عرفت حينئذٍ التوحيد الذي دعت إليه الرسل، وأبى عن الإقرار به المشركون، وهذا التوحيد هو معنى قولك: لا إله إلا الله، فإن الإله هو الذي يقصد لأجل هذه الأمور، سواء ملكا، أو نبياً، أو وليا، أو شجرة، أو قبراً، أو جنياً لم يريدوا أن الإله هو الخالق الرازق المدبر، فإنهم يعلمون أن ذلك لله وحده كما قدمت لك، وإنما يعنون بالإله ما يعني المشركون في زماننا بلفظ السيد. فأتاهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يدعوهم إلى كلمة التوحيد وهي (لا إله إلا الله) والمراد من هذه الكلمة معناها لا مجرد لفظها
In English his statement is: “…..And this Tawheed (that the messengers called to) is the meaning of “Laa ilaaha illallaah” (There is non ilaah except Allaah alone). For a ilaah (god) – in the view of the Mushriks – is the one who is sought for the sake of these affairs (that is intercession and nearness to Allaah), whether it be an Angel, a Prophet, a tree, a grave or a jinn. They did not intend or mean that a deity (ilaah) is the Creator, Sustainer or Regulator (Mudabbir), for they knew that this is only for Allaah alone – as has preceded – but what they meant by ilaah what the Mushriks of our time intend by the word “sayyid” (master, lord).”
Note what he says: ” god (ilaah) – in the view of the Mushriks – is the one who is sought for the sake of these affairs (that is intercession and nearness to Allaah).”
This “sought for the sake of” is not mutually exclusive, because Al-Bukħaariyy narrated that the people on the day of judgment will be seeking the Prophet and calling him to intercede for them. Clearly this is not making the Prophet a deity. Another example would be a Muslim seeking to please his mother, because He wants Aļļaah’s acceptance. Does this make his mother his deity?
What this ignorant sħayţaan, Muĥammad ibn ˆAbdu-l-Wahhaab should have said was, “worshiped for the sake of,” which makes a world of difference.
Instead, based on this pathetically badly constructed definition he sold the idea of killing and robbing Muslims and stripping them of their heritage. At the same time he called his followers to worship an imaginary body above the sky, and sold this to them by calling it “Aļļaah.”
So they do not know what worship is exactly, by considering things as worship that are not, and they do not know Aļļaah, and yet are presenting themselves as representatives of the Salaf.
Sunni Answers 
assalaamu alaikum
jazakallah khairan
I think it would be nice to clarify the definition of worship, when an action is considered as worship and can a person commit shirk in worship w/o committing shirk in Lordship(ruboobiyya). this would be necessary because salafies believe that a person who believes in rubibiyyah of Allah and believe no one is worthy of worship except Allah, can still commit shirk in worship. It would be good to clarify that such is impossible.
wasalaam
Strong refute… I like it very much!
Actually this is their main problem ibn Ismail. They are either masters of distorting definitions or complete juhhaal at knowing them in the first place.
This has been tried and tested with them, both their laymen and senior juhalaa, by both our mashayekh as well as laymen. Its a fact of life as blatant as gravity: ***ASK A WAHABI A SHAR3IY DEFINITION OF ANYTHING AND HE WILL START TO CRUMBLE***
Definition of 3ebaadah
Definition of shirk
Definition of bid3ah
Definition of kufr
Definition of Nabi
Definition of Rasool
Definition of ghayb
Ask them what they mean by:
“Literal in a way that suits Him (Allah)”
“dhaahiri meaning” (something they claim is NOT the “literal” meaning)
…and other such nonsensical phrases they utter.
Other than the distorted out of context literal definition of bid3ah that they have taken from a hadith that they do not understand (ignoring other subjective ahadith on the topic and the saying of Seyyidina Umar radi Allahu anhu) on which they are dead set, they dont have an idea what the rest of them are. VERY OFTEN you will see a different wahabi has a different definition for different things.
What’s sadder still is the fact that at times EVEN IF one goes by THEIR definition, a lot of the stuff they pronounce as shirk and bi3ah doesn’t fall under shirk and bid3ah EVEN BY THEIR OWN definitions.
Thats when they will get agitated and start to cook up imaginary arguments to refute just so they can justify calling Muslims as mushriks for not joining their ugly cult.
I’ve said more on this here in my blog:
http://wahhabideception.wordpress.com/worst-thing-ever-no-definitions/
Assalamu’alaikum ya Sheikh. I hope you are in the best of health. I was wondering if you could produce a refutation to this guttersnipe and fool al-boriqee http://(..snip..)
I would truly appreciate it sidi. Jazakumullah khair.
He is indeed a fool, so I do not see much point in a reply to most of what he says. If you have any specific “arguments” you would like answered, please send them, and I’ll deal with them one by one. In the meantime, maybe you haven’t seen this: Bodies have limits, but not Aļļaah.
As salamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
Just a question I have to seek some clarification on this issue; isn’t it true that the Arab Mushrikeen believed Allah was Rabb but that they worshipped (by asking for intersession) their idols? Therefore, their form of worship was to seek the aid and intersession from these idols?
Wa alaikum as sallam
Assalamu’alaikum,
The Arab kuffar took those statues as gods or smaller gods if you may besides Allah, not just simply as means for intrcession. When it comes to our seeking means via the prophet/s and the awliya’ we do not take them as gods, but rather as those who are close to Allah and as such are more likely to be answered. If intercession is precisely and only what the mushrikeen were doing and they were condemned for shirk by Allah and His apostle for their practices then the Muslims will be doing shirk on judgment day for seeking the Prophet’s intercession. Does it make sense? No, it does not. Our method and idea of intercession is no way similar to the mushrikeen of Mecca or elsewhere. And Allah knows best.
As’salamu alaikum,
May be it will become more clear if the Shaikh refutes in detail the type of tawheed and their relationship with types of Shirk as defined by Wahhabis.
abdulHAQ
I think there is no need for that, because it unnecessarily complicates the issue. The Wahhaabis’ problem in this issue is their failure to define worship. Period.
May I add, with permission of the Shaykh (may Allah grant him a long life): The scholars have defined worship as the ultimate submission & humbleness. We as Muslims only ultimately submit and humble ourselves to Allah. By simply calling out to other than Allah (e.g. to call out, ‘Ya Muhammad’), this is not worship… Even if you call out, ‘Ya Allah’, this is not an act of worship. A christian may call out, ‘Oh Allah’, but he is not a worshipper of Allah, neither is his calling an act of worship. If we ultimately submit & humble ourselves to other than Allah, then it becomes a right on others to call us mushriks. And of course, if someone was to call out to other than Allah, believing that the person they are calling out to, is the creator of benefit, then this is also shirik.
If I was very sick, I’d call for a doctor (here I have not committed shirik), and I know the doctor may prescribe me with medicine which may heal me. During all this, I never stopped believing that Allah is the only One who creates my sickness & creates my healing… these normal steps a person takes when sick, is not shirik, the same way a person may find himself in a difficult situation and he calls out to the best creation in the world, who is Prophet Muhammad. Of course it’s better to call out to Allah, but we don’t say it’s shirik to call out to Allah’s most excepted human (Prophet Muhammad). The best thing one could say, is, ‘La illah illa’Allah’, but don’t people also choose to say things like, ‘Allahuma salli ^ala Muhammad’ and other rewardable sayings (Allahu Akbar)?
Some people, when making du^aa, they may ask Allah through people of higher status than they are (Prophets or Awli’ya). They are not considering these people as the creators of benefit, however, the person’s aim is to receive the help from Allah, but they ask through others because they believe those certain people are closer to Allah (e.g. Prophet Muhammad). I always ask people that I know are of higher status than I am, to make du^aa for me because I believe their du^aa is more likely to be excepted than mine is, as I commit sins, and they refrain from sins for the sake of Allah. My next example is in no way intended to compare the created (us) to the Creator (Allah), but my intention is only to make it easier for the people who are still not understanding this topic. I used to be very close to my mother as a child. When I wanted something from my father, I used to ask my mother to go and ask my father for me, as I knew she had a much better chance of getting through to him than I did. I’m sure many of us have used this approach with someone in our lives (solicitors, teachers, friends). Of course the person could sit there, and only ask Allah, which is very good to do, but you are not worshipping other than Allah because you asked other than Allah for help in gaining something, as long as you believe that only Allah creates your benefit. If it was shirik to simply call upon other than Allah, or to ask other than Allah for help, then we could not call a doctor, a lawyer, a shayk or anyone else.
Allah is the only One who creates sustenance. It is NOT the food or the drink we consume that creates the sustenance. Do you sit there and starve yourself because you don’t want to rely on other than Allah for your sustenance? No… You eat and drink everyday, but you know that only Allah is the Creator of everything.
The Salafis actually do have a definition for worship (if you can call it a proper definition is another issue all together). In his essay called al-‘Ubudiya, Ibn Tamyiya defined worship, saying: “Ism jami’ li kulli ma yuhibbuhu Allah wa yardahu min al-Aqwal wa al-Af’al, al-Zahira wa al-Batina.” Translation: ‘A comprehensive term including everything that Allah loves and is pleased with of statements and actions, both outward and inward.’
So by this definition, for everything that Allah loves, for you to do it is an act of worship. From this the definition falls apart because that would mean that since smiling in the face of a believer is beloved by Allah it is therefore worship, and thus to do it for other than Allah (like smiling to make your mother happy with no other intention) would be shirk. Allah knows best
Asalam u Alaikum,
So is smiling in the face of your Muslim brother an act of worship or isn’t it?
waˆalaykumussalaam,
If it is done with the intention to worship Aļļaah, then yes, it is an act of worship, because being kind to a Muslim brother is encouraged by Aļļaah. This must of course be coupled with the belief that only Aļļaah truly deserves to be obeyed, as only He deserves to be worshiped. Obedience to creation is only deserved if it is ordered by Aļļaah. For example, obedience to the Prophet (şaļļaahuˆalayhiwasallam) is worship, because Aļļaah ordered it. Another clarifying example is that when the Angels prostrated to Adam, they were worshiping Aļļaah, because they did it to comply to Aļļaah’s order. I.e. this act of humility towards Adam was ultimately in humility to Aļļaah.
AAA
Jazakullah Khair for the prompt response,
But it still seems to me that the definition that the brother quoted, ‘A comprehensive term including everything that Allah loves and is pleased with of statements and actions, both outward and inward.’ is still a good definition?
No, because it is not cumulatively exhaustive, as idol worship is not included in this definition. Moreover, it translates words in Arabic literally for which there is no permission from Allaah, namely ĥubb as “love” and riđaa as “being pleased”. Words ascribed to Allaah must either be exactly as in the scriptures, i.e. in Arabic, or they must be in agreement in meaning, not misleading and have a connotation of glorification.
Asalam u Alaikum,
Jazakullah kahir. But I’m still a little confused. It seems that we can say that the meaning of ibaadah in Islam (i.e ibaadah to Allah(swt) and not a general meaning of ibaadah) is (in Arabic), “Ism jami’ li kulli ma yuhibbuhu Allah wa yardahu min al-Aqwal wa al-Af’al, al-Zahira wa al-Batina.” because the words “hubb” and “ridaa” were mentioned in the Qur’aan about Allah(swt) in several places (such as 61:4 and 48:18). I believe this was the intent of the speaker of this definition (i.e to clarify the meaning of ibaadah to Allah(swt)). Wassalam.
waˆalaykumussalaam,
I don’t have a problem with the Arabic version as a definition of worship to Allaah alone — not worship in general. I do have a problem with the translation of riđaa, for the reasons I mentioned.
AAA
The mushriks took others beside Allah as Rabb(Lord).
AtTabari rahimahullah said in tafsir {12:106}:
قال أبو جعفر: يقول تعالى ذكره: وما يُقِرُّ أكثر هؤلاء = الذين وصَفَ عز وجل صفتهم بقوله:( وكأين من آية في السموات والأرض يمرُّون عليها وهم عنها معرضون ) = بالله أنه خالقه ورازقه وخالق كل شيء =( إلا وهم مشركون )، في عبادتهم الأوثان والأصنام ، واتخاذهم من دونه أربابًا ، وزعمهم أنَّ له ولدًا ، تعالى الله عما يقولون.
* * *
وبنحو الذي قلنا في ذلك قال أهل التأويل .
Abu Ja’far (Tabari) said: Allah Ta’ala says: And most of those = The ones whom (Allah) Azza wa Jal mentioned their description with His saying {And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth they pass by, while they are averse therefrom(12:105)} = do not acknowledge Allah that He is their creator, providor and the Creator of everything = {Except that they attribute partners [unto Him](12:106)}, in their worship of the idols and statues, and taking them as LORDS (ARBAAB), and claiming that he has a son, exalted is Allah from what they say.
And like what we said, is what the people of tafsir have said. END QUOTE
From Quran, check {6:164},{12,39},{3:80}.
They say to call upon the Prophet (nidaa) by saying (Ya Muhammad), you are a mushrik. By doing so, they judge the mainstream Muslims as mushrikeen. They say to call upon the Prophet, you are worshiping him. The scholars of the Arabic language, wrote many books explaining the meanings of Arabic words (dictionaries). They all agreed unanimously without any dispute, that the meaning of ^ibada (worship) is the ultimate submission and humbleness. Imam taqi-addeen A-Subki, who is haafith, faqih, muffasir, nahwi, said the meaning of ^ibada is the ultimate submission and humbleness. Imam Multad Az-Zabiidi, who lived about 2 hundred years ago, is one of the most famous linguists, he relayed the statement of Imam taki-adeen A-Subki, confirmed it and certified it. Raghib Alasfahaani, al-Faraabi, and others amongst the linguists all agreed the same about the meaning of the word ‘worship’. So it is NOT simply to call upon someone.
If someone says to you, you are a mushrik for calling upon the Prophet, you should reply that what you have done is not the definition of ^ibada (worship) according the the scholars of Islam. If he jumps to another claim and says you are a mushrik for calling upon someone who is dead, and not present, then you could reply by saying; The Prophet said, ‘Al-Ambiyaa’o Ahyaa’un fi qoboorihim yusalloon’, which literally means, ‘Prophets are alive in their graves and enjoy praising Allah’. The Prophet also said, ‘Hayati Khayroon lakoon’, (‘My lifetime is beneficial for you’) ‘Wamamati Khayroon Lakoon’, (‘Also when I die I benefit you’). This means after his death, he continues to benefit us. The Prophet mentioned that our deeds will be displayed to him, and if he sees something good, he thanks Allah, and if he sees something bad, he will ask Allah to forgive you (after his death the Prophet still benefits his nation by supplication to Allah to forgive us).
Insha Allah Sheikh Abu Adam can put up a few LEGAL definitions in the glossary section for our benefit.
I believe the exacting Shar3iy definitions of 3ebaadah and shirk will be helpful, amongst others.
Most common people (Sunnis) know them in a ‘general’ sense but if given legal definitions insha Allah it will make it harder for the wahabis to prey on them because their strategy is to prey on Sunnis who are not formally trained or well informed in religious methodology and pretend to be some super-duper logical thinking, fiqhi legalists when in fact they are jahil heretics and buffoons who crumble the minute a trained Sunni bumps into them.
Assalam u Alaikum,
Ya Sayyidi, can you please explain the terms ‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘cumulatively exhaustive’ in simple words?
Jazak ALLAH!
Wa-Salam
When we define a word, the definition must not be so wide that it includes meanings that are not meant by the word. For example, if I defined “car” as “anything with wheels,” this would be too wide, because bicycles are something with wheels also. This is what we call the requirement for mutual exclusivity. To define worship as calling, is to violate this principle, because not all calling is worship.
Cumulatively exhaustiveness is the requirement that the definition must include all meanings that the defined word refers to.
Assalam-u-alaykum-wa-Rehmatullahi-wa-barakatuh,
Suhaib Webb of the Wahhabi Al-Maghrib Institute said that Muhammad ibn `Abdal-Wahhab did not deny the validity of tawassul. Suhaib said:
In his Majm’u al-Fatwa Sh. Abdul Wahab writes:
“Some said there is no problem making tawassul with the Salihin and Ahmed’s statement, with the Prophet (sa) only, and yet others said there is no tawassul with creation. The difference here is explicit and does not fit the context of our discussion [This was written under the chapter on Istisqa]. There are some who allowed it with the righteous and others who restricted it to the Prophet (sa). Most of the scholars prohibited it or held it as a disliked act. This issue is from the issues of fiqh and not aqidah. And even though the correct position is held by us, the position of the majority that it is disliked, we do not censure those who act on the other position.”
Majm’u al-Fatwa al-Sheikh ‘Abdul Wahab pg (s) 68-69
—-
So, Suhaib gave evidence that Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab DID NOT censure those who chose to do tawassul, even though he disagreed with it.
How would you respond to this?
JazakAllahu-khayar wa barakAllahu-fik!
Muhammad
Waˆalaykumussalaam,
To tell you the truth, it puzzles me. Then why the bloodshed and all the quotes contrary to that in many of his books?
AAA
Ths definition of worship provided by bro SAM’: “ultimate submission & humbleness” is correct. But what should be understood is, worship i.e ultimate submission & humbleness cannot be given to those besides Allah(t) without shirk in ruboobiyah.
wa salaam
Why the “rubuubiyah” restriction? Worshiping other than Allaah is shirk. Period. It is not more complicated than that. What is important here is that asking a creation for help, dead or alive, present or absent, is not “ultimate (i.e. the most extreme) submission and humbleness,” if one does not believe that this person has divine attributes, but that he is a creation with created acts, all created by Allaah, and does not deserve worship.
I mentioned it as ruboobiyah because worship falls under uloohiyya. Point is : shirk in uloohiyya(ultimate submission and humbleness) cannot take place without shirk in ruboobiyah. This is when we make division of tawheed. Wahhabiyya made the mistake of making the divisons of tawheed independent/unrelated of each other.
Otherwise it as simple as :la illaaha illallah wahdahu la shareeka lak.”
wa salaam
Ibn Arabi interprets the verse where Mushrik answer “Allah” (and which is used by wahabiyyah to claim muhrik had tawhid ruboobiyyah) as follows:
quote
Even the deniers will finally concede:
And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth they will say, Allah. (Luqman, 25)
They as well will finally admit an unknown force as the initial Creator of the creation – but they will add to Him further creators. The difference between them and the believers is that they suppose that others, among the created, are also able to create. You do not have to prove to them the existence of Allah. Let them prove, if they can, the existence of His associates.
unquote
WHAT THE SEEKER NEEDS By Muhiyy ad-Din Ibn ‘Arabi
i,e their saying “Allah” is not what they believe, but what they finally admitted yet they than contridicted it by attributed parters to Allah in creation and ownership.
As salamu ‘alaykum Shaykh,
From what brother Muhammad quoted that Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab held tawassul to be permissible you then said that the shaykh made contradictory fataawaa on this issue;
Can you provide the evidence of these contradictions because if someone reads the quote from Muhammad, it could cause a lot of confusion with regards to the true position of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.
Jazak’Allahu khairan
I also read which seems to be an extended quote from what Muhammad quoted above, with slight change of wording,:
‘There is no harm in making Tawassul through the righteous’ and Ahmad’s statement: ‘Tawassul is only allowed through the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam’, while they all say: ‘Istighatha (seeking aid) from the creation is not allowed’, then the difference (between the two is very clear, and it is irrelevant to what we are concerned with.
For some scholars to allow Tawassul through the righteous, or for some to restrict it to the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam, while majority of the scholars forbidding and disliking it; these issues are from fiqhi issues. Even though the correct opinion in our view is the majority opinion that it is disliked, we still do not censure one who practises it (Tawassul), for there is no censuring in issues of ijtihad.
However, our censure of one who calls upon the creation, is greater than the censure of one who calls upon Allaah Ta’ala (alone); for he travels to the grave beseeching, next to al-Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir or others, seeking the alleviation of calamites, aiding the grief-stricken, attaining the desirables; where is this all from one who calls upon Allaah, purifying His religion for Him, not calling upon anyone besides Allaah, except that he says in his supplication: I ask you by Your Prophet, messengers, or the righteous servants, or travels to Ma’ruf’s grave or others’ to supplicate there, yet only supplicates to Allaah, purifying the religion for Him, how is this relevant to what concerns us here?
(Fatawa wa masa’il al-Shaikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab page 41)
This is very different from what that heretic is famous for. Anyway, his claim “majority of the scholars forbidding and disliking it” is a blatant lie, and istighaatah is not shirk any more than other tawassul. It is all the same.