The Issue of Tawheed
Wahhabis teach there are three types of tawheed. After a deep study of their definition of three tawheeds, you will no doubt conclude that their creed teaches that the mushrikeen are upon tawheed, and it is o.k to believe in the existence of other gods just as long as you single out Allah in worship, and furthermore, you are required to believe He has a physical location, body and limbs. This is the very first reason why I am not a Wahhabi.
The call to tawheed was clear and has never required such an explanation. Allah perfected and completed this deen with the very teachings of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam. The three types of tawheed was not taught by the Prophet, the Sahaabah, nor the Tabi’een.
One can quote the Qur’an and Sunnah until in great abundance, but if one cannot prove his creed to be directly from the understanding of the first three generations, then his understanding of the Qur’an and the Sunnah is flawed, and such a person ultimately stands with the false cults that have tried before by proof-texting the Qur’an and Sunnah in a futile attempt to demonstrate “the validity” of their false belief. Any new teaching is indeed an innovation, and innovations as such are in hell.
We look at the evidences upon how they are understood by the first three generations, and we should strictly adhere to the understanding of the first three generations as their understanding is the rightly guided.
How many reasons will you be posting?
wa alaykum as-Salaam, I will be posting as many reasons as possible.
I am sure there are plenty! lol
You gave a reason, but not any explanation. Will you be elaborating in another article? And why are you using one of the Names of Allah(al-Wahhab) as an insult to your fellow Muslims in the way that the kuffar do? Please stop doing that. If you are speaking of people of misguidance and bida’h then call them that, but don’t use Allah’s Beautiful names to insult Muslims, simply because you disagree with them in ‘aqidda, manhaj, ,etc.
May you reap all the rewards of this Ramadan.
Barak Allahu Feek
in reply to your hopefully intended greeting, Wa alaykum as-Salaam
There is a reason why there is no explanation. It begs a dialogue.
The Ahl us-Sunnah have always classified deviants by the name of their leader, founder, something they have denied in the creed, or even their location. Even though the Wahhabiyyah argue that it is haraam to call somebody a Wahhabi under the pretext that al-Wahhab is one of many of Allah’s most beautiful Attributes and that such a beautiful term should not be used as a label with intent to insult. This argument proves to be fallacious due to the fact that there have been numerous sects named after their leaders who also possessed one of Allah’s Attributes as a name.
For example al-Kareem is one of Allah’s beautiful Attribiutes, but then we have the Karaamiyah who were named after their leader Muhammad Bin Karaam. Deviant groups were also named after something they may have denied from the creed. For example the Qadriyah were named so because they denied al-Qadr, destiny and fate the good and bad from it. Yet its derivative al-Qaadir is also one of Allah’s many beautiful attributes. Then we have the Jabbariyyah, a cult that are very like the Qaddariyyah except they denied that Allah has given mankind any free will. Take special notice that al-Jabbar is also one of Allah’s 99 Divine names. Yet Wahhabis complain when they are labelled with the title Wahhabiyyah!
Let it be known further that the terms Jabbariyyah and Wahhabiyyah are also derivatives of Allah’s names, not Allah’s name itself but derivatives! This also goes for the term Wahhabi as it is an active particple of Wahhabiyyah, just as the term Jahmi is the active participle for the term Jahmiyyah. Anybody upon the creed of the Jahmiyyah is known as a Jahmi and anybody upon the creed of the Wahhabiyyah is known as a Wahhabi. Thus it is a derivative of Allah’s name and not a distortion of Allah’s name itself. Modern Wahhabi apologists often promote the notion that the term Wahhabi is distortion of Allah’s name and sinful to use in order to scare their sheep following, however, the traditional scholars have long held the practice of labelling the cults with such terms.
If we was to walk into a supermarket and find the tinned food unlabelled, then how would you diffrentiate between what is halal and haraam? How do you know that you have not picked up a tin of pork sasauges whn you intend to buy a tin of baked beans? What if you was to walk into a pharmacist and all the medicines were unlabelled? The topic of salavation is very serious and when we have Shayaateen each calling to their path, then the scholars need to warn the people of their false beliefs and label them accordingly. The scholars would do so as a preventative measure in order that the laymen could protect their ears from the cultists innovated speech, and thus reject these false cults. Therefore, I do not feel any blame by using the term Wahhabi.
May you rid yourself of any feeling of knowing better, self righteousness etc this Ramadaan, rather ask for knowledge than lay claim to it. ameen
It is really amazing to me that people refuse to accept the Wahhabi doctrine……..as one of the misguided sects!
Your intial reason is totally false. The three categories of tawheed which salafis believe in, one of them is that you must single out Allah in worship. One of them is that you must believe he is the only lord, and one of them is that his names and attributes are unique. So your assertation that that even the mushrikeen are muslims according to “wahhabis” on that basis is totally false.
Shirk means to share worship with Allah, unless you are sharing your worship with Allah then your not a mushrik. However if you disbelieve in anything in the religion you are a kafir. Im very surprised you claim to have read every single one of his books and still havent grasped teh basics of his creed. You are either ignorant or lying
The three categories of tawheed which Salafis believe in are false
The tawheed of Lordship – The Salafis say that the mushrikeen are upon this tawheed, for they knew Allah was their Lord.
This is a false argument to begin with, because the mushrikeen said to Prophet Muhammad sal Allahu alayhi wasallam “Worship our lords for one day and we will worship your Lord for one day”. It was because of this statement of their’s that Surat ul-Kafirun was revealed which is very ironic since Wahhabis often misquote this surah to generally refer to common Muslims as grave worshippers.
Shirk defined by Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab in his Usul uth Thalaathah was simply to call on anything besides Allah, and like you have mentioned tawheed was defined as “to single out Allah in worship” which is a key factor to understanding the hidden shirk that the Wahhabi creed teaches!
The Wahhabi claim is that the mushrikeen were only considered as kuffar because they called upon others besides Allah [refer to Usul uth-Thalaathah, Masaa'il al-Jahilyyah and al-Qawaa'id al Arba']. Thus they violated the second category of what is known to the Wahhabis as the Tawheed of Worship, at times refered to as tawheed uluhiyyah, i.e. tawheed of divinty or tawheed of worship, tawheed Ubudiyyah. Wahhabis argue since the mushrikeen CALLED upon others besides Allah, this negated their tawheed.
Keep in mind that the mushrikeen believed in 360 idols as being their gods and their lords as they said to Muhammad “Does he make our gods into one? what a strange thing”. So in effect the Wahhabi creed teaches that it is ok to BELIEVE in 360 gods, just as long as you do not call upon them and “single out Allah in worship” i.e. only the head of idolistic pantheon should be worshipped!
This is seen further in how Wahhabis define the term Ilah, but let me break it down for you
Wahhabis say that ilah means a thing thats worthy of worship
We say that ilah means absolute divinity, i.e. god
You may not see much difference but bare with me
When the Wahhabis say the kalimah la ilaha illa Allah they then translate it as there is nothing worthy of WORSHIP but Allah
We say There is no GOD but Allah
Now clearly there is a difference in interpretation
Just for the sake of understanding the sentence clearly, if one says the definition of a tree is that which is chopped down, it sounds almost right, but it is wrong.
The chopping down happens to the tree but it is not its definition. The true definition of a tree is a root based plant, with a trunk, branches, twigs and leaves. Yes it is chopped down, but it is NOT it’s definition.
The problematic issue with the Wahhabi interpretation of the is kalimah is that the pagans of Makkah could easily say to that interpretation, ok we are going to believe in 360 gods, however we will only worship Allah!
Now that the Wahhabis have established their definition of ilah as -something worthy of WORSHIP, their next trick is to define a term related with worship as being strictly a form of worship, and they do this by using one single hadeeth:
It is reported that the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam said:
Ad-Du’a huwa al-Ibaadah – meaning: The Du’a is worship
The meaning of du’a in the Arabic language simply means to call, invite, invoke. Yet by using this hadeeth Wahhabis say that to call upon anybody besides Allah is shirk.
However this is not the case, as Allah has used the word Du’a for other than worship as we see from Surat an-Nur ayah 63 http://quran.com/24/63 where Allah says
“la taj’alu du’a ar-Rasul baynakum ka- du’a ba’dikum ba’da” Which translates as “Do not make the calling [du’a] of the Messenger between you like the calling [du’a] of each other”
Obviously if the strict definition of du’a was applied in this circumstance then the Sahaabah would be guilty of shirk.
However, when the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam said:
“ad-Dua huwa al-Ibaadah – i.e. the du’a is worship”
We will notice that the Propeht sal Allahu alayhi wasallam was being specific, as meaning the du’a performed to Allah is worship.
Therefore du’a [calling upon others] to creation is not shirk, and it is something we do everyday to the living. Yet it is only shirk when you BELIEVE that the object you are calling upon BESIDES ALLAH also holds divinity.
The Wahhabi definition of shirk as mentioned in Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhabs works starts of with calling upon others besides Allah, and their claim is that the Mushrikeen of Makkah were upon Tawheed ur-Rabubiyyah, which is to believe that Allah is the creator, the Lord, yet as the Wahhabis would have us believe, their tawheed was ONLY negated because they CALLED UPON others besides Allah.
This is the key difference, and it takes us back to their defintion of ilah and how they interpret the Kalimah. Whilst we say it is SHIRK to believe in another deity besides Allah, they say it is SHIRK to CALL UPON another besides Allah.
The simple fact is, the mushrikeen could have said to this interpretation, ok, I will call only upon Allah, but I BELIEVE there are still gods besides Allah. The Wahhabi definitions of ilah, ibaadah and tawheed jsut does not cut the cheese.
Therefore I stand by by initial reasoning, and return the falsehood charge back to the false Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and his Najdi gang of rebellion bandits.
Thanks for your reply. Again, you have totally misunderstood the salafi creed.
1 Singling out Allah in lordship means that you believe Allah is the only creator, only sustainer, etc etc, so they do not believe otehr lords exist besides Allah, neither did the quraish believe in more than one creator or sustainer or provider of the universe.
2 The quraish, althougb believing there is only one creator and sustainer, believed their statues were intercessors with Allah, and that if they worshipped the statues, the statues would intercede with them to Allah.
3 The word ilah means something which is worshipped, this can be determined by reading lisan al arab, a classical dictionary compiled by the salaf as saaleh which defines ilah as something which is worshipped. It does not define it as one who creates and sustains, as you seem to be implying.
4 dua in its origin means “to call”. The ayah you provided is using the same root but in a totally different context, i.e. to call to someone physically i.e. to shout over to them to perform some task. the ayah is saying dont shout to the prophet in the same manner which you would speak to each other because its disrespectful to talk to the prophet in this manner. The term dua in the hadeeth is being used in a totally different manner meaning “supplication”. So you are just trying to play tricks with words and etympology. If you are a sincere person who loves the truth you will not use such tactics. Its very clear when you read the two hadeeths thats its two different words with the same etymology. And the sahaba never made supplication to other than Allah, I seek refuge with Allah in such claims.
The salafi doctrine of shaikh ul islam muhammad ibn abdul wahhab rahimahullahu t’ala was that to believe in lords besides Allah is shirk, and to share your worship with other than Allah is shirk. Believing in another all powerful omnitent being is shirk in Allahs names and attributes as you are giving the qualities of Allah to other than Allah. To make dua is to share worship.
This is very clear to the sincere truth seeker. I myself am a convert from britain, and like most converts, adopted the salafi creed because it is clearly the truth when one studies the evidences. tahts why the other groups are afraid of the salafis and afraid of their own followers looking at evidences because they know their own creed is falsehood. i suspect you know already taht some of what your saying is fallicies and hoping people wont be intelligent enough to realise your mistakes because you find it hard to let go of your creed and adopt teh truth but we shall see if you continue the discussion with me and are proved wrong whether you will take back what you have said and accept the truth or perhaps even simply delete my posts out of anger that I know what im talking about and can demolish your arguements.
Im well versed in the books of shaikh ul islam and know what he has said so dont think you can fool me
I hope that clarifies your minsconceptions inshAllah
may Allah guide us All. Wassalam
p.s. the salafi dawah is taking the world by storm and non can stop it because it is the truth and it will vanquish falsehood inshAllah. Bangladesh alone now has 30million salafis alhamdulillah
1. The Quraysh believed in many gods, many creators. They did not just believe there was one sole creator, they believed there was many creators otherwise you are saying Allah lied in His revelation when he refutes their notions. Not only they believed in other creators, they also attributed to them lordship, specific powers, and called some of them the daughters of Allah. A good reading of Kitaab ul-Asnaam should demonstate this fact.
2. The Quraysh did not believe in one creator, thats a falsehood and a lie against Allah’s revelation, had there have been other gods that universe would be in peril. Your haggling of point 2 is just a poor repetition of point 1. So I advice the same as I did in point 1.
3. The meaning of ilah is God as seen in Ibn Mandhur’s Lisaan ul-Arabi is not that which is worshipped. It is god simple as. I have Lisaan ul-Arabi, and its not what you say. If a god means something that is worshipped then you believe in false gods even if you say only Allah is to be singled out. You lose again, because whilst Christians deem Isa worthy of worship, Hindu’s six legged elephants and monkeys you have to admit by your defintition of ilah that they are ilah’s, simply because they are worshipped! and you would be still guilty of shirk simply by belief. To be quite frank it aggravates me when people such as yourself start lying and misquoting texts, distorting the truth. I do not appreciate that type of behaviour. I am a busy man. I do not always have the time to refute the constant propganda of Shaytaans’ network, so any more, then know, it will be much easier for me to delete your comment. Now! I made a comment about the definition of a tree, and gave you a clear cut example of what logical fallacy you, and other people are guilty of. Take care to re-read and utilize anything that Allah may have blessed you with.
Secondly, what do you know of Ibn Mandhur? A dictonary compiled from the Salaf??? Yes, although the dictionary is an authority, you really need to recheck your sources.
4. You pull another dishonest tatic to try and suggest I am mis-using etymology [sarf]. Yet a simple look to the hadeeth ad-Du’a is worship, or even the front cover of Yasir Qadhi’s book Du’a the weapon of the believer will tell you that the word Du’a used in the hadeeth, is spelt exactly the same as the word du’a in the ayah of the Qur’an I have quoted, so since etymology involves the changing of words, where exactly have I done Tasreef? yes Sarf -Sarrfa yasrifu tasreef! or sarafa yasrifu sarf, whichever baab you wish to play with. Tell me where I have changed the word Du’a as it stands? The simple fact I have’nt, so your clever mention of throwing in an academic word “etymology’ giving people the false pretence you actually know something when you do not, simply flops dismally.
I have evidence that the Ahl-ul-Bayt, the Sahaabah, the Salaf, the Revivors of each century and even the Prophets called upon people in their graves, whether it be a Messenger of Allah, or a pious person. I know what I am upon, and I do not care what you have to say. I am not letting any Wahhabi stroll into my life and start dictating the creed, down to the colour of my underwear, I do not think so. As a Muslim and a Westerner, I truly value my freedom, a freedom that Sunni Islam has gave to me, and a freedom that Wahhabi Islam wishes to take from people and whiplash them back into the darkness of jahiliyyah, Arab supermacy and slavery.
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab is a false Prophet and nothing more. To me hes not Shaykh al-Islam, no. Sorry to say hes the Khinzeer al-Kabeeth, and such a deserving title. When the Messenger of Allah, sal Allahu alayhi wasallam, conquered Makkah, he destroyed the idols, and the revelation of Allah came down, falsehood has perished. After this time the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam told his ummah that the Shaytaan has lost all hope of being worshipped in Arabia, just watch out in the smaller thtings. He sal Allahu alayhi wasallam even swore by Allah, that he does not fear that his ummah will do shirk. But yet here comes a false Prophet, contradicting the message, doing something that the revivors did not previously comdemn or do, smashing up graves, accusing the Muslims of worshipping other than Allah. It was indeed a sign of the last Prophet to totally destroy idol worship in the hijaz, in Arabia, yet Muahmmad Ibn Abdul Wahhab came as a false prophet in claim he has come to destroy idolatry. I do not know when you are going to get this. But these are the facts and if you cannot even accept these facts do not bother responding as any message will be deleted
Theres no debate, I know the truth and hold the truth. I will have no liar coming along and telling me that one means three, or that black is white or that Sunnah is bid’ah.
and Salafi da’wah is only taking hold with the help of the dajjal. The fact us you have been suckered by the Shaytaan. Sunni Muslims have always been around for centuries, not something that started and then grew. in 1978 alone 18 billion pounds was spent by the Najdi Salafi Wahhabi cult to proper gate their materials in English, Benagali and other languages. Oil money, US dollars. Your cult leaders are akin to the Israelis, simply as. Stoooges of the kuffar, toe-warriors of the Dajjal. I sincerely hope you wake up and realize these facts before its too late.
I will get the reference and quote for the definition of ilah from lisan al arab along with the reference. once you see it is something worshipped, will you retract everything?
Also where is your proof that the quraish believed in multiple creators and sustainers?
Well the best of luck in doing so.
The Quraysh believed in a number of gods, at times their beliefs differed, but as long as each of them was upon baatil they did not mind what false beliefs a person had.
If theres such thing as Tawheed ur-Rabubiyyah, then there is also the tawheed of Khaliqiyyah, and this can be seen from a point in al-Aqeedah ut-Tahaawiyyah. The fact of the matter here is that the pagans of Makkah BELIEVED in other divine beings besides Allah. They gave them Lordship, so its totally baatil when the claim that they knew the tawheed of lordship, this claim is totally false. They actually believed in al-alihah [the plural of al-ilah, so al-ilah i.e. Allah is negated from their beliefs. They called Hubal al-ilah and this was clearly seen when the mushrikeen shouted to the injured Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wasallam "you have Allah, but we have Hubal! who they considered as the TOP deity in their paganistic pantheon. Keep in mind Allah refutes them by mentioning they cannot even create a fly, had there have been other gods the universe would have been in dismay, and where He quotes the false argument of the mushrikeen "Does he [Muhammad] make our GODS into ONE GOD” The book I gave reference to is Kitaab ul-Asnaam, i.e. the book of idols. Thus, the pagans of makkah believed in multiple deities, and yes they believed they had the power to create, protect caravans, bring good omens, give rizq, sustain, win wars etc. But I am quizical as to why all of a sudden a “Salafi” brother wishes to defend the paganisitc beliefs of the mushrikeen? Is it not hard to tell what they believed. My point of advice is look at the ayahs where the question is asked “When it is said to them who created the heavens and the earth… ” look at the grammar closely. Its a rhetorical question “Surely they will say [imperative future tense] Allah!” – This is of course coming to the most logical conclusion. Therefore this ayat cannot be buttered with baatil jam in order to try and prove the Wahhabi creed
That’s so ignorant! Wahabis (as you refer to them) say that there is only one creator and if assert more then you are a mushrik. But they also say that if you worship more than one God, you will also be a mushrik
They also assert the Mushrikeen of Makkah knew tawheed better than the majority of Muslims today. Had you have read their primary texts, you would have KNOWN that. Ignorance is not always a negative thing in your case, but it is good to know before calling others ignorant. You are talking to a ex-Wahhabi and even though I was with them for a year briefly through 2006-2007, this was enough to know what they was all about as I witnessed it first hand. They Teach nothing but bad opinion about
1. Allah
2. His Messenger
3. The Early scholars
4. The Reviver’s
5. and the general laity of the Muslims
We cannot have a seconds break from them accusing the innocent of shirk, kufr and bid’ah