the rulings concerning them are different, then it may be said to him that it is not far-fetched to derive rulings concerning the muslims that which Allah has revealed concerning the Mushrikeen." The Ulema have indicated that the reason for revelation and what is indicated by an Ayah may be interconnected. Moreover, the fact that the clear words of Allah are irrefutably general and thus understood by our Salaf as such, and the Ulema of Islam who followed them, then whatever is indicated as general, then its Hukm falls on all and sundry to whoever fulfills the reality of the Hukm. [While referring to what brother Rizwan acknowledged; verses of Quran revealed regarding polytheists being applied to Muslims is way of Khawarij al-Boriqee writes:] This is the exact same argument utilized by the Mushrikeen (i.e. Sunnis, the vast majority of Muslims) who try to validate the Shirk of idolatry [by ascribing it] to the prophet Muhammad. And differentiating [between] this Shirk from/with the Shirk of the Christians on the basis of their nominal claim to Islam. Despite the fulfillment of realities pertaining to Shirk [in their beliefe/practice] as revealed in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Moreover, the purpose of the Shariah being revealed, the explanation of Tawheed and the aspects of Kufr and Emaan as stipulated by Allah and His messenger when revealing about other peoples IS SO THAT the Ummah does not fall into the same pitfalls. If the fact of the matter was that the human who claims Islam is immune to these pitfalls solely on the virture of their attestation to Islam, then the revelation concerning the matters of Tawheed, Eman and Kufr with regards to other peoples becomes nothing more than ancient fables. And this was the charge of the Mushrikeen in the time of the prophet who said the same. The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and all that Dhulm encompasses SO THAT those who claim to love Allah will beware of following the same footsteps, OR ELSE they will become like those who adopted these Dhulumaat and will suffer the consequences of those who fulfill the Dhulumaat. Lastly, the purpose of mentioning all of this is to explain to you that the Asbaab of the Ayaat of Hukm does not reflect the application of the Ayaah on those who fulfill its reality. That is because the Sabab and the generality of the Ayaah are two different issues. That is why the same people who narrated and believed that these Ayaah were revealed concerning the Ahlul Kitaab, like at-Tabari, Ibn katheer, Ibnul Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibnul Arabi, and all others were the same individuals who also believed that a Muslim can literally fulfill the reality of the Hukm given in these verses. Asalamu alaikum." [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, al-Boriqee  08:44 PM,  here] It is worthy pointing out that even though al-Boriqee wrote the above in context of Surah al-Maidah verse 47 the general principles of Tafsir, underlined, apply to else where as well. Because Kharijis of Najd (i.e. Wahhabis/Salafis) apply verses revealed for Mushrikeen and apply them upon Muslims so admission of brother Rizwan implicates Wahhabis/Salafis as well. And what brothr al-Boriqee wrote in the beginning, underlined, referrs to those verses as well and his objective is to establish that there is no agreement with what Khawarij do and what Salafis/Wahhabis do. Brother al-Boriqee reasons Wahhabis/Salafis are justified in their application of these verses upon ‘nominal’ Muslims because they in fact are guilty of Shirk so even though the cause of revelation doesn’t implicate them the teachings of Shirk a verse rejects/refutes makes it permissible for us to apply such verses upon ‘nominal’ Muslims.

1.0 - Rules Of Interpretation: True Meaning Must Be Part Of Hukm:

You rightly pointed out in context of principle of Tafsir; Sabab (i.e. cause) of revleation does not restrict Hukm (i.e. injunction) of revelation for only whom the verse was revealed but Hukm of verse is Aam (i.e. general) and applies to all who qualify for it. You’re also aware that Sabab restricts the type of Hukm derived from verse. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in numerous places stated bow down with those who bow down. And meaning contextually is bow in worship of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with those who bow down to worship Him. It would be foolish to derive Hukm of permissibility of bowing in context of Japanese/Chinese cultural practices. Only exception to this rule is, underlined, is when a Ayat/Hadith is coupled with another Ayat/Hadith. Even then resulting Tafsir must incorporate true meaning of the Ayaat/Ahadith. And you also know that when the Hukm derived from Ayat/Hadith does not fit upon belief/practice of a person then Hukm cannot be applied upon individual.

1.1 - No Difference Between Methodology And Practice Of Khawarij:

You're aware that Khawarij did not apply Quranic verses upon Muslims due to belief that these Muslims were cause of revelation of these verses. Kharijis actually applied the verses of, Kufr/Shirk, upon Muslims in same, Hukm, sense you, apply verses of Kufr/Shirk upon Muslims. In short there is no difference in; what you apply, why you apply, and how you apply. Nor there is any difference in delusion which made them feel they are justified. If Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) permits I will establish this delusion in forth coming parts of this article. To know if you’re from Khawarij all needs to be seen is if Wahhabi Takfir of Muslims by accusations of major Shirk are based on valid grounds or not. If invalid then you’re from Khawarij even if you choose to delude otherwise.

1.2 - Your Way Of Takfir Is Unjustified And Khariji Way:

You're well aware that those whom you alleged are 'nominal' Muslims neither affirm Ilahiyyah (i.e. Ma'budiyyah) for a creation, or any creation. Nor do they worship them, nor have such intentions, nor perform actions of worship. And they say, none is worthy of worship except Allah, yet despite this you charge them of Shirk based on your distorted wonky understanding of and methodology of determing Shirk. You judge them to be Mushrik not based on what they believe but what you attribute to them and this is what the Khawarij did. And you’re aware without affirmation of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship no worship takes place. If you disbelieve then worship Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without these two foundations. These two are cornerstone of worship in Islam and to determine worship of Muslims and non-Muslims. You judge them, Muslims, to be Mushrik even when Ilahiyyah isn’t affirmed, nor intention of worship is made. Note this golden nugget and do not forget it: No action is worship without Ilahiyyah and intention of worship. Every action done with belief of Ilahiyyah and intention of worship is worship. Do not forget them and contemplate over them. If you contest this rule bring your proof if you’re truthful. And by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) you’re from the misguided folk. Yet despite these defects in your understanding of Ibadah and methodology of determing major Shirk you judge them to be Mushrikeen. And you have odacity to, indirectly, claim to know their belief better then them. How unfortunate of you! Since brother al-Boriqee thinks high of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah); Imam Shah Wali-Allah al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) in chapter of chapter 38 of his Hujjat al-Balighah writes in Sajdah intention differentiates between worship and respect. And this indicates in his understanding Niyyah would make an action worship.

1.3 - Truth According To Fundamental Principles Of Tawheed And Shirk:

There is no denial foolish amongst those who claim to hold to path of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah perform deeds which are Haram, such as prostration, out of reverance and some are engaged in other type of reprehensible innovations. But despite this their creed of Tawheed is intact major sins (i.e. prostration of reverance for other then Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala), type of Tawassul disputed by your kind and deemed major Shirk by your kind, and other practices do not invalidate belief of Tawheed. Because these Muslims do not explicitly or implicitly affirm Ilahiyyah for a/any creation and nor they worship a/any creation. Tawheed fundamentally is affirmation; Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One and the Only Ilah. And Shirk fundametnally is affirming Ilahiyyah for anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And once this core is corrupted, with major Shirk of belief, then person performs action with intention of worship. When the reality of your Takfir via charge of major Shirk and accusation of Mushrik is unwarranted then you have no argument against the truth that your Wahhabism is form of Kharijism. This charge returns to you via two routes: i) The Hukm of verses you apply upon Muslims cannot legitimately be applied to Muslims and this is also what Khawarij did. ii) Khawarij without just cause declared that Muslims are Mushrik, like the Hadith of Ibn Hibban establishes. Due to these two reasons supported by quoted Ahadith you folk are Khawarij. This conclusion is also supported by Ahadith of group of Satan (i.e. Qarn al-Shaytan) emerging from Najd. And history is proof Wahhabism emerged from Najd and did all which was prophecised. Friend of the British and enemy and killers of Muslims, and a reality which has not changed since.

1.4 - Wahhabism And Kharijism Against The Prophetic Teaching:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated three things are foundation of Eman in following Hadith and he explained what these are: “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 deed. Jihad continues from the day I was sent as Prophet to ...” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B14, H2170] A ignorant/foolish Muslim performs prostration to a grave out of respect, or a Muslim seeks Waseela/Shafa’at of a Wali/Nabi. Wahhabi declares him out of Islam for this deed. This is violation of third foundation of Eman. If the action is sin, i.e. prostration of respect to any creation, then this would be violation of second foundation of Eman. It is known Khawarij made Takfir of Muslims because of their major sins just like Wahhabis. It is also established that when Khawarij/Wahhabis considered it permissible to shed blood of other Muslims on ground of their Takfir and when oppurtunity availed they killed Muslims with imputiny and continue to do so. The Wahhabi barbarity unleashed by Najdi forces in Arabia is recorded in history books. Modern example of true Wahhabism is ISIS, their absolute lack of compassion and mercy, inhumane butchery of orthodox Muslims, and other minorities can be accessed and viewd on internet. And their murderous orgy nullified the first foundation of Eman. Any who has nullified all three has no Eman and is out of Islam like an arrow out of target: Never to return to Islam and out of Islam so cleanly that there is little sign of Islam on him. And every Wahhabi educated and believer of it will aspire to do to Muslims all which Messenger of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Khulafa did: wage wars, enslave, demolish, and invade to expand territory of Islam because Shaykh al-Najd wrote: “The third principle is that the Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) encountered people differing in their worship. Amongst them were people who worshipped the angels, some who worshiped the prophets and the righteous men and others who worshipped stones, trees, the sun and the moon. The Messenger of Allaah (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them and did not differentiate between them.”[1] [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 3^rd Principle, Shaykh al-Najd, here] What he stated here is that we will fight every type of Mushrik and will not make distinction between any. Note Shaykh al-Najd’s immediate target ‘Mushrik’ were actual Muslims of entire Arabian Peninsula. In context of historical events he is stating those who worshipped so and so, and including these who say we are Muslims, and as claimants of Islam  (i.e. ‘nominal Muslims’) say none has the right to be worshipped, even though they say it, they are in fact Mushrikeen, and we will do all to them which Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did with Mushrikeen he encountered during his life. And these Wahhabis precisely did so thus negating first condition of Eman. All three Kharijis nullified, and all three Wahhabis nullified. Those who haven’t yet aspire and desire to. Therefore every true Wahhabi, true to teaching of Wahhabism, is enemy of every member of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah, and he is desiring aspiring, could be, and in ‘right circumstances’ then would be killers, enslavers of you, your mother, daughters, sisters, your wives, children, old, and young.

2.0 - When Can A Verse Of Kafir/Mushrik Can Be Employed As Evidence:

i) When the Hukm is corroborated from another Ayat/Hadith which was revealed for Muslims. ii) When it talks about a humanly attribute/behavior negatively and it is also of a Muslim also: To point out this is done by astray and cursed people so the Muslim gives-up the habbit/behavior. iii) When substantiating, linguistic, a undersanding. iv) When Hukm derived is not same as in context of it was revealed for. v) When taking general wisdom and learning lessons from stories mentioned in Quran and Hadith.

2.1 - What Imam al-Qurtubi Sated And How It Was Employed:

You’re forewarned following English translation of Imam al-Qurubi’s quote is very crude and does not properly convey intended meaning but it can be gleemed from it. Brother al-Boriqee quoted Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) in support of his view: “Al-Qurtubi mentions in his Tafseer: "If it were said that on this basis it is permissible to use as evidence when debating with Muslims verses which were revealed concerning the Kaafireen and it is known that the rulings concerning them are different, then it may be said to him that it is not far-fetched to derive rulings concerning the muslims that which Allah has revealed concerning the Mushrikeen.” Imam (rahimullah) states if the derived Hukm from verse is different then what it originally was revealed for then it is permissible to employ it as evidence during sectarian debates even if a verse was revealed in context of Kafirs. And I Muhammed Ali Razavi absolutely and whole heartedly agree with this. What the Wahhabis do is completely and absolutely opposite of what Imam al-Qurtubi (rahimullah) stated. They interpret a verse of Quran as if it is describing belief/practice of Muslims. In other words they apply the direct/explicit Hukm of Kuffaar verse upon Muslims which is prohibited and it is something what Khawrij did.

2.2 - Shaykh al-Najd, Four Fundamental Principles, And Proof:

Shaykh al-Najd, Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab, al-Najdi at-Tamimi, wrote a small pamphlet named Qawaid al-Arba in a effort to prove Muslims are actually Mushrikeen due to practice of intercession/intermediation. In the second principle Shaykh al-Najd wrote the following: “The second principle: That they (the mushrikeen) say: ‘We do not call upon and  turn towards them except to seek nearness and intercession (with Allaah).' So the  proof against seeking nearness (through awliyaa) is His saying: "And those who take awliyaa besides Him (say): "We worship them only that  they may bring us near to Allaah.'' Verily , Allaah will judge between them  concerning that wherein they differ. Truly , Allaah guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever." (Quran 39:3) And the proof against intercession (through awliyaa) is His the Most High's saying: "And they worship besides Allaah things that hurt them not , nor profit them, and they say: " These are our intercessors with Allaah.'' (Quran 10: 18) And intercession is of two types: The prohibited intercession and the a ffirmed intercession. The prohibited intercession …” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 2^nd Principle, Shaykh al-Najd, here] He says those Muslims who say we practice Waseela/Shafa’at through Awliyah-Allah and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are saying like the Mushrikeen said that we worship them … Shaykh al-Najd didn’t consider belief in Qawaid 2^nd principle just action of Muslims and worse he inferred belief of Muslims from verse which was indicating belief/practice of Mushrikeen. In the quoted Shaykh al-Najd ignored the fact that Muslims who practice Waseela/Shafa’at do not believe another is Ilah (i.e. worthy of worship) except Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or intend to worship, or worship anyone other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And despite this he applied upon them verses of Quran which were describing beleifs/practices of polytheists. al-Hasil they do not just employ unrelated point of a verse as proof but in fact they apply main objective of verse upon belief/practice of Muslims. And this is contrary to what Imam Qurtubi (rahimullah) stated, and against the accepted norm, and this is precisely what Khawarij did.

3.0 - Generality Connected With Jawami al-Kalim Nature Of Quran:

Brother al-Boriqee writes: “Moreover, the fact that the clear words of Allah are irrefutably general and thus understood by our Salaf as such, and the Ulema of Islam who followed them, then whatever is indicated as general, then its Hukm falls on all and sundry to whoever fulfills the reality of the Hukm.” Brother al-Boriqee stated words of Quran are general and understood in their generality. He stated this in context of his following statement. Yet despite this his words are true for every such verse found in entire Quran. And I am glad brother al-Boriqee made this admission because this is something very few Wahhabis of Najd will allow and practice. And I pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) He makes it means of his guidance. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) stated he has been given Jawami al-Kalim, meaning, short expression bearing widest possible meanings. And this widest scope of understanding is due to generality of Quranic verses. Brother al-Boriqee wrote his own way but it would have been better he had phrased as following because it would have encampassed all applications of actual rule: Words of Quran are general (i.e. Mutliq) and understood as such by Salaf and those scholars who followed them. Therefore whatever is indicated as general then it’s understanding is according to Mutliq Haqiqi (i.e. truly general) and only limiting factor is evidence coupled with Mutliq Haqiqi. Its Faham is according to whatever generality establishes and Hukm upon whoever fulfills the reality of Hukm. Yet he wrote in context of issue and there is no blame on brother al-Boriqee for this.

3.1 - Generality Of Quranic Verses Disbelieved By Wahhabis:

Generality means all inclusive and nothing is excluded. In context of Quranic verses if a verse is general it means it isn’t restricted to a particular meaning but all meaning possible can be derived from it and all are valid. If a interpretation contradicts then you have violated principle of Tafsir. Hence all inclusive nothing excluded. This out the way lets move to actual battle ground. Brother al-Boriqee states Salaf and the scholars who follow their footsteps understand Quranic verses according to generality of meaning but the fact is truth is far from it. This generality is only practiced on selective verses where the Khawarij want to apply Quranic verses revealed for polytheists/idols upon Muslims and Awliyah-Allah. I will quote one such verse employed often in a bid to prove Tawassul of Awliyah-Allah and Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Shirk and futile practice: “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: 16:20/21] Yet another verse establishes this was said about idol-gods of polythiests: “But they have taken besides Him gods which create nothing, while they are created, and possess not for themselves any harm or benefit and possess not (power to cause) death or life or resurrection.” [Ref: 25:3] Prophets and Awliyah have support of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and they not only create birds out of clay, they give life to dead. Theoratically they can do all, with permission/power granted by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is able over. Anyway lets return … only selective verses are applied in generality and that too verses of disbelievers/idols on Muslims, Awliyah, Anbiyah, and nothing else.

3.2 - Testing Claim Of Holding To Generality Via Noor Mutliq:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a Noor and a clear Book.” [Ref: 5:16] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) reveals concealed things. Ability of Noor (i.e. light) is to reveal hidden/concealed things therefore Noor referred in following part is referrence to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). On the principle of generality of Quran let us test the claim of brother al-Boriqee and his claim of following of Salaf. This verse means Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is Noor Mutliq (i.e. Noor of all types) because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not restrict to a type of Noor in this verse. From this we learn he is Noor in body and Noor of guidance. In context of first following verse is further proof of it: “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And one who invites to Allah, by His permission, and as an sirajam muneera (i.e. illuminating lamp).” [Ref: 33:45/46] Siraj and Muneer in language of Quran are sun and moon. One is a Noor entirely and other earthly body which emits Noor of Sun. Alluding to Haqiqat al-Muhammadiyyah (i.e. Nooraniyyah) of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa alaihi was’sallam) encapsulated in Bashariyyah of RasooAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). One may say Noor and Bashr are opposites therefore Taweel is needed. Yet Quran and Ahadith are proof Noor, Gibraeel (alayhis salam), came in form of Bashr therefore no Taweel is needed. The second is understanding that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) Noor of guidance because he guides with Noor of Quran. And this understanding is ittifaqi (i.e. agreed upon) by both sides. Will brother al-Boriqee hold to established generality of this verse and meaning it establishes? Not!

3.3 - Testing Claim Of Holding To Generality Via Shahid Station:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is sent as Shahid (i.e. witness): “O Prophet, indeed We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And one who invites to Allah, by His permission, and as an sirajam muneera (i.e. illuminating lamp).” [Ref: 33:45/46] Muslims believe he has been sent as a hearing seeing type of witness like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) was sent as a witness to Pharaoh: "We have sent to you an apostle to be a witness concerning you even as We sent an apostle to Pharaoh." [Ref: 73:15] And he has been sent to entire mankind as a warner, bringer of glad tidings, and as a witness: “O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord and We have sent down to you a clear light.” [Ref: 4:174]“O mankind, there has to come to you instruction from your Lord and healing for what is in the breasts and guidance and mercy for the believers. “ [Ref: 10:57] In this context natural conclusion of these verses is that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been sent as a hearing/seeing type of witness to mankind. And he witnesses deeds of believers and disbelievers like Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) witnessed deeds of  Pharaoh. This in nutshell is belief of al-Hadhir and Nazir which none of them believe and all make Taweel of on account of it being ‘incompatible’ with Tawheed.

3.4 – Testing Claim Of Holding To Generality Via Knowledge In Quran:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated informs what is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book): “For, with Him are the keys of Ghayb (i.e. hidden): none knows them but He. And He knows all that is on land and in the sea; and not a leaf falls but He knows it; and neither is there a grain in the earth's deep darkness, nor anything: living or dead but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 6:59] “And in whatever condition thou mayest find thyself and whatever discourse of this thou mayest be reciting, and whatever work you may do We are your witness (from the moment) when you enter upon it: for not even an atom's weight on earth or in heaven escapes thy Sustainer's knowledge; and neither is there anything smaller than that, or larger, but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 10:61] “And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God; and He knows its time-limit (on earth) and its resting-place (after death): all (this) is laid down in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).”  [Ref: 11:6] “For there is nothing (so deeply) Ghayb (i.e. hidden) in the heavens or on earth but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref; 27:75] “And yet, they who are bent on denying the truth assert: Never will the Last Hour come upon us. Say: Nay, by my Sustainer! By Him who knows all Ghayb (i.e. hidden): it will most certainly come upon you! Not an atoms weight (of whatever there is) in the heavens or on earth escapes His knowledge; and neither is there anything smaller than that, or larger, but is recorded in Kitab al-Mubeen.” [Ref: 34:3] There are two understandings, one, that Kitab al-Mubeen mentioned which records everything mentioned in these verses is al-Lawh al-Mafooz (i.e. perseved tablet) which has record of everything to happen from creation to judgment day. Second is that Kitab al-Mubeen Quran: “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a Noor and a Kitab al-Mubeen (i.e. clear book).” [Ref: 5:16] Therefore it too contains all knowledge mentioned in the quoted verses. And scholars of Ahlus Sunnah hold to understanding that both positions are correct and according to Jawami al-Kalim nature of Quran. Yet none of the Khawarij believe this because it leads to logical conclusion that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has been taught entire Quran therefore his knowledge is inclusive of, all, from beginning to judgement day. And he reached this state of knowledge after Quran was completely revealed and explained to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). A Hadith records understanding of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) on a verse which completely goes against what the verse of Quran states: “Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so AbdurRahman bin Auf said to Umar: ‘We have sons similar to him.’ Umar replied: ‘(I respect him) because of his status that you know.’ Umar then asked Ibn Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse: ‘When comes the help of Allah and the conquest (of Mecca).’ (110:1) Ibn Abbas replied: ‘That indicated the death of Allah's Messenger which Allah informed him of.’ Umar said: ‘I do not understand of it except what you understand.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H713, here] This is proof that Quranic verses contain knowledge of matters apart from what is obvious. And only the ones who have knowledge of required method of interpretation can derive such understandings from Quran. Pir Mehr Ali Shah Golari (rahimullah), Ghawth of his time, was asked about date of birth and date of death of Imam Hussain (radiallah ta’ala anhu). And he responded it is in the bismillah of Surah al-Fatihah as it is recorded in Mehr e Muneer. He explains and justified it but I cannot recall precise referrence. In short Awliyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) have held this understanding and idiots of opposed them.

4.0 - Hadith Of Seeking Aid From Servants Of Allah:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “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. 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] This Hadith has been criticised by Khawarij for being weak but scholars of Hadith and Sanad criticism have established it is Hassan (i.e. good/fair). Following contains response to those who deem it Daif (i.e. weak), here. I also had a discussion on this Hadith and subjects related to it, here, it is a must read. Following Hadith supports it: “The Prophet said, "This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them. 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. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it." [Ref: Bukhari, B55, H583] And it has been acted on by many scholars but following is report about Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah): “Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (rahimullah) said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal rahimullah) who said: I performed Hajj five 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] And principle employed by Muhaditheen is if a weak Hadith is acted by a Muhaddith its elevated to rank of Hassan because it demonstrates trust in content and narrators beyond words. Actions speak louder then words.

4.1 - Hadith Of Seeking Aid And Test Of Generality:

Brother al-Boriqee said he takes general as general and this is way of Salaf and those who followed them. Note he made that statement in context of Quranic verses but I am confident he and his kind will not challenge the generality rule even for prophetic words. In case he does, if he does, I must be informed, and Insha-Allah, generality will be established for prophetic words with evidence of Ahadith. Words of Hadith are: “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] This indicates generality in two aspects. Hadith employed plural word slaves. It could means may slaves of a type (i.e. angels), or many slaves of different types (i.e. angels, Jinn, human). It also employs phrase: “… many slaves who we do not see.” And it can be inclusive of angels, Jinn, and even Arwah (i.e. souls) of Awliyah. Question is will brother al-Boriqee believe in the generality of wording? Unlikely!

4.2 - Determining Tawheed And Shirk, Via Angel And Wali:

Very likely brother al-Boriqee will make Takhsees and say other Ahadith establish its angels. Lets just agree with angels. What if via route of Ijtihad Muslims include Arwah of Anbiyah/Awliyah, Jinn, and living Awliyah-Allah will asking their help still be Shirk? I can even concede the Ijtihad is an error: What about the Mujtahid and what about those who act on his erroneous Ijtihad? For people of ilm and aqal black (i.e. Shirk) and white (i.e. Tawheed) suddenly got grey (i.e. confused): Didn’t it? Is the Mujtahid Kafir/Mushrik for legitimizing some what you deem major Shirk? And are those who act on his Ijtihad guilty of same? Or will the examption and reward of his error will be granted? Once again I will continue from underlined question and with the worst case scenario and suppose they say: Shirk! If from living/angel, Tawheed? If from deceased/Wali, Shirk? Tawheed/Shirk is now determined by new criteria of Wali and angel, and not by Tawheed and Shirk. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) indicated the Mushrikeen took angels as lords which we all know is Shirk: ”Nor could he order you to take the angels and prophets as lords. Would he order you to disbelief after you had been Muslims?” [Ref: 3:80] Some Wahhabis would be celebrarting because they don’t practice on this Hadith saying something like: Thank you Allah! You saved me from worship of angels. You saved me from Shirk of angels. Ahun attention folks! What about Mujtahid e Mutliq al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) and dozens of other Imams who practiced this Hadith?

4.3 - Wahhabi Way Of Determining Tawheed And Shirk:

Wahhabi rule for determining Shirk is: Any verse of Quran, which indicates Shirk, and establishes similarity between practice of a Muslim and Mushrik, in action (i.e. invoking), and of being invoked (i.e. Saliheen), then Muslim is also guilty of major Shirk.[2] Wahhabis argue idols of Mushrikeen were originally Saliheen/Awliyah of previous nations and after they died people created their idols and worshipped their graves. So they quote verses of idols and say the Arab polytheists invoked their Awliyah and you your Awliyah for help therefore you’re Mushrik like them. Wahhabis do not mention belief of Ilahiyyah, intention, action of worship, as the cause of Shirk but only emphrasize similarity of invoking Saliheen to charge Muslims of Shirk. In this context, and according to verse of Quran, Shirk of angels was a reality in Arabia. Therefore invoking/asking an angel for help would be Shirk, and, to be precise Shirk of angels. And all those Imams are guilty of Shirk of angels including Mujtahid al-Mutliq al-Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah). O you silly Sufi! Seeking help from angels is Tawheed. Aaah! So those who called upon, invoked, beseeched, angels were Muwahid in Angeliyyah? O you silly Sufi! No! No! Their Shirk was in Rububiyyah as the verse states. Aaah! So not in Ilahiyyah just Rububiyyah? Yeah! Ilahiyyah as well! Dua means; invocation, calling, beseeching, invoking, and is Dua worship? Of course it is, you Sufi, don’t you know this much? So invoking angels is not Dua? It is: No it’s not! Sufi leave me alone my head hurts. His head hurts cause if he says yes Dua is worship then Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (rahimullah) would be guilty of worship as per Wahhabism. And if he says no its not worship then first of all he contradicts literal reading of Hadith, which they hold dear, and secondly the angel worshiping Mushriks will no longer be guilty of worshiping angels. And to avoid all this blameworthy stuff they must abandon the mentioned rule, and believe Shirk is determined by belief, and all types of worship, including of Dua, by belief of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah, intention of worship, and action of worship. Otherwise you present your excuse and …

4.4 - Not Shirk Because Angles Are Living:

Angels are living therefore seeking help from them not Shirk according to our living/dead principle of Shirk. Mr Wahhabi! First of all living and dead, near and far, according to means and out of means, natural and supernatural, are all invented and have no foundation in Quran or Hadith. Therefore they are not criteras of determining major Shirk. Secondly Mr Wahhabi! It would be Shirk according to following rule: Any verse of Quran, which indicates Shirk, and establishes similarity between practice of a Muslim and Mushrik, in action (i.e. invoking), and of being invoked (i.e. Saliheen), then Muslim is also guilty of major Shirk. This rule of mine in nutshell has given the methodology you employ to determine if a practice of Muslim is Shirk or not. Therefore there is a contradiction between your methodology of determining major Shirk. You can’t suspend one rule in favour of another when you feel like it. Either give up this methodology or give up your dead/living rule. If you give up your dead/living rule result would be that you cannot defend Imams and if you give up this rule [which I made] then you cannot accuse Muslims of Shirk. Heads I win and tails you loose! Best way give up these fantasies of your flight and come to undeniable and agreed upon methodology of determining major Shirk: Shirk by affirming Ilahiyyah, worship by Ilahiyyah, Niyyah and Amal. Thirdly the Mushriks of Arabia invoked LIVING angels so are they Muwahideen in Angeliyyah or Mushrik? Mushrik! Why? They affirmed Rububiyyah. And what about Ilahiyyah? Ilahiyyah too. Did they worship the angels? Yes! Did they intend to worship them? Yes! Mr Wahhabi! Thank you. You just sang the tune I wanted you to sing. True criteria of determining Shirk was/is affirmation of Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah and to determine worship its is Ilahiyyah, Niyyah, and Amal.

5.0 - Empty, Hollow, Shallow, Claim Of Holding To Generality:

Even though brother al-Boriqee claimed to hold to generality of Quranic verses matter of truth is far from it. And when it is practiced by these Khawarij it is done so to justify and support Takfir of Muslims. And generality held of verse is always of a verse which was revealed about Kafirs/Mushriks, and their idol-gods, and then it is applied upon Muslims. They do not hold to Jawami al-Kalim nature of Quranic verses except lip service and except when they apply verses of polytheists/idols upon Muslims.

6.0 - Al-Boriqee’s Saying Muslims Legitimize Major Shirk:

In the following brother al-Boriqee is saying Muslims attempt to legitimize major Shirk by attributing it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and make distinction between major Shirk: “This is the exact same argument utilized by the Mushrikeen Mushrikeen (i.e. Sunnis, the vast majority of Muslims) who try to validate the Shirk of idolatry [by ascribing it] to the prophet Muhammad. And differentiating [between] this Shirk from/with the Shirk of the Christians on the basis of their nominal claim to Islam. Despite the fulfillment of realities pertaining to Shirk [in their beliefe/practice] as revealed in the Qur'an and Sunnah.” No Muslim actually attempts to justify major Shirk, or attempts to legitimize major Shirk by ascribing it to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And no Mulsims differentiates between major Shirk in an attempt to legitimize it. One who believed al-Lat is an Ilah and worshipped al-Lat, he/she was guilty of major Shirk. One who believes in Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) as an Ilah and worship’s him he/she is guilty of major Shirk. We Muslims make no distinction between Hukm of major Shirk in case of geniune major Shirk.

6.1 - When, How, Why Distinction Between Monotheists And Polytheists:

How is a polytheist; who believes Krishna is a god, invokes Krishna as god, with intention and action of worship; same as a Muslim who practices Tawassul? How is a Muslim; who believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the One, the Only Ilah, and with Him there is no partner. And believes Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is the Only deserves to be worshipped. And with intention of worship, and with Shari’ah sanctioned acts, worships Him; Mushrik like a Krishna god worshipping Hindu? How is a Muslim; who believes the Anbiyah/Awliyah are not Ilahs, do not deserve to be worshipped, do not intend to worship them, and does not perform action of worship for them, but practices Tawassul of Awliyah by saying similar to, O Allah, the Lord of Universe, the Malik of day of judgment, aid me through your Wali; Mushrik as a Krishna god invoking Hindu? How is a Muslim; who believes Anbiyah/Awliyah are servants of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and in accordance with Hadith of servant of Allah, living/deceased Awliyah can be asked for help in time of hardship, because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has appointed them on this task; is Mushrik like Krishna god invoking Hindu? You young foolish folk with beautiful speeches make no distinction. We Muslims make distinction between practice of Tawassul of Anbiyah/Awaliyah and between polytheists invoking their gods because Tawassul of Muslims is without belief of Ilahiyyah, Niyyah of worship, and without Amal of worship. Men with little understanding of Shirk and zilch understanding of Islamic principle methodology of determining major Shirk make no distinction between belief, practice, intention of Muslims, and of Mushrikeen. Clear distinction has to be made between belief/practice of polytheists and beliefe/practice of Muslims. One who makes no distinction between monotheistic Muslim practice of Tawassul, or seeking aid of Ibadullah as instructed in Hadith, and between polytheistic practice of invoking their associated god-partners is a Khariji. And one who deems them one and same is from Kufr group in East of Madinah and part of group of Satan of Najd.

6.2 - Fulfillment Of Realities Of Shirk, Or Fantasy Criterias Of Shirk:

Wahhabi methodology of determining Tawheed and Shirk has nothing to do with actual Tawheed and Shirk. Its connected with living and dead, ability and inability, near and far, natural and supernatural, in means and out of means. In Wahhabism when one needs to determine if a practice is Shirk then Shirk has nothing to do with affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Tawheed in their understanding is; ability, near, natural, in means, and Shirk is; inability, far, supernatural, out of means. If you seek help from living person, something which is in their power/ability, when you seek their help they are near to hear your call, help you need is natural such has help you lift TV in these things you’re Muwahid. But if person you ask help from is far, or dead, or help you want is supernatural, or the person is living but what you want is supernatural, i.e. paradise, then you’re Mushrik. Earlier I gave Muwahid, underlined, version of help; just change tiny bit, instead of near into far; seek help from living person, something which is in their power/ability, when you seek their help they are far from you so they cannot hear your call naturally but you believe they hear your call supernaturally, help you need is natural such has help you lift TV in these things you’re Mushrik. Yes you’re Mushrik according to Wahhabism. Not because you made that tiny spec equal with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Equality in hearing would be hearing absolutely everything; in-depths of seas, hearts, earths, planets, space, minds; and even that would be limited equality. True equality would be hearing without ears, unlimited/unrestricted hearing, without being dependent upon sound waves, without sound, hearing thoughts of minds/hearts. And even that isn’t exhautive … to end it all … to believe a creation hears as much and as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hears would amount to true Islamic equality with Him and would amount to true major Shirk. Its Shirk according to Wahhabism not because Ilahiyyah has been affirmed. It is Shirk according to Wahhabism but not because with intention of worship a action of worship has been performed. It is Shirk because someone far as been called for help, and stupid has inferred belief of Ilahiyyah, and action of worship from it. It has nothing to do with understanding of Shirk. Or anything to do with belief, intention, practice of person seeking help. Its just that stupid has invented his stupid criteria of determining Shirk. And this criteria has absolutely no foundation in Quran, or Hadith but its foundation and home is in fantasy land of Wahhabism. Just entertaining this makes me feel I have dropped few digits from my already low IQ.

6.3 - Reality Of Shirk And Way Of Determining Shirk:

Shirk has nothing to do with; living and dead, far and near, natural and supernatural, ability and inability, respect and disrespect, love and hate, asking and not-asking. You have had stupid version of Shirk and now have Islamic version of Shirk. Shirk is affirmation of Ilahiyyah for a creation and worshiping an invented Ilah instead of, or as well as Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Once Ilahiyyah for a creation is affirmed major Shirk has been committed. And invented Ilah is living or dead, near or far, human or animal, angel or Jinn, able or inable, hearing or deaf, loved or hated, respected or disrespected, and help sought is in his means or out of his means, natural or supernatural, absolutely none of these can change the Hukm of major Shirk to Tawheed or make it worse then what it is. Hypothetically speaking a living human being is elevated to status of Ilah. This invented Ilah is sitting right next to Mushrik, Mushrik ask him, O my Ilah, can you pass me the glass of water. The invented Ilah passes him glass of water. Is Mushrik a Mushrik. Yes he is! Why? He affirmed Ilahiyyah! Another scenario: Mushrik in Saudi Arabia believes his Ilah is living in America, i.e. George Bush, Mushrik says, O my Ilah the great George Bush help me bomb Muslim country, but his invented Ilah does nothing. Is Arabian Mushrik a Mushrik or Muwahid? Mushrik! Why? You guessed it he affirmed Ilahiyyah for George Bush. In both scenarios consistent cause of Shirk was affirmation of Ilahiyyah. This proves Shirk has nothing to do with living, dead, far, near … major Shirk fundamentally is affirmation of Ilahiyyah. Wahhabi cannot challenge this Islamic principle methodology of determining Shirk and cannot prove his flight of his fantasy which he believes is his principle methodology of determining Shirk.

7.0 - Brother al-Boriqee Distorting The Reality Of Quranic Verses:

Brother al-Boriqee wrote the following and I agree with over-all message which he attempted to convey but some specifics are wrong and considering level of his knowledge I am satisfied in saying distortions, and Batil example of Tafsir bil’Ra’ee:“Moreover, the purpose of the Shariah being revealed, the explanation of Tawheed and the aspects of Kufr and Emaan as stipulated by Allah and His messenger when revealing about other peoples IS SO THAT the Ummah does not fall into the same pitfalls. If the fact of the matter was that the human who claims Islam is immune to these pitfalls solely on the virture of their attestation to Islam, then the revelation concerning the matters of Tawheed, Eman and Kufr with regards to other peoples becomes nothing more than ancient fables.” What I agree with: Muslims falling into major Shirk is not impossible and Quran was revealed to combat this possibility and teach clear Tawheed/Shirk. And I agree with his saying that just because a Muslim professes to be a Muslim; he by default does not become immune from becoming Mushrik it is continous process affirming/holding to Tawheed, denouncing Shirk to retain Iman/Islam.

7.1 - Immunity From Shirk Makes Quran Worthless Fable Is An Absurd Rationale:

On a side note Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated, Q12:111, we have revealed stories of past events so people of understanding take lesson from them. So even IF Quran became just a story book for us lessons can be learnt. It wouldn’t make Quran worthless and pointless. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) narrated in Quran stories of Prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salam) and other Prophets does that make Quran worthless and those stories worthless fable? What I am getting at is his logic if Muslims are immune from major Shirk then Quran becomes worthless fable is faulty and absurd. Was Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was immune from Shirk? He was! Was Quran worthless fable to him? No! So why did he have to read the Quran? O because he was teaching those who weren’t immune from major Shirk. There you go one with immunity from major Shirk employs Quran to teach those who are without immunity and Quran still remain relevent. Now hypothetically speaking even, IF EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM WAS IMMUNE FROM MAJOR SHIRK, will Quran become worthless fable? It wasn’t for Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And it was relevent for him too because of his mission. What is our mission? To spread the religion of Islam, bring people to Islam, until it dominates, and conquers all religions. al-Hasil his rationale is absurd product of defective intellect, result of not thinking things through, and is based on faulty understanding of objectives of Islam.

7.2 - Confusion In Fables And Refutation Of Misunderstood Fables:

Brother al-Boriqee wrote: “And this was the charge of the Mushrikeen in the time of the prophet who said the same. The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and all that Dhulm encompasses SO THAT those who claim to love Allah will beware of following the same footsteps, OR ELSE they will become like those who adopted these Dhulumaat and will suffer the consequences of those who fulfill the Dhulumaat.” Wording of brother al-Boriqee’s writing is such that it can be understood in general context of entire Quran or specific context of stories of Quran. Originally I had understood following statement, “The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and …”, in context of what Mushrikeen said about Quranic verses and hinted by brother al-Boriqee here, “And this was the charge of the Mushrikeen in the time of the prophet who said the same.” He had written, “… was in essence …”. These words supported understanding that brother al-Boriqee was writing about stories of various Prophets mentioned in Quran. And brother al-Boriqee was discounting peripherials, such as things mentioned by me in following critical response: It already has been established that immunity from major Shirk does not make Quran a worthless fable. Why the Mushrikeen said Quranic verses are fables? Not all of the stories of past are actually about Zulm (i.e. transgression/Shirk). In fact stories of birth of Prophet Musa (alayhis salam) and being cast in river, Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) … are not just about Shirk/Zulm. Yes there are parts of stories which are connected with Shirk/Tawheed but not just that. These facts alone are sufficient to prove that their accusation of Quranic verses being fables of ancients were not related to Quran refuting their Shirk and affirming Tawheed. Rather they thought Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was narrating to them plagarised fictional accounts of past. Birth of Prophet Isa (alayhis salam), him speaking, breathing life to figurines of birds, Maryam (alayhis salam) receiving sustenance miracolously, casting of lots to determine who would take care of Maryam (alayhis salam), all these have been mentioned in Christian apocryphal writings. End. If brother al-Boriqee had written in context of what I understood then this is elimentry level mistake and criticism heaped and error established is justified. On a side note in Surah of Luqman Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) interpreted Zulm to mean Shirk and brother al-Boriqee correctly employed this Tafsir of Zulm to mean Shirk and polytheism.

7.3 - Setting The Fables On Straight Path And Agreement In Understanding:

I know brother al-Boriqee as person of knowledge and sound intellect but one who has been misguided due to unquestionably adhering to Wahhabi principles and methodology. This issue he wrote was not about orthodox Islam VS Wahhabism so we should not differ and dispute on. Nor my understanding of his writing seemed to fit into his knowledge characteristic. So I concluded I have made mistake in contextualizing his statement. I eventually figured that he was not writing about fables of Mushrikeen but in here, “The purpose for these so called "fables" was in essence the explanation of Dhulm, and …”, he was referring to his saying that Quran would become worthless fable if Muslim Ummah was immune from Shirk just on account of being Muslim: “Moreover, the purpose of the Shariah being revealed, the explanation of Tawheed and the aspects of Kufr and Emaan as stipulated by Allah and His messenger when revealing about other peoples IS SO THAT the Ummah does not fall into the same pitfalls. If the fact of the matter was that the human who claims Islam is immune to these pitfalls solely on the virture of their attestation to Islam, then the revelation concerning the matters of Tawheed, Eman and Kufr with regards to other peoples becomes nothing more than ancient fables.” Note he placed word fables in quotation marks. In other words he does not believe Quranic verses are fables but he referrs to them as such because Mushrikeen did so. And he believes these verses are true revelation. In this context my criticism in section, 7.2, is unjutified and brother al-Boriqee is free of blame but I have not deleted the content because there is possibility for that understanding. Understanding the statement of “fables” in this new context has no negative implications and I agree with what he wrote that essentially, in essence, Quranic message is of Tawheed/Shirk.

8.0 - Final Word Of Brother al-Boriqee And Balancing Act:

Brother al-Boriqee wrote: “Lastly, the purpose of mentioning all of this is to explain to you that the Asbaab of the Ayaat of Hukm does not reflect the application of the Ayaah on those who fulfill its reality. That is because the Sabab and the generality of the Ayaah are two different issues. That is why the same people who narrated and believed that these Ayaah were revealed concerning the Ahlul Kitaab, like at-Tabari, Ibn katheer, Ibnul Qayyim, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibnul Arabi, and all others were the same individuals who also believed that a Muslim can literally fulfill the reality of the Hukm given in these verses. Asalamu alaikum."  Brother al-Boriqee is being diplomatic here. He wants to make sure that brother Rizwan does not see his response as refutation to what Rizwan wrote. He is trying to refute him in delicate way without making it out that he is attacking/targetting brother Rizwan. So brother al-Boriqee states why he wrote what he wrote … so his response is not seen as attack/refutation and brother Rizwan does not feel offended. This is tactical non-offensive diplomatic and smart way of correcting people. And it works you’re about to see result in section 9.0.

8.1 – Contextual Implication And My Final Words:

Apart from what he wrote my take of his saying in context of his entire content is: Verses of Quran can be applied upon any individual once he/she becomes guilty of Shirk because the Hukm is not restricted to those who were cause of revelation. And holding to notion that Quranic verses can only be applied upon whom it was revealed for and entire Ummah is immune from major Shirk will make Quran into worthless fable because then verses will referr to people of past. And understanding that Hukm can be applied even to Muslims keeps Quran relevent to all ages, to all people. End. His entire post is interconnected and implications of one supports another part of his lengthy post. Of course Hukm can be applied but Hukm derived must be in context of Sabab and when Hukm is applied upon Muslim then it should be be due to similarity of belief, intention, action. And where Hukm applied is just based on similarity of action without counting belief, intention of Muslim then such application is Khariji. Also the notion that if whole Muslim Ummah was immune from major Shirk it would make Quran worthless/benefitless is senseless and why was explained earlier.

9.0 - Brother Rizwan’s Content And Following Responses:

Brother Rizwan attempted to deflect sharp sword of prophetic words by blaming minority from Salafis/Wahhabis, and attempted to lessen the strength by saying others do Takfir too.  These two main points require response. Originally I was planning to just respond to brother al-Boriqee but at the end I thought it would be better to respond to what brother Rizwan wrote too. Note after brother Rizwan made the admission brother al-Boriqee indirectly censored/responded to him. And later on brother Rizwan retreated toward position of brother al-Boriqee: “Salaam. Ahki al-boriqee yes I understand that even though the Ayah was in regards to them the Hukm can still and does still apply to us. My intent was merely to shown how deceptively khawarij use that Ayah out of it's original context. Obviously it can apply to us of this there is no doubt. The ruling can still be extrapolated regarding ruling by other than what Allah revealed.” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Rizwan, Post 11, 3:03 AM, here] It would have liked brother Rizwan to establish how they, the ‘true’ Salafis, employ the verse and how Khawarij employ it. Then we would have seen if there was/is any difference between Khariji application and Wahhabi application and if Wahhabis completely free of Khariji methodology. Yet all is not lost, my personal knowledge of this matter is …[3]

9.1 - Brother Rizwan’s Statement Small Minority Does Takfir:

Brother Rizwan states a small minority [of Salafis] do Takfir [via declaring Muslims are Mushrikeen]: “Salaam. Simple answer is no because true Salafis don't. There may be a small minority that do 'Takfeer' but they don't kno what they are doing as they are Jahil and means they speak without Ilm.” What he stated is contrary to truth. Wahhabi sect was found on notion that majority of Muslims have fallen into major Shirk. They are worshipping stones, Jinn, angels, graves, Prophets, Awliyah, and idols, and everything else under the luminous shade of sun. And Shaykh al-Najd and his followers have made it abundantly clear that they deemed vast majority of Muslims of Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, … as Mushriks. Any Wahhabi with ounce of truth, integrity, honesty, objectivity, and awareness of origin of Wahhabism, history of, and teaching of Wahhabism will tell you this TRUTH directly or indirectly. And al-Boriqee, Bassam Zawadi, Shaykh Aymen Ibn Khaled I believe have ounce of each of these so referr to them. I, myself, was an fervent supporter and defender of, and deeply engrossed in studying Wahhabism [which then I thought was true Islam], and it was years later I chose abandon it, and I am fully aware what is in Wahhabi books. They deemed the vast majority of 17^th century ArabianMuslims as Mushriks. And if you go by similarity of belief and practice of Arab Muslims and between Muslims of world then whole world was Mushrik except few Wahhabis in Najd. At present they are very tactical with Takfir via declaring Shirk/Mushrik. Instead of saying you’re Mushrik for Istighathah they are likely to say brother Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) does not forgive Shirk and we should learn Tawheed. If they say, brother you’re Mushrik/Kafir, that’s equivlent of slap, and that will wake up heedless Muslim, who will argue and challenge them and denounce them, and abandon their company, but insinuating the same without saying it is the way of modern Salafis. In Arabia if you say it to a illegitimate person, you’re bastard because your mother and father had no Nikkah and committed Zina, he will smack you. If you say, well brother your parents didn’t get Nikkah therefore Islamicly offspring of such Nikkah-less union are deemed not worthy of inheritance from BIOLOGICAL father because inheritance is from Shar’ri and biological father, see its not offensive. So they learnt to say the same in non-offensive ways. Secondly Takfir makers via, you’re committing [major] Shirk, or via, you’re Mushrik, is performed by educated Wahhabi folks, scholars and Tulab (i.e. students) firmly established in belief/practice and principles of their sect. And those who do not personally engage in it agree with EDICTS of their scholars: In which beliefs/practices of Muslims have been deemed major Shirk and Muslims have been declared Mushrik. So however you grind the axe it boils down to same Wahhabis declare Muslims are Mushrik like the Hadith states. Typical idiot gets interested in learning about Islam. Starts reading Quran/Tafsir, gets exposed to Wahhabi literature, and in zeal for Tawheed, and hate for Shirk, starts declaring Mushrik. He starts just short of murdering his Mushriks … but everything else of Hadith gets fulfilled. And if envoriment is right, and weapons available, then I believe murder would be next step. Lastly brother Rizwan states Salafis don’t do Takfir via Mushriking Muslims but then goes to say small minority does. This is obvious contradiction. Either they do or don’t. There is reason for this contradiction in his understanding those SALAFIS saying Muslims are Mushrik are not true SALAFIS but are ascribing to the title. He stated this explicitly in the following: “Salaam. As I said there people claiming to be Salafis who are ignorant. But then what about the possibility of it being true.” [Ref: Are Salafis Kharjis based on these Ahadith?, Rizwan, post 5, 8:00PM, here] But what would he do about writings of Shaykh al-Najd and those who followed him and those who continue to adhere to his teaching and methdology? They all did and do Takfir via Mushriking. Are they not Salafi?

9.2 - Brother Rizwan’s Statement Others Make Takfir Too:

He said members of other sects, Deobandis, Sufis, Barelwis make Takfir of each other: “Plus the same could be said about Deobandis, Brailwees, certain Sufis who accuse Salafis and each other. So the answer is no.” To begin with Deobandis declare Sunnis/Barelwis as Mushrik because they are off-shoot of Wahhabism. The Ahlus Sunnah, i.e. Barelwis, of subcontinent do not declare people Mushrik. They have and make Takfir of Qadiyanis, Deobandi elders who were guilty of Kufr, and after Ihtimam of Hujjat also make Takfir of anyone who supports the Kufr of Deobandi elders. And the issues on which the Ahlus Sunnah make Takfir no: Arab, African, European, Asian: Sunni, Wahhabi, Shia, deem Islamic but all would agree these issues are of Kufr. I am not going to list these issues beccause they are too many but just one, Qasim al-Nanotavi founder of Deobandism, wrote if another Prophet is born after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) finality will not be effected. You figure if this is Islam or one who wrote this is deserving of being excommunicated from Islam. Takfir of Ahlus Sunnah is according to Ijmah (i.e. concensus) of Islamic scholarship but Wahhabi Takfir via Mushriking of Muslims is disputed by Sunni majority VS Wahhabi minority. Importantly Hadith says he will DECLARE Muslim neighbor Mushrik on account of Shirk and we do not do this. We have no interest in nullifying Islam of people by nullifying their belief/practice of Tawheed. This is uniquely Wahhabi and to some extent a Deobandi phenomina in modern times. And before Wahhabis it was habbit and practice of Khawarij.

Conclusion:

Practically Wahhabis/Salafis are Khariji because they accuse Muslims of major Shirk. They apply verses of Quran upon Muslims which originaly were revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks without taking into account the belief of Muslims. Incase of ruling by laws of other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), Surah Maidah verse 47, they take into account the belief and practice. On issues Istighathah and Tawassul, they make no allowance for belief and practice, and declare Muslim is Mushrik and liable to be killed. Shaykh al-Najd and Wahhabi scholars who followed him; their books are proof of this. In fact reader can verify this himself by simply visiting one of their internet forums and submitting query about Istighathah: Is Istighathah in accordance with Tawheed, or contrary to it, and major Shirk?[4] I am confident edicts of Shirk/Mushrik will come in fast aided by Mushrikeen verses being applied upon Muslims who practice Istighathah. Based on my personal knowledge of how the verses are employed by Wahhabis, and what is in their books, by Allah, these Ahadith absolutely perfectly fit on belief, practice, and methdology of Wahhabism. And these Ahadith do fit upon Wahhabis in the same way as they fit upon Khawarij.

Wama Alayna Ilal Balalgh ul-Mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1i] Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, one of the major scholars of summit of Kufr, while explaining the third principle of Qawaid al-Arba states following: “So the mushrikeen differ in their worship but the Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them all and did not differentiate between them. He fought the idol worshippers, the Jews, the Christian's, the Maajoos, those who worshipped the angels, the Awliyaah and Saaliheen. In fact he fought all the mushrikeen and did not differentiate between them. So this contains a refutation of those who say: "The one who worships an idol is not like the one who worships a righteous man or an angel. This is because the Mushrikeen worship stones, trees and inanimate objects. As for the one who worships a righteous man or a wali of Allaah, then he is not like the one who worships an idol." These people intend to say that the one who worships the graves in our times has a different ruling from the one worships an idol. So they do not declare him to be a disbeliever nor consider this action of his to be shirk and they do not permit fighting him. So we say: "The Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) did not differentiate between them, rather he considered all of them as mushrikeen and permitted  shedding their blood and taking their property. Then there were those who worshipped al- Maseeh, the messenger of Allaah, but despite this he (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them. And the J ews worshipped Uzair, who was from their prophets or righteous men, but the Messenger of Allaah (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them and did not differentiate between them.” [Ref: Qawaid al-Arba, 3rd Principle, Shaykh al-Najd, here] Note Wahhabis accuse Muslims of worshiping graves and this includes who prostrate to graves, those who practice Tawassul of Awliyah-Allah.

- [1iia] Just because I am in here. Take note Shaykh al-Fawzan being spawn of Iblees is inserting his own belief into mouth of Muslims and says that Muslims say: "The one who worships an idol is not like the one who worships a righteous man or an angel. This is because the Mushrikeen worship stones, trees and inanimate objects. As for the one who worships a righteous man or a wali of Allaah, then he is not like the one who worships an idol." And proof of this is that he writes: “These people intend to say that …” Now if they say it then why would he tell you what they intend to say? Because they don’t say what he attributed to them. And I know it becaue I am one of such persons. And I was one of followers of Wahhabism in past. In reality when Wahhabis charge Muslims of worshiping graves, Nabi, Wali, Jinn then we say: We do not believe they are Ilah, i.e. deserving/worthy of worship, nor we intend to worship them, nor we perform action of worship for them, nor we worship them. Yet you apply upon us verses revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks. One who worships idol-Ilahs is not same as one who practices Waseela/Shafa’at of Awliyah because none of conditions of worship have been met. And action of idol worshipers is not same as one who seeks aid of Ibadullah (i.e. angels, Jinn, Wali), because this is established by Hadith, by saying: “A’eenu ya ibadullah!” (i.e. O Servants of Allah help me). In response to us Muslims the Wahhabis say: “… Prophet (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) encountered people differing in their worship. Amongst them were people who worshipped the angels, some who worshiped the prophets and the righteous men and others who worshipped stones, trees, the sun and the moon. The Messenger of Allaah (may Allaah's peace and blessings be upon him) fought them and did not differentiate between them.” Instead of telling readers they don’t worship, nor they claim to worship, but this is how I percieve their actions, or this is how my Wahhabism judges their actions. Instead he tells the reader they say we worship them but our Shirk is not like the Shirk of Christians, Arabs, fire-worshipers etc. Allah’s curse be upon this liar and all his clan of Ibleesi minions of Najd.

- [1iib] In one way this article is actually a demonstration of how discussion progresses. They accuse us of major Shirk on account of x, y, and z. We respond we affirm no Ilahiyyah for Wali, perform action of Tawassul without intention of worship, no action of worship therefore no worship. They quote verses of Quran originally revealed for Kafirs/Mushriks to prove we are guilty of it. We point out these verses are about Mushriks/Kafirs and Khawarij did same as you. They reply we make no distinction between Shirk because Hukm applies to you as well. My experience tells me Qawaid al-Arba is response to Islamic counter arguments.

- [1iic] For the records let it be known. Anyone who affirms Ilahiyyah for any creation, intends to worship any creation, and worships any creation such a person is Mushrik. What he worships makes no difference to the fact that belief and practice is of major SHIRK. And this verdict is according to Quran/Sunnah, scholars of Ahlul Islam of past, present, and insha'allah will remain for future. No Muslim with ounce of knowledge of Islam would say one who worships x is not equal in major Shirk one who worships z. One who believes stone is an Ilah and worships this stone Ilah, this Mushrik is precisely guilty of same major Shirk as one who worships a Nabi/Wali of Allah believing Nabi/Wali is Ilah.

- [2] I am confident no Wahhabi will be able to contest this rule because it was formulated keeping their methodology in mind. I have the first hand experience, I am ex-Wahhabi, and know how their Mushrik making machine functions.

- [3] My personal knowledge of this matter is that Khawarij do not differentiate between belief of Muslims and apply verses of Kafirs/Mushriks on Muslims based on practice alone Brother Rizwan gave example of Surah al-Maidah verse 47: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” Khawarij say he rules by laws which are not revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) therefore he is Kafir/Mushrik. And there are rabid Wahhabis who actually precisely do this but this is not mainstream Wahhabism. Its idiotic fringe element from Wahhabism who does Takfir like Khawarij on issue of judging by laws of creation. It would be wrong to say they are NOT Salafis/Wahhabis on account of single, one percent, disagreement and ingore 99% conformity with rest of Wahhabism. Coming back to main issue. Wahhabis in this regard, judging by laws of other then Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), take into account belief, and then judge the practice of not judging by laws not by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) revealed. So they make allowance of fact that person who rules by non-Shar’ri rules knows his made-up rules are not from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and believes he is sinful, does not deem the Shar’ri rules to be out-dated and man-made laws to be better, and they say therefore he is only guilty of major sin, but not Kufr/Shirk. So in this verse Wahhabis take into account belief but this does not mean Wahhabis are not Kharijis. Its just one issue where they have developed proper scholarly method and knowledge. On issue of ISTIGHATHAH belief of Muslims and intention, isn’t taken into account. Muslim is declared Kafir/Mushrik by these Wahhabis/Salafis just because of practice. And verses of Kufr/Shirk which are related to idol/Mushriks are applied upon Muslims. So in reality just because they dodged the bullet to head on verse 47 does not mean they dodged point blank head-shots.

- [4] Istighathah is a practice of seeking help from a deceased Wali. Like saying, Ya Ali Madad!, translates to mean, O Ali help! Logic behind saying it is that he is a servant of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), and as per Hadith he will provide help, with permission, power, given to him by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Suppose I say, O Ali help me against Wahhabis, I sought his help without affirming Ilahiyyah for him, without intending to worship him, without believing that I have directed act of worship toward him, but according to Wahhabis, I am Mushrik.