PDA

View Full Version : Complete refutation of Wahhabi attack on Tawussal; by Muhammad Al-Massari

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 10:19 AM
Salamu alaykom, this is a complete, comprehensive and conclusive refutation of the Wahhabi definition of "worship" and major "shirk" by Shiekh Al-Massari.The fact that this doctrine pronounced Takfir and pronounced the blood and wealth of the inhabitents of Mecca Halal at the entry of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab and his drone army. This chapter of shiekh Al-Massari's Kitab Al-Tawheed deals with the unification of Allah (swt)...worship and divinity.

P.s This is a lengthy work and will need a little subr to read and digest, but as with all sacred knowledge it takes time and should not be rushed, as the old saying goes "Rome was not built in a day". Also this is a rough draft of Shiekh Al-Massari's Kitab as is in the process of being fully edited.

Wa Salam

321
slamic Monotheism
Chapter:
Unification of Allah … worship and Divinity
The lexical meaning of the Arabic word "'Ibâdah" originally means: humbleness,
submission and obedience.
As for the conventional and technical meaning of the word, according to the eloquent
Arabs during the revelation of the Qur’ân, it used to be said for instance, "So and so
worships Lât", and "The Christians worship the Messiah" and "Muhammad and his
Companions insult our gods and do not worship them". Therefore, we deduce from all
these that the word conventionally means: a collection of heart statements and deeds,
statements of tongue and utterance and deeds of organs that indicate humbleness,
submission, showing glorification and reverence, or love and seeking to be close to
the Almighty Allah, or seeking benefit or pushing away harm, showing wand and need
and so on for whom Who is thought to have the Divinity, and this is the subject of our
research.
I would like to clarify more by saying that: our research in this chapter regarding the
concept of "worship" in its limited meaning, which, when performed to other than
Allah, result in disbelief and major polytheism, which is completely contradictory to
Islam and which expel one from the religion. Therefore, we do not discuss the
following topics:
1. Statements of poets and men of letters, singers: (so and so loves so and so to the
level of worship), though such expression is not polite at all.
2. Our research is not related to the love of money, which can make man "a slave" of
it, and therefore, deserving dispraise, and not necessarily deserving the terms of
polytheism and disbelief, as it is in the wonderful Prophetic eloquence: "Let the slave
of Dinar perish, let the slave of Dirham perish, etc.", and he (peace be upon him)
shed more light on the state of this miserable person by saying that "if he is granted
(some money), he would be pleased (with Allah and do righteous deeds), but if he is
forbidden, he would become discontented", and he (peace be upon him) concluded
by supplicating against him with lack of success: "may Allah make him perish and
unsuccessful, and when he is afflicted by the slightest harm, let there be no one to
help him". This is a supplication, which does not slightly resemble what polytheists
and disbelievers deserve, and his state is not, as described, like the state of polytheists
and disbelievers.
3. The research will not focus on the concept of worshipping Allah as shown in the
final divine message of Islam. Because, Islam did not introduce a different concept for
the "worship" different from the previous divine messages, unlike the concept of
prayer. Therefore, our work will focus on the conventional limited connotation of
"'Ibâdah" as previously indicated above.
The polytheist Arab was just like the other human beings. He feared wild animals,
highwaymen and snakes, but did not call that a worship. On the other hand, he would
322
slamic Monotheism
call his fear of Allah or any of the idols (such Allât, Al'Uzzâ and Manât) worship.
Moreover, this is not only the tradition of the ancient Arabs at the time of revelation of
the Qur’ân, but it is also the tradition of all nations and people, to the present time.
This eloquent Arab makes a difference between standing up as a sign of glorification
for the chief of the tribe, and standing up as a sign of glorification for some gods. He
calls the second worship, and does not call the first one this way.
The truth is that the relation between the concept of worship in this convention, and
the concept of Divinity is strictly one of the following three probabilities:
(1)To say that the God is He Who in thought to have Certain Qualities that make him
deserve, according to the person who believes so in him, humbleness, submission,
showing glorification and reverence, or love and seeking to be close to the Almighty
Allah, or seeking benefit or pushing away harm, showing wand and need and so on.
Therefore, the definition and concept of Divinity is prior to the definition of worship.
Thus, the definition of the Lord comes first, and then it must be stated that worship is
any act or statement that is performed for the sake of that “God”, in order to show
glorification, submission and humbleness, or indicate want and need, seeking benefit
or pushing away harm or indicating affection, love and seeking to be close or in order
to achieve all these.
If that is the true case, it would definitely mean that there is no statement, or belief, or
outward or inner action, as prostration, bowing, standing or sitting, or slaughtering
(cattle as sacrifice), kindling candles, love and hate, glorification or will that can be
considered as worship, except if it is directed to He Who is thought to have the worth
of it, due to some Divine Qualities that are believed in Him. That is to say, by virtue of
Divine Attributes in Him. Therefore, the concept of worship is preceded by the
concept of “Divinity” and it is based on it. This is the true statement that has been
proved by absolute evidence as it will be illustrated later.
(2) The classification of certain actions in themselves as mere actions, that they are
worship in themselves, regardless the content of conception and belief of the doer
about whom it would be indicated to. Upon this course, those who say for instance
that military greeting and anthem are polytheism, which can expel someone from the
Islamic religion, base their statement. because they contains: (standing up with
complete silence and submission in a special manner), even if the doer certainly
believes that the people of military rank or that flag are creations that do not control
anything of their own affairs, and they do act freely except by the Will of Allah and His
Preordainment, and not only that, but believes that the flag is a mere piece of cloth,
which has no life, hearing or vision, and that it has been tied to a column. In the same
way, those who say that seeking of help from the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon
him) is “major polytheism”, by the mere utterance of it, regardless the belief of the
seeker of help. And that circumambulating the grave of Ahmad Al-Badawy is an act of
atheism that turns its doer to non-Muslim, by the mere performance of this act,
regardless the belief of the performer.
(3) To say that the God is the worshiped. In this case, the conception of the Divinity
would precede the conception worship; i.e. The conception of Divinity must come
323
slamic Monotheism
first, and then the definition of worship and the specification of its conception after
that accordingly. It would be said at the same time: the God is He to Whom worship is
devoted; i.e. there is a list of actions that are called worship by themselves. When they
are devoted to anything, that thing necessarily should be a God that deserves to be
worshipped. Therefore, the conception of worship would be prior to the conception of
Divinity. And this is prior order, which is impossible and invalid, indicating the
invalidity of this course in the definition, which many people, and even some scholars
fell victim to, without perceiving.
As for the second statement, though it is from roundabout expression and inner
contradiction, yet it is invalid, and can not be taken for granted, due to absolute
evidence from assured legal texts; i.e. from the verses of the Qur’ân and the Sunnah.
Because they are the legal texts, and before that, perception and mind, regarding what
certainly proves the opposite of that, as we will soon start to show it.
Prior to citing the proofs, let’s recall some of the above absolutely assured principles,
indicated above.
(1) There is no god that deserves this name, and worthy to be worshipped in all
aspects, eternally and ever, except Allah. This is an absolute existing truth, and it is an
absolute Qur’ânic truth and the chief of the entirely clear truth, the basis of the Islamic
Tenet that judges any other category and to which all that are not entirely clear
returns.
(2) That though the Almighty Allah is the Owner of Complete Sovereignty and
Lordship, Who can forbid what He wills and allows what He wills. Despite all these,
He allowed the marriage of unmarriageable persons in olden times, and then He
forbad it. He commended Ibrâhîm (peace be upon him) to slaughter his son, and then
He abrogated the judgment before its execution, etc. Yet, He, Exalted be He, is also
“The Manifest Truth”. He does not command what is a contradiction in itself, or what
contradicts His Perfectness, Beauty and “Sacredness”,
(A) It is completely impossible that He says,
〈 ∩⊇∇∪... uθδ ω) tμ≈s9) ω …μΡr& !# y‰γx© ®
which means, "Allah bears witness that there is certainly no deity hut He " (Âl-'Imrân,
3:18)
and then says, take besides Me (i.e. besides Allah) a god, or in another word, belie Me
in My witnessing that I and only I am the Only God, and that there is definitely no
god except Me in the existence. This can’t be at all, and He is More Blessed and More
Sacred to say such contradiction and invalidity. He is the Manifest Truth. Therefore, it
is impossible that He commands polytheism and disbelief, especially that He said the
following verses in the Glorious Qur’ân,
〈 ∩∠∪... t39# νŠ$t7è9 ©yÌtƒ ωuρ... ® which means, "…But He does not like disbelief of His bondsmen.“ (Az-Zumar, 39: 7) 324 slamic Monotheism 〈 ∩∇⊃∪ tβθϑ=¡Β Λ⎢Ρr& OE) y‰èt/ 39$/ Ν.Β'tƒr& 3 $/$t/‘r& z⎯↵‹;Ζ9#uρ sπs3×≈n=pRQ# #ρ‹‚Gs? βr& Ν.tΒ'tƒ ωuρ ®
which means, "Nor would he instruct you to take the malaks and the nabis as lords.
Would he instruct you to unbelief after you have become Muslims?“ Âl-‘Imrân, 3: 80)
The Almighty Allah does not legislate except what He loves and that which pleases
Him. He directs His Will only to that which He loves, though there are so many things
that enrage Him ----------- .
(B) And it is definitely impossible that He originally commands “indecency”; i.e. to
make it a religious duty, not in the previous Sharî’ah, nor in the last blessed Sharî’ah
with all the more reason. The Almighty Allah said,
( ™$t±sx9$/ Δ'tƒ ω !# χ) ≅% 3 $pκ5$tΡzsΔr& !#uρ $tΡu™$t/#u™ $pκn=tæ$tΡ‰y`uρ #θ9$s% πt±s≈sù #θ=yèsù #sOE)uρ ® 〈 ∩⊄∇∪ χθϑn=ès? ω$tΒ !# ’n?tã tβθ9θ)s?r&
which means, "And when they commit an indecency, they say: “We found our
forefathers on this, and Allah has commanded us to this.” You say: “Surely Allah does
not command towards indecency. Do you allege against Allah what you do not
know?“ (Al-A’râf, 7: 28).
This is an absolute confirmed report, which is eternal and ever. It is impossible to think
of something that contradict it, as it is impossible to abrogate it, for confirmed reports
can not be abrogated: (that the Almighty Allah does not command indecency), and
He never commanded it in the olden times. He also said,
Δ'tƒ …μΡ*sù ⎯≈sÜ‹±9# N≡uθÜz ì7Ktƒ ⎯tΒuρ 4 ⎯≈sÜ‹±9# N≡uθÜz #θè6Gs? ω #θΖtΒ#u™ t⎦⎪%!# $pκ‰r'≈tƒ ® ’1t“ƒ !# ⎯3≈s9uρ #‰t/r& ‰tnr& ⎯Β Ν3ΖΒ ’s1y—$tΒ …μGuΗq‘u uρ /3‹n=tæ !# ≅Òsù ωθs9uρ 4 s3Ζϑ9#uρ ™$t±sx9$/
〈 ∩⊄⊇∪ ΟŠ=tæ ì‹ÿxoe !#uρ 3 ™$t±o„ ⎯tΒ which means, "O you who believe! do not follow the footsteps of the Evil-one; because whoever follows the footsteps of the Evil-one, he then indeed commands indecency and evil. And were it not for the grace of Allah and His mercy upon you, not one of you would ever have been pure; but Allah purifies him whom He wishes. And Allah is all-Hearing, all-Knowing.“ (An-Nûr, 24: 21) And it is definitely impossible that Allah commands what the enemy of Allah, the Satan commands! (C) It is definitely impossible that He makes the reason and the free will the condition of legal capacity, and then says, do punish the innocent by the crime of the criminal; i.e. that He command wrong doing. The Almighty Allah is high above this absurd. 325 slamic Monotheism All these and similar cases do not occur from Allah, due to “Sacredness”, and “Sacredness” is the condition of being free from all defect and imperfection, and being high above lowness and baseness. And that it according to His Statement, Exalted be He. Moreover, we proceed to prove the invalidity of the alleged category such as (that prostration is a worship as it is a mere prostration; i.e. a mere action, regardless the belief of the person who is performing the prostration toward what he is prostrating for) By the grace of Allah, we respond to this statement that there is an absolute evidence in the Qur’ân and the recurrent Sunnah, which charge its denier with infidelity, and expel from Islam by its denial: that Allah commanded the angels to prostrate themselves before Âdam. Therefore, according to the following statement (that prostration in itself as a mere action is worship, regardless one’s belief concerning the entity prostration is being done for), it would be that the Almighty Allah commanded the angels to worship Âdam; i.e. that they take Âdam as god with, that is say that He commanded the practice of polytheism and disbelief, which is a manifest invalidity. And it has been proved with absolute evidence in the Qur’ân and the recurrent Sunnah, which charge its denier with infidelity, and expel from Islam by its denial: that the family of Ya’qûb (Jacob) prostrated themselves for Yûsuf, and Yûsuf (peace be upon him) commented on that by being grateful to Allah, Who made his dream come. According to the faith of those who say that mere prostration is worship, he was grateful to Allah for the disbelief and apostasy of his family and their committing the major polytheism. We seek refuge with Allah that such thing should be said concerning Yûsuf and his fathers (peace be upon them). Furthermore, we should remember that Ya’qûb (peace be upon him) was definitely one of those who prostrated themselves before him, for he is the one referred to as the sun in the dream. He has then become, according to the mentioned people above, a disbeliever and apostate, neglecting what Allah favored him with as knowledge: 〈 ∩∉∇∪... μ≈oΨϑ=tæ$yϑ9 Ο=æ ρ%s! …μΡ)uρ... ®
which means, "…And he was in fact possessor of knowledge on account of what We
bad taught him…“ (Yûsuf, 12: 68)
Therefore, woe to a Knowledge, whose production is polytheism and disbelief. And
anyone who says this concerning the Almighty Allah and His Prophets, what we have
said would be enough about him.
If you say that: the prostration of the angels before Âdam, and in the same manner the
family of Ya’qûb before Yûsuf, are not prostration of worship, but prostration of honor.
Therefore, we say that your statement: (prostration in itself as a mere action is
worship) is invalid. Thus, there is at least one prostration, which is not worship, and it
must be clarified when prostration is considered as worship, and when it is not. For
the generalization that all sort of prostration is worship is no longer valid.
326
slamic Monotheism
You may also say that the prostration was done for the sake of Âdam, but that Âdam
was only taken as a qiblah (direction) of prostration, just the Qiblah (direction of
prayer).
If this was true, Allah, the Exalted must be a liar, inarticulateness and lacking the
ability to express Himself well (Highest be He above all that). That is because He, the
Exalted informed us about the angels prostrating themselves before Âdam, using the
same wording He usually uses for Himself about Âdam. He says,
〈 ∩⊂∠∪... ! #ρ‰∨™#uρ... ®
which means, "Rather perform SAJDAH before Allah." (Fussilat, 41:37).
The same formula is used in the Qur’ân referring to Allah Himself. He says,
〈 ∩⊄⊃∉∪ χρ‰f¡o„ …&s!uρ... ®
which means, "…and to Him do they perform SAJDAH." (Al-A'râf, 7:206)
And He says,
〈 ∩∉⊄∪ #ρ‰7ã#uρ ! #ρ‰g$sù ® which means, "Therefore perform SAJDAH before Allah, and worship." (An-Najm, 53:62) In both cases, the formula used includes the transitive verb "sajada" (to prostrate oneself) followed by the preposition "ly" (before\to). Therefore, if your claim is sound, then it must be that had either: • failed to say what means “prostrate yourselves before Myself making Âdam as qiblah (direction), or • failed to command the angels to direct their faces to Âdam and prostrate themselves thereto only once, or • told an open lie (say that He commanded the angels to prostrate themselves to Âdam, while the prostration was for Him! Highest be He above that. • intentionally meant to misguide us from the truth. Exalted be He above all that. In conclusion, if anybody still believes in such sayings, then he is surely either insane or unbeliever. Some people tried to escape from the problem, by claiming that the prostration of the angels before Âdam, and the prostration of the family of Ya’qûb before Yûsuf were not by placing the forehead on the ground, but that it was just a bending. If we adopt the favorable judgment, we would say that this is a big joke, and not only that, but the miracle of the age. For, angels do not possess foreheads, yet Only Allah knows best. They are not of flesh, blood and bones. Yet, who made for them backs for them and vertebras that can bend? abu abdul-kareem 14-09-2005, 10:21 AM 327 slamic Monotheism Moreover, the One Who knows well about them, how they were created, the Arabic language and surrounds all things in knowledge, Exalted be Him, expressed about it in the Glorious Qur’ân in the plain Arabic language, by the word “prostration”. Why then did you make it “a bending”?! This is a clear lie to the word of Allah, or attributing inarticulateness and lacking the ability to express Himself well to Dignity of Allah. This absurd suspicion may be your excuse in this nonsense invalidity concerning the angels. It is not only an invalid category, but one of the disbelief categories. So what is the excuse then regarding the family of Ya’qûb, who are human beings of flesh, bless and bones. They possess foreheads, backs and vertebras. Furthermore, who is the one who made prostration and bowing down acts of worship, and that the bending is not, and what is the permissible degree of bending, according to their claim (because it is not a worship): 10 angle degree, 20 angle degree? Why don’t you appoint someone with every Muslim in order to measure their degree (with compass or astrolabe), and warn them from getting close to the “critical” angle, so that they do not get expel from Islam to disbelief?! Then, if you mention a specific angle to be as such, we will ask you of rational and legal evidence concerning that. And you will never have anything to say about that. if you decide it yourself and mention a degree from your own, we will add a little more to it (an amount of a very tiny portion for instance), and little by little, till the bending becomes a bowing, and then you will abandon your statement concerning bowing, or till you abandon this statement on the whole, or till you join the insane! Likewise, Mu’âdh bin Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him), being one of the greatest scholars of the Companions, prostrated himself before the Prophet (peace be upon him), after his return from Shâm (the region comprising, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine). Though the prostration was done for respect and honor, the Prophet (peace be upon him) disapproved of it. The following hadith will illustrate this fact. * It has been narrated in “Sunan Al-Baihaqy Al-kubrâ” with a sound chain of transmission, on the authority of ‘Abdullâh bin Abu Awfâ: [that Mu’âdh bin Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) arrived at Shâm (the region comprising Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine) and had found that they prostrated themselves before their patriarchs or bishops. I thought about doing that for the Prophet (peace be upon him). When he returned, he prostrated himself before the Prophet (peace be upon him), who, thereupon, disapproved of that. He said, “O Messenger of Allah, I went to Shâm and found that they prostrate themselves before their patriarchs and bishops. So I thought about doing that for you!”. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) thereupon said, “If I were to command anyone to prostrate himself before anyone else, I would command the woman to prostrate herself before her husband: and by the One in Whose Hand is my life, a woman would never be a true worshipper of Allah until she undertakes all her duties towards her husband. Even if he asks her herself while she is in a state of indisposition, she must give him (or he said, she must not prevent him)”]. 328 slamic Monotheism In the appendix, there are various hadiths regarding this chapter (chapter: prostration before other than Allah). We have thoroughly explained them with their chain of transmission. Two of them are authentic hadiths that are beyond doubt: the hadiths of Mu’âdh and Abu Hurairah. And a third hadith, though there is something about its authenticity: the hadith of Qais bin Sa’d bin ‘Ubâdah. Al-Hâkim concluded that it is authentic, and Az-Zahaby and Al- Bâny approved him of that. As for Al-Hâkim and Al-Bâny, they adopted a sort of tolerance, for they did not uniformly follow a disciplined method. As for Adh- Dhahaby, he recorded his commentaries on “Al-Mustadrak” at the beginning of his quest for knowledge, as it is known. His intellectual personality and excellence had not been perfected, may Allah have mercy upon them all. In spite of that, we supplicate Allah for the best and we maintain the authenticity of this hadith. There are other narrations, whose chain of transmissions have not reached that level on the authority of each of the seven Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). They are: ‘Â’ishah, Anas bin Mâlik, Surâqah bin Mâlik, Zaid bin Arqam, Jâbir bin ‘Abdullâh, Buraidah and Ghailân bin Salamah (may Allah be pleased with them): this is recurrent narration that must be stated positively, and it is not permissible to contradict or neglect it. Some scholars have tried to refute the above mentioned hadiths on the "dirâyah" (awareness) level rather than the "riwâyah" (transmission) level, on the pretext that prostration before other than Allah is an act of polytheism. I said that this is not the point here, in addition to the fact that it is an invalid allegation. For, there is no alternative for these people from the problem of the prostration of the angels before Âdam, and the prostration of the family of Ya’qûb before Yûsuf. This issue has been discussed with absolute evidence that prostration in itself as a mere act is not a worship, and it is definitely impossible, rationally and legally, that it should be a worship. Therefore, there is no way to refute that in terms of chain of transmission, except by refuting the Qur’ân, which would mean a manifest aberration. Mu’âdh (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the greatest knowledgeable people of monotheism and polytheism, and knew well what was considered as worship and what was not. The Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of that understanding; i.e. the understanding of the restricted meaning of “worship”, though he disapproved of the action, and made it clear that the Islamic law prescribed that prostration is limited to be performed before Allah Alone, and that it forbad prostration before other than Him, even if it were for the purpose of honoring, veneration and greeting, and not “worship”. Because worshipping Allah Alone is a well known issue to one who is less in knowledge and excellence than Mu’âdh bin Jabal. This has been well established it the knowledge of the Companions during the Meccan epoch. Therefore, there is no need here for an indication to it in the Madinan epoch, except a little, especially with respect to the scholars of the Companions. If the action of Mu’âdh was an act of polytheism or disbelief, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have made that clear, and called it so and disapproved of it, as it occurred in the story of Dhât Anwât, in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) strongly disapproved of some groups of his Companions who had newly embraced 329 slamic Monotheism Islam. He harshly spoke to them: “You have said as it was to said to Mûsâ: (appoint for us a deity as they have deities)”, or as he said. This disapproval was specified at the time of the crime, for the statement was necessary for this specific time, and Allah and His Messenger do not delay the statement beyond its proper time, as it is impossible that Allah fails His promise, since He said in the Glorious Qur’ân, 〈 ∩⊇®∪ …μtΡ$uŠt/ $uΖŠn=tã β) ΝO ® which means, "Then again, upon Us indeed rests the explaining of it." (Al-Qiyâmah, 75: 19) Due to the our close observation of this story of Mu’âdh bin Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him), and similar stories, such as the story of Qais bin Sa’d bin ‘Ubâdah, the prostration of the camel before the Prophet (peace be upon him), the story of the Bedouin and others, as we will mention some of them in the appendix, we have not found any of these, whether authentic, weak or fabricated, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) called the action of Mu’âdh polytheism or disbelief, or that he said to him, “You have made me a lord or a god” or that he said, “You have worshipped me besides Allah” or “You have made me a rival to Allah” or anything like that, or close to it, or any wording similar in judgment, though he said something like that in various occasions: - such as “Have you made me a rival to Allah?! But rather (say) as Allah Alone wills”!, reproaching the man who said, “As Allah and you will”, though this is a mere verbal polytheism, as it will be written about with similar issues in its chapter. And according to its most likely judgment, it is undesirable act and not unlawful. - He did not angrily say, “This is as the people of Mûsâ said, 〈 ∩⊇⊂∇∪... πyγ9#u™ Ογs9$yϑx. $γ≈s9)$uΖ9 ≅yè_#... ®
which means, "Appoint for us a deity as they have deities." (Al-A'râf, 7:138)
as Imam At-Tirmidhy recorded: [on the authority of Abu Wâqid Al-Laithy (may Allah
be pleased with him) narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)
Hunain, (a region between At-Tâif and Mecca) he passed by a tree of the polytheists
called Dhât Anwât, on which they hang their weapons. And then they said, “O
Messenger of Allah, appoint for us a Dhât Arwât as they have Dhât Anwât”.
Thereupon, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Glory be to Allah, this is as the
people of Mûsâ said: “appoint for us a deity as they have deities”! By the One in
Whose Hand is my life, you will certainly follow the method of those who were before
you”. Abu ‘Îsâ commented by saying, (this is an authentic good chain of transmission).
And the actual name of Abu Wâqid Al-Laithy is Al-Hârith bin ‘Auf, and in the chapter
on the authority of Abu Sa’îd and Abu Hurairah)]. I said that this is an absolute
authentic chain of transmission, and Imam Ahmad recorded it from various authentic
ways as well.
330
slamic Monotheism
- And he did not command him to pronounce the two declarations of faith, or other
expiations as he commanded the one who unintentionally swore by Al-Lât and ‘Uzzâ,
as they used to do in pre-Islamic times. He commanded him to ask the Forgiveness of
Allah, and to say, “Lâ ilâha illa Allah” (there is no god but Allah).
But rather, as he plainly said, “If I were to command anyone to prostrate himself
before anyone else, I would command the woman to prostrate herself before her
husband”. Yes, this is -----, but is conceivable that polytheism and disbelief be
commanded, bearing in mind that it is impossible that Allah be pleased with
polytheism and disbelief, or command both of them?. Did last the Prophet of Allah
(peace be upon him) failed to say for instance, “Had did not been that prostration
before other than Allah is polytheism (or disbelief), I would have command the
woman to prostrate herself before her husband”. That is why, there should be a
religious opinion to show the absolute invalidity of this statement.
Imam Ibn Kathîr, explained the verse in which Allah says,
〈 ∩⊇⊃∪... #‰∨™ …μs9 #ρyzuρ... ®
which means, "And they fell down for him in prostration." (Yûsuf, 12:100)
Prostration for other than other Allah “was permissible in their laws that if they greeted
the older, they would prostrate before him. Therefore it was permissible in all laws
starting from ‘Adam’s law (Adam, peace be upon him) finally in law of ‘Îsâ (Jesus,
peace be upon him). Then Our Lord prohibited it in the final law; (the Law of the
prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), legislating it as only exclusive for Allah,
(Blessed and Exalted be he), as it was recorded in Tafsîr Ibn Kathîr (vol. 2, p. 645).
Although Imam Ibn Kathîr declared it was permissible in the previous laws, he never
said that it turned to be unbelief or polytheism as they had alleged. Really, it is
prohibited in our law as the acts of rubbery or adultery. These acts are not acts of
unbelief or polytheism, except who denies their prohibition or regards them as lawful;
based on false legality deduction or apostasy, not as mere acts.
It was related to the prostration and kneeling. On the other hand, the standing posture
for the others, as it is known, three kinds; standing thereto, standing for him and
standing before him. The permissible one is for greeting, embracing, receiving gusts,
etc. Definitely, all continuously recurrent evidences firmly denote that the prophet
(peace be upon him) did that for some his companions and relatives. As well as some
of his companions (may Allah be pleased with all of them) did for some selves.
- According to the recording of Al-Bukhâry and Muslim on the authority of Abu Sa’îd
Al-Khudry (may Allah be pleased with him) who narrated, “When Sa’d bin Mu’âdh
attended, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to Al-Ansâr in Banu Quraizhah, “Stand
up for your master(in order to respect and greet him)."
- They also recorded the hadith of Ka'b bin Mâlik – in the accident of three persons
who were left behind – when Talhah bin ‘Ubaidullâh stood up to greet and
congratulate Ka’b, because Allah has forgiven him and accepted his repentance, doing
this in the council and the presence of the prophet (peace be upon him). But the
331
slamic Monotheism
Prophet (peace be upon him) did not disapprove of his deed. Nevertheless Ka’b stilled
mentioning the deed of Talhah (may Allah be pleased with both of them).
- At-Tirmidhy recorded that it was narrated by ‘Â'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her)
that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had stood up to embrace Zaid bin Hârithah.
- An-Nasâ’y, At-Tîrmidhy and Abu Dâwûd reported from ‘Â'ishah (may Allah be
pleased with her) about the Prophet’s standing up for his daughter Fâtimah, when she
came to him, and her standing up for him when he came to her.
- Al-Baihaqy reported about the standing up of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for
‘Ikrimah bin Abu Jahl, when he immigrated to the prophet (peace be upon him). There
are a lot of other meaningfully recurrent proofs that asserted on our subject.
The other two kinds are prohibited; the first is for glorifying, not for greeting. It accords
with two manners: firstly, when a person stands posturing, as assistants of the kings do
before him causelessly. But "policemen, guards and all whose works require being
standing up are not put under this category, because their standing up is for the work
that is not done without being standing. So it is a requirement of performing work in
good manner. The standing up for someone who comes or passes over without
embracing or checking hands, is considered as the kinds of standings for some one or
before him, and the two kinds are prohibited according to the proofs that prohibited
both of them intensively. Because this act is like acts of unbelievers those who glorify
others than Allah.
* At-Tirmidhy reported and authenticated that Anas bin Mâlik said, "There was no
person more beloved to the Companions than the Prophet (peace be upon him).
When they used to see him, they never stood up for him, for they knew how he
hated this act."
* Both Abu Dâwûd and At-Tirmidhy reported that Mu'âwiyah narrated that the
Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "He who likes people to stand up for him let him
prepare himself for his abode in Hellfire."
* There is also the authenticated hadith that is reported by Muslim which was narrated
by Jâbir (may Allah be pleased with him) "…….. he pointed to them to sit down. After
he had greeted, he said, 'Shortly, you shall do like the people of Persia and
Byzantine; they stand up for their kings when they are sitting. So do not do it.'" The
text does not contain any sign of polytheism or infidelity, but it is only for hating
imitating the Persians and the Byzantines.
* Ahmad, Abu Dâwûd and Ibn Mâjah reported that Abu 'Umâmah narrated that the
Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Do not stand up for any one as the non-Arabs do
for honoring each other." This hadith is like the former has no sign for the polytheism
or the infidelity, but it is only a sign for hating the imitation with the non Arabs.
There are a lot of other legal texts. So it is understood that those who like others stand
up for them, have heavy woe, because they liked an abominable deed; it means
unlawful glorifying of creations. It is useless except for the Exalted, the Glorified Allah
according to the seal law.
332

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 10:22 AM
slamic Monotheism
Also the imitation with the infidels, which is considered one of their infidelity qualities
or their particular infidelity characteristics, is deserved great woe and punishment. It
was reported by Ahmad and Abu Dâwûd that Ibn 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with
both of them) narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "He who imitates
people has become one of them". At-Tirmidhy reported that 'Abdullâh bin 'Amr bin
Al-'Âs narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "None among us (Muslims)
imitates those who are not of us. Do not imitate the Jews or the Christians". There
are a lot of authenticated and explicit texts or implicit texts.
These two unlawful kinds of standing up were not called with worship by the Prophet
(peace be upon him). He as well as did not described them as polytheism. He never
said, "You might make me Lord or God", nor did he say, "You worshiped me as god in
derogation Allah, or you made me as a peer of Allah". There was never any other just
intimation, nor any other saying like that, although he has forbidden it strictly as we
explained later.
Necessarily, we know that the prayer is on the contrary of that act; significantly it is a
ritual worship. Its standing is worship for ever, significantly it will be still ritual
worship, even though it is without complete tranquility or devoutness as it is required.
It is worship; significantly it is ritual worship in any case. As well as both bowing
down and prostration, they have the same rules.
Some supporters of this concerned call tried to elude what we said later. So they said,
"Every missions and divine laws have both commands and prohibitions. There is also
both belief and disbelief in that mission, depending on the both obvious belief and
disbelief at that mission, which was sent by Allah, the conceptions of people are
formed and idioms as well as. Although all missions have the same fundamental; there
is no duty god to be worshipped except Allah, but the conception of disbelief in the
seal mission, which had been revealed on the Select (peace be upon him), differs from
the disbelief that had been stated in the mission of 'Îsâ (Jesus, peace be upon him." Or
their sayings have the same refutations. Afterwards, they mentioned some examples
such as; "drinking wine is a great sin according to the law of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him), so who had legalized the legal deeds in other laws of other
Prophets."
We answer saying, "Your saying is general; it has critical implied intervention, so it
has truth and falsification as we explain as follows:
1. It is true that the seal religion abrogated all previous laws. Their prohibitions are not
considered prohibitions. Nor their permissible acts are considered permissible. What
in our Shari'a (Islamic Law) is agreeing with other previous law is considered a new
reestablishing Law, agreeing with the previous law not confirms it. In any case this
matter is required by the necessity of the law and the intellect. I think that I have
explained and researched it in our book (Monotheism) abundantly. But the copying
exceeds to mention the legal regulations of Islamic Law; the obligatory (duty), the
permissible, the absolute lawful (allowable), the undesirable and the unlawful.
Moreover it exceeds to mention the secular laws; the validity, the invalidity, the
voidness, the causes, the reasons, etc. Thus the idioms and conceptions of this kind
are different really.
333
slamic Monotheism
But there are objective idioms and conceptions related to specific reality legally or
descriptively. These are from the same quality of traditions which were transformed.
Impossibly, these traditions can not be abrogated in according to both intellect and
legality, or the abrogation touched them. The tradition may only be right or false.
There may be unedited sayings, and it can be described with falsehood or truth,
because they are composed from several components that some of them are true and
the others are untrue, (such as your very saying that we analyze its components and
discuss them now). But if it is edited and analyzed to small parts, we can rule it in
accordance with the main principle. (Really, it may be difficult for me or you, but it
may be possible according to the same principle, or you can say, “Allah knows best”
Really there are linguistic sentences that seem to be sayings which can be true or not.
Actually these sayings may be useless, as their saying; “The spirit of the human is
green” But the spirit is not related to the material things that may fall under the
materialism, so it can be said that it is nonsense, because the spirit is categorized
according to the conceptions of colors. For example, if you say that the spirit of the
human is not green, it will be thought that it may be red.
It should not be exceeded in that issue, because it should be understood easily.
Intellectually, moreover, it was known before clarifying the Islamic Law. Because it
was rooted in the structure of intellect, and it also had been taught to the human,
before the human attained to the age of discretion, because the obligation will be
impossible, if there is no sanity. Allah, the Majestic, whose names may be exalted,
says,
〈 ∩⊂⊇∪... πs3×≈n=yϑ9# ’n?tã ΝκyÎztä ΝO $yγ=. u™$oÿoe{# tΠyŠ#u™ zΝ=tæuρ ®
which means, "And He taught Adam the names― all of them; then He presented them
to the malaks." (Al-Baqarah, 2:31)
So the examples, which you have mentioned, are refutations for your opinions not
proofs for them, such as your saying, "drinking wine is a great sin according to the law
of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), so who had legalized the legal deeds
in other laws of other Prophets." I answered: you are right, did the best and proved
well, but the wine is not changed; it is all what intoxicates, and it is a tangible truth
that can be realized with the expertise and the intellect, but the legal rule is
differentiated according to the different divine laws. Although the conception of the
wine in our law and in other laws is the same one; the wine is a material thing that
may be drunk, eaten or smelt, leading to the intoxication that means changing the
state of mind and soul, but the legal rule of the drinking wine differs according to the
different laws.
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "What its more amount intoxicated, its
less amount (In another narration what fills a hand) is prohibited." So he related the
issue to tangible materials; to the things are called "intoxicating things". This item was
known in Arabic language; the Arabs people had known it before the divine revelation
came down, realizing its reality intellectually, then its rule was revealed in the divine
legislation; it means the prohibition.
334
slamic Monotheism
The conception of "worship" has an objective reality, and it was indeed realized
intellectually, before revealing the divine laws, otherwise sayings of the prophets;
"You must worship none except Allah", is nonsense, because the peoples say what
does (worship) mean? We do not know its meaning. But the perception reality,
historical recurrence and the absolute texts of the Glorious Qur'ân clarify that they
understood what the Prophets said instantly. As well as a lot of them hurried to deny
and argue;
〈 ∩∈⊂∪... 9θs% ⎯tã $oΨGyγ9#u™ ’1‘$tF/ ⎯twΥ $tΒuρ... ® which means, "and we are not going to be forsaker of our deities on your saying." (Hûd, 11:53) He also says, 〈 ∩∈∪ >$yfã ™©y´s9 #x‹≈yδ β) ( #‰n≡uρ $γ≈s9) sπoλ;ψ# ≅yèy_r& ® which means, "What! has he made the deities into a single God? This is in truth a wonderful thing!" (Sâd, 38:5) So the people understood sayings of the Prophets (peace be upon all them) meant instantly, knowing that it was the great calamity, the absolute opposition and the complete destructive for their inherited beliefs, because it called for their gods nullity, asserting that these gods are fables and have no way to the truth. What was the conception of the worship or the God which the Prophets and their peoples disputed? What was the relation between the tow conceptions? The conceptions of worship and God should be edited to clarify which the origin is, and which follows the other; as we formerly edited. Consequently the former editing and explanation will be strengthen with nullifying your objections or with explaining that these refutations are not related to the concerned issues as follows gradually, Allah willing. Firstly; it is what needed to edited before any thing, as well as it should be known that are these herbs which they smoke, or the tablets which they swallow intoxicants? Now, it is not needed to know the rule of smoking of these herbs or the rule of swallowing these tablets. It is another issue that will be discussed in the appropriate time later. Here, the issue, and other acts, is related to the issues of act's kind; the issue of the beliefs and conceptions which kept with this act. It is not the issue of its heaviness, description or situation. As the person who is drowning, asks eagerly the help from the people who stand at the beach not to worship them, regardless the degree of his need to be helped or his need to the aid. As well as those who forsook fighting, after it had been prescribed upon them, fearing from people, dieing, hurting, great pains or hardship, even their fear may become as they should have feared Allah or more than that. As the Qur'ân stipulates. Therefore there is no one of the sane people said that became in the same situation; undoubtedly the shameful deed is to become 335 slamic Monotheism worshippers to the people than Allah. So they become polytheists, abstaining from the true creed. Thus it is easy to write down thousands of papers to prove that every act or deed of human beings, thus there is no different between acts of the extremities as the prostration and the bowing down and the acts of hearts as the love, the fear and the apprehension, may be categorized to be worships, but the acts and deeds shall be categorized as worship, if these intentions of them are associated with a specified concept of who the act was done for, it means that the concept is concerned to who the act was done for in the intention of the doer. Now it is clarified that it is wrong to call some deeds or acts as worship, or to consider some acts or deeds as ritual deeds, as they are absolute deeds without any belief, regardless to the content of belief concerned who these acts or deeds related. I think what have been said is enough to refute this false category; in the same time it is an innovative, void and destructive category; (There are some acts and deeds that are only considered worships, regardless of the intentions of the doers, for whom the intentions of the deeds and acts were related, or to whose sake the deeds and acts were for.) Therefore we will return to discuss some reporters and give some examples. Specially, in the chapters related to the kinds of practical polytheism, Allah's willing. On the other hand, the quality or the conception of the sake of deeds, according to which the deeds can be considered worship, is the divinity according to the legal and intellectual necessities as the deism (taking god excerpt Allah), as we knew its components in the pervious chapters and researches at the same book. The issue, as we have discussed, is impossible to be understood in another way. So we can stipulate the principal as follow: it is not true to call one of the deeds of hearts, one of the tongues sayings or one act of the acts of extremities as worship (according to the customary idiomatical meaning at the pure and eloquent Arabs) except if this act, deed or saying is combined with the belief of divinity or deism (Taking god excerpt Allah), even it was with one aspect or one meaning of its meanings to whose sake the deeds or acts were related; he who was wanted to be near to him, or to be devout to him. So the conception of divinity, and its part; deism (Taking god excerpt Allah) are necessities which come before the conception of worship, and the worship is not to be except for Allah. For example, he, who thinks that the Jinn are pertaining to Lordship, but they are capable for hiding from Allah, or they are capable for frustrating him by flight, is polytheist, disbeliever and apostate from Islam, indeed if his believing in Islam was right before. So it is resulted that his fear from the Jinn became worship, even the fear was meager. As he thought that he can overcome, maneuver or play on sorcery with them, and it is absolute contrary of a Muslim who fears from a lion during its attack on him, although the fear may prevail in him, obsessing his feelings, so that his heart and mind have no any feeling except fright and fear. He may run quickly, then felling inside an abyss while he did not notice. In spite of this, his dismay is not considered worship, so Allah forbids that man to be died as polytheist or disbeliever, even he died 336 slamic Monotheism inside abyss. He, who alleges that this Muslim man died as polytheist or disbeliever, is indeed insane and non-Muslim, good done! In the previous example, the opponents of the Wahhâby preaching (faction); Sufis, Beruloyah, Elevens Shiites faction and others who joined them in violent war against the Wahhâaby preaching, have no better opinions or deepen thought when they answer these issues; "the intention", "the will of doer", because these two bases are essence fundamentals and consequences of the rule. Because it has been nullified that the differentiation of intention is the consequence of the same issue, it is clarified that the fright, in most cases, may be set in the soul coercively, so there is no available way to the will, the purpose and the intention, as it should be clarified that the fright or fear, here, is related to the worship, or a natural feelings. The intention has no available way to categorize the deed and its kind, even it has capacity to praise and dispraise the deed, because "Verily, the reward for deeds depends on intention, every person is rewarded according to what he has intended"; the killer unintentionally is considered a killer, although the blame is removed, and he will not be deserved to punish as a killer who killed intentionally, but his state is a killer, not becoming laugher or a merchant according to change of his intention. So all councils are contradictories and become opponents for each others regarding to this issue. A lot of them refuse the deep thinking and the lightening accurate review, preferring to abuse, curse and accuse of unbelief, or to raise statues of the pervious scholars to degree of the holy impeccable and insisting on their slips instead of correcting their mistakes, invoking Allah to forgive them and give them retribution for their exercising intelligence, regardless the degree of their mistakes. It should be stopped the series of destroying Islam, as the Commander of the believers, 'Umar bin Al-Khattâb (may Allah be pleased with him), worried from, saying, "Verily, what destroys Islam is three things: the scholar's slip, the hypocrite's arguing using the Book (Qur'ân) and the judgment of misleading Imams (leaders)". This saying was not from his thought. (Allah's pleasures may be upon him). It was among that which he learned from the last of the prophets. This definition of the concept of “ ادة �� العب ” in its limited technical meaning is the only sound concept, compatible to the reality and what the cooperative verses of the Glorious Qur’ân ordain. This is what the predecessor of the nation understood, as recorded by Al-Bukhâry in a good chain of transmission in “Al-Adab Al-Mufrad”, on the authority of Ma’qal bin Yassâr (may Allah be pleased with him) who said, “I went with Abu Bakr to the Prophet (peace be upon him), and he said, “O Abu Bakr, polytheism among you is, indeed, more latent than the creeping of ants”. Thereupon, Abu Bakr said, “Is polytheism anything but to take another god along with Allah?!”. And then the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “By the One in Whose Hand is my life, polytheism is, indeed, more latent than the creeping of ants, shall I show you something when you do it all sort of it will be wiped out?”, then he said, “Say, O Allah, I seek refuge with You from intentionally associating partners with You, and I seek Your Forgiveness for what I do not know”. 337 slamic Monotheism The statement of Abu Bakr (peace be upon him), “Is polytheism anything but to take another god along with Allah?!”, bearing in mind that he was a Quraish fluent Arab, is precisely what we have explained above, for no other meaning of polytheism was formed in mind, except taking another god along with Allah; i.e. having the belief of Divinity in other than Allah. As for the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him), “By the One in Whose Hand is my life, polytheism is, indeed, more latent than the creeping of ants, …etc”, it is a new law, and an elaboration of the concept of polytheism, in a way that was not known to the Arabs, up to that moment. He gave some actions and wills the name polytheism, and categorized them as “practical polytheism”. He made them sins and unlawful acts that do not make a Muslim non-Muslim, though it is not in the heart and has not reached an act of atheism that is completely contradictory to Islam and turns its doer to non-Muslim. The kind of sin that causes its doer to suffer the eternal hellfire and the perpetual curse, in case the person was informed of the message and the proof, but still did not repent. Yet, this is not our research here in this chapter, but it has other chapters that still to be illustrated. We are only researching in the technical and traditional limited meaning, and not more. Therefore, to say that some mere actions, regardless the conception and belief associated to them concerning “the subject”, saying that they are “worship” is a sever error, which resulted the following arguments: (1) ascribing polytheism and disbelief to many Muslims, and deciding that they are non-Muslim, and then considering them as enemies that deserve to be fought and whose wealth is allowed to be confiscated. This is a grave evil that cause its doer to be an apostate “the dissident”, who kill the people of Islam, and leave the people of idols, or at least, being enemy to the people of Islam, and supporting the people of idols. (2) Misinterpretation of the concept of worship to the extent that it has become a collection “rites” and “ceremonials” that are almost empty of all content. (3) This is the worst of them in terms of belief, though practically, it does not easily appear to be so. That is the statement that the Almighty Allah had not been a God in the eternity, and that He only became a God after He started to be worshipped; i.e. after the existence of he who worships Him. Of course he will hasten to say, “I seek refuge with Allah from evils. Rather, he is a God eternally and for ever, in the sense that He is the One Who deserves in His Being the worship of all worship of every worshipper. The existence and non-existence of a worshipper do not make any difference, or the refusal or non-refusal of a person who is legally capable to perform the worship. Consequently, we will say, you have done well, and this is the way it is. Therefore, you should then provide us with the definition of worship? Isn’t it, necessarily and intuitively, every action intended for seeking nearness to Allah, as He is the Only One Who deserves it by His Own Being; i.e. on the basis of the belief of that doer that 338 slamic Monotheism Allah is Worthy of it by His Own Being?! Then why have you made it a limited list of actions as prostration, bowing, kindling candles, offering sacrifice, slaughtering animals and observing vows, etc, as being a mere action. Some people might say that it is because the Almighty Allah commanded them to be performed for Himself, and prohibited them for other than Him, and that is why we call them worship, and classify their performer to other than Allah as polytheist disbeliever. We say, this is due to unenlightenment or plain falsehood, for we have proved, concerning the case of prostration for instance, that the Almighty Allah did not classify it as worship if they are performed to other than Him. He did not accuse of unbelief he who performed it to other than Him. Rather, He commanded His Angles, who glorify Him with praises and thanks and sanctify Him, to obligatorily perform it. He cursed the Devil and expelled him when he refused and was proud, and became, because of this refusal, one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allah). He only made it unlawful in this divine message of Islam, and it was not unlawful before that. And it is only unlawful in this final divine message of Islam, and not polytheism or disbelief, except if it is performed with a belief that charges its performer with infidelity. Therefore, you are making laws according to your own wishes, and you are calling things with your own invented names without authority from Allah. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in your statement. On the one hand, it is clear, and on the other hand, it is hidden. It is said that his Excellency Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrâhîm Al Ash-Sheikh, a contemporary outstanding figure in the field of Da'wah, has remarked what means, "Acting on the shari'ah as made by Allah Alone is just similar to worshipping Allah Alone. The two testimonials of Islamic Faith (ash-Shahadatain) imply that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah and that Muhammad is just a follower of the divine decisive judgments reveled to him. Besides, the jihad was enacted mainly to serve as a guarantee for the implementation of the shari'ah with all its rulings be they commands of action or non-action or referring to it as a source of arbitration upon dispute settlement." Adopted from Fatâwâ As-Sheikh: vol, 12, p, 251). Yes, it is surprising that such a statement be delivered by the Sheikh (may Allah have mercy upon him), The statement lacks some accuracy, though it has some very good parts that can not be denied. He deals with the elementary concept of “worship”, that they are: a collection of rites and seen and hidden deeds, as standing, sitting, bowing, prostrating, fasting, pilgrimage, throwing pebbles, kindling candles, offering sacrifice, slaughtering animals, and so on. The truthful matter is that the sharî'ah of Allah is "core" of worshiping Allah or "among" worshiping Allah and not something else in order that we may call it its brother. Rituals of worship are not "worship" in themselves even if jurists mistaken and called them "acts of worship" instead of the right term "rituals of worship". Worship is "obeying the command" and not the command "itself". This is clear in the hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he said to 'Uday bin Hâtim, "This is worshiping them." He did not say, "This is similar, brother or like worshiping them." 339 slamic Monotheism He taught that to 'Uday bin Hâtim when he argued about the verse in which Allah says, 〈 ∩⊂⊇∪... !# χρŠ ⎯Β$/$t/‘r& ΝγuΖ≈t6δ‘uρ Νδu‘$t6mr& #ρ‹sƒB# ®
which means, "They have adopted their priests and their monks as lords besides
Allah." (At-Tawbah, 9:31)
'Uday bin Hâtim said, "O Messenger of Allah! We do not worship them!' He said, 'Do
bin Hâtim said, 'Yes!' He said, 'This is worshipping them.'"
The cause behind this terrible mistake and which led to all such disasters is lack of
accuracy in differentiating between different concepts. There is big deference between
concept of worship according to its limited technical meaning which Arabs used to
use during the time of the revelation of the Qur'ân addressing their idols and whatever
they used to worship and which is still used by human kind nowadays. The meaning
that is used usually in the Qur'ân when addressing polytheists and calling them to
Islam and monotheism. There is difference between that and the unlimited legislative
meaning which Islam uses to "worship Allah" alone. Such one that believers were
addressed with after embracing Islam and admitting faith and monotheism. There is
also difference between that all from the one side and the linguistic origin of terms like
'Abada: worshiped, 'Abd: slave and its plural is 'Abîd: slaves, 'Ibâdah: worship, and
like that from the other side.
Concerning the technical meaning for "'Ibâdah: worship" which is also the legislative
meaning - if Sharî'ah does not explain otherwise - is limited to (it is directing sayings,
deeds and certain rituals of worship to the one that we believe in to acquire means
of godhood in order to get close to him, seek his content and love, to avoid his evil,
gain his kindness and blessings, seek his support to gain benefit or avoid harm or like
that).
The original linguistic meaning which includes meanings of submitting, accepting and
like that is the one that is meant alone when we say that so and so is an owned slave
by so and so. There is no relation between that and polytheism and monotheism in the
legislative meaning. Furthermore, sharî'ah made the use of words like slave and girlslave
undesirable concerning those owned by others and guided us to use terms like
boy and girl as it would be mentioned in its place.
The mere linguistic meaning is also what is meant in the following hadith. The
Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, "Miserable is the slave of the Dinâr, the
slave of the Dirham, and the slave of Khamîsah (a garment)…" This shows the great
eloquence of the Prophet (peace be upon him), as he made whoever is possessed by
love of money and properties like a humiliated and owned slave that got nothing to do
and can not rebellion against authority of his master. This has nothing to do with
polytheism and monotheism according to the legislative meaning. Even if such person
deserves punishment and dispraise from Allah, still there is no doubt that this matter is
340

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:12 PM
slamic Monotheism
not similar or among the case of whoever is slave of Al-Lât, slave of Al-'Uzzâ and slave
of Manâh.
Concerning the unlimited meaning that Islam uses, it deepen and widened the limited
technical meaning of the Arabs, according to each case and according to the text.
When Allah says,
〈 ∩∉⊃∪ ⎦⎫7Β ρ‰tã /3s9 …μΡ) ( z⎯≈sÜ‹±9# #ρ‰7ès? ω χr& tΠyŠ#u™ ©_t6≈tƒ Ν3‹s9) ‰yγãr& Οs9r& ®
which means, "Did I not make covenants with you, O children of Adam! that you do
not worship the Evil-one; verily he is to you an obvious enemy." (Yâsîn, 36:60)
This is a call to all human being at the Day of Resurrection after all matters will be
revealed. When all people will know definitely that they according to their disbelief
and disobedience, they obeyed Satan in leaving right. Worshiping Satan here means
following and obeying and not necessarily according to the limited technical meaning
of the Arabs which is bowing, slaughtering, vows, presenting sacrifices and charities,
lightening candles and other acts, as majority of human did not perform such acts
except few among Magi, Thanawiyah and Satan's worshipers.
It has not being said that some among them are denying the existence of Satan and
majority of them did not want to obey and follow Satan. That because they were
obedient and followers for Satan in reality. The call of Allah to them at the Day of
Resurrection is after everything was revealed and all facts were appeared. It is a
humiliating, scolding and reproaching call.
This is also like the following verse in which Allah says,
〈 ∩⊄⊂∪.. μ1uθyδ …μyγ≈s9) x‹sƒB# ⎯tΒ |Mƒu™tsùr& ®
which means, "Have you then considered him who has taken his desire to be his
god?" (Al-Jâthiyah, 45:23)
He appointed his opinion and desire as his ruler and who legislates for him. The
obligatory matter for him is what he sees as obligatory and not what was approved as
obligatory by sharî'ah. The same with what is desirable, lawful, disapproved and
unlawful. All that is according to his mind, opinion, desire or wish. He regarded
himself or his mind as the absolute owner of sovereignty and rulership. He legislates
for himself. He is the one that knows good, bad, right and wrong. This is the meaning
of considering his desire as his god and by that he is disbeliever and polytheist that did
not embrace Islam at all or he became apostate. Otherwise we did not hear about a
person that builds concave for himself, presents sacrifices, lighten candles and faces
mirror and bows for himself.
And concerning this matter, the Almighty Allah says,
〈 !# χρŠ ⎯Β $/$t/‘r& ΝγuΖ≈t6δ‘uρ Νδu‘$t6mr& #ρ‹sƒB# ® which means, "They have adopted their priests and their monks as lords besides Allah.” (At-Tawbah, 9: 31) 341 slamic Monotheism The interpretation of this verse has been narrated on the authority of ‘Uday bin Hâtim (may Allah be pleased with him) that he heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) reading it. ‘Uday said, I said to him, “We do not worship them”, he said, “Do not they forbid what Allah has permitted, and you forbid them?, and they permit what Allah has forbidden, and you permit them?” I said, “Yes” he said, “That is their worship”. (Recorded by Ahmad and At-Tirmidhy in his Sunan) ‘Uday (may Allah be pleased with him) understood the concept of worship here in its narrow meaning; i.e. devotional rites that display submissiveness, as understood by the Arabs, and most nations of the earth do the concept of worship. Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught him that approving that the rabbis and the monks have the right to make laws and making them lords who have sovereignty because of that, is a worship of them in its broad meaning; i.e. (submissiveness with obedience and following up, love and loyalty), which all go back, in the final analysis, to “obedience of the command” based on the belief of the worthiness of Allah by Himself regarding the issue. Imam Abu Muhammad ‘Ali bin Hazm Al-Andalusy overstated in “Al-Ihkâm fi Usûl Al- Ahkâm” concerning that, by saying, “….the statement of someone who says, “I worship the angels”, or the statement of the Christians, “We worship Al-Masîh (Jesus)”, their statements are not reasons for their sincerity. For the Arabic word Al-‘Ibâdah (worship) is derived from the word Al-‘Ubûdiyyah (servitude), and a person worships one whom he yields to and follows his order. As for he who disobeys and contradict, he should not a servant to him, and he is untruthful in his claim that he worships him”. He (may Allah have mercy upon him) meant to refute sincerity about them; i.e. according to the reality of the issue, and the conformity of the realities as they are, as the way they will appear on the Day of Resurrection. The mixing concerning the order of concepts of “worship” and “divinity”, and the connecting one to the other, which one is first and which one is second. In addition to being in a vicious circle and contradiction, which we mentioned above, is the main cause for the continuance of the dispute and disagreement between Sheikh and Imam Muhammad bin ‘Abdul-Wahâb (may Allah have mercy upon him) and his school and their criticizers and opponents until today. For instance, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Qarny, a follower of the Wahâby Da’wah, in his valuable research: (Dawâbit At-Takfîr ‘Inda Ahli-Ssunnah wal-Jamâ’ah). It is one of the best books that has been written on the subject. He says regarding what called, “polytheism of ritual and drawing near”: (all that has been established is that it is a lawful worship, be it obligatory or desirable. Therefore, performing it to other than Allah is an act of polytheism in worship. Whoever has fulfilled this, will be a polytheist, whether he believed, with that, in the worthiness of the worshipped for the worship beside Allah, or he believed in the fact that he is not worthy, in himself, to be worshipped, but that he is a mediator and an intercessor to Allah. Because polytheism of worship does not contain polytheism in the Lordship, for polytheism of worship is related to the intention and the deed done according to it. As for polytheism of Lordship, it is related to the belief and proving perfection to Allah regarding His Being, His Attributes and Actions), (p, 129. publication of Muassasat Ar-Risâlah). 342 slamic Monotheism We have discussed earlier that the ultimate power of Hakimiyah (power of ruling and jurisdiction) is for Allah alone Who has no partner with Him, and that whoever claims that any one other than Allah has such power, he installs that one as a Rabb and god with Allah, regardless of naming. This may be named god or Rabb, or it may be named otherwise; practice of sovereignty and freedom, "proving one's self and emphasizing and deepening one's existence" as claimed by the existentialists, may they perish and be accursed. This may also be named as people or state sovereignty. Kings may also be claimed to have right to such power. It may have other names like analogical disposition or political thinking. This exact point is referred to in the verse, 〈 ∩⊇⊄⊇∪ tβθ.³RmQ Ν3Ρ) ΝδθϑGèsÛr& β)uρ ( Ν.θ9‰≈yf‹9 Ογ←$u‹9ρr& ’n<) tβθmθ‹s9 ⎥⎫Ü≈u‹±9# β)uρ ...®
which means, "And certainly the Evil-ones will inspire their allies to dispute with you;
and if you obey them, you will surely become polytheists." (Al-An'âm, 6:121)
This means that if you obeyed and followed them in the matter of making lawful the
dead animals, you would be disbelievers and polytheists who converted from Islam by
giving the power of sovereignty and Hakimyah and legislation to other than Allah. This
is the meaning of Shirk (polytheism) referred to in the verse, it entails disbelief which is
contradictory to Islam completely, and which has no connection with any act of
worship such as bowing, prostrating or circumambulation.
Hear we notice again the invalid assumption that there are certain actions which
deserve to be called as "worship" and we have shown earlier that this is certainly
untrue. There is no list of actions that can be called worship by their own because
worship consists of rituals and deeds which are done with the intention of showing
glorification, submission and love to the one who is regarded as "god". Therefore, the
Sheikh's next words are meaningless, "…so, to do such deeds for any one other than
Allah is polytheism in the matter of worship. The doer of that is a polytheist. These are
meaningless words, for these actions do not represent 'worship' by their own except
when they are done for the one who is regarded as a god. Therefore, doing such
actions should be preceded by a belief of godhood of the one worshipped. So, the
concept of godhood which was previously defined should be clear in one's mind in
order to call such actions as 'worship'. We also notice the false division of polytheism
into "Rubûbiyyah (lordship) polytheism" and "Ulûhiyyah (godhood) polytheism" as
made by scholar of Islam Ibn Taimiyah (may Allah be merciful to him).
It is also meaningless to confine these actions on 'all actions which present valid
worship either they were obligated or desired according to Islam' as seen by scholar
of Islam. By such division, he thought that he presented a 'certain' list for all actions
deserving to be called acts of worship by their own regardless of any prior belief or
intention. This has been tackled in details when discussing the act of prostrating which
was regarded as a lawful act of greeting in the laws of Yûsuf (Joseph, peace be upon
him) and Ya'qûb (Jacob, peace be upon him). At the same time, prostration is regarded
as a lawful act of worship to Allah whether it is obligated or desired. Loving Allah is
regarded as an act of worship. It is rather one of the best acts of worship but still loving
343
slamic Monotheism
the believers and supporting them is not an act of polytheism. It is rather an obligatory
act. The same applies to the obedience to the legal rulers in what is good, etc. This
proves that loving, obeying and prostrating in themselves as actions can never be
regarded as acts of worship. They are regarded as though only when they are preceded
by a certain belief. Otherwise, they are regarded as common human actions and not
acts of worship. In the same manner, they are not regarded as rituals of worship.
We may have a question for him regarding this exact issue: What about 'dancing' i.e.
the dancing of polytheists for those regarded by them as gods? It is taken for granted
that 'dancing' cannot be regarded as neither obligatory nor desirable ritual act in that
final religion. Does this mean that dancing to Shiva (idolater Indian god of death and
destruction) is not an act of worship? So why do they and those who follow them, for
Similarly, we can raise a question here about 'whistling and clapping' which were
practiced by the people of The Quraish as an act of worship to Allah. Allah denied this
act and dispraised it, for they were invented acts of worship which Allah did not
approve of. Does this mean that if they had whistled and clapped to their gods, it
would not have been regarded as acts of worship to those gods?!
Moreover, how Sheikh Al-Qarny and other callers to Islam following his way could
draw comparison between the invalid worship of such gods and the worship of Allah,
the Lord of the worlds and the True God. This is a false comparison. As for the words
of scholars, "Whether he believed that the god he worshiped deserved such worship,"
they either lead to falling in a vicious circle about the relationship between god and
worship.We have already proved the falsity and contradiction of this concept. The
other option is to refute and contradict their previous words on not setting the
condition of prior belief of godhood of the one worshiped by practicing deeds that can
fall under the category of 'worship'.
He falls into contradiction once more when he says, "…or he believed that the god he
worshiped did not deserve such worship in himself but he is a mediator and an
intercessor to Allah." Then, how can anyone dare to imagine that he can offer rituals of
glorification, exaltation and love for something which is not believed by him to be a
god?
As for his precautious exception, "in himself but he is a mediator and an intercessor to
Allah," it is futile. A mediator and an intercessor to Allah should have certain
characteristics and qualifications 'in himself' enabling him to be so. What is presented
to him among ritual acts of honoring, submission and glorification are based on
believing in his deservedness of that. He can be a mediator and intercessor to Allah.
We think that it was but disorder of words when the scholar of Islam said,"…an
intercession or mediation that should be accepted by Allah or that is presented to
Allah without asking for His prior permission), or so, because the mere intercession to
Allah can be offered by Allah to some of His creatures to honor them. This is
supported by definite legal texts. At the same time it does not mean that those who can
reach such an honorable status according to the texts become servants no more. It
344
slamic Monotheism
does not mean that they become equal to Allah, even if in that exact point,
consequently, regarding that intercessors "gods" with Allah.
Sheikh also said, "…Polytheism in worship does not imply a Rubûbiyyah (lordship)
polytheism, because the polytheism in worship in connected to one's intention and
what is done according to that intention, But the Rubûbiyyah polytheism in connected
to belief and assuring Allah's perfection in His attributes and deeds). This is a
assumption, because we have mentioned earlier that the concept of "worship" should
be preceded by the concept of "Al-Ulûhyah, or Godhood". That's why polytheism in
worship necessarily implies believing in the godhood of somebody other than Allah,
or in the lordship of somebody other than Allah, even in an exact point connected to
the "Godhood". This meant belief is followed by acts which imply exaltation,
glorification, reverence and showing one's need and humility and praying for that who
is worshipped. This concept deserves being called "worship". That's why what the
scholar of Islam called "polytheism in worship" is connected to belief and depending
on it. The same is what he called "polytheism of lordship".
One can see in this small text a lot of contradiction and disturbance which resulted
from this hidden circularity in the concepts of 'worship' and 'godhood'. Add to this the
disturbance and deficiency in dividing Monotheism into "Rubûbiyyah (Lordship)
polytheism," "Ulûhiyyah (godhood) polytheism, and "Asmâ' wa Sifât (Names and
attributes)". It is really most unfair division that must be left, neglected totally.
It does not matter when the Sheikh presents as evidence the verse where Allah says,
〈 ∩⊂∪... ’∀s 9— !# ’<n ) $Ρt θ/)s ‹9 ω) Νδ‰6èΡt$Βt ™u $Šu 9ρ&r ⎯μΡρŠ ∅Β #ρ‹ƒs B# ⎥⎪%!#ρu ... ® which means, "And those who take protectors besides Him: “We do not serve them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in proximity." (Az-Zumar, 39:2) It proves nothing as we shall discuss later but first let us put some important rules: When citing a verse or a hadith one must notice: a. Mentioning the whole text especially in verses so that one can understand the context. The beginning and end of the verse should be mentioned lest we would fall in the sin of displace words from their right places. Taking the verse out of its context is a form of displacing words and it is a grievous sin that may reach the rank of disbelief. b. Allah, the Exalted, did not reveal only this verse. He also revealed many verses and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said many hadiths (that might exceed ten thousand separate hadiths). It is obligatory to obey all of these verses and hadiths. One must believe in them all, act according to them all and honor them all. It is considered to be among great ignorance and forbidden guilt citing a verse of a hadith that has been mentioned under another chapter. One must collect all the texts in the chapter and act upon them according to the principles of jurisprudence and the rules of deduction. What was mentioned as a whole in one place could be mentioned in details in another. What was mentioned in general in one place was mentioned in details in another. What was absolute in abu abdul-kareem 14-09-2005, 01:13 PM 345 slamic Monotheism one place was mentioned with exceptions in another. There can be an abrogated thing and its abrogating in another place. The one who does not act according to this rule is among those regarding whom Allah says, 〈 ∩®⊇∪ t⎦⎫Òã tβ#u™)9# #θ=yèy_ t⎦⎪%!# ® which means, "Those who turned the Qur'an into pieces." (Al-Hijr, 15:91) They divided it into fragments taking what they like and leaving what does not agree with their whims. Such person s almost a disbeliever among those who believe in some parts of the Qur'ân and disbelieve in other. He deserves shame in this life and torment in the Hereafter. c. As for the verses of Qur'ân, it is recommended that the reliable exegeses books be referred to especially those collecting the comments of the righteous predecessors (At-Tabary, Ibn Abu Hâtim, Ibn Kathîr and others). If there was found an authentic traceable hadith in the exegesis of the verse or part of it, it would be decisive evidence that cannot be overlooked. Back to the verse where Allah says, 〈 ∩⊂∪... ’∀s 9— !# ’<n )$Ρt θ/)s ‹9 ω) Νδ‰6èΡt $Βt ™u$Šu 9ρ&r ⎯μΡρŠ ∅Β #ρ‹ƒs B# ⎥⎪%!#ρu ... ®
which means, "And those who take protectors besides Him: “We do not serve them
except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in proximity." (Az-Zumar, 39:2)
The verse states that they worshiped such gods:
According to you, this means: that they prostrated to them, bowed to them, danced to
them, recited poems, lighted candles, offered sacrifices, and many actions which you
call worship. This is done regardless of the beliefs of its doer whether the one
worshiped deserves them or not. One can say: all of this is considered to be worship
regardless of the doer's beliefs even if he sincerely believed that they are creatures
who have no power to do anything to themselves, power or will except after the Will
of Allah.
We have already proven the invalidity of mere prostration to be an act of worship. We
can likewise prove that any act as a mere act is not an act of worship. We shall discuss
this matter in details later on.
According to us, this means: that they regarded them as gods and believed that they
deserved all the acts of glorification, submission, honoring, loving, and getting closer
which deserved to be named worship, for they believe that they are mediators that
make them get nearer to Allah. The Qur'ân mentioned the reasons in other places.
Among which are:
1. That these gods are the daughters of Allah and they have a godly nature. This
means that they come from a godly element, linage, or essence.
2. That they are partners whom Allah needs to satisfy and gain the loyalty of.
346
slamic Monotheism
3. That Allah does not know the affairs of his creatures except from their telling
Him or cannot execute any action without their intermediary. Thus, he is poor
in need of them.
4. That they run away from Allah and frustrate Him by flight as they thought of jinn
Or other considerations, Exalted be Allah above such things. We have already proven
that some of these were the beliefs of The Quraish while others were for other people
according to the historical facts. Some of it or the like of which might be the belief of
other disbelievers.
We presented the proofs supporting the invalidity of your words and the validity of our
words previously. Our words became among the basics which are to be applied
obligatory in this specific case which bore many meanings, for being among that
which is not established. Our duty is to refer the later to the former or we will fall in
falsity and misguidance.
The invalidity of your words and the validity of ours is the truth in this special case and
the verse in its complete text and with its right exegesis taken from the Imams of
predecessors are not among that which is not established. The verse in its complete
text says,
$Á=ƒΧ !# ‰7ã$sù ,ys9$/ |=≈tF69# ‹s9)$uΖ9t“Ρr& $Ρ) ∩⊇∪ Ο‹3pt:# “ƒ“yè9# !# z⎯Β =≈tG39# ≅ƒ”∴s? ® ω) Νδ‰6ètΡ$tΒ u™$uŠ9ρr& ⎯μΡρŠ ∅Β #ρ‹sƒB# ⎥⎪%!#uρ 4 È9$sƒ:# ⎯ƒ$!# ! ωr& ∩⊄∪ ⎥⎪$!# μ9
uθδ ⎯tΒ “‰γtƒ ω !# β) 3 χθ=tGƒs† μ‹ù Νδ $tΒ ’û ΟγoΨt/ Ν3ts† !# β) ’s∀9— !# ’n<)$tΡθ/s)‹9
!# uθδ ( …μoΨ≈ys7™ 4 ™$t±o„$tΒ ,=ƒs† $ϑΒ ’s∀sÜ¹ω #$s!uρ x‹‚Gtƒ βr& !# yŠ#u‘r& θ9 ∩⊂∪ ‘$2 >‹≈x. 〈 ∩⊆∪ ‘$γs)9# ‰m≡uθ9#
which means, "The sending down of the Scripture is from Allah, the Exalted in Might,
most Wise. We have indeed revealed the Scripture to you with the truth, therefore
worship Allah, making the religion exclusive for Him. Is it not that sincere religion is
for Allah? And those who take protectors besides Him: “We do not serve them except
that they may bring us nearer to Allah in proximity.” Allah will indeed judge between
them regarding that in which they themselves differ. Surely Allah does not guide him
who is a liar, a disbeliever. If Allah had wished to take a child, He could then have
chosen whom He had pleased out of His creation. Glory be to Him! He is Allah, the
One, all-Dominant." (Az-Zumar, 39:1-4)
Imam At-Tabary said in his interpretation for the first three verses, 'Allah is saying that
the sending down of the book is from Allah, He has indeed revealed the book to you
Muhammad from Allah, the Mighty in taking revenge from His enemies and the All-
Wise in disposition of all affairs of His creatures. There is no other than Him. Thus,
you should have no doubts concerning that matter. Allah mentioned "the sending
347
slamic Monotheism
down" before "from Allah" and the order of words should be (From Allah, the Exalted
in Might, most Wise is the sending down of the scripturer). "We have indeed revealed
the Scripture to you with the truth" Allah is saying to His prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him): We have revealed to you O Muhammad. He meant by "the scripture",
the Qur'ân. "With the truth" means with just. We have revealed to you this Qur'ân
that is commanding with just and truth and among such just and truth is to make the
religion exclusive for Allah as the religion is His and not concerned with idols which
have no authority for doing harm or benefit. People of interpretation said the same
about the scripture as we said about it. Whoever said such opinion said that Qatâdah
said about "We have indeed revealed the Scripture to you with the truth", that it
means the Qur'ân. "Therefore worship Allah, making the religion exclusive for Him"
means that Allah is saying: submit to Allah O Muhammad with showing obedience,
make Him the exclusive god, worship Him alone and do not worship any partners
with Him as worshipers of idols did. People of interpretation said the same as we said.
Whoever said such opinion mentioned that Shamar said that man would be brought at
the Day of Resurrection in order to be reckoned while having in his paper like
mountains of good deeds, Allah would say to him: you prayed at day so and so, just to
be said that so and so performed prayer. I am Allah, there is no god but Me, the
religion to Me alone. You fasted at day so and so, just to be said that so and so fasted. I
am Allah, there is no god but Me, the religion to Me alone. You gave charity at day so
and so, just to be said that so and so gave charities. I am Allah, there is no god but Me,
the religion to Me alone. Thus, one good deed after another will be omitted from his
record till there will be nothing in his record. His angels will say to him: O so and so
did you perform acts of worship to other than Allah?
As-Siddy said that concerning His saying, "making the religion exclusive for Him",
monotheism or the religion is what is meant here to seek Allah alone in it; it takes the
place of the object in the verse. Concerning His saying, "Is it not that sincere religion is
for Allah?" Allah says that Allah has the right to be worshiped and obeyed alone with
taking no partners with Him. No one has the right to participate Allah in that. It is not
lawful for anyone, as everything that is beyond Allah is owned by Him. What is
possessed must obey His owner and not to obey who has no authority over him.
People of interpretation said the same as we said. Whoever said such opinion
mentioned that Qatâdah said that the saying of Allah, "Is it not that sincere religion is
for Allah?" means that there is no god but Allah and His saying, "And those who take
protectors besides Him: “We do not serve them except that they may bring us nearer
to Allah in proximity" means that Allah is talking about those people who seek other
supporters than Allah to worship them. They are saying to their deities that they are
not worshiping them except to bring us nearer to Allah in rank and level and to
intercede for us to fulfill our needs. Ubay recited it as "we do not worship you" and
'Abdullâh recited it as "They said: "We do not worship them." As-Siddy said that it is
"They said: "We do not worship them." in the recitation of 'Abdullâh. People of
interpretation said the same as we said. Whoever said such opinion mentioned that
Mujâhid said in his opinion about "We do not serve them except that they may bring
us nearer to Allah in proximity", that Quraish said it for idols and those before them
said it for angels, 'Îsâ (Jesus, peace be upon him) and 'Uzair. Qatâdah also said about
348
slamic Monotheism
"And those who take protectors besides Him: “We do not serve them except that they
may bring us nearer to Allah in proximity", that they worship them only to bring them
close to Allah and to intercede for them. As-Siddy said that it was revealed. Ibn Zaid
said about "And those who take protectors besides Him: “We do not serve them
except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in proximity", that they said that they are
their supporters in order to intercede for them and they will bring them nearer to Allah
at the Day of Resurrection. He said also about "Allah will indeed judge between them
regarding that in which they themselves differ", that Allah is saying that He will judge
between those groups who took during the world life supporters other than Allah at
the day of Resurrection, He will judge between them regarding that in which they
used to differ about during the world life. He will put all of them in the Hellfire except
he who makes the religion exclusive for Allah alone and did not participate anything
with Him.' Here ends the text of At-Tabary.
Notice the saying of the interpreters and all of them are from the companions and the
followers: (we worship you deities in order to bring us close to Allah) which is a
declaration that they believe in their godhood. Also (Quraish is saying that to idols,
whoever was before them was saying it to angels and to 'Îsâ bin Maryam (Jesus son
of Mary, peace be upon him) and to 'Uzair, peace be upon him) and also the saying
of As-Siddy: (to idols). Godhood was ascribed to those all and was believe in their
godhood according to evidences of the Qur'ân, the Sunnah, transmitted biography and
authentic historical transmission, as it was mentioned above.
Imam At-Tabary said in the interpretation of the fourth verse, 'Allah says that He does
not guide to right, to Islam and to admitting His oneness, him who is a liar, a
disbeliever, accusing Allah of false and null matters, adding to Him what is not among
His Attributes, claiming that He has a son, denying bless of Allah and denying His
lordship. His saying that "if Allah had wished to take a child", which is not lawful in
His behalf, "He could then have chosen whom He had pleased out of His creation",
He would choose from among His creatures according to His wish. His saying, "Glory
be to Him! He is Allah, the One, all-Dominant", He says that He is far above having
any son and above what disbelievers said about Him, He is Allah. He says that
everything worships Him and if He had a child, he will never be from among His
servants. He says that all matters are possessed by Him, how then could He have a
child while He is the One that has no partner with Him in His property and
sovereignty. He is the all-Dominant to His creatures with His ability, everything is
submitting to Him and to His power.'
The previous opinion of At-Tabary indicates that the subject in the verses is idols of
Quraish from among the angels whom Quraish believed to be daughters of Allah. This
is made clear from the next verse after the above in which Allah says, "If Allah had
wished to take a child, He could then have chosen whom He had pleased out of His
creation. Glory be to Him! He is Allah, the One, all-Dominant", what makes then the
second verse more noticeable than the third verse?
Yet, it is among the impossibility that human asks anything from a piece of a stone that
he knew that it is dead except if he was from among mental patients. Worshipers of
idols are worshiping deities that are referred to by theses idols which are symbols
349
slamic Monotheism
them or that deities assumed the shape of idols or that idols are their representatives.
They ascribe to them either creation, actions, intercession without permission of Allah,
rebellion against Allah and frustrating Him, having relations to Allah either to be His
daughters, sons, aunts and uncles or other than that from among false and polytheistic
sayings, as we mentioned lots of them above.
That is why Abu Sufyân said in the day of Uhud, 'Be glorified Hubal.' Muslims replied,
'Allah is more glorified and superior.' It is not possible that Abu Sufyân meant at that
time this piece of stone; idol Hubal which was at this point nine days far from Uhud
Mountain in Medina as it is a deaf stone. He meant the deity Hubal (which is, more
likely, the Arab word for the deity of sun of Greeks: Apollo) which this stone around
the Ka;bah was just a symbol of it at that time. It will not be strange if we found that
Quraish believe the same believing of the Greeks that it is the son of the biggest deities
which is Venus for Greeks and Allah for the Arab.
The most kinds of polytheism among common infidels such as of the Greeks, Hindus
and Quraish as we mentioned in a previous chapter, believed that godhood is like
humanity. Just a name of a gender which had several individuals among it and they
are capable of propagation. They believed that such individuals are different in ranks
and degrees. There can be chief and member, big and small and king and slave exactly
like human. To be found from the ever is not important in their conception of
godhood. Deities according to them are capable of propagation after being nonexistent
and it is not strange that they will vanish after that. It is not a condition according to
them that deities should be perfect and above all defaults and defects but some deities
were even known for their scandals and defects like adultery, stealing, etc more than
other deities.
It is not strange then if one of them says, 'Here I am my Lord at your service! There is
no partner with You, except a partner that is Yours; that You own with what he
posses.' Thus he believed that there are other partners with Allah in divine "essence",
"element", "kinship" or "gender", even if they were in rank of possessed slaves exactly
as it is the case with human, possessed slave is human and his master who owns him
is human also.
That is the belief of most of common polytheists like old Egyptian, Greeks, most of
polytheists of Arab and common Indians. Most of them believe that marriage can
happen between human and deities and produce demigods or giants as deities and
Jinn may marry and produce Angels and like that from among fables and miracles.
Such deities differ in their abilities and specializations. There is a deity for sun, for war,
for sea, for love, for hunting, for death, one can grow plants, and one can protect
merchants. There is even a deity for protecting thieves and other like that from among
While the Adnanian Arabs - the Arabs of the north - especially Quraish used to have
lots of deities, most of them were females - like Al-lât, Al-'Uzzâ, Manât and others -.
They believed that they were angels and that angels are the daughters of Allah. They
may even believe that there was a blood relationship between Allah and the Jinn. But
because they were near in age with the unification of the Doctrine of Ibrâhîm
350
slamic Monotheism
(Abraham, peace be upon him), they used to ascribe most of the creation and the
actions in the universe to Allah, the Exalted and ever Majestic, because He is
according to their null belief, the father of all deities and their head. This is very
obvious in the discussions mentioned in the Glorious Qur'ân and proving their
Hasty understanding of the above and not noticing all the texts and accounts in the
same time as we mentioned in its place, led some grand scholars like scholar of Islam
Ibn Taimiyah and after him Imam Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhâb to imagine that
polytheists were admitting what they called "unification of Allah… lordship" and that
their polytheism was limited to "godhood". This is serious error that led to big
confusion, to null divisions that Allah did not ascend, to defects and confusion in the
meaning of "worshiping" for which the people were created, and to distortion in the
concept of "monotheism" which was changed to group of crazy and funny concepts
The Adnanian Arabs especially the tribe of Quraish belonged most of the creation and
authority of disposal in the universe to Allah, the Glorious as we mentioned before, in
spite of that they belonged some of these actions to another deities like attributing the
domination of death and destiny to "Manât" the god of (death) that controlled the fate
of the people and not just that but they even attributed such other deities to Allah as
His relatives. That means that they associated them with Allah in the "Divine essence"
in a way or another, as it is mentioned in the authentic texts which we had mentioned
in details in their places. Among them:
* Al-Bukhâry recorded in Al-Jâmi' As-Sahîh Al-Mukhtasar in chapter of the jinn, their
rewording and their punishment that Allah says,
〈 ∩⊇⊂⊃∪ ... ©L≈tƒ#u™ Ν6‹n=tæ tβθÁ)tƒ Ν3ΖΒ ≅™‘ Ν3?'tƒ Οs9r& §Ρ}#uρ ⎯g:# u|³èyϑ≈tƒ ®
which means, "You multitude of jinn and men! did not rasuls come to you from
among you, relating to you My Messages." (Al-An'âm, 6:130)
Mujâhid said that Allah says,
〈 ∩⊇∈∇∪ ... 4 $7|¡nΣ πΨg:# t⎦⎫t/uρ …μuΖt/ #θ=yèy_uρ ® which means, "And they have made between Him and between the jinn a relationship." (As-Sâffât, 37:158) Polytheists of Quraish said that the Angels are daughters of Allah and their mothers are the daughters of esteemed Jinn. Allah says, 〈 ∩⊇∈∇∪ tβρ|Øsϑs9 ΝκΞ) πΨg:# Myϑ=tã ‰s)s9uρ.... ® which means, "And surely the jinn know that they are going to be brought up." (As- Sâffât, 37:158) Jinn will be brought to Allah in order to be rewarded or punished. faqir 14-09-2005, 01:13 PM JazakAllah khair Akhi. When you've finished posting could you provide some information regarding the author? abu abdul-kareem 14-09-2005, 01:19 PM 351 slamic Monotheism * Al-Hâfizh recorded in Fath Al-Bâry Sharh Sahîh Al-Bukhâry that when Al-Bukhâry said that chapter of the jinn, their rewording and their punishment, he indicated to the existing of Jinn and that they are to be rewarded of punished. After that he said that Mujâhid said that they made relationship between Him and jinn. Al-Faryâby transmitted that on the authority of Abu Najîh who reported from Mujâhid. Abu bakr asked, 'Who are their mothers?' They said that they are the daughters of esteemed Jinn. He said that the Jinn knew that they will be rewarded or punished. This later saying is related to the biography. Here ends the saying of Al-Hâfizh. * It was also mentioned in Fath Al-Bâry Sharh Sahîh Al-Bukhâry that Abu 'Ubaidah commented on the verse, in which Allah says, 〈 ∩⊇∠∪ ..$W≈tΡ) ω) ⎯μΡρŠ ⎯Β χθã‰tƒ β) ®
which means, "They call besides Him on nothing but female divinities." (An-Nisâ',
4:117)
That they call besides Him on nothing but dead stones or like that. Other said that
these deities were females because they called them Manat, Al-Llât, Al-'Uzzâ, Isâf,
Nâ'ilah and like that. Al-Hassan Al-Bassry said there was no district among the Arabian
district except having an idol to be worshipped and was named a name of a female. It
will be mentioned in the interpretation of chapter As-Saffât a story about them that
they were saying that the Angels were daughters of Allah, but Allah is away from
such claim. And in the narration of 'Abdullâh bin Ahmad in his father's Musnad that
every idol. And its narrators are trustworthy. This is exactly our opinion that with every
idol there is invisible being from jinn and jinn are divine beings otherwise how could
Allah marry from them except if they were from His gender, type or kind if they were
not from among His tribe?
* Al-Bukhâry recorded in Al-Jâmi' As-Sahîh Al-Mukhtasar in chapter of the
interpretation of chapter As-Sâffât. Mujâhid said that Allah says which means, "And
between the jinn a relationship" (As-Sâffât, 37:158) and polytheists of Quraish said that
the Angels are daughters of Allah and their mothers are the daughters of esteemed
Jinn.
* It was mentioned in Fath Al-Bâry Sharh Sahîh Al-Bukhâry that in chapter "And they
say: “Allah has taken a son”. Glory be to Him" (Al-Baqarah, 2:116) that this is the way
in which majority of scholars recited and 'Âmir recited it with omitting (and). They
agreed that this verse was revealed because of those who claimed that Allah has a
son from among the Jews of Khaibar and the Christians of Najrân and whoever said
from among the polytheists of Arab that the angels are the daughters of Allah but
* It was mentioned in Tafsîr Al-Jalâliyîn that the following verse was revealed
concerning An-Nadir bin Al-Hârith and his group. Allah says,
〈 ∩⊂∪ ... Ο=ã tó/ !# ’û Α‰≈pg† ⎯tΒ ¨$Ζ9# z⎯Βuρ ® 352 slamic Monotheism which means, "And among mankind there is one who disputes regarding Allah without knowledge." (Al-Hajj, 22:3) They claimed that the Angels are the daughters of Allah and that the Qur'ân is the myths of the early people. They denied the resurrection and the reviving of those who became dust. * It was mentioned also in Tafsîr Al-Jalâliyîn that the following verse was revealed because they claimed that the angels are the daughters of Allah because the son is a part of the father and the angels are part of His servants. Allah says, 〈 ∩⊇∈∪ ... 4 #™“_ ⎯νŠ$t6ã ⎯Β …μs9 #θ=yèy_uρ ®
which means, "Yet they have made partners with Him out of His bondsmen." (Az-
Zukhruf, 43:15)
Whoever says that is a clear disbeliever.
* It was mentioned also in Tafsîr Al-Jalâliyîn that the following verse was revealed
because they claimed that the angels are the daughters of Allah. Allah says,
〈 ∩⊄∠∪ ©s\Ρ{# sπu‹ϑ¡n@ sπs3×≈n=pRQ# tβθϑ|¡Šs9 οtzψ$/ tβθΖΒσƒ ω t⎦⎪%!# β) ® which means, "Verily those who do not believe in the Hereafter, they name the malaks by female names." (An-Najm, 53:27) Thus what was said is not true that they were not polytheists according to the "lordship" or "names and attributes". But this is the core of their polytheism, its reality and the ugliest kind among kinds of polytheism which is polytheism in entity and associating others with Allah in His names and attributes or in some of them, equaling Him to others in even one name of them, likening Allah to His creatures, and other like such horrible matters. Thus, being polytheist concerning entity, names and attributes and some lordship, is led to being polytheist concerning worship, rulership and legislation. Thus, opinion of scholar of Islam, Imam Ibn Taimiyyah that people of tribe of Quraish were not polytheists according to lordship – regardless that his definition for lordship is obscure and confusing as we mentioned above – is definitely untrue. Following him in that is scholar of Islam sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhâb, he discussed the subject but made the same or even more mistakes. This is among the mistakes of scholars that the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned his nation from it. When he (peace be upon him) said that he is afraid of mistake of scholar, argument of a hypocrite using the book (Qur'ân) and ruling of misleading imams. The two Imams wanted to do good and if Allah wills, they were rewarded for their discretion. But such mistakes should be rejected and we should reform them immediately after knowing the evidence which prove its mistake and not to neglect. We must ask Allah for forgiveness for such scholars who committed such mistakes. 353 slamic Monotheism Yet, there are still some ignorant imitators that insisted on committing such obvious mistakes. If they were ignorant and know nothing about such matters, they must keep silent and follow commands of Allah. Allah says, 〈 ∩⊆⊂∪ tβθΗs>ès? ω ΟGΨ. β) .%!# ≅δr& #θ=t↔¡sù... ® which means, "Therefore you ask the people of the Reminder if you do not know." (An-Nahl, 16:43) Or are they from among those people who follow their desires and are hypocrite that want to destroy Islam as the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Argument of a hypocrite." After the first issue has already took its part in destroying Islam which is mistake of the scholars even if this mistake was not intended or intended to be good. There is no use if such people mention the following verses as evidences. Allah says, 〈 ∩∉⊇∪ tβθ3sùσƒ ’Τr'sù ( !# ⎯9θ)u‹s9 tyϑs)9#uρ }§ϑ±9# t‚y™uρ uÚ‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈yϑ¡9# t,n=y{ ⎯Β ΝγtF9r'y™ ⎦⌡s9uρ ® which means, "And in case you ask them: “Who created the heavens and the earth, and subjected the sun and the moon?”– they will invariably say: “Allah.” Whereto are they then being turned away?" (Al-'Ankabût, 29:61) ≅% 4 !# ⎯9θ)u‹s9$yγ?θtΒ ‰èt/ ⎯Β uÚ‘{# μ/ $uŠmr'sù ™$tΒ ™$yϑ¡9# ∅Β tΑ“Ρ ⎯Β ΟγtF9r'y™ ⎦.s!uρ ® 〈 ∩∉⊂∪ tβθ=)ètƒ ω ΟδsY2r& ≅t/ 4 ! ‰ϑys9# which means, "And in case you ask them: “Who sends down water from the sky, then quickens the earth by it after its death?” they will indeed say: “Allah.” Say: “All praise belongs to Allah.” But most of them do not understand." (Al-'Ankabût, 29:63) ω ΝδsY2r& ≅t/ 4 ! ‰ϑpt:# ≅% 4 !# ⎯9θ)u‹s9 uÚ‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈yϑ¡9# t,n=y{ ⎯Β ΝγtF9r'y™ ⎦⌡s9uρ ® 〈 ∩⊄∈∪ tβθϑn=ètƒ which means, "And if you ask them: “Who has created the heavens and the earth?” They will certainly say: “Allah.” You say: “All praise belongs to Allah!” But most of them do not know." (Luqmân, 31:25) !# βρŠ ⎯Β tβθã‰s?$Β ΟFƒu™tsùr& ≅% 4 !# ∅9θ)u‹s9 uÚ‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈yϑ¡9# t,n=y{ ⎯Β ΟγtF9r'y™ ⎦.s!uρ ®
≅% 4 ⎯μGuΗqu‘ M≈s3¡ϑΒ ∅δ ≅yδ πyϑmt / ’ΤyŠ#u‘r& ρr& ⎯νÑ M≈x±≈x. ⎯δ ≅yδ Ø/ !# u’ΤyŠ#u‘r& β)
〈 ∩⊂∇∪ tβθ=.uθtGϑ9# ≅2uθtGtƒ μ‹n=tã ( !# z©<¡ym
which means, "And if you ask them: “Who has created the heavens and the earth?"
They will certainly say: “Allah”. Say: “Do you then see that those you call upon

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:19 PM
354
slamic Monotheism
besides Allah,― if Allah desired to do me injury― will they be the remover of His
hurt? Or, if He intended mercy for me, will they be withholders of His mercy?” Say:
“Sufficient for me is Allah. Upon Him do rely the reliants." (Az-Zumar, 39:38)
〈 ∩∇∠∪ tβθ3sùσƒ ’Τr'sù ( !# ⎯9θ)u‹s9 Νγs)n=yz ⎯Β ΝγtF9r'y™ ⎦⌡s9uρ ®
which means, "And if you were to ask them-who had created them, they would
invariable say: "Allah." Then whence are they turned away?" (Az-Zukhruf, 43:87)
M‹yϑ9# z⎯Β ‘y⇔9# lƒ† ⎯tΒuρ t≈|Á/{#uρ yìϑ¡9# 7=ϑtƒ ⎯Βr& Ú‘{#uρ ™$yϑ¡9# z⎯Β Ν3%—tƒ ⎯tΒ ≅% ® 〈 ∩⊂⊇∪ tβθ)Gs? ξsùr& ≅)sù 4 !# tβθ9θ)uŠ|¡sù 4 zΔ{# /y‰ƒ ⎯tΒuρ ‘y⇔9# ∅Β |M‹yϑ9# lƒ†uρ which means, "Say: “who provides you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? Or who has control over the hearing and the sight? And who brings and the living from the dead and brings out the dead from the living? And who governs the affair?” They will then answer― “Allah.” Therefore you say: “Will you not then practice reverence?”" (Yûnus, 10:31) And other several verses. The comment is that they used to believe that (Allah has alone the right to dispose affairs but they associated partners with Allah to intercede to them in ask and worship) as sheikh Al-Qurany claimed in his book that was mentioned above. First of all, there is nothing in the verses that indicate that they believed that He has alone the right of that. This is outside the text and ascribing words to Allah that He did not say it, which is ugly. We may consider it unintended mistake from the sheikh otherwise that would be clear disbelief. Their confession for example, that Allah is the One that provides subsistence from the heaven and earth. Such confession in this certain and partial point: (1) Does not mean necessarily that Allah alone has this right but may be there are other providers independent from Him and competing with Him in providing people. May be He is the biggest One among them exactly like when companies compete in markets. (2) Does not mean necessarily that Allah alone has this right. That He does it independently. May be they think that He needs a supporter in doing that or an agency to implement exactly like kings from among creatures. (3) Does not indicate necessarily that His dominion is empty from the existence of some riotous criminals or rebellious revolutionists. Those people who frustrate Him and run to mountaintop and bottom of valleys. Those who provide subsistence to themselves and to their followers and have their own treasures and provisions. (4) Even if we agree for the sake of argument that the verse is really indicating that Allah alone provide subsistence from the heaven and the earth, it does not 355 slamic Monotheism include any words about other than that, so He may be has partners in other matters for example: (a) There is another deity that creates evil, causes diseases and infections and spoils matters of Allah and Allah has no authority to stop him. Some Thanawiyah believe there is deity of evil who does not provide subsistence, does not have hearing and seeing senses and does not cause life or death but he rebels at Allah. He frustrated Allah and spoiled His matters for him. May be there is a universal power that is out of control like infection, ghoul and like that. (b) There is another deity or Rabb other than Him in the existence. Such deity is may be similar to Him even in some considerations in a way that he overpowers Him or that Allah is afraid to disagree with him, so he cares for his "sake". (c) There is another deity in the existence that has his own universe and world which is totally independent from the other world of us. Although he does not interfere in our existence, he remains a deity that deserves to be respected and glorified even if we do not ask or seek anything from him, does not grant any harm or benefit, as he is away from our world. He has his own "foreign" and independent kingdom. He neither cares for us nor interferes in affairs of our "national" Kingdome of our deity. (d) Or that Allah has sons and daughters from divine element or essence. But they have no authorities. They do not provide subsistence, own or legislate but they have great degree for their father and He loves them very much. They are spoiled exactly like sons and daughters of kings who can intercede without being refused and they do not need any permission. He of course will be delighted by their intercession and reward whoever worships them. There is nothing in the verse - which indicates that He provide subsistence from the heaven and earth – that prevents that they believed in some or all such previous probabilities. That is why Allah comments by saying, "Will you not then practice reverence?" This means that you should fear Allah, the One that you admitted Him as provider of subsistence, owner of hearing and seeing and the One that causes life and death. Do not associate partner with Him in that and do not accuse Him of any default, poverty or that in need of any other than Him. Do not create sons and daughters for Him without His knowledge as it was mentioned in other than this verse in several places. The verses of the Qur'ân, praise be to Allah, complete and explain each other. It is not permissible to bring a sum verse as evidence while there are other verses were revealed in the same subject and have more details and complete the subject. This is wrong that can lead its doer to the disaster of using verses of the Qur'ân to contradict each other or to believe in some of it and disbelieve in the rest which is destructive polytheism that throws his doer in the Hellfire forever. The origin of all these falsities, calamities, and afflictions is the polytheists making Allah like His creatures. It is a known fact. Most of the cases of polytheism stem from likening Allah with His creatures and comparing between them or likening Allah to 356 slamic Monotheism one of His creatures, honoring this creature, and raising it above the rank of humans. Most of what we have mentioned now is the essence of Arab disbelievers and the majority of African polytheists regarding jinn. This is not mere imagination or fancies but these creeds really exist today or existed in the past. Imam At-Tabary said, "Allah says to Muhammad what means: O Muhammad! Tell those who associate idols with Allah, Who provides rain for you from the sky, raises for you its sun, covers its night with darkness and brings out light upon its forenoon. And from the earth, your substance and food that He makes grow, and the fruits of its trees? Or who owns hearing and sights, He says, who has the control over your hearings that you hear with. Who can make them stronger or deprive you of them by making you deaf? And your sights that you see with; who can provide you with its light, or deprive you of their light and make you blind? And who brings out the living thing from the dead and brings out the dead thing from the living?. We have mentioned the difference views of those whose who differed among the interpreters. And the sound view to us concerning that point is mentioned in Sûrat Âl- ‘Imrân with the evidence that proves its soundness that can do without repeating it in this place. And say to them, who disposes the affaires; the affaires of the heavens and the earth and that which is in them, your affaires and the affaires of the creatures? They will respond you by saying that the one who does all these is Allah. Then say, will you not then be afraid of Allah’s Punishment for your associating and claiming a lord with Him Whose attribute is this, and for your worshipping him whom does not provide anything for you, and has no power either to harm you or do you good and can not do anything at all]. This is the end of Imam At-Tabary’s statement. Notice his statement, “and your claiming a lord other than He Whose Attribute is this”, and his statement “and your worshipping him whom does not provide anything for you with Him”. Perhaps we can notice that many of the similar verses were only revealed in course of refuting deniers of the Resurrection, though they confess that it is Allah Who initiated and created the creation. And that He controls the hearing and the sight. He is the One provides provision and makes rain fall. The Almighty Allah disapproved of their ascribing to Him the inability to resurrect the dead. Therefore, the argument with them regarding these places is related to the Resurrection and not the Tawhîd and worship. If we consider that the Sheikh Al-Qarny misused the Arabic word “ المتفرد ” (the Unique), which is out of the text, we will find that the Sheikh and the Imam Muhammad bin ‘Abdul-Wahâb added more, when he the following phrase " Wahdahu Lâ Sharîka lah (Alone, there is no partner to Him)." * As it has been mentioned in “the compilations of the Sheikh and the Imam Muhammad bin ‘Abdul-Wahâb” (vol: 1, p: 146): [when you reflect on this great issue, and you come to know that the disbelievers confess that all these belong to Allah Alone, there is no partner to Him, and that they only believed in their gods just to seek the intercession and to be drawn near unto Allah, as it has been stated by Allah, the Exalted, 〈 4 !# y‰Ψã$tΡσ≈yèx© ™ωσ≈yδ χθ9θ)tƒuρ ΟγèxΖtƒ ωuρ ΝδØo„ ω $tΒ !# χρŠ ⎯Β χρ‰7ètƒuρ ® 357 slamic Monotheism And they worship besides Allah what neither harms them nor brings them any benefit, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah." (Yûnus, 10:18), and in another verse, 〈 ’s∀9— !# ’n<)$tΡθ/s)‹9 ω) Νδ‰6ètΡ $tΒ u™$uŠ9ρr& ⎯μΡρŠ ∅Β #ρ‹sƒB# ⎥⎪%!#uρ ®
which means, " We do not serve them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in
proximity.”" (Az-Zumar, 39:3)
When this becomes clear to you, and you understand it very well, there will remain,
for the polytheists, another argument, which is that they say that this is true, but the
disbelievers believe in the idols. The absolute answer to this is to tell them that some
of the disbelievers at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) believed in the
idols, some believed in the grave of a righteous man like Allât and some believed in
the righteous people, and they are those whom the Almighty Allah made mention of in
the
Glorious Qur’an,
χθù$sƒs†uρ …μtGyϑmu‘ tβθ_tƒuρ >t%r& Νκ‰r& s's#‹™uθ9# Ογ/u‘ ’n<) χθótG6tƒ χθã‰tƒ t⎦⎪%!# y7×≈s9ρ& ® 〈 4 …μt/#x‹tã which means, " Those whom they call upon- seek the means of access to their Rabb who among them is the nearest, and they hope for His mercy, and they fear His chastisement." (Al-Isrâ', 17:57) the Almighty Allah says that those Allah denotes to those people who are called infidels (according to the disbeliever's opinion), alleging loving them, are virtuous people. They do not only obey Allah, but also they fear him. If you know that Allah, the Almighty mentions in His Book they think in the believers, and they did not want any thing except to gain both the intercession and to come near to Allah, and you know also that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not differ them from those who thought in the idols and those who thought in the virtuous people, o he fought all of them for their infidelity.) it has just ended. The former text, which related to the Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abd Al-Wahhâb, has a lot of slips: (1) He mentioned the formula (alone, has no partner), but it was not existed in the evidences of the Book of Allah and the Prophetic sayings. It is worst than the word (the Unique) that the Sheikh Al-Qarny mentioned mistakenly before. (2) His allegation; (but they thought in their gods in order to gain the intercession and be come near to Allah) is restricted. It is also void as we mentioned before. Ye, it is only (some) of in what they believed of the gods. So it is not restricted for (all) gods as the Sheikh said. The intercession which they believed in is not abu abdul-kareem 14-09-2005, 01:21 PM 358 slamic Monotheism for the Sake of Allah, it is always acceptable and does not need permission like that granted by Allah to his prophets. The sheikh should have said this clearly and explicitly. (3) Misunderstanding of Almighty Allah's verse which goes,$tΡσ≈yèx© ™ωσ≈yδ χθ9θ)tƒuρ ΟγèxΖtƒ ωuρ ΝδØo„ ω $tΒ !# χρŠ ⎯Β χρ‰7ètƒuρ ® 4〈... !# y‰Ψã which means, "And they worship besides Allah what neither harms them nor brings them any benefit, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah." (Yûnus, 10:18) He thought that they believe that those gods did not harm nor benefit. He missed the point that this can not be true, because intercessors can harm and benefit, and the worshippers of those gods certainly believe that they are their intercessors to Allah, and that their intercession can not be rejected, moreover they do that without asking Allah for His permission. This is indeed a tremendous benefit. The truth is that Allah is telling through the verse about the reality of those who are worshipped with Him, and that they can not harm, benefit, intercede, or dispose the affairs as polytheists believe falsely. The Sheikh has mixed polytheists' belief with the reality shown by Allah, the Lord of the worlds. (4) He did not define worship right definition; that it should be preceded by believing in godhood. Wherever it was mentioned in the Qur'ân, it came related to null deities and all what is worshiped other than Allah as it was mentioned in the following verse. Allah says,$tΡσ≈yèx© ™ωσ≈yδ χθ9θ)tƒuρ ΟγèxΖtƒ ωuρ ΝδØo„ ω $tΒ !# χρŠ ⎯Β χρ‰7ètƒuρ ® 〈 ∩⊇∇∪ 4 !# y‰Ψã which means, "And they worship besides Allah what neither harms them nor brings them any benefit, and they say: “These are our intercessors with Allah." (Yûnus, 10:18) (5) He misunderstood the following verse in which Allah says, 〈 ∩⊂∪... ’s∀9— !# ’n<)$tΡθ/s)‹9 ω) Νδ‰6ètΡ $tΒ u™$uŠ9ρr& ⎯μΡρŠ ∅Β #ρ‹sƒB# ⎥⎪%!#uρ... ®
which means, "And those who take protectors besides Him: “We do not serve
them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in proximity.”" (Az-Zumar,
39:3)
It was discussed before when we talked about the mistakes of sheikh Al-Qurany.
359
slamic Monotheism
(6) He claimed that some among the disbelievers at the time of the Prophet (peace
be upon him) believed in and worshiped a pious man's grave like Al-Lât. This is
null according to the definite text of the Qur'ân which proved that Al-Lât, Al-
'Uzzâ and Manât the other third one were female deities that Quraish used to
believe that they were daughters of Allah and according to what was proved by
the last of the prophets Muhammad (peace be upon him) that the first one that
changed the religion of Ismâ'îl was 'Amr bin Lahâ Al-Khuzâ'y and that he is the
one that imported idols and called people to worship them.
Concerning the story of the man that used to prepare Sawîq for pilgrims in At-
Tâ'if and after his death, people worshiped him, it is among what was
interpolated to narrations of Ibn 'Abbâs (may Allah be pleased with him). It is an
Arabic myth and common fable. The Arabs did not have any respected graves
except that what was reported that they glorify the grave of Tamîm bin Mur the
father of the famous tribe but it was never mentioned that they worship or
believe in its divinity. He was just a respectable chief and nothing than that. We
talked and discussed in details the story of he – claimed to be Al-Lât - who used
to prepare Sawîq for pilgrims in the chapter under the title of (What is the
reality of Al-Lât?) and also in the chaper under the title of (How Arabs
abandons religion of Ismâ'îl?).
Even if such mythical story of Al-Lât who used to prepare Sawîq for pilgrims was
proved to be right, it would not be able to be taken as evidence. Narrations
claimed that they worshiped him after his death which meant that they believed
in him as deity with Allah. Their deeds that were devoted to him such as
adhering to his grave were acts of worship, as they were preceded by believing
in its godhood. They may further believe that "Al-Lât" assumed the shape of him
or that he was changed to a divine being by immanence, unification, evolution
or other than that from among null beliefs.
(7) He claimed that some among the disbelievers at the time of the Prophet (peace
be upon him) believed in and worshiped pious people which was mentioned in
the following verse in which Allah says,
…μtGyϑmu‘ tβθ_tƒuρ >t%r& Νκ‰r& s's#‹™uθ9# Ογ/u‘ ’n<) χθótG6tƒ χθã‰tƒ t⎦⎪%!# y7×≈s9ρ& ®
〈 ∩∈∠∪ ...4 …μt/#x‹tã χθù$sƒs†uρ which means, "Those whom they call upon- seek the means of access to their Rabb who among them is the nearest, and they hope for His mercy, and they fear His chastisement." (Al-Isrâ', 17:57) He misunderstood the saying of Allah about the reality of the matter concerning the belief of the polytheists in those whom they worshiped. Disbelievers believe that they are deities and that they are pleased by being worshiped. The reality of the matter is that they are pious people and that they refused to be worshiped. They are displeased with those who worshiped them and free themselves from their deeds. All that will be revealed at the Day of Resurrection. 360 slamic Monotheism Sheikh mixed here also between the null belief of the disbelievers and the reality of the matter in itself which the right as Allah explained it. Among that also is what was mentioned in his famous book (book of monotheism) in which he said commenting on the verse in chapter Al-Isrâ', 'He explained in it His answer to those disbelievers who worship pious people, there is an explanation that this kind is the major disbelief.' He meant the following verse, in which Allah says, 〈 ∩∈∠∪ ...>t%r& Νκ‰r& s's#‹™uθ9# Ογ/u‘ ’n<) χθótG6tƒ χθã‰tƒ t⎦⎪%!# y7×≈s9ρ& ® which means, "Those whom they call upon- seek the means of access to their Rabb who among them is the nearest…" (Al-Isrâ', 17:57) He mentioned incomplete but here is the complete verse, y7×≈s9ρ& ∩∈∉∪ ξƒθtrB ωuρ Ν3Ψtã Ø9# y#±x. χθ3=ϑtƒ ξsù ⎯μΡρŠ ⎯Β ΟFϑtãy— t⎦⎪%!# #θãŠ# ≅% ® 4 …μt/#x‹tã χθù$sƒs†uρ …μtGyϑmu‘ tβθ_tƒuρ >t%r& Νκ‰r& s's#‹™uθ9# Ογ/u‘ ’n<) χθótG6tƒ χθã‰tƒ t⎦⎪%!#
〈 ∩∈∠∪ #‘ρ‹txΧ tβ%x. y7/u‘ z>#x‹tã β)
which means, "Say: “Call upon those whom you fancy besides Him. but they do not
possess any capability to remove the hurt from you nor can they change.” Those
whom they call upon- seek the means of access to their Rabb who among them is the
nearest, and they hope for His mercy, and they fear His chastisement. The
chastisement of your Rabb is truly to be guarded against." (Al-Isrâ', 17:56-57)
Our question now is: where did sheikh (may Allah be merciful to him) find the term
(pious)? The Qur'ân uses in general in the behalf of those who were worshiped; those
whom polytheists worshiped them, "those whom you fancy besides Him"; those
whom you considered deities other than Him according to the other verses, the whole
texts, the texts of the Sunnah, news of biographies and the history. Then he explained
that those whom disbelievers worshiped other than Allah are in "reality" pious
servants from among angels and prophets that not participating anyone with Allah but
they, "seek the means of access to their Rabb who among them is the nearest, and they
hope for His mercy, and they fear His chastisement. The chastisement of your Rabb is
truly to be guarded against." Disbelievers never believe that such people are pious
servants that are trying to get close to Allah by doing all good deeds and with every
mean and that they are hoping for His mercy and fearing his punishment. They believe
in their godhood even if just in one side or consideration, thus their invocation is then
an act of worship which is polytheism.
Thus, in these verses Allah shows us that idols of the disbelievers like Lât, 'Uzzâ,
Manât, jinn, angels whom they believed to be the sons and daughters of Allah, Jesus
whom they believed to be the son of Allah, 'Uzair, whom they believed to be the son
of Allah and the like do not exist. In reality, they do not have such qualities. They only
have them in these people's sick minds and invalid beliefs. In reality, the angels and
361
slamic Monotheism
Jesus are righteous servants of Allah and not gods. It is not permissible to supplicate
them or worship them in the first place. If Imam Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb had
thought of this matter, examined the words of previous Imams, and freed himself of
traditions, he would have cleared the matter. Here is the interpretation of Imam At-
Tabary of these two verses:
*it was mentioned in At-Tabary's interpretation of the Glarious Qura'n (Vol.15 p.103
and what exceeded) that, "the Almighty, Allah said (what means) to His Prophet
those who worshiped the creatures other than who created them; Allah, that O, people
those who alleged that these creatures are gods or lords other than Allah, then if a
distress is descended from the sky, look, will they remove this distress from you or
change it? Then you have called them gods yet, but they can not do that, and they do
not have the ability to do. But he, who created you and them, is able to do that." It is
said that those who the Prophet (peace be upon him) was ordered to say that, were the
worshippers of angels, 'Uzair and the Christ, and others worshipped a company of
Jinn. He had mentioned who said that.
- Muhammad bin Sa'd reported the saying of Ibn 'Abbâs; "Say, Say 'O Muhammad
(peace be upon him)) "Call unto those - besides Him - whom you pretend (to be gods
like angels, 'Isâ (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), and others.). They have neither the power to
remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person." The
people of the polytheism said, "We worship the angels and 'Uzair (Ezra). "Whom you
pretend" mean the angels, the Christ and 'Uzair (Ezra).
Allah says,
χθù$sƒs†uρ …μtGyϑmu‘ tβθ_tƒuρ >t%r& Νκ‰r& s's#‹™uθ9# Ογ/u‘ ’n<) χθótG6tƒ χθã‰tƒ t⎦⎪%!# y7×≈s9ρ& ® 〈 ∩∈∠∪ #‘ρ‹txΧ tβ%x. y7/u‘ z>#x‹tã β) 4 …μt/#x‹tã which means, "Those whom they call upon- seek the means of access to their Rabb who among them is the nearest, and they hope for His mercy, and they fear His chastisement. The chastisement of your Rabb is truly to be guarded against." (Al-Isrâ', 17:57) It means that the Almighty Allah says, "They are who call these creatures as lords, seeking to gain access to their Lord (Allah), he said that they sought with the called lords in order o be nearest to Allah in degree, because they believed in Him, on the other hand the infidels are those who worship these creatures beside Allah. So who is the nearest than the other on the basis of their good deeds and their great effort in the worshiping? Do they hope with their deeds to gain Allah's mercy? Do they fear, not like them, Allah's torture? O Muhammad, know the torture of your Lord is to be afraid of. *Then At-Tabary said later ("They disagreed about the called gods; some said they are companies of the Jinns." Then he mentioned who said that: - Abu As-Sâ'îb reported that 'Abdullah said about "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)", saying that there were some people worshipped a company of Jinns, then this company of the Jinns embraced 362 slamic Monotheism Islam, but the faction of people stilled as infidels. So Allah has revealed this verse, referring to the worship of Jinns. - Ibn Al-Muthny reported that 'Abdullah said about the verse; "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)", they was a company of Jinns, had been worshiped, then they embraced Islam. - 'Abdul-Wârith bin 'Abdus-Samad reported the saying of Ibn Mas'ûd; about Allah's saying ;( Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)" this verse was revealed about a group of Arabs who had worshiped a company of Jinns, then the Jinns embraced Islam, in the same time the group of people did not feel with their embracing Islam. So Allah revealed this verse. - Bushr reported that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ûd said, "This verse was revealed about a group of Arabs worshiped a company of Jinns, in the same time the Jinns embraced Islam and the group of Arab people did not feel any thing. Then the verse was revealed. - Ibn 'Abdul-A'lâ reported that Qatâdah said "those whom call desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)" were people who worshiped the Jinns, then the Jinns embraced Islam. So Allah mentioned those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to Him (Allah). - Muhammad bin Bashshâr reported that 'Abdullah said about the same verse; "those whom call desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)", they were Jinns in a group were worshiped by a group of people. Then the Jinns have embraced Islam, but the group of people clung to their belief. Thus Allah has revealed the former verse. - Al-Hasan bin Yahyâ told that 'Abdullah said, "There were people who worshipped a company of Jinns, but they embraced Islam, and the group of people clung to their idolization. Then Allah, Blessed and Exalted be he, revealed the verse; "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)" - Al-Hassn said Qatâdah said about Alla's saying "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh)", they were people, in Pre Islamic Era, had worshiped a company of Jinns. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent to people, all of them embraced Islam, therefore they sought to be nearest in degree to their lord. It was said that they were the angels. - Al-Husain bin 'Aly As-Sadâ'y reported that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ûd said, "There were some Arab tribes worshiped a kind of angels that was called Jinns, they used to call them the daughters of Allah. Then Allah; the Exalted, the Majestic revealed that those Arab tribes, whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)", - Yûnus said that Ibn Zaid said "Those whom they call upon (like angels) desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah), as to which of them should be the nearest; and they (angels and others) hope for His Mercy." Then when he says "and they fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is (something) to be afraid of!", he said they are the infidels who worshiped the angels. Others said that they were 'Uzair (Ezra), Nisf and his mother. Then he mentioned who said that: abu abdul-kareem 14-09-2005, 01:21 PM 363 slamic Monotheism - Yahya bin Ja'far reported that Ibn 'Abbas said about the verse " Those whom they call desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah), as to which of them should be the nearest." They were 'Isâ (Jesus) - son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra). - Muhammad bin Al-Mûthany reported that Ibn 'Abbas said about the verse; "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh).", It denotes to 'Isâ (Jesus- peace be upon him) - son of Maryam (Mary) and 'Uzair (Ezra). - Muhammad bin 'Amr reported that Mujâhid said about the verse; "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)", it denotes to 'Isâ (Jesus- peace be upon him) - son of Maryam (Mary) and 'Uzair (Ezra). - Al-Qâsîm reported that Ibn 'Abbâs said about Allah's saying; "Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allah)", it denotes to 'Uzair, (Ezra), 'Isâ (Jesus- peace be upon him), the moon and the sun. The most deserved saying of the verse interpretation is the saying of Ibn Mas'ûd, which we reported later. Because Allah mentions those whom infidels considered gods upon desire means of access to Allah in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so it is known that 'Uzair (Ezra) was not existed in the time of the Prophet (peace upon him), as well as 'Isâ (Jesus, peace be upon him) was not exited in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but he was ascended to his Lord. Therefore those, whom they called upon desire for means of access to their lord, should be alive, acting good deeds, with which the others will come near to Allah. So those who do not act, how they desire to access to their Lord. If this saying has no meaning, there will be no comments except what we have chosen from the interpretations and the saying of who said that it denotes to the angels. So there are tow sayings that are assumed by the general meaning of the verse. On the other hand the desire denotes to come near or to be at hand. - Al-Qâsim reported that Ibn 'Abbâs said, "The desire denotes to be near". - Ibn 'Abdul-A'lâ reported that Qatâdah said the means is being near and at hands.) The sayings of At-Tabary were finished here, as we corrected some slight mistakes of the copyists. The saying of At-Tabary, which is the same our sayings, is that they thought in those who called that they are gods and the lords, so they called them as a means of worship. Exactly, it is the major disbelief (polytheism). Consequently, Allah tells them that they are mere righteous worshippers according to their origin such as the angels, 'Isâ (Jesus, peace be upon him) and 'Uzair (Ezra), or according to their new belief; they embraced Islam, leaving the polytheism and misleading people who worshipped them. As it is mentioned in the Chapter of Jinns (Chapter of Al-Jinn); whereas a company of Jinns embraced Islam, freeing themselves from their worshippers, after they had been supporters for their foolish Iblis against Allah, Exalted be He, thinking that they can frustrate Allah by flight. And being happy for some people's worshipping, increasing them in folly. Ye, it the most appropriate opinion of revealing this verse is that it is revealed concerning the Jinns who had embraced Islam, because, with great reason, it is applied on the reality completely. Internally, it is applied on all those whom were thought in the divinity and lordship, although they were virtuous worshippers, coming near to Allah by acting all legal methods righteously), such as the Christ; (Jesus – the 364 slamic Monotheism son of Marry- , peace be upon both of them), 'Uzair (Ezra) and others who freed themselves from those who had worshipped and given them standings of the divinity and lordship. It becomes obvious to avoid the right opinion of Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhâb; "The infidels at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) thought in the righteous people." Also it nullifies his comment; "in which he clarified the refutations of the infidels' argumentations who thought in the righteous people, and it is the major disbelief (polytheism). So there were people at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who did not believe in the dead, nor who believed in the righteous people as the Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhâb thought and his imitators of the Wahhâbiyyûn call men. If those people did not exist, so it would be impossible that (he fought and killed them) as he alleged. If it is nullified, his argumentation, concerning those who called infidels, will be nullified, as he said, "The infidels have one other argumentation; it is their saying that it is right, but the infidels believed in the idols, so it should be said to them that some infidels at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) believed in the idols, some believed in a tomb of a righteous man such as Al-Lât and others believed in the righteous me, etc. So this "exact" answer is not exact but it is pure wrong, which was built on imagination of non-exist things in the real history, resulting from forsaking the texts of both the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him). But the citing of Sheikh Al-Qarny and others with Allah's saying; 〈 ∩⊇⊃∉∪ tβθ.³Β Νδuρ ω) !$/ ΝδsY2r& ⎯Βσƒ $tΒuρ ® which means, "And most of them do not believe in Allah without becoming polytheists." (Yûsuf, 12:106). There are a lot of examples. It profits them nothing; because it means that they believed in some what have to be believed in, Exalted be He, as He is God, Existed and Sustainer, but they mixed their belief with other kind of polytheism; as they believed that the divinity may be in other than Him, turning the rites of the submission, the humbleness, the glorification and the love, the fear or fright for them aside from Allah, depending on achieving some of divinity meanings or some of its sides in their attitudes towards those righteous worshippers. Therefore the context denotes to "Faith", as the mind always turns to it, when it is mentioned concerning the beliefs and conceptions. But the faith in itself is more like this; it is not about "worship", thus the mind may turn to the devotional rites and the acts, which, in fact, related to certain concept and belief, as we mentioned later. So it is the same opinion of At-Tabary and the interpreters of pious predecessors who preceded him, as he (may Allah mercy him) said, "those who Allah, the Exalted, mentions their attributes in the verse, 〈 tβθÊèΒ$pκ]tã Νδuρ $pκn=tæ χρϑtƒ Ú‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈yϑ¡9# ’û πtƒ#u™ ⎯Β ⎦⎪r(2uρ ® which means, "And how many a Sign there is in the heavens and the earth which they pass by, yet they become turners away from that!" (Yûsuf, 12:105) 365 slamic Monotheism Although the most of them confessed that Allah has created them, he is their Provider and the Creator of every thing; moreover they ascribed partners to Allah, as they have worshipped the idols and statues, taking lords than Allah, alleging that Allah begot a son. High is Allah above what they say about Him." As we commented about that matter, interprets have said that (He mentioned who said that): Ibn Wakî' reported that Ibn 'Abbâs said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him (i.e. they are Mushrikûn i.e. polytheists", when they had been asked: who is the creator of the heavens, the earth, and the mountains? They, according to their faith, answered: Allah, although they are polytheists. Hanâd reported that 'Ikrimah said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah…", that when you asked them who has created you, the heavens and the earth? They answered: Allah. So it denotes to their faith, but they worshipped others than Him. Abu Kuraib reported that 'Ikrimah said about the verse; "And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth they pass by, while they are averse therefrom.), that, according to their faith if it was said to them who is the creator of the heavens? They answered: Allah, then if they were asked who has created them? They answered: Allah, although they ascribed partners to Him. Abu Kuraib said that Abu Nu'aim reported that 'Ikrimah said that it denotes to the saying of Allah; 〈 tβθϑn=ètƒ ω ΝδsY2r& ≅t/ 4 ! ‰ϑpt:# ≅% 4 !# ⎯9θ)u‹s9 uÚ‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈yϑ¡9# t,n=y{ ⎯Β ΝγtF9r'y™ ⎦⌡s9uρ ® which means, "And if you ask them: “Who has created the heavens and the earth?” They will certainly say: “Allah.” You say: “All praise belongs to Allah!” But most of them do not know." (Luqmân, 31:25) So when they were asked about Allah and His attributes, they scribed Him with other attributes than His attributes and assigned to Allah a son, becoming polytheists. Al-Hasan bin Muhammad reported that Mujâhid said about the verse; 〈 ∩⊇⊃∉∪ tβθ.³Β Νδuρ ω) !$/ ΝδsY2r& ⎯Βσƒ $tΒuρ ® which means, "And most of them do not believe in Allah without becoming polytheists. (Yûsuf, 12:106) That their faith, here, is their saying, "Allah is he who has created us, provides us and will cause us to die". Muhammad bin 'Amr reported that Mujâhid said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him (i.e. they are Mushrikûn i.e. polytheists.) (Yusuf, 12:106), that their faith, here, is their saying, "Allah is he who has created us, provides us and will cause us to die." Al-Muthannâ reported that Mujâhid said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him (i.e. they are Mushrikûn i.e. polytheists", that their faith is their saying, "Allah is he who has created us, provides us and will cause us to die. So it denotes to their faith, in the same time they worshipped others than Him. 366 slamic Monotheism Ishâq reported that Mujâhid said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him (i.e. they are Mushrikûn i.e. polytheists", that their faith is denoted by their saying, "Allah is he who has created us, provides us and will cause us to die." Ibn Wakî' reported that Mujâhid said, "They said (Allah is our Lord, he provides us, while they ascribes partners to Him.)" Al-Qâsim reported that Mujâhid said, "Their faith is their saying, "Allah is he who has created us, provides us and will cause us to die." Al-Qâsim reported that all 'Ikrimah, Mjâhid and 'Âmir said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allâh except that they attribute partners unto Him (i.e. they are Mushrikûn i.e. polytheists", that they believed in Him only, as they know that Allah has created them, the heavens and the earth. So it is their faith, but they disbelieve in every other thing. Bishr reported that Qatâdah said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him", that "when you meet them, they inform you that their Lord is Allah, has created and provided him, but they ascribe partners in the worship. Muhammad bin Al-'A'lâ reported that Qatâdah commented on the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah…", saying, "you ever ask one of the polytheists "who is your Lord? He answered: Allah is my Lord. In the same time, he took partners to Him. Muhammad bin Sa'd reported that Ibn 'Abbâs said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.", that it refers to the Christians. As well as the verse; "And if you (O Muhammad (peace be upon him)) ask them: "Who has created the heavens and the earth," they will certainly say: "Allah." Say: "All the praises and thanks be to Allah!" But most of them know not", if you ask them: "Who has created them, they will certainly say: Allah, and if you ask them: "Who has provided you? They answered: "Allah. But they still ascribed partners to Allah, worshipping others than Him and prostrated before rivals than Allah. Al-Muthannâ reported that Ad-Dahhâk said, "They associated partners to Allah in their Talbiyah (formula recited during Hajj of 'Umrah rituals). Ibn Wakî' reported that 'Atâ' said about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him", that they know that their lord is Allah, although they ascribed partners to Him. Also Al-Muthannâ reported that 'Ata' said about the saying of Allah; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him", that they know exactly that Allah is their Creator and their provider, but they associated partners with Him. Yûnus told us that Ibn Wahb said, "I heard Ibn Zaid saying about the verse; "And most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him, "Every body worshipped other than Allah, but he really believed in Allah, knowing that He is his Lord, Creator and provider, but he associates partners with Him. Did you see Ibrâhîm, (Abraham, peace be upon him) saying in the Qur'ân, >u‘ ω) ’< ρ‰tã ΝκΞ*sù ∩∠∉∪ tβθΒy‰%{# Ν2τ$t/#u™uρ ΟFΡr& ∩∠∈∪ tβρ‰7ès? ΟFΖ. $Β ΟFƒu™tsùr& tΑ$s% ®
〈 ∩∠∠∪ t⎦⎫ϑn=≈yè9#
367
slamic Monotheism
which mean, "He said: “Have you considered then what you used to worship you and
your preceding forefathers? LO! Surely they are enemies to me, but not the Rabb (Lord)
of all the worlds" (Ash-Shu'arâ', 26:76)
He knew that they worshipped the Lord of the words in the same time with the others.
So there is no one associated with partners to Allah. See! How Arabs pronounced their
have no partner with You, there is no partner except is belonging to You. You possess
him and all what he has had". So the infidels said that.) The opinion of the Grand
Imam At-Tabary is finished here.
It is worthy to mention his saying, "The most of them confess their belief in Allah that
He is their Creator, Provider and the Creator of every thing, but they associate partners
in their worship; they worshipped the idols and statues, taking Lords other than Him,
alleging that he begat a son." High is Allah above what they said about Him.
The Sheikh Al-Qarany continued to write sayings and sentences which are repetitions
of what was previously mentioned in other wordings, such as his saying, "Resulting
from all what have been formerly mentioned, it is clarified that the nearness
polytheism and worshipping other than Allah are not dogmatic polytheism which
requires that the worshipped is worthy to be worshipped in the sight of the
worshipper other than Allah, but it is a polytheism of willing other than Allah to be
worshipped." Here, he, again, confused with the conception of worship. As well as
here is a list of exterior and interior deeds that is called "worship", regardless of any
belief, but it is void as we has mentioned.
There is an impossible concept; "A worshipped is not worthy to be worshipped in the
sight of he who worshipped him." All legends and fables which are known throughout
history are more credible than this opinion.
The statement of "A worshipped is not worthy to be worshipped in the sight of he
who worshipped him," is linguistically true consisting of an inchoative and a predicate
but it is meaningless. It contradicts itself. All of the rational impossibilities are used to
correct the wrongness of this statement and turn it forcefully to the right.
Furthermore, sheikh (may Allah be merciful to him) mixed this issue with issue of faith
and that it is not just a belief, he said, 'But when the later among those who talked
His self, attributes and actions and that this was the concept of godhood. When they
thought that, they believed that there will be no polytheism in case they get close to
other than Allah by worshiping except if such matter included the belief that such one
that was worshiped deserved to be worshiped without Allah, and that he alone has the
right to create and manage.' Then he said, 'As they said here that monotheism was the
belief in the oneness of Allah, also adhering to sharî'ah was just a belief that it was
truth by believing the Prophet (peace be upon him).' Here raised again the same old
problem of defining the worship and the hidden role. Sheikh Al-Qurany (may Allah be
merciful to him) did not feel it, how could anyone be worshiped while he does not
deserve to be worshiped? How could some hidden and obvious sayings and actions be
worship without being preceded by believing in the godhood of such one that is
worshiped?
368
slamic Monotheism
"The later among those who talked about such matter" wronged when they limited
monotheism in just believing in the oneness of Allah, the Exalted and ever Majestic,
but there should be submission to Him, glorification, love and surrender to Him alone
with no other partners with Him. Creatures are created just to worship Him alone with
no partner with Him and not to just believe in His oneness.
Believe in His Oneness is a pillar among pillars of worship and a condition to be
complete but it is neither all of worship nor its core. This is similar to the mistake of he
who made the legal faith which will save in the Hereafter, just certain belief and mere
conviction, while it is much more than that. But this mistake does not justify the
mistake of the sheikh (may Allah be merciful to him) in his claim that "worship" can
be free from belief. The belief that whoever is worshiped deserves such worship; that
is to say the belief of "godhood". The fact that legal faith is not just belief but includes
other actions and that the legal monotheism that will save us in the Hereafter is not
just a belief but includes acts of worship, all that does not mean that any action is
possible without certain belief or that worship is not preceded by a belief. This is an
issue and the other is a different issue but it is its opposite.
The truth is that any optional action must be preceded by a will and intention. Any
will and intention is to be preceded by preconception and belief as each one of us
knows that through meditating oneself, examining what is inside him in moments of
hesitation, then determination phase will come and then action.
In any case, the book of the sheikh Al-Qurany is available in markets, whoever wishes
may revise what we mentioned.
There is also no truth in what sheikh 'Abdur-Rahmân bin Sa'dy (may Allah be merciful
to him) had claimed in his book under title of Al-Qawl As-Sadîd which is an
explanation of the famous book of monotheism. The book had many editions and the
edition that I quoted from is taking a form of booklet published by (Da'wah office in
Britain) among the series of (Rasâ'il Al-Islâh wal-Fiqh: no.27). He said, 'The limit of the
major polytheism and its interpretation which gathers its kinds is (that servant would
offer kind or act from among acts of worship to other than Allah.) Seeking Allah alone
in each belief, saying or action that is proved to be ordered by sharî'ah, is
monotheism, faith and sincerity but performing such matters seeking other than Allah
is polytheism and disbelief. You should consider this limit of major polytheism, as
there is nothing exceeds that.' Here ends the saying of the sheikh.
Compare that with the definition of Abu Bakr As-Siddîq (may Allah be pleased with
him) that is recorded by Al-Bukhâry with an authentic chain of transmission in Al-Adab
Al-Mufrad. Mi'qal bin Yasâr said, "I went with Abu Bakr to the Prophet (peace be
upon him) and he said, 'O Abu Bakr! Polytheism among you is more hidden than the
creeping of the ants.' Abu Bakr said, 'Did polytheism (have other meaning than)
associating other deity with Allah?' The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, 'By He
whose my soul is His Hand, polytheism is more hidden than the creeping of the ants.
Should not I tell you about something that if you do, it will remove its few and much?
Say, "Allâhumma inny a'ûdhu bika an ushrika bika wa anâ a'lam, wa astaghfiruka lima
lâ a'lam (Allah I seek Your Refuge against associating anything I know with You in
worship and I ask for Your Forgiveness for anything that I do not know of).”’”

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:22 PM
369
slamic Monotheism
The saying of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and he was from among the
eloquent Arabs, 'Did polytheism (have other meaning than) taking other deity with
Allah?' at the beginning and in this limited style is the same as our above saying which
we explained above. He did not have any other meaning in his mind for the
expression of polytheism except that associating other deity with Allah; associating
other in the belief of godhood in Allah. He meant with no doubts the major
polytheism, the polytheism that led his doer to disbelief.
The invalidity of the definition of sheikh 'Abdur-Rahmân bin Sa'dy is obvious in the
following:
(1) He made belief in one rank with actions. We proved before that belief or in
more accurate word, the belief of godhood is preceding the definition of
worship. The mere belief is not an action and does not name worship or other
than worship. The worship that is based upon belief is when person seeks
through such belief the close of whomever he believed in his godhood. To
make such belief as a cause to bring him closer. It is not just mere belief or
persuasion.
If any person believes that godhood is never multiple and that there is no other
than one god in the whole universe and He is Allah; if he testifies that there is
no god but Allah, he would be right and says the right. He will be then a genius
thinker or great philosopher but he is neither worshiper nor Muslim. He is not
believer from the point of view that he does not have the legal faith in a way
that he will devote his belief in order to seek close of Allah; to seek Allah alone.
(2) The major polytheism is just a mere believing in the godhood of someone else
other than Allah, regardless showing any action or saying any word that
deserves to be named worship or devoting one's belief to bring him closer to
whomever he believed in his godhood.
(3) Actions that is meant to show humiliation and glorification or to seek the close
of Allah, showing love, asking for benefit, avoiding harm, showing need and
poverty to Him and matters like that. All such actions that are done seeking
whom is believed in his godhood, is worship, regardless that their similar
matters are done seeking Allah according to legal evidence or are not. The
dance performed by polytheists to their deities, is worship, although that Allah
is never to be worshiped through some dances. Also clapping and whistling and
when woman has sexual intercourse with men in some occasions, is also among
worship according to some worshipers of idols in India. But not anything among
that is among worship according to people of Islam but they are great sin and
The hadith of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) that was mentioned above,
nullifies also his definition for minor polytheism. He said, 'The limit of the minor
polytheism is (every means and excuse that can lead to major polytheism from among
wills, sayings and actions which does not reach the rank of worship).' This is null
according to the following points:
370
slamic Monotheism
(1) His definition of worship and major polytheism is confused and null as we
mentioned above. He included both "worship" and "major polytheism" in his
definition of "minor polytheism", limit is no longer known or ordered. Thus, it
is useless.
(2) The name of "minor polytheism" is mere and pure legal and not among what
the Arabs know in their talking. The name is to be called concerning certain
actions and texts did not mention certain cause or excuses that can be used in
analogy in order to allow the use of term of generalization "every". The result of
such irresponsible generalization is that some actions will be included in
polytheism while Allah and His Messenger did not include them in polytheism.
This is "innovation" in the religion of Allah which is flagrant. They claimed that
they are following the religion while they are people of innovation.
Also among mistakes is what scholar of Islam Abu Al-'Abbâs Ahmad bin Taimiyah said
in "Majmû' Al-Fatâwâ"1. He said, 'Allah says,
!# βρŠ ⎯Β ’< #Š$t6ã #θΡθ. ¨$Ζ=9 tΑθ)tƒ ΝO nοθ7Ψ9#uρ zΝ3s9#uρ |=≈tG39# !# μuŠ?σƒ βr& t±u;9 tβ%x. $tΒ ® #ρ‹‚Gs? βr& Ν.tΒ'tƒ ωuρ ∩∠®∪ tβθ™‘‰s? ΟFΖ.$yϑ/uρ |=≈tG39# tβθϑ=yè? ΟFΖ. $yϑ/ z⎯↵ŠΨ≈/u‘ #θΡθ. ⎯3≈s9uρ 〈 ∩∇⊃∪ tβθϑ=¡Β Λ⎢Ρr& OE) y‰èt/ 39$/ Ν.Β'tƒr& 3 $/$t/‘r& z⎯↵‹;Ζ9#uρ sπs3×≈n=pRQ#
which means, "It is not for a man that Allah should give him the scripture and the
judgment and the prophethood, and then he would say to man- kind: “You become
worshippers of me, in place of Allah”; but: “you become Rabbanis by virtue of your
constant teaching of the scripture and of your constant study.” Nor would he instruct
you to take the malaks and the nabis as lords. Would he instruct you to unbelief after
you have become Muslims?" (Âl-'Imrân, 3:79-80)
Allah explained (that taking angels and prophets as lords is disbelief). Whoever made
angels and prophets lords, invoked, depended on and asked them to grant him
benefits or remove harms. Like to ask them to forgive sins, guide hearts, solve
problems and fulfill needs, he is a disbeliever according to the opinion of the majority
of Muslims.' Here ends his saying (may Allah be merciful to him).
Concerning his saying (that taking angels and prophets as lords is disbelief), this is
definitely right that has no doubts and it is the text of the verse. But his saying (made
angels and prophets lords, invoked, depended on and asked them to grant him
benefits or remove harms. Like to ask them to forgive sins, guide hearts, solve
problems and fulfill needs, he is a disbeliever according to the opinion of the majority
of Muslims), this is not among texts of the Qur'ân. What was mentioned in the Qur'ân
is just (that taking angels and prophets as lords is disbelief). The two terms "taking"
and "lords" is the core here, as polytheism is depending on "taking the lords" and not
something else.
Majmû' Al-Fatâwâ, vol.1, p.124. 1
371
slamic Monotheism
There is no doubt that believing in the lordship and godhood of other than Allah is
disbelief. Also he will be disbeliever, whoever worships other than Allah according to
definite evidences of the Qur'ân, the Sunnah and the consensus. This means
necessarily that he believes in the one whom he worshiped, even a little godhood and
lordship. We proved above that mere actions and sayings are not lawful to be called
worship or other than worship, thus belief must be taken in consideration. Worship is
sayings and actions but even beliefs that are to be done seeking the one whom we
belief in his "godhood" or "lordship, other than Allah" even if it was in one part.
Thus the saying of the sheikh, - (made angels and prophets lords, invoked, depended
on and asked them to grant him benefits or remove harms. Like to ask them to forgive
sins, guide hearts, solve problems and fulfill needs, he is a disbeliever according to the
opinion of the majority of Muslims) - is not obvious in it self, as the term (invoked) can
be interpreted to the invocation of worship. This is never being except with the
existence of certain belief and not just by mere action or saying as we mentioned
above in details.
There is no doubt that the matter which he mentioned as examples (forgive sins, guide
hearts, solve problems and fulfill needs), is not to be performed usually except with
certain belief that makes the person disbeliever and polytheist. We say: usually and
not always. For example, if any human says to his friend: (I am distressed and suffer
from the tightest disasters, help me and save me from this dilemma), he will not be
disbeliever and polytheist as soon as he utters such words. There must be certain belief
and it is not exist here. This is not the same as when anyone among the Quraish tribe
says addressing Hubal, 'I am distressed and suffer from the tightest disasters, help me
and save me from this dilemma'. He is disbeliever and polytheist, as Hubal is the
name of one of the famous deities of Quraish, although that the two persons used the
"same" words and utter the "same" invocation.
Thus, the saying of the scholar of Islam that was mentioned above is not obvious
except that if we say that he regarded that the existence of such certain belief is an
intuitive matter that there is no need to be mentioned. But when he repeated such
saying in many places in this same confused form, it gives the feeling that he just saw
the outside point, regardless seeing any belief or accompanied conception which is
wrong as we mentioned above.
The obvious and authentic meaning which makes the belief; the belief in the godhood
or lordship of other than Allah even if it was in one part or one consideration, is the
core of judgment. This right meaning was proved definitely by the verse which was
mentioned by the sheikh as evidence, by other verses from the Qur'ân, evidences from
the authentic Sunnah and by facts of the transmitted history. What was like that is
approved by the majority as whoever disagrees is disbeliever.
Pitifully, Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb took the sentence that was said by the
Scholar of Islam Imam Ibn Taimiyah as it is and made it the second nullification
among the nullifications of Islam:
372
slamic Monotheism
* As it been mentioned in “the compilations of the Sheikh and Imam Muhammad bin
‘Abdul-Wahhâb” (vol:1. p: 212 and what follows it): [You should know that among the
greatest things that annul Islam are the following ten nullifications:
The first: associating other than Allah in the worship of Allah Alone Who does not
have any partner. The proof is the Word of the Almighty Allah that means, that Allah
will not pardon that partners be set up with Him, but besides that He pardons whom
He pleases. Among that sort of association, slaughtering for other than Allah, such as
someone who slaughters for the jinn or graves.
The second: whoever adopts intermediaries between him and the Almighty Allah, and
ask them intercession will become a disbeliever unanimously.
The third: whoever did not accuse the polytheists of unbelief or doubted in their
disbelief or corrected their creed would become a disbeliever unanimously.
The forth: whoever believes that other than the guidance of the Prophet (peace be
upon him) is more perfect than his guidance, or that the judgment of other than his is
better than his judgment, such as those who prefer the judgment of other than his
judgment will become a disbeliever.
The fifth: whoever hated something among those brought by the Messenger (peace be
upon him), even if he acted according to it, would become a disbeliever unanimously.
The proof is the Word of the Almighty Allah, which means, “that! because they hate
what Allah has revealed, so He has made their deeds futile”.
The sixth: whoever mocks anything of the Religion Allah, His Reward or Punishment.
The proof is the Word of Allah, which means, “Say, “Is it about Allah and His
Messages and His Rasul that you go on mocking?” “Do not make excuses, you have
The seventh: magic, whether by pushing away or caring. Whoever does it or become
pleased with it would be a disbeliever. The proof is the Word of the Almighty Allah,
which means, “Nor these two teach anyone so that they should have said: “We
ourselves are only a trial, so do not disbelieve.”.
The eighth: helping the polytheists against the Muslims. The proof is the Word of the
Almighty Allah, which means, “And whoever from among you makes alliance with
them, he is then one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people”
The ninth: whoever believes that some people are not obliged to follow the Prophet
(peace be upon him), and that they can leave his divine message as it was possible for
Al-Khidry to leave the divine message of Mûsâ (peace be upon him), will become a
disbeliever.
The tenth: turning away from the Religion of Allah, by not learning it or acting
according to it. The proof is the Word of the Almighty Allah, which means, “And who
is more unjust than him to whom the Messages of his Rabb are recited, and then he
turns away from that? certainly We exact retribution from the guilty”.
Regarding these nullifications, there is no difference between someone who is joking,
serious or afraid, except the one who is forced. All of them are among the most
dangerous and more likely to fall in. Therefore, Muslims should take care of them and
fear them concerning themselves. We seek refuge with Allah from things which will
procure His Anger and the His Sever Punishment. And peace be upon Muhammad],
end of the text.
373
slamic Monotheism
There is no objection concerning the first nullification, provided that you know the
sound definition of “worship”, as we have written it, and not like the definition of the
Sheikh, which he hinted by saying, “slaughtering for the graves”, which is a statement
without meaning. There is no one in the world who slaughters for the graves, rather
the slaughtering is done for the owner of the grave. Besides, what is the belief
regarding the buried?! Is it a belief that makes him a god besides Allah? Or is it other
than that, such as the false or the sound beliefs? Besides, what is the meaning of
slaughtering for someone? What does it aim at?
In the same manner, what is the belief of the slaughterer for the jinn regarding the jinn
and their nature?! Does he, for instance, believes that they are evil creatures, who can
not rid of the Ability and Authority of Allah, and who can not escape from Him. Then
when he throws his slaughtered animal to them, he will become secured from their
harm, just as one become secured from the beast of prey when a carcass is thrown to it
to be preoccupied with it away from the slaughterer, so that it becomes possible for
him to escape? This is a dotage and not polytheism.
Some people may say that the Sheikh meant slaughtering for worship, and he did not
mean anything of what you have mentioned.
In response, we say that the issues of Islam, disbelief, monotheism and polytheism are
so dangerous that it would not be a good idea to treat them according to
suppositions, probabilities, forgeries, doubts and perhaps he meant such and such.
Furthermore, what is the meaning of their statement: He just meant slaughtering for
worship, so what is worship then? And in this manner, we circle, and you circle
forever in a vicious circle of forgeries and suppositions, until the sound definition of
worship would be known. The definition that is in conformity with its reality, secured
from opposition and comprehensive.
By the grace of Allah, we have been blessed with the most perfect, disciplined
definition for this quality.
Worship: is any belief, statement, a deed of the heart, a word of the tongue or a deed
of the organs, directed to him who is believed to have “Godhood” or “Lordship of
other than Allah”, (even in a part or a meaning of “Godhood” or “Lordship of other
than Allah”), for the purpose of drawing close and showing love, submissiveness,
indicating glorification and respect, or seeking to push away the harm and bringing
forth benefit and showing poverty and need, and so on.
It is impossible to call a deed of the heart, or a word of the tongue, or a deed of the
organs an act of “worship”, except if it is preceded by belief of “Godhood” or
“Lordship of other than Allah”, even in a part or a meaning of its meanings, regarding
the one that deed is being directed; i.e. regarding the one drawing close is intended
with that deed.
As for the parts of “Godhood” or “Lordship of other than Allah”, we have previously
spoke about them most of them in detail, in this book. They are properly existing
matters in the one believed to possessed. They have no connection with the deeds of
the worshippers, or even with the existence of he who originally believes that.
As for the rest of the nullifications that the Sheikh mentioned, some of them need
additional illustration and formulation, especially “the third nullification”. For it is
critical and ambiguous as it is, especially that the Sheikh called some people
374
slamic Monotheism
polytheists, though they are Muslims. Thus his nullification, unfortunately, became
annulled.
And as for “the seventh nullification”; i.e. “magic”. It is a sheer error as it is general.
We will formulate that in its section from the chapters of the practical polytheism,
Allah willing.
In this manner, he made a mistake by limiting excuse to the forced person only,
without mentioning the excuses of other “------“: ignorance, interpretation, narration,
report, witness and so on. Yet, this is not the right place to formulate this issue here.
The eighth nullification is very critical, for he did not limited to the non-Muslim
warriors, or instigation of the disbelievers to wage war against the Muslims, or helping
the disbelievers against the Muslims by revealing the war and security secrets of the
Muslims to them. This specification is what should be done, as we have thoroughly
consider it and analyze it, by the grace of Allah, in our book, “Al-Muwâlâ wal
Mu’âdâ”. You should refer to it, for it is generally very important, especially nowadays,
since the Muslims are being exposed to one of the most fierce and evil attacks of the
non-Muslim warrior and aggressor enemy: the attack of the United States of America
and the Zionistic entity
Problems resulting from this “anarchy”, once again, appears in a clearer form
regarding the definition of worship in another statement of the Sheikh of Islam, Ibn
Taimiyah (may Allah have mercy upon him).
* As it has been mentioned in “Arrisâlah As-Saniyyah”: [and if some of those who
became members of Islam apostatized from it, despite their great worship, then it
should be known that the member of Islam and Sunnah in this time can also apostatize
from Islam, by some causes. Among these causes is the exaggeration that the
Almighty Allah dispraised in His Book as He said,
〈... Ν6ΖƒŠ ’û #θ=ós? ω =≈tG69# ≅δr'≈tƒ ®
which means, "O People of the Scripture! do not exceed in your religion, … “. (An-
Nisâ’, 4: 171)
And in the same manner, the exaggeration regarding some Sheikhs, and even
regarding ‘Aly bin Abu Tâlib, and the exaggeration regarding the Messiah (‘Îsâ) (peace
be upon him). Therefore, anyone who exceeds regarding a prophet or a righteous
person and believes a sort of Godhood to be in him, such as to say, “O my master so
and so! Help me, or succor me or provide me with provision or assist me or I am in
your sufficiency”, etc. All these are statements of polytheism and error. The
pronouncer of these statements should be asked to repent. If he repents, then his life
would be spared, otherwise, he should be put to death. For the Almighty Allah only
sent the Messengers and revealed the Books so as He should be worshipped Alone,
and no one else be asked invoked besides Him.
And those who invoked other gods along with Allah, such as the Messiah, the angels
and idols did not believe that they could create creatures or cause rain fall or cause
plants to grow. But they worshipped them or their graves or their pictures, as saying,
〈 ’s∀9— !# ’n<) $tΡθ/s)‹9 ω) Νδ‰6ètΡ$tΒ ®

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:23 PM
375
slamic Monotheism
which means, “We do not serve them except that they may bring us nearer to Allah in
proximity.” (Az-Zumar, 39:3)
They also say,
〈 !# y‰Ψã $tΡσ≈yèx© ™ωσ≈yδ ® which means, "“These are our intercessors with Allah.” (Yûnus, 10:18) Therefore, the sending of Messengers by Allah put an end to invoking other than Him, be it invocation of worship or call for help], end. The Sheikh (may Allah be pleased with him) did well and said a right statement here by saying, “anyone who exceeds regarding a prophet or a righteous person and considers him to possess a sort of Godhood”. He made it clear that the destructive exaggeration, which the Qur’ânic verse dispraised, is to believe a sort of Godhood regarding the one exaggeration is being directed. However, when he gave an explanation to the Godhood by saying, “and believes a sort of Godhood to be in him, such as to say, “O my master so and so! Help me, or succor me or provide me with provision or assist me or I am in your sufficiency”, etc. All these are statements of polytheism and error. The pronouncer of these statements should be asked to repent. If he repents, then his life would be spared, otherwise, he should be put to death”. He considered the mere pronouncement of one of these sentences equivalent to making the one being called or requested or asked a god. If only the Sheikh had thoroughly examined the Qur’ânic verse and considered other verses regarding the same subject, he would have known that the exaggeration of the Christians regarding the Messiah, is that they believed in him other than truth: that he is Allah, or the son of Allah or the third of three (in a trinity), and that he is, in any event, a god, whose godhood is perfect and equal to his father in essence. Therefore, a true god from a true god, a light from a light. Yet, where is that with regard to the sentences “O my master! I am in your sufficiency” or “O ‘Îsâ! I am in your sufficiency”?! Yes, this can be a sentence from someone who believes what we have mentioned as disbeliefs in ‘Îsâ, the son of Maryam (peace be upon them both). In that case, it would be a worshipping of him, disbelief and an association of a partner besides Allah and a manifestation of that evil belief, which is as it is, a belief of mere polytheism and disbelief. This sentence and the like can be without that belief, or using the sound meaning of an expression in a bad way. in that case, it will not be as a matter of polytheism and disbelief, but rather, its study will be as a matter of lawful and unlawful, recommended and disapproved and error and right, etc. The Sheikh (may Allah forgive him and us) added by saying, “And those who invoked other gods along with Allah, such as the Masîh, the angels and idols did not believe that they could create creatures or cause rain fall or cause plants to grow. But they worshipped them or their graves or their pictures”. These are allegations that quite accurate in some ways: (1) the Messiah, in his capacity as Allah, according to those who believe in him to be so, is the creator who causes rain to fall and plants to grow. And in his capacity as the son of Allah or a part of Allah, or the third of three, is 376 slamic Monotheism necessarily taking part in one way or the other. And in his capacity as “the Word of Allah”, he is the “god” of the creature. So Allah creates with “the word”. And invocating the Messiah and worshipping him here are performed properly for him, for he is a true god who deserves that, in addition to the fact that it pleases the rest of the parties or the Trinity “hypostases”, for they are three in one and one in three. They are “harmonious blessed association”. They love one another, and approve of each other what each one approve of himself! (2) The angels for the Quraish tribe were divine entities. They believed them to be the true daughters of Allah, and their mothers to be the elite of the jinn. This is enough as polytheism and disbelief. We do not for sure whether the Quraish believed that they had a participation in the creation of the creatures or the rainfall or the growing of the plants or not. Yet, we know for sure that they are pampered who intercede an intersession that can not refused with their father without asking permission, due to the fact that they belong to the “origin” and the divine “family relationship”. This alone is a belief of polytheism and disbelief. I agree that in all probability here, invocating and worshipping these were for the sake of approaching them to Allah, and so that they intercede an intersession that can not be refused with Him. An intercession that does not need any permission, for they are the beloved pampered daughters! (3) according to the Sabians, the worshippers of stars, the angels are reasons, or spirits or astronomical souls; divine beings, intermediaries between Allah (who the call the First Reason or the First Cause), rank after rank till the orbit of moon, which is the lowest of these astronomical reasons, blessed with the divine essence, and the lower world, the world of the creatures, the world of death, corruption and utter destruction, in both directions, whether rising or falling. The Almighty Allah does not directly act freely, that if He originally has authority to dispose. (According to some of their sects, He does not conceive except His Being, and He does not know except Himself). Furthermore, invocation does not directly ascend to Him, rather, by passing by the lower reasons, rank after rank, and each orbit does it should do, according to its function. And then the rest “rises” to uppermost. What a hierarchical state! And it is sufficient for to know that this is a dotage, an act of polytheism and disbelief. In this kind of belief, invocating and worshipping these is not only because they make it possible to approach Allah and intercede an intersession that can not be refused with Allah. Rather, because they have authorities, and there are matters they say their final word on them, without originally submitting them to uppermost. They have a kind of autonomy, which the poor “angels of the Quraish”, who have limited authority, do not have. (4) there is no grave in the world that people worship, but it is the person who is buried that they worship. This, if he is originally worshipped. And we know for sure that whoever invokes a buried person or asks him for something, having the belief, regarding him, that he is an alive present person who can see and respond, though this 377 slamic Monotheism belief is generally invalid, we know that this is not part of having the belief of Godhood in the buried person in any way. However, if there is the belief of Godhood regarding the buried, the invocation and the asking would be acts of worship and polytheism that turns the Muslim to non-Muslim. But if there is no belief that charges its believer with infidelity, there would be no major polytheism that turns the Muslim to non Muslim. It is possible that there would be a sin or an unlawful innovation in religion, or even a small act of practical polytheism that does not turn a Muslim to non Muslim. Yet, all of these are another subject, which is totally different from the major polytheism, the act of polytheism that annuls Islam completely and turns its doer to non Muslim. In addition to the fact that it causes one to be in the eternal curse and the everlasting hellfire. That is the solely point of our research in this chapter. (5) there is no one in the world who worships pictures, but worship is performed, if it is truly worship, to the person himself or the being that has been pictured. As for the picture in itself, it has never been worshipped. However, as for the worshippers of idols, which are some special sort of statues and pictures, they believe that the gods live in them, or that they some sort of personally correlate with them. Or that the idol totally represent the god. Therefore, it is allowed here, and only here to say, so and so worships idol, just as the Almighty Allah said in the Qur’ân, and whose words can be truer than those of Allah? (Of course, none)! You can see how grave is the fault in this short text. Furthermore, it came with misuse of expression in a statement like, “They worship their graves, or worship their pictures”. These are unexpected formulations from grand scholars like the Sheikh of Islam! * It was mentioned in Sharh Kitâb At-Tawhîd (vol. 1, p. 195), "Allah says, 〈 ∩∇⊃∪ tβθϑ=¡Β Λ⎢Ρr& OE) y‰èt/ 39$/ Ν.Β'tƒr& 3 $/$t/‘r& z⎯↵‹;Ζ9#uρ sπs3×≈n=pRQ# #ρ‹‚Gs? βr& Ν.tΒ'tƒ ωuρ ®
which means, "Nor would he instruct you to take the malaks and the nabis as
lords. Would he instruct you to unbelief after you have become Muslims?" (Âl-
'Imrân, 3:80)
This is the exact belief of those who supplicate prophets and pious men. People
ask them to fulfill their needs, alleviate their sufferings, and cure their illnesses
and diseases. This is absolute disbelief through associating others with Allah in
such things."
I say: The one who interpreted the verse made a mistake by referring everything to
belief. It is true that belief is the base of everything but he claimed that the belief of
those who supplicate prophets and pious men is only that mentioned in the verse;
namely taking them as lords. This is not the case, for it might be true or might be
wrong. What he mentioned of supplications and needs are not necessarily the only
ones. It might be though in most cases as we mentioned before.
378
slamic Monotheism
I fear that the readers might be bored from the abundance of texts and repeated
answers we provide. All the texts are similar and the answers are the like. I hope these
might be sufficient for any knowledge seeker.
I also hope that the subject has been clearly defined in the reader's mind till it is
tangible and not only understood.
It is important to note that everything depends on the belief –as we mentioned before
many times as an absolute fact- whether in this context or elsewhere. Belief and the
essence of conception are what counts regardless of the names and terms used.
However thought that:
a. Other than Allah disposes of the universe without the Mention, Will or Power of
Allah
b. Other than Allah has a power that matches the Power of Allah
c. Some creature can avoid the authority of Allah, help Allah, or that they can
escape Him by flight as some ignorant people think the Jinn can do. This means
giving them some of the qualities of lordship, which entails worship. This leads
to making them gods beside Allah.
d. Another has an obligatory right of intersection with Allah, which is accepted
and which needs no permission.
e. Other than Allah can create and make forms out of nothing –as done by Magus
Thanawiyyah with their god of evil called Ahriman,
Whoever believed in any of these things had given this thing some of the qualities of
lordship. He had given it the right of worship by making him a god beside Allah. This
is regardless of:
1. His other beliefs regarding this creature. It is not necessary that he believes in
him to be ancient, of necessary existence, or that he is from the essence of the
lord. But, he might be a created occurrence like the god of evil with some
Magus groups. It is not necessary for him to think that he was originated as a
result of unification or incarnation or imminence of Allah in some other
creature,
2. Regardless of the name, whether he called it a god, a demon, a king, an
astronomical mind, a higher or lower spirit, or any other name,
3. Regardless of his love, hate or indifference for him,
4. Regardless of offering ritual acts and sacrifices or not,
5. Regardless of calling these acts worship, appeal, honor, respect, invocation,
intermediary or intercession. The belief itself is what counts and not the names.
All acts of humility and submission are in reality cats of worship regardless of
the name called by the doer. It is truly worship even it was called appeal,
honor, respect, invocation, intermediary or intercession.
Some claim that other than Allah has the right of legislating calling it godhood,
lordship, practicing sovereignty and freedom. He might ascribe it to the sovereignty of
379
slamic Monotheism
the people, the state, the divine rights of kings, the infallibility of the Cardinal's
Assembly, or he lied and called it lawful obedience to the rulers. Whoever claimed so
and ascribed it to other than Allah had made this other a master and a lord without
Allah, i.e. he had worshiped him without Allah. Belief is what counts and not names.
All the acts of obedience, commitment, and adhering to orders and prohibitions are
among true worship regardless of the name their does calls them. It is true worship
even if it is called honoring, respect, abiding by law, or submitting to order.
Worship then is: "Beliefs, sayings, words, apparent and hidden deeds that are meant
to show humiliation, submissiveness, glorification, respect, and love. It also means
asking for favors, protection from harm, and showing fear and need to whomever is
thought to deserve in himself such things. This means to whoever is thought to be a
god, who has some godly attributes that makes him deserving worship or has
godhood in himself. Belief is all that counts and it is the essence of conception and
not names and terms."
The two Imams Ahmad bin Taimiyah, Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahhâb and those who
followed them among the followers of the Wahhâby movement considered by mistake
that belief is not to be taken into account when defining the word worship. They
thought worship was only a matter of apparent and hidden sayings and deeds that had
nothing to do with the belief or conception of their doer.
Their Sufi enemies were mistaken when they regarded the intention which has no
place here when defining worship. It can be mentioned when taking about deserving
reward or punishment. They also gave greater importance to names and terms while
they should have cared only about the reality of belief and essence of conception.
Someone might object, for example, saying,
1. Disbelievers made the idols gods and Muslims only believed in one God. They
believe that prophets are only prophets and pious men are only pious men.
They did not take them as gods like the disbelievers.
We answer saying: this means only considering names and terms without
inspecting the essence of belief. When a pious man is called so, this does not
necessarily mean that there is not someone among those belonging to Islam
who believes in him taking him as a god without Allah in a way that makes him
a disbeliever.
If we are talking about disbelievers, then all of their sayings and deeds are
originally taken from the point of view of disbelief till there is evidence
supporting otherwise. Usually but not always, they explicitly say words of
worship and lordship. For example, you can barely find a western secularist
calling the people a god while he admits his right of legislation. Thus, he made
him a god and a lord other than Allah. This way, he is a disbeliever who
associates others with Allah. His associating others with Allah is that which
makes him a disbeliever, which contradicts Islam and drives him out of religion.
The same applies with Muslims. One must take all the actions thought of be of
worship coming from those belonging to Islam as done without having the

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:24 PM
380
slamic Monotheism
belief of godhood to whomever it was directed to. This is the basic attitude till
evidence proves otherwise.
2. Disbelievers believed that such deities deserved to be worshiped, unlike
Muslims who did not believe that any among those whom they used as means
to get close to Allah deserved any worship. They believed that Allah alone
deserved to be worshiped.
We answer saying: the deity is the one that deserves to be worshiped. The
statement of (disbelievers believed that such deities deserved to be worshiped)
is useless and indisputable as when you say, 'the deities are deities' or 'water is
water'. It is true words but useless. Parts of meaning which would make
whomever was characterized with them deity other than Allah, and then all
such actions addressed to him would be worship.
And may be here, it is this hidden and evil role: the deity is the one that is
worshiped and worship is all what is addressed to the deity.
3. Disbelievers really worshiped such deities as Allah says that they said,
〈 ∩⊂∪...$tΡθ/s)‹9 ω) Νδ‰6ètΡ$tΒ... ®
which means, "We do not serve them except that they may bring us nearer."
(Az-Zumar, 39:3)
And Muslims did not worship prophets and pious people when they used them
as means to reach Allah.
We answer saying: this is the hidden role again. We did not know whether such
actions which some among those who claimed to be Muslims performed
addressing prophets and pious people are worship or not? Just naming it as
using them as means did not solve the problem. It is again considering names
and terms alone which is impermissible. There must be right definition for
worship free from any defaults and contradictions.
4. Disbelievers intended by worshiping their deities to bring them closer to Allah,
the Exalted. While Muslims did not intend by such addressing to prophets and
pious people to bring them closer to Allah. Because getting close to Allah
should be by worship. That is why Allah says that disbelievers said which
means, "We do not serve them except that they may bring us nearer." (Az-
Zumar, 39:3)
Muslims just want to gain bless and intercession of such people. Gaining bless
is not like asking to bring closer and it is not hidden.
We answer saying: this can not be right except that if we know that using
someone as means is not worship. This requires defining worship, right
definition free from any defaults or contradictions. If the one that appeals to
such people believes that such people can intercede without permission, his
intercession is not to be rejected, can support against Allah, escape from Allah
or frustrate Allah by running away, he makes such people similar to Allah in this
381
slamic Monotheism
certain consideration. He believed that such people are deities other than Allah.
Just according to such belief, he is polytheism and disbeliever and his appealing
is considered worship to other than Allah, it is increasing his polytheism and
disbelief.
Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr As-San'âny (may Allah be merciful to him) who used
to be from among opponents and then became from among supporters and
contemporaries of the call of Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb, argued the
judgment of Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb (may Allah be merciful to him).
The judgment was concerning those whom he named "Glorifiers of the graves" and
considered them to fall in major polytheism which returned one from Islam to
polytheism. As-San'âny stated positively the opposite of that. He considered them from
among sinner Muslims because they fall in minor polytheism only:
* As it was mentioned in "Al-Ghaniyah 'an Al-Kalâm wa Ahlihi"2. He said, 'The matter
that we are talking about is that if people of knowledge do not know what we mention
and decide concerning the judgment of those who believe in the dead people,
because of some reasons from among reasons that we mention above and do not
realize what we mention from among Qur'ânic and mental evidences, we have to ask
him about polytheism. If he says, 'It means to believe in another deity other than
Allah as the pre-Islamic era used to believe in idols as being deities with Allah, the
Exalted.' It has to be said to him, 'What did they use to do to such idols till they
became polytheist?' If he says that they used to glorify, slaughter, ask for support, call
in times of needs, and like that from such actions which are to be among name of
worship. We shall ask him about the reason behind such actions. If he says that
because they are creating, providing subsistence and giving life and death. Then you
shall read to him what we mention previously from among evidences from the Qur'ân
which prove that they admit that Allah is the Creator, Provider of subsistence and Who
gives life and death. They only worshiped them in order to bring them close to Allah.
They admit that they are their intercessors and do not worship them for other reason
other than that. He will agree with you if he believes that the words of Allah are true.
When he agrees with you, explain to him that those who believe in graves do such
actions or some of them according to what we have explained and decided in this
search. If he has any kind of knowledge and mind, he will agree with you with no
doubt and will admit that he does not know the meaning of monotheism which is
mentioned in the Sunnah and the Book.' Here ends his talking.
*The book of "Al-Ghunyah 'Anil-Kalam wa Ahlih" (vol. 1, p. 65 onwards) reads:
[Among the suspected matters that some scholars faced was that case when the wellversed
scholar, Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr, may Allah be Merciful to him,
focused on through his explanation of his poem which started with the next line:
"I now quit what I have said in the book of An-Nagdi"
He said in that book that the disbelief of those who believe in the dead people is a
practical disbelief, not a denial one. He cited the texts denoting the disbelief of those
who give up performing prayers. There are authentic hadiths referring to that point. He
Al-Ghaniyah 'an Al-Kalâm wa Ahlihi, vol.1, p.56 and after. 2
382
slamic Monotheism
also cited the disbelief of the one who abandons performing Hajj (Pilgrimage) meant
in the verse,
〈 ∩®∠∪ t⎦⎫ϑn=≈yè9# ⎯tã ©_xî !# β*sù... ®
which means, "Then Allah is indeed Independent of the creatures.", (Âl-'Imrân, 3:97)
Then he commented: [The truth is that there are two types of disbelief; practical
disbelief and denial or obstinacy disbelief. The denial disbelief refers to disbelief in the
Divine Revelation brought from Allah by the Messenger, peace be upon him, just for
denial and refusal. This type of disbelief contradicts faith completely. As for the
practical disbelief, it is of two kinds; one of them contradicts faith, and the other does
not. He cited a passage by Ibn Al-Qayyim which highlights that exact meaning. Al-
Amîr goes on to say, the practical disbelief applies to those who have faith in Awliyâ'
(righteous dead people), supplicate them, resort to them in times of hardships,
circumambulate their graves and kiss their walls and make vows to these graves. This
is a practical disbelief. It has nothing to do with faith, as one then still has faith in
Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day, but Satan makes alluring to them that those
dead people are righteous servants of Allah who can benefit, harm and intercede with
Allah. At the end those people believe that those dead Awliyâ' have such power, in
the same way the people of pre-Islamic era would believe in the idols. The exception
is that those people still believe in the Oneness of Allah. They do not install the dead
Awliyâ' as gods with Allah. But the case is different as per the unbelievers who denied
the call of the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, peace be upon him, for the profession
of faith and Monotheism (There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger
of Allah). Those disbelievers wondered as the Qur'ân relates,
〈 ∩∈∪ >$yfã ™©y´s9 #x‹≈yδ β) ( #‰n≡uρ$γ≈s9) sπoλ;ψ# ≅yèy_r& ®
which means, "“What! has he made the deities into a single God? This is in truth a
Those idolaters assigned partners to Allah openly. They say in the supplication of
Talbiyah, "Here I am at your service! There is no partner with You except for a partner
over whom and whose power You have control." By having such belief, they
recognize the idols as partners with the Lord of the worlds. However, their false
supplication still denoting that there is no partner with Allah, for as long as Allah has
control over those partners and their power, they become no more partners, but
servants. So, the worshippers of the idols install them as partners with Allah and
believe that they are their intercessors with Allah who brought them near to Him. This
is indeed different from the belief of some ignorant Muslims who believe in the
Awliyâ' to benefit and harm. They still recognize the Oneness of Allah and believe in
him as the Ultimate Lord. They also believe in the message of His Messengers,
commit a fault in the side of practical matters, not in the side of belief. Therefore, they
should be admonished by showing them their ignorance and scolded even by
subjecting them to a discretionary punishment. This is just like the application of the
legally stipulated punishment) on adulterers, alcohol-drinkers and thieves who are
practically disbelievers. The writer goes on to say, all these are prohibited evil deeds
383
slamic Monotheism
which resemble the deeds of the pre-Islamic period. Committing such deeds is
considered as a practical disbelief. There are texts which refer to the point that some
Muslims may commit such deeds of the pre-Islamic period and this regarded as a
practical disbelief. Among these texts is the hadith which reads, "Among my nation
there are four characteristics belonging to the pre-Islamic period which they do not
abandon: boasting of high rank, reviling of other peoples' genealogies, seeking rain by
stars, and wailing." This Hadith is recorded by Muslim on the authority of Abu Mâlik
Al-Ash'ary. These deeds belong to the practical disbelief and committing them does
not leave a Muslim non-Muslim because the Prophet, peace be upon him regarded the
committers of them as individuals who belonged to his Ummah (Nation), according to
It may be argued that the people of the pre-Islamic period would believe that their
idols got them close to Allah, just as the people who glorify graves believe in the dead
people buried in these graves. It may be argued also that the people of the pre-Islamic
era believed that those idols were their intercessors with Allah, just as the glorifiers of
the graves believe in the intercession of the dead people buried in these graves with
Allah. My reply is that there is no similarity as the glorifiers of the graves believe in the
Oneness of Allah. Their belief in this Oneness is so firm that if they obliged to declare
that those Awliyâ' (righteous dead persons) as gods they would not do, even if killing
is the other option. They just believe that those Awliyâ' were so obedient to Allah that
they become much closer to Him and this is why their intercession with Him is
hopefully accepted. They do not believe that those Awliyâ' are gods with Allah. The
case is totally different from the idolaters who refrain from recognizing that there is no
god but Allah, even if they are put to the sword. They allege that these idols are gods
with Allah and call them lords and gods. Let's cite here the wondering of Yûsuf (Josef,
peace be upon him), peace be upon him, related in the verse,
〈 ∩⊂®∪ ‘$γs)9# ‰n≡uθ9# !# Θr& yz χθ%xtGΒ >$t/‘r&u™ ⎯f¡9# ©t<s9|Á≈tƒ ®
which means, "“O my two companions of the prison! Are separate lords better, or
Allah- the One, the Dominant?" (Yûsuf, 12:39)
Here we notice that the Qur'ân calls them lords just as their worshippers would call
them. We may also cite here the situation of Al-Khalîl (the Intimate beloved of Allah)
Ibrâhîm (Abraham) when he reprehensibly asked the planets' worshippers if the Lord
could be such planets. Another case was when the disbelievers wonders about
〈 ∩∈∪ >$yfã ™©y´s9 #x‹≈yδ β) ( #‰n≡uρ$γ≈s9) sπoλ;ψ# ≅yèy_r& ®
which means, “What! has he made the deities into a single God? This is in truth a
〈 ∩∈®∪ ⎥⎫ϑ=≈à9# z⎯ϑs9 …μΡ) $oΨGyγ9$t↔/ #x‹≈yδ ≅yèsù ⎯tΒ #θ9$s% ® which means, "They said: “Who has done this to our deities? He is surely of the wrongdoers indeed.” (Al-Anbiyâ', 21:59) They also asked, 384 slamic Monotheism |MΡr&〈 ∩∉⊄∪ ΟŠδ≡t/*≈tƒ$uΖGoλ;$t↔/ #x‹≈yδ |M=yèsù u™® which means, “Is it you who has done this to our deities, O Ibrahim?” (Al-Anbiyâ', 21:62) In another place in the Qur'ân Ibrâhîm reproaching asked his people, 〈 ∩∇∉∪ tβρ‰ƒ? !# tβρŠ πyγ9#u™ %3←r& ® which means, "Is it the false deities besides Allah that you desire?" (As-Sâffât, 37:86) Bearing these verses in mind, it is proved that the disbelievers do not recognize Allah's Oneness as for Godhood and Lordship either, as falsely understood from verses like, 〈 ∩®∪ ΟŠ=yè9# “ƒ“yè9# ⎯γs)n=yz ⎯9θ)u‹s9 uÚ‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈yϑ¡9# t,n=y{ ⎯Β ΟγtF9r'y™ ⎦⌡s9uρ ® which means, "And if you ask them— “Who has created the heavens and the earth?” — they will invariably say: “The Exalted in Might, the all- Knowing has created them”" (Az-Zukhruf, 43:9) The same meaning may also falsely understood from the verse, M‹yϑ9# z⎯Β ‘y⇔9# lƒ† ⎯tΒuρ t≈|Á/{#uρ yìϑ¡9# 7=ϑtƒ ⎯Βr& Ú‘{#uρ ™$yϑ¡9# z⎯Β Ν3%—tƒ ⎯tΒ ≅% ®
〈 ∩⊂⊇∪ tβθ)Gs? ξsùr& ≅)sù 4 !# tβθ9θ)uŠ|¡sù 4 zΔ{# /y‰ƒ ⎯tΒuρ ‘y⇔9# ∅Β |M‹yϑ9# lƒ†uρ
which means, "Say: “who provides you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? Or
who has control over the hearing and the sight? And who brings and the living from
the dead and brings out the dead from the living? And who governs the affair?” They
will then answer― “Allah.” Therefore you say: “Will you not then practice
reverence?”" (Yûnus, 10:31)
The Oneness recognized in the above verses is the Oneness of having the power of
creation and supplying with maintenance and the like. It is not a recognition of the
Oneness of Allah as the Ultimate God as they would, however, still worship their idols
as known. This type of disbelief is connected with the creed itself and it is followed by
the disbelief in the arena of deeds. This case is different from the case of those who
believe in the Awliyâ' to have the power of benefiting and harming them but still
recognize the Oneness of Allah as the Ultimate God, and believe in His Messenger,
Muhammad, and in the Last Day. In this case it is regarded as a disbelief in the arena
of deeds. This is what should be known as the clear truth without neither
excessiveness nor negligence.] This is the end of the citation from the words of the
scholar Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr, may Allah be Merciful to him.
To comment I say, what the scholar said is good, but he did not catch the real cause of
the difference in the legal ruling between the two cases. This cause is the difference of
belief and the substantial dissimilarity of the essence of creed between the two cases.
The people of the pre-Islamic period believed in their gods to have power to do
certain things, the matter which qualified them to be gods with Allah, as they believe.
The matters of creation, supplying with maintenance and the like were not so much
involved as many other important or rather substantial ones were. We have discussed
most of these points in detail previously. The core of the issue is not calling those
385
slamic Monotheism
worshipped idols gods or Lords or recognizing their partnership with Allah which is
except for a partner over whom and whose power You have control!" Nevertheless
these words and the like in most but not necessarily all cases are regarded as a strong
evidence that there is some type of disbelief.
The creed of the people of the pre-Islamic period stated above has nothing to do with
the creed of the supposedly Muslim people who believe in the power of the dead
people and Awliyâ'. The expressions recurrently used by them are not necessarily
regarded as a reference to their disbelief, though it might be regarded as so in some or
rather rare cases.
The core of the issue is the essence of the creed and the quiddity of the dogma. Names
of one's creed, mere belonging to Islam or nominal utterance of the formula of the
profession of Islam are irrelevant to the matter at hand.
The well-versed scholar, Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr was not right when he
classified some deeds of the supposedly Muslims as generally practical or minor
disbelief with no consideration of the essence of dogma and creed, nor reviewing the
legal rulings. Some of these deeds may not absolutely be regarded as a practical or
dogmatic disbelief, but as disobedience or even undesirable deeds. Only some of
these deeds can leads one to abandon Islam.
Moreover, the deeds which are regarded as a minor disbelief are determined only by
the Islamic Legislator (Allah), not any other one. Some minor sins may be called
minor disbelief. We will prove that in the chapters about the practical disbelief.
Nevertheless, there are major and grave sins that are close to the arena of the major
disbelief and polytheism which leave one non-Muslim, such as eating up the property
of orphans unjustly, false testimony and false oath, and all these sins, though grave and
close to polytheism in terms of evil, are not called neither as polytheism nor disbelief
by the Legislator (Allah).
*The author of "Al-Ghunyah 'Anil Kalami Wa'Ahlih" (volume 1, page 64 onwards)
tries to reply to what the well-versed scholar, Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr, may
Allah be Merciful to him, said by saying, [I say that these words lack consistency and
are contradictory. To clarify, I say that disbelief is undoubtedly divided into two types;
dogmatic disbelief and practical disbelief. But saying that believing in the dead
persons' abilities is a practical disbelief is a completely false assumption. The real
words of the scholar emphasize t those who believe in the abilities of the Awliyâ'
commit a practical disbelief. Wonderful! How he uses the word "believe" then call it a
practical disbelief?! This is but mere contradictory words. He states in the beginning of
his research paper that invoking the Awliyâ' (righteous dead persons), resorting to
them in times of hardships, circumambulating their graves and kissing the walls and
making vows to these graves from one's own property, are regarded as practical
disbelief deeds. It may be argued here that the motives behind invoking these
Awliyâ', seeking refuge with them, kissing the walls of their graves and making vows
to them can not be the mere absurdity, not the belief in that which is done. Only
mad people may do that. The real motive behind doing that is the belief in the Waly
(dead person). How can such deeds not be regarded as dogmatic disbelief though the
dogma is the real motive behind doing them, and the lack of which results in doing
386
slamic Monotheism
nothing of these deeds? We also notice that although the fact that he regards that type
of disbelief as a practical not a dogmatic one, he says that Satan made allured to the
believers in the Awliyâ' (righteous dead persons) that they were righteous servants of
Allah who could benefit and intercede with Allah, and that's why those people
ignorantly believed in the dead persons in the same way the people of the pre-Islamic
period would do with their idols. Contemplate, he recognizes that this type of disbelief
is a dogmatic one, just like the disbelief of the people of the pre-Islamic period. The
Sheikh focuses on dogma as an involved point, and he asserts that such a dogma is
based on the mere ignorance. This is easily refuted by the fact that the entire parties of
disbelievers and all polytheists have believe in supporting disbelief and embracing it
and rebelling the truth just for having a dogma which is based on ignorance. None
claims that the fundamental point in the issue of Monotheism is the mere uttering of
the profession of faith regardless of the utterer's deeds which contradict that profession
of faith and which are undoubtedly based on a certain belief, such as the belief in the
power of the dead people. The mere utterance of words is not of so much importance
as Allah regards only the real belief rooted in the heart and the deeds which are based
on that belief. The mere words are not the core of the issue; otherwise there would be
no difference between a believer and a hypocrite.]
I say this is a good reply to the words of the well-versed scholar Muhammad bin
Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr, may Allah be Merciful to him. It shows the inter-contradiction of these
words as the motive behind supplicating these dead people by the supposedly Muslim
people is necessarily a certain belief in them. This is quite clear through the words, (It
may be argued here that the motives behind invoking these Awliyâ', seeking refuge
with them, kissing the walls of their graves and making vows to them can not be the
mere absurdity, not the belief in that which is done. Only mad people may do that.
The real motive behind doing that is the belief in the Waly (dead person).
The author of the above book does well when he shows that ignorance might be an
excuse for quitting punishment in the Hereafter, but still it does not convert the truth of
things; i.e. polytheists are still polytheists, even if we suppose that ignorance about
Islam is an excuse on their part. Similarly, superstition still so, even if it is falsely
regarded as truth.
The proof used by the author of the above book to refute other assumptions may be
used itself against his views. The reason is that he did not realize that there are types of
polytheistic dogmas that lead to disbelief, while others do not, although the fact that
such polytheistic dogmas are still false. He thought that the core of the issue is the
belief itself, i.e. the belief that a certain benefit can be attained or that a certain harm
can be avoided and so on. He paid no attention to the content and the essence of that
belief. We have discussed earlier that the mere belief that "so and so" may benefit or
harm, has nothing to do with disbelief and Islam, nor polytheism and monotheism.
Otherwise all those who believe that their pack animals or cars are beneficial will be
disbelievers or polytheists.
It may be immediately replied that it is taken for granted that these are not the meant
benefit and harm. Then we say, right, but what is the correct and exact difference
between believing that "a car", "a pack animal" or " a bundle of wood" are
beneficial and believing in the beneficialness of the idols, "Lat, Uzzâ and Manât"?

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:24 PM
387
slamic Monotheism
Imam Muhammad bin 'Ali Ash-Shawkâny tried to edit this question and bridge the gap
of this controversial issue in the book of "The Obligation of confessing the Oneness of
Allah". He says, [Those who invoke the dead people, resort to them in times of
hardships, circumambulate their graves and asking them to do things that only
Almighty Allah can do, is indeed based on a certain belief which is similar to the belief
of the people of the pre-Islamic period in their idols. There is no difference between
the two cases as long as those people believe that the dead people can bring them
close to Allah, such as the people of the pre-Islamic period would believe in their idols
to do. The dead people may be invoked to independently do certain matters that
Almighty Allah alone can do. By so doing, such invokers will be doing a thing that the
people of the pre-Islamic period would not do….]
We notice here that the great jurist and the distinguished diligent, Imam Ash-
Shawkâny, tried to put an end to that question by adding a new restriction which is
connected to belief, not only to the mere words and deeds. This restriction is
presented in the words, (…and asking them to do things that only Almighty Allah can
do…). By saying that, Imam thought that he had given the coup de grace to "the
glorifiers of graves". He regarded them as committing a major polytheism, i.e. which
is synonymous to disbelief and which make them leave the arena of Islam. By
deciding this, Ash-Shawkâny put an end to the controversial issue cited by the wellversed
scholar Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr As-San'âny, may Allah be Merciful to
him.
Nevertheless, this restriction, too, is still incorrect. It is not clearly known what Imam
Ash-Shawkâny means by it, whether he means by (…things that only Almighty Allah
can do…) the true meaning understood from that term by the way of the decisive legal
and reason evidences, or he means things that only Almighty Allah can do, according
to the dogma of the glorifiers of the graves?
As for the first meaning, there is nothing controversial because it is certainly known by
the way of the evidential reasoning, historical and legal proofs that "Lat", for instance,
is but a name of a female superstitious entity which is not existing in reality. However,
who believes in its existence and that she is one of Allah's daughters, is a polytheist,
and disbeliever, rather than being an errant driveling idiot.
Hence, the core of the issue is the belief and dogma of such people about whom Ash-
Shawkâny says:" Those who invoke the dead people, resort to them in times of
hardships, circumambulate their graves and ask them to do things that only Almighty
Allah can do…" The crucial issue here is the essence of belief and the core of the
dogma which motivate those people to do and say such things. The mere existence of
a certain belief or dogma is not the central point as we intensively discussed
previously. Knowing that, we can judge that this belief or dogma is similar to the belief
of the people of the pre-Islamic period in their idols, or even worse, as Imam Ash-
Shawkâny indicated.
It is necessarily obvious that such invokers have a certain "belief" and "dogma" in
those whom they invoke. Their invocation should be addressed to those in whom they
believe to hear them and receive their invocation and whom they believe to be able to
answer their invocations and meet their needs. Otherwise such invokers must
necessarily be mad or abnormal people who are not responsible for their deeds.
388
slamic Monotheism
Discussion is to be about "essence" or "content" of the belief of this inquirer. If he
believes in whomever he invokes some kind of polytheistic belief that contradicts with
Islam, his invocation will be then invocation of worship and will be disbelief and
polytheism, otherwise it is not.
For example, if someone invokes and asks for something which you believe to be a
matter that "no one can fulfill it but Allah", he should be asked about that and his
(1) That such matter is really "no one can fulfill it but Allah", and then he is
obliged to say that the one whom he invokes is Allah or that Allah unified with
him, Allah assumes his shape, he is "part" of Allah, that he is imaginary picture
that has no reality and Allah just creates it in the perception of whoever looks or
like that from among other sayings that were said about the Christ 'Îsâ bin
Maryam (Jesus son of Mary, peace be upon him). All that is polytheism and
disbelief in the belief. Such inquirer makes whomever he invokes as deity. The
one that he invokes is according to his claim, the "core" of Allah, "part" of
Allah, picture of Allah, assumes the shape of Allah or like that. Invocation then
is necessarily invocation of worship. According to such invocation, he is
worshiper of the one that he invokes. This statement is disbelief in itself and
very rare and whoever believe in it, declares it (like Christians and their trinity),
so the matter does not need much argument with them.
(2) Or that he says that such required matter is addressed to other than Allah. this
can be happened in some cases that include the following:
(a) That the one that is invoked has a power that is similar or close to the power
of Allah even if it is just ion this certain matter or this certain point. Such
inquirer according to such belief makes the one that is invoked peer, equal
or in the same rank of Allah, even if it is in one matter or one point. This is
dogmatic polytheism and disbelief as he believes in such matter. Such
inquirer believes that the one that he invoked is deity and not Allah. Such
invocation then is invocation of worship. According to such invocation, he is
worshiper of such one that he invoked other than Allah.
This is polytheistic statement in itself and we can not say that such equal,
similar or close "power" to the power of Allah, is among creatures of Allah.
This contradicts with definite texts of sharî'ah. It is impossible according to
mind, as it means that Allah is not the Truth, First, Existing, Rich and the
necessarily existing while He is at the same time. This is contradiction which
nullify sharî'ah. This is clear disbelief and polytheism as it makes everything
possible to be deity in the same time in an endless series of contradictions
and impossibilities.
(b) That the one that is invoked has a power to fulfill such matter. He is not
subject to what we said above that such matter "no one can fulfill it but
Allah". He has such power that is not equal to the power of Allah. It is
natural in his self and not among the creatures of Allah. Thus, he is
independent in action from Allah. He does not need the permission or will
389
slamic Monotheism
of Allah. This was the belief of Quraish in ancient times and the belief of
most of the heathen African nowadays concerning jinn. They claim that jinn
are from among divine element but they are from a "tribe" that is different
from the "tribe" of Allah and as they believe the same in the angels but they
are from the same tribe and may be His sons and daughters. Allah is above
and free from all such fables and evil sayings.
This is also dogmatic disbelief and polytheism as he believes in such matter.
Such inquirer believes that the one that he invoked is deity and not Allah.
Such invocation then is invocation of worship. According to such invocation,
he is worshiper of such one that he invoked other than Allah. He is
polytheist and disbeliever.
(c) That the one that is invoked has a power to fulfill such matter. He is not
subject to what we said above that such matter "no one can fulfill it but
Allah". He has such power that is not equal to the power of Allah. But it is
not natural in his self but it is created by Allah. His power is among the
creatures of Allah. Thus, he can not use such power except with the
permission or will of Allah. Thus, he is not independent in action from Allah.
He just does, as Allah destined to him to do, he does according to the
permission and will of Allah.
So this matter can be one of the following:
(1) That he is mistaken in ascribing such power to the one that he invokes
and in reality it is not like that. This can be wrong or fable but it is not
necessarily polytheism. (Any polytheism is fables and null matters but
not every fable and null is polytheism). If such inquirer understands,
knows that and discovers that he is mistaken and all that is fable and null,
he should either retract and end such invocation or follow one of the
previous or later mentioned kinds.
(2) That he is mistaken in expressing, as he who says, 'O My lord Messenger
of Allah forgive me' or 'O My lord 'Abdul-Qâdir be merciful to me' while
he is meaning to say, 'O Messenger of Allah! Invoke for me asking for
forgiveness or ask forgiveness for me' and to say, 'O 'Abdul-Qâdir! Invoke
One may says, 'How one can call for who is absent or dead? Is not this
dogmatic belief in itself?' We say: No, of course. Whoever is live and
present hears through what Allah has granted him from among tools and
abilities that enable him to hear and according to the will and permission
of Allah not by his own power or in an independent way. The dead and
the absent can hear if Allah destines him to do but it is contradictory to
custom and needs mental and sensual evidence (like phone and wireless
for example) or evidence from sharî'ah. To say such matter without
evidence is null and fable and not polytheism. (Any polytheism is fables
and null matters but not every fable and null is polytheism).
390
slamic Monotheism
Some people believe that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) died,
his soul was released from his body and by that he moved to a more
complete and stronger shape. He now can hear from long distance and
act as he could not act when he was still alive. All that is because Allah
enables him and gives him special power and distinguished rank. He
does not transcend ranks of creatures; he is still created servant that has
no authority to do neither harm nor benefit to himself except with the
wish of Allah. This matter and its like on such unlimited way of
generalization is null and false belief in itself, even if it is not to cause
apostasy and not decreasing from the power of Allah or His right of
creation and management. Invocation in such case is invocation of asking
and not invocation of worship and it may be forbidden as it is done in
illegal way disagreeing legal judgment.
Perhaps the above discussion - although it is brief- shows that the statement of
(invocation is not to be an invocation of worship except when inquirer invokes anyone
other than Allah to grant him something that no one can fulfill it but Allah) needs
explanation, clarification, division and branching, otherwise it will be useless. Such
matter is not to be neglected concerning cases of Islam and disbelief and monotheism
and polytheism. These cases are cases of (life and death). They are not "verified" as it
is claimed by those who imitate Imam Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb, but they are in
need of verifying and explanations that will grant them useful meaning.
Concerning the saying of Imam Ash-Shawkâny, 'If he means the independency of
whomever he invokes from among the dead people as to ask him for something that
no one can fulfill it but Allah, this matter is not found in the pre-Islamic era.' It is
incompletely transmitted statement that disagrees with the definite evidence which
proves that the polytheists of the pre-Islamic era used to believe in the godhood of
their idols. This includes different kinds of detailed beliefs that most of them require
the belief in the independency of such deities even in one certain point or
consideration. May be Imam Ash-Shawkâny transmit the myth of "Al-Lât" who used to
prepare Sawîq for pilgrims and consider the saying of Sheikh Muhammad bin 'Abdul-
Wahâb that they used to (believe in the dead and pious people) as absolute matter.
While all that is against truth and right and was proved by definite evidences that were
mentioned before.
Thus, what Sheikh and Imam Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb named "polytheism of
graves" is "fable" that has no existence in itself and from the basic point of view and it
is null "innovation" from the point that it connects between judgments of Islam and
disbelief with it. From the other point, "calling" pious people could be major
polytheism; as "calling" then will be a kind of "worship" as sheikh and Imam
Muhammad bin 'Abdul-Wahâb (may Allah be merciful to him) said. And it could be
minor polytheism as Muhammad bin Ismâ'îl Al-Amîr (may Allah be merciful to him)
said. And it could be neither of both. The whole matter is according to the content of
belief and not to mere existing of any belief. It is according to what is in the legal texts
and not to analogy and null claims or mere generalizations.
391
slamic Monotheism
The meaning of "worship" which was mentioned above according to the Arabs is a
limited conception as we mentioned before. The Arabs did not understand that
legislation is among characteristics of godhood and did not imagine that obedience is
among types of worship. Neither polytheist nor people of the book knew such matters
as it is clear in hadith 'Uday bin Hâtim which was mentioned in the interpretation of
the following verse. Allah says,
〈 ∩⊂⊇∪.. !# χρŠ ⎯Β $/$t/‘r& ΝγuΖ≈t6δ‘uρ Νδu‘$t6mr& #ρ‹sƒB# ® which means, "They have adopted their priests and their monks as lords besides Allah" (At-Tawbah, 9:31) 'Uday said, 'We did not worship them.' The Prophet (peace be upon him) explained to him that obeying them in forbidding what is lawful and permitting what is forbidden i.e. obeying them in legislation and not mere actions is worshiping them. It was very weak or even rare that Arabs connected between worship and loyalty or love, which was appeared in their behaviors with their relatives from among believers. When Islam came, it deepened such conception and enlarged it. Islam explained that it included conception of following, obeying and loyalty. Islam limited all kinds of worship to Allah, the Exalted and ever Majestic. It prevented some actions and sayings to be said to other than Allah even if that was without believing in godhood and called that polytheism; (practical polytheism that does not cause apostasy as it will be mentioned later, if Allah wills.) Islam called it polytheism because the outer shape of the action is similar to the action of the people of polytheism as it will be explained in details later. Thus, "Unification of Allah … Worship & Divinity" is seeking Allah alone with no partners with Him in complete glorification and sincere love with showing extreme humiliation, perfect submission and full surrender with admitting to Him with poverty and need based upon the belief of that Allah deserves that in His self according to His characteristics of godhood and attributes of beauty, perfection and glory. It means seeking Allah alone with the deeds of His servants; the acts of worship performed by His servants. It means to perform all kinds of acts and rituals of worship (from among slaughter, vow, bow, stand, sitting, walk, silence, invocation, trust, fear, hope, wish, and other kinds of rituals) seeking Allah alone with no partner with Him. Or it means in other words, seeking Allah alone in the actions of servants based upon beliefs, which is included, in the first place, in the first three kinds of the Unification of Allah … Knowledge and Belief, which are "Unification of Allah … The Divine Entity", "Unification of Allah … Creation" and "Unification of Allah … Disposition of Affairs". This is among the bases of the meaning of the declaration of faith (there is no god but Allah). The verses which prove such issue are lot but the whole Qur'ân is about that: Allah says, 392 slamic Monotheism 〈 ∩⊂∉∪ ...($↔‹x© ⎯μ/ #θ.³@ ωuρ !# #ρ‰6ã#uρ ®
which means, "And worship Allah and do not associate with Him anything." (An-
Nisâ', 4:36)
And He says,
〈 ∩⊄⊂∪... ν$ƒ) ω) #ρ‰7ès? ωr& y7/u‘ ©|Ós%uρ ® which means, "And your Rabb commanded that you do not worship anyone except Him alone." (Al-Isrâ', 17:23) And He says, 〈 ∩∈∉∪ βρ‰7èu‹9 ω) }§Ρ}#uρ ⎯g:# M)n=yz$tΒuρ ®
which means, "And I have not created the jinn and the mankind but that they should
Contradicting with that, kinds of dogmatic polytheism, from among the most important
of it is:
(A) Performing such actions or some of them seeking other than Allah, intending
them as acts of worship. That is to say to perform them while believing that
such one; the other than Allah deserves that because of his characteristics of
godhood, perfect attributes of his self, his divine relative and linage, his
unification with Allah that made him god or demigod, his immanence with
Allah or other than that from among such reasons.
(B) Performing such actions or some of them - especially asking for refuge, help
and support, asking to be granted benefit and prevented harm, slaughter,
rituals and vows – seeking other than Allah. Because such person believes that
Allah does not know conditions of His servants and the incidents of this
universe in details. This is the opinion of most of philosophers who claim that
the knowledge of Allah is limited to totals and that Allah does not know parts.
Allah is far above all that. That resulted in that Allah is not to be asked to grant
any benefit or to prevent any harm or asked to fulfill any need. This is as well
the opinion of some among apostates and polytheists who worship stars and
orbits. The worst than all that is the saying of Aristotle who claims that Allah
knows only Himself and realizes only His entity. Such sayings are polytheism
in themselves even if they do not require any such polytheistic worship.
(C) Performing such actions or some of them seeking other than Allah, believing
that Allah even if He knows the conditions of His servants and parts of all
incidents in the universe, He is still away and proud. He does not care for His
servant, listen for their invocation and care for their needs. Thus, servants need
to turn to other than Him in order to fulfill and answer their needs by himself
393
slamic Monotheism
or to intercede for them and beg Allah on their behalf in order to fulfill such
needs.
Such sayings and opinions are polytheism in themselves that turn one from
believer to disbeliever. Even if such sayings do not require any polytheistic
actions, they are still according to mind, decreasing the rank of Allah. Mind
and sharî'ah prove that taking care and granting charity and mercy are
attributes of perfection when they are to be found among creatures. Allah, the
Exalted and ever Majestic is worthier. Allah says,
’û ’n?ã{# ≅sVyϑ9# &s!uρ 4 μ‹n=tã χuθδr& uθδuρ …ν‰‹èƒ ΟO t,=y⇐9# #τy‰7tƒ “%!# uθδuρ ®
〈 ∩⊄∠∪ Ο‹3ys9# “ƒ•yè9# uθδuρ 4 Ú‘{#uρ N≡uθ≈uΚ¡9#
which means, "And He it is Who originates the creation, and then reproduces it; and it
is most easy for Him. And to Him belongs the Highest Examples in the heavens and
the earth; for He is Exalted in might, most Wise." (Ar-Rûm, 30:27)
Such sayings are as well disbelief in themselves that turn one from believer to
disbeliever. Even if such sayings do not require any polytheistic actions, they are still
according to sharî'ah, denying what Allah has proved to Himself in revealed books.
(D) Performing such actions or some of them seeking other than Allah, believing
that Allah even if He knows the conditions of His servants and parts of all
incidents in the universe and even if He takes care of His servants and grants
them mercy, but He permits us to get close to Him through such mediators. As
it is the case with the kings of human that people do not reach them except
through ministers and assistants. They believe that Allah needs such assistants
in order to show His Might and power or to implement His commands and
complete His actions.
Such sayings are as well disbelief in themselves that turn one to apostate from
several points:
First point: It likens Allah to His creatures, accuses Him of failing and that He
is in need for assistants and ministers, even if it does not result in such
polytheistic actions. It is well known by the religion that Allah, the Exalted and
ever Majestic is attributed as having all perfect knowledge, caring and power.
He is no need of any mediators. Allah has Glory and Might in His self and in
no need for anyone in order to show this glory and power or to implement His
commands. He is close to His servants; He is closer to them than their veins to
answer their invocation when they ask Him. Allah likes to be invoked and He
commands us to invoke and appeal to Him in any kinds of needs. He is
Manifest that has nothing above Him and He is the Immanent that has nothing
below Him.
Second point: It denies and accuses Allah of lying in what He approved to
Himself from among definite evidences that have no doubts which He
revealed to His prophets.
394
slamic Monotheism
(E) Performing such actions or some of them seeking other than Allah, believing
in the special rank of this other granted by Allah which enables him to:
(a) Intercede and mediate. Such intercession and mediation is never to be
refused by Allah. It is not to be rejected.
(b) Intercede without permission.
(c) Interfere in destinies of people independently according to his view about
harm and benefit.
Contradicts with it also kinds of practical polytheism; minor polytheism that does not
turn one to apostate. They will be mentioned in chapters special for them.

abu abdul-kareem
14-09-2005, 01:31 PM
Prof Muhammad Al-Massari was born in Al-Saud Al-Arabia Najd. He began his study of Islam at a early age as his late father was also a scholar. In his teen age years he traveled to germany where he studied Astro physics and obtained his Ph d. He then traveled over to the UK where for a while he was a lecturer at kings collage. He has know dedicated his full time to the study of Al-Islam and has just completed his own Kitab Al-Tawheed.

warea
18-06-2012, 05:59 AM
And where exactly can i read the full book from?

:salam: