MuhammedAli

Showing Straight Path To Brother al-Boriqee’s: Islamic VS Wahhabi Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

1 post in this topic

Showing Straight Path To Brother al-Boriqee’s: Islamic VS Wahhabi Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Introduction:

A Sunni brother had read number of articles which I had dedicated to subject of TRUE Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. These articles were written in response to Wahhabis/Kharijis of Najd who follow innovation originated by Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah and termed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Sunni brother directed my attention toward specific short article written by brother al-Boriqee,
here. In this article brother al-Boriqee is attempting to vindicate Shaykh al-Najd and defend against blame of introducing blameworthy Kufri innovation: Which is that Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. He hoped to achieve this by establishing similarity of belief between note worthy scholar, al-Imam Shah Wali-Allah, Muhaddith, al-Dehalvi (rahimullah), al-Sufi, al-Qadri, and Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab al-Najdi.

0.0 - Brother al-Boriqee Protesting At Alledged Unfair Treatment Of His Beloved:


“Restoring the Tawheed of the Classical Sunni Scholars: Part 3- Shah Waliullah ad-Dehlawi’s View on the Tawheed of Pagan Arabs Synonymous with Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab’s. Stated, Shakhul-Islam Muhmmad ibn Abdul-Wahhab regarding the tawheed of mushrikeen in the time of the prophet was with ruboobiyyah but their being mushrik was with regard to tawheed Uloohiyyah, in his Qawaa’id al-Arba’a: First Rule: The First Rule is the knowledge that the unbelieving pagans whom the Prophet Muhammad, the peace and grace of God be upon him, opposed, did acknowledge that Almighty God – May He be glorified – is indeed the Creator, Provider and Maker of this world. However, this did not make them Muslims. Evidence therefore is in the verse: “Ask them: ‘Who sends down for you your provision from the sky and grows it out of the earth? Who hears your prayer and sees your condition? Who brings the living out of the dead and the dead out of the living? Who directs the course of the world?’ They will answer: ‘God.’ Answer: ‘Would you then not fulfill your duty to Him?'” Second Rule: The second rule is to know that the unbelievers claim that they do not pray to their objects of worship and call on them except to the end that they may intercede on their behalf with God, as the verse said: “Those who worshiped others as patrons beside God, claiming that they did so only to come through their intercession nearer to Him, will receive the judgment of God in the matter they contend. God will not guide the ingrate, the liar”. Evidence regarding intercession is in the verse: “They serve beside God beings which can neither benefit nor harm, claiming, ‘These are our intercessors with God.” Now, let us contrast this with the doctrine presented by Shah Waliullah ad-Dehlawi. Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi writes in his magnum opus, Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, chapter 74, ‘The explanation of what had been the condition of the people of Jahiliyya which the Prophet reformed’: “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age i.e. Jaahiliyyah] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settles and decided, and this is His saying, may He be exalted, “If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah, [31:25], and His saying, “If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he will, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with him,” [6:41-42], and His saying, “All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.” [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] But it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the spirits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth except for the major matters…What gave rise to this were the pronouncements of the divine laws concerning entrusting of the affairs to angels, and the answering of the prayers of those people who are closest [to God], so they supposed that this was an administration [of power] on their part like the administration of kings, by analogy of the unseen to the visible world, and this was false.” [Ref: Hujjat al-Baligha, Page 237, Urdu] Strange how Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is rendered a Kaafir who opposed the beliefs of Ahlu-Sunnah for expressing the fact that the Arab Mushrikeen were regarded as Mushrikeen not for their attempt to perform shirk with Allah’s Rububiyyah, but were condemned as such for violations in Uboodiyyah, yet the Imaam of Hadeeth ad-Dehlawi is cool when he says pretty much the same thing.”

0.1 - Already Written Articles In Relationship To This Subject:

The very first article was dedicated to establishing Mushrikeen of Arabia took their idols as Lords/Ilahs,
here. And this article was further built upon where it was Christians/Jews elevating Prophet Isa (alayhis salam) and their scholars as lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), here. Khawarij of Najd distinguished between Ilahiyyah and Rububiyyah and following article was dedicated to unite both, here, so verses of Ilahiyyah can be justifiably employed as proof against them. Next article then built on this foundation and introduced new evidences to establish Shirk of Mushrikeen even in Rububiyyah, here. Sister Umm Abdullah, moderator of AhlalHdeeth forum, crossed path on this subject and following article was dedicated to guider her and generally all Kharijis ascribing to her belief, here. Salafi member contacted me on AhlalHdeeth forum and this lead to following brief article, here. These six articles have already covered absolutely everything needed to understand the subject correctly. Readers should invest time to familiarize with the content and it will open up avenues of understanding the dispute.

1.0 - Fundamental Faults: Hujjat al-Balighah Not Of Imam al-Dehalvi:

Books Hujjat-Allah al-Balighah, Tohfatul Muwahideen[1], and al-Balagh ul-Mubeen have not been authored by Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah). These three books are completely and utterly against his established works. And no scholar has reported Imam al-Dehalvi changed his sectarian alignment. These have been written by Wahhabis and attributed to al-Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) sometime after his death.And his immediate family members made efforts to inform the public about these forgeries. Scholarship of sub-continent, Sunni, Deobandi have refuted these attributed books and have been doing for over century and half. Urdu readers can see works of Sunnis and Deobandis in this regard,
here. Despite it being forgery I am going to comment on the content of Hujjat-Allah al-Balighah as if it is work of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah).

1.1 – Fundamental Faults: Did Not Establish The Contention:

Secondly brother al-Boriqee has not and did not establish Shaykh al-Dehalvi followed classification of Tawheed of Ibn Tamiyyah, and of Wahhabis. And nor did he establish Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) stated this establishes Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. If Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) followed their classification of Tawheed/Shirk it could have been logical/correct to conclude that Shaykh al-Dhelavi wrote his statement establishing Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah, like Wahhabis believe. Or if Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote before/after establishing what the Mushrikeen believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah then it would have been clear proof of his intent, clear proof in favor of Wahhabi innovation, called Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. When we have no reason to interpret his statement as proof of his belief, Mushrikeen believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah, then why should it be interpreted that way? Un-trained reader, or Wahhabi may say; cause that’s best possible explanation of his statement. Its not so simple and simple as A to Z alphabet and lets demonstrate it. In context of Tawheed how would you interpret words of an athiest who says medicine cured me of illness? That he believed Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cured me via medicine? Or would you conclude he believes medicine cured me and God hasn’t/doesn’t because there is no God? In context of Tawheed/Shirk what about a Muslim who says the same as the atheist? That Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) cured me with medicine. Two different conclusions yet exactly the same statement. The understanding can change depending foundation of person making statement. Affirming they believed in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhananhu wa ta’ala) is different from affirming they believed in TAWHEED al-Rububiyyah. One who believes Wahhabi definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah his statement will be interpreted in this context. And one who doesn’t his statement will be interpreted in context of his belief.

1.2 - Imam Syed Kazmi On Mushriks Beleiving In Rububiyyah Of Allah:

The Imam Ghazali of subcontinent, Allamah Syed Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah), wrote pretty much same as the two above. Yet he is known to be a major scholar of BARELWIS/SUNNIS, and he was completely opposed to Wahhabism, to Wahhabi defintion of Tawheed/Shirk, and everything else. He only affirmed classification of Tawheed/Shirk affirmed by Ulamah of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. On account of affirming Rububiyyah for Mushrikeen only an idiot would alledge that Allamah Kazmi (rahimullah) believed that Mushrikeen were Muwahideen in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Allamah (rahimullah) writes: Mushrikeen believed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is enactor/initiator of great affairs [of universe] and with this aqeedah they believed that Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) has granted some pious worshipers status of god-hood. Therefore they are all creations deserved/rightful ma'bood (i.e. ones deserving worship). So much [deserving of worship] that if any one worships Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) only it will not be maqbool (i.e. accepted) until it is not joined with worship of Ibadis Saliheen. In fact Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) is far above [in the heavens] therefore only His worship is without benefit. These Saliheen should be worshiped whom are muqqarib (near/beloved) to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) so we through their blessing become muqarrib of Allah (suhana wa ta'ala). They believed that these worshiped [idols/gods] are sami and baseer and come to our help and aid. They [the Mushrikeen] had carved stones [into idols] with the names of these [Ibadis Saliheen] and when they faced their worshiped [idol-gods] their focus and direction (i.e. Qibla) would be these stones (i.e. idols). And those who came after them failed to realized the great difference between the stones (i.e. idols) and human. And they made these stones (i.e. idols) as their worshiped [idol-gods].” [Ref: Maqalaat e Kazmi, Vol One, Page 33: Creed Of Mushrikeen.] Original of great affairs is, amoor e azaam, major matters, great affairs, great matters, and major affairs.And these affairs/matters are same which are mentioned in Hujjat-Allah al-Balagha, and in Qawaid al-Arba. In Hujjat-Allah al-Balagha same Arabic/Urdu is employed in following: “… and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and …” And this establishes all three are discussing same matter. In twisted Tawheed/Shirk of Wahhabism this maybe proof that Shaykh ul-Islam Syed Saeed Ahmad Kazmi (rahimullah) was in agreement with Wahhabi understanding that Mushrikeen were believers of Tawheed of Rububiyyah but a Muslim with knowledge holds no such misguided opinion.

1.3 - Imam al-Dehalvi Establishes Shirk Of Rububiyyah:

Wahhabi definition of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah in understanding of Ahlus Sunnah is just Rububiyyah and is bereft of Tawheed. According to Islamic scholarship Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is that Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is initiator/actor over all major/minor affairs and He alone as Rabb/Ilah is incharge of all and other then Him there is no Rabb/Ilah. We need to see if Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) indicated that Mushrikeen committed Shirk in Rububiyyah according to Wahhabi definition. Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote: “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age i.e. Jaahiliyyah] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settles and decided, and this is His saying, may He be exalted, “If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah, [31:25], and His saying, “If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he will, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with him,” [6:41-42], and His saying, “All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.” [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] But it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the spirits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth except for the major matters (i.e. amoor al-Azaam) …What gave rise to this were the pronouncements of the divine laws concerning entrusting of the affairs to angels, and the answering of the prayers of those people who are closest [to God], so they supposed that this was an administration [of power] on their part like the administration of kings, by analogy of the unseen to the visible world, and this was false. From this we can see that Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote Mushrikeen committed Shirk in Rububiyyah by ascribing Rububiyyah powers to angels/spirits. And Mushrikeen believed these angels were appointed to task of managing minor affairs of universe. Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) did not fully expand his understanding but I will in section 1.3. Coming back to what I was writing: I have established Shirk in Rububiyyah. If we believe Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) affirmed Tawheed of Rububiyyah then question is he also affirmed Shirk of Rububiyyah very same Mushriks. How can a sane Muslim believe Mushrik is Muwahid and Mushrik in Rububiyyah? He is either one or the other. Idiot may say they were Muwahid in major affairs of Rububiyyah and Mushrik in minor affairs of Rububiyyah but, idiot, you should know Rububiyyah is composed of both, major and minor, Shirk in any negates whole of it.

1.4 - Imam al-Dehalvi’s Angels Are Lords, And Idols al-Lat, al-Uzza, al-Manat:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) states: And neither did he bid you to take the angels and the prophets for your lords: [for] would he bid you to deny the truth after you have surrendered yourselves unto God?” [Ref: 3:80] And these angel-lords were believed to be daughters of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): Has then your Lord distinguished/honoured you by (giving you) sons, and taken unto Himself daughters in the guise of angels? Verily, you are uttering a dreadful saying!” [Ref: 17:40] And these ange-lords believed to be daughers were Lat, Uzza, and Manat: “Have you seen Lat and Uzza? And another, the third Manat? What! for you the male s-e-x, and for Him, the female? [Ref: 53:19/21] Further proof of Mushrikeen affirming Arbab with Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is in following verses: “And when adversity touches the people, they call upon their Lord, turning in repentance to Him. Then when He lets them taste mercy from Him, at once a party of them associate others with their Lord.[Ref: 30:33] In following verse Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) negated Shirk al-Rububiyyah. And in this is indication that Mushrikeen of his era were guilty of Shirk of Rububiyyah which prompted his disassociation from it:  Say: ‘I invoke only my lord (Allah Alone), and I associate none as partners along with Him.’” [Ref: 72:20] This verse can be understood in two ways; I associate none as partner in worship of my Lord, and; I associate no Lord as partner with Him. And both are valid. This establishes Imam al-Dehalvi mentioned angels which in reality were believed to be Lords beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And they believed these angel Lords are females and these females were deities of Mushrikeen; Lat, Uzza, and Manat. And this is proof of Shirk of Mushrikeen in Rububiyyah and not Tawheed.

1.5 - Imam al-Dehalvi Believes In Rububiyyah For Mushrikeen Not Tawheed:

All important question: Did Imam al-Dehalvi write Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah or Shirk al-Rububiyyah? I say Imam al-Dehalvi wrote: Mushrikeen believed in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he did not intend write, nor he did write, nor intended to convey, nor he conveyed Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and his statement is being distorted. To believe in Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) one has to believe everything related to Rububiyyah but to believe in Tawheed of Rububiyyah there are two fundamental requirements, Tawheed and Rububiyyah. Tawheed of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Rububiyyah would be to believe there is no Ilah/Rabb beside Him. It is elementry knowledge Mushrikeen attributed Ilahs/Rabbs as partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) which even Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) affirmed in what brother al-Boriqee quoted. Therefore to say he affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah for Mushrikeen is invalid and contradicted by Imam al-Dehalvi even in the quote provided by brother al-Boriqee.

1.6 - Khariji Definition Of Tawheed Rububiyyah Distorting Reality Of Issue:

The reality is Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah), like Imam al-Kazmi (rahimullah) wrote about Mushrikeen of Arabia attesting to Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) without affirming Tawheed of Rububiyyah. I Muhammed Ali Razavi, has written about Mushrikeen affirming Rububiyyah of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).[2] Yet I did not then, and do not now believe that Mushrikeen were believers of Tawheed of al-Rububiyyah. Why? Because I understand that demand of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is Tawheed and Rububiyyah. And negation of one is negation of entirity of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and Mushrikeen negated Tawheed by affirming other Ilahs/Rabbs as Allah’s (subhanahu wa ta’ala) partner therefore negated whole of it. Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) did not write Mushrikeen believed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but the Kharijis of Najd are reading Tawheed into text due to their own distorted understanding of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Their definition is breft of Tawheed and just Rububiyyah. And according to it Mushrik can attribute many gods/lords to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) but as long as Mushrik believes He manages affairs mentioned in verses of Quran Mushrik remains Muwahid and believer of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

1.7 - Imam al-Dehalvi In Context Of His Maturidi Heritage And Sunni Tradition:

Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) was a Maturidi from perspective of Kalam, Hanafi in Fiqh, Qadri in Sufi Silsilah. And from his contempory scholarship, his students, and Khulafah of his Sufi Silsilah, those who remained upon his path, none presented this whacky definition and understanding of Tawheed/Shirk: Which Shaykh Ibn Tamiyyah innovated, and Kharijis of Najd adopted. In all of his writings Shaykh not once defined Tawheed/Shirk as; Rububiyyah, Asma and Sifaat, and Uluhiyyah. In light of his affiliation with Maturidi school, Hanafi Fiqh, Qadri Silsilah, and what he left behind (i.e. books), those he left behind (i.e. students and scholars), what he actually wrote (i.e. Mushrikeen believed in Rububiyyah in major affairs and committed Shirk in minor affairs of Rububiyyah), and what he didn’t write (i.e. Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah), it would be senseless to interpret his statement in context of what Wahhabis believe about Mushrikeen (i.e. Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Rububiyyah).

Why Hukm Of Kufr On Shaykh al-Najd And Not On Imam al-Dehalvi:

Brother al-Boriqee wrote and questioned that why Muslims render Shaykh al-Najd Kafir for saying Mushrikeen were Mushrik not in Rububiyyah but were Mushrik due to Ubudiyyah (i.e. Uluhiyyah). And he says that Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) has stated roughly stated the same as Shaykh al-Najd: “Strange how Ibn Abdul-Wahhab is rendered a Kaafir who opposed the beliefs of Ahlu-Sunnah for expressing the fact that the Arab Mushrikeen were regarded as Mushrikeen not for their attempt to perform shirk with Allah’s Rububiyyah, but were condemned as such for violations in Uboodiyyah, yet the Imaam of Hadeeth ad-Dehlawi is cool when he says pretty much the same thing.”
IF Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) had said Mushrikeen were Muwahid in Rububiyyah but Mushrik in Ulluhiyyah then he like Shaykh al-Najd would be guilty of same Kufr because Quranic verses quoted above clearly and absolutely refute this Kufri notion. Yet fact is his mentioned books are forgeries attributed to him. Even if we grant they are not forgeries but  there is dispute about authenticity of these books, and this is enough for person of knowledge and Taqwa to refrain from Takfir, and leave the judgment to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Also in Wahhabism affirmation of acts/attributes of Rububiyyah is proof of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. And Shaykh al-Dehalvi’s affirmation of Rububiyyah is not proof of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah but affirmation that Mushrikeen believed in Rububiyyah. Imam al-Dehalvi followed Ahlus Sunnah classification of Tawheed and Wahhabis follow Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyahs classification of Tawheed and Shirk. According to Ibn Taymiyyan defintion affirmation of acts/attributes of Rububiyyah amounts to Tawheed al-Rububiyyah.

Muwahideen Of Rububiyyah Yet Mushrikeen Of Rububiyyah:

And even according to Wahhabi definition Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) cannot be charged to affirming Kufr because he indicated Mushrikeen committed Shirk in minor affairs of Rububiyyah. Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is composed of major and minor affairs? If Mushrikeen committed Shirk in minor than Tawheed al-Rububiyyah as whole has been rejected and they are guilty of Shirk al-Rububiyyah. The issue boils down to Mushrikeen were Mushrik/Muwahid in Rububiyyah. This is like saying they were Muslim and Kafir simultaneously. This conflict is proof that Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) did not ascribe to classification of Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. And nor he intended to write about Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. He was just writing about Mushrikeen affirming belief of Rububiyyah for Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in major affairs and Allah appointing Ilahs/Rabbs to deal with minor affairs of creation: Which is proof of Shirk in Rububiyyah for one who is awake and thinking about implications of what he wrote.

Shaykh al-Najd And Wahhabis On Mushrikeen Are Muwahid In Rububiyyah:

Shaykh al-Najd wrote Qawaid al-Arba and in it he established belief that Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. This understanding is substantiated by fact that he adheres to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s classification of Tawheed/Shirk. And if I recall correctly Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan in his explanation of Qawaid al-Arba indicated Qawaid al-Arba’s first principle is about polytheists affirming Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. And generally all Wahhabis agree that Shaykh of Najd attempted to prove Mushrikeen believed in Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. Also while writing about belief of Mushrikeen Shaykh al-Najd made no Takhsees of major/minor affairs being controlled by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or major/minor affairs being controlled by false Ilahs/Rabbs. He plainly stated Mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah. If he had said Mushrikeen believed in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) controls major affairs, and Mushrikeen believed their Ilahs/Rabbs manage minor affairs, without making Tawheed part of it, then there would have been no Takfir because concept of idol-gods managing minor affairs will establish Shirk al-Rububiyyah. And Mushrikeen being Mushrik in Rububiyyah is in agreement with Quranic teachings. What Shaykh al-Najd wrote has nothing common with what Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) wrote. One stated Mushrikeen affirmed Rububiyyah in major affairs and associated Rabb/Ilah partners in minor affairs of Rububiyyah. And Shaykh al-Najd stated Mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-Rububiyyah and on face value meaning is Mushrikeen believed He controlls major/minor affairs of creation and He has no partner in Rububiyyah at all.

Conclusion:

Tawheed al-Rububiyyah is dependent upon affirming Tawheed and Rububiyyah. And it is inclusive of major and minor affairs of Rububiyyah. To believe Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) manages major affairs of creation and minor affairs have been tasked to demi-Ilahs and demi-Rabbs then Shirk as occurred. Shaykh al-Najd purely established Tawheed al-Rububiyyah of Mushirkeen and therefore Hukm of Kufr. Where as Imam al-Dehalvi has written about Mushrikeen affirming belief of Rububiyyah in major affairs and committing Shirk in minor affairs of Rububiyyah by ascribing Ilahs/Rabbs as partners of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNotes:

- [1] First publication of Tohfat ul-Muwahideen was published as Akmal al-Matabeh and was attributed to Khawaja Mohi al-Deen Chishti (rahimullah). When that didn’t get much attention it was rebranded as Tohfat ul-Muwahideen and attributed to and published as work of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and ever since its been published as his work. When that lie was being caught out Markazi Jami’at Ahlul Hadith published it as mentioned name but with correction that it has benefitted from works of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and stated this work is actually compiled by Maulana Rahim Baksh Dehalvi. And Maulana Rahim Baksh Dehalvi published a list of books which were published by Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah) and none of the disputed books have been mentioned in that list. Note this list was published few years after death of Imam al-Dehalvi (rahimullah).

- [2] “Mushrikeen Believed In Allah (subhana wa ta'ala): Mushrikeen of Arabia believed in Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) their supreme God created the space, earth who controlled the amoor e azaam (i.e. great affairs) of universe: “And if you were to ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they would surely say “Allah!” [Ref: 29:61] and same is affirmed in another verse: “If thou shouldst ask them: Who created the heavens and the earth? they would answer: Allah. Say: Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not.” [Ref: 31:25] Also believed that mercy as well as punished is ordained by Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and only He can avert the punishment and withhold his mercy. Hence Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) informs them of their actions: "If indeed, you ask them who is it that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, 'Allah'. Say : See you then the things that you invoke besides Allah? Can they, if Allah wills some penalty for me, remove His penalty?[12] Or if He will some grace for me, can they keep back His grace ?"[Ref: 39:38] In another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) gives example of how truly and firmly the Mushrikeen believe; Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) punishes, averts punishment and grants mercy: “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] They turn away from Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) in meaning; they attribute their safe return to their idol gods: "Allah has said: "Take not (for worship) two gods: for He is just One Allah. then fear Me (and Me alone)." ... Yet, when He removes the distress from you, behold! some of you turn to other gods to join with their Lord."[Ref: 16:51/54] In another verse Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) instructs Prophet (sallalahu alayhi was'sallam) to say to the Mushrikeen: "...who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from earth?”[13] Or who is it that has power over hearing and sight?[14] And who is it that brings the living from the dead and the dead from the living?[15] And who is it that rules and regulates all affairs? They will quickly say, Allah. Say : Will you not then show piety to Him'' [Ref: 10:31] and the questioning of Mushirkeen continues: Say: Unto Whom (belongeth) the earth and whosoever is therein, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah.[16]Say: Will ye not then remember? Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Arsh? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth).[17] Say: Will ye not then keep duty (unto Him)? Say: In Whose hand is the dominion over all things and He protecteth, while against Him there is no protection, if ye have knowledge? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: How then are ye bewitched? “[Ref: 23:84-89] Keeping with the theme of heavens and earth Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) states what the Mushrikeen would say if there were asked: “Who created the heavens and the earth, and constrained the sun and the moon (to their appointed work)? they would say: Allah. How then are they turned away? [...] And if thou wert to ask them: Who causeth water to come down from the sky, and therewith reviveth the earth after its death? they verily would say: Allah. Say: Praise be to Allah! But most of them have no sense.” [Ref: 29:61-63]” [Ref: Mushrikeen Believed Their Idols To Be Allah's Subordinate Gods,
here.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.