Library chat: Yasir Qadhi on The Najdi Dawah
- Thread starter Deleted L
- Start date
This is one area where I incline towards the Salafis for very practical reasons.
At its basis, istighatha is to ask someone to help you with something they can help you with. This is permissible. Now, lets say you had sure knowledge that a deceased person could come to you and you tell him "go get this money and bring it back to me" then theoretically, this would be no different than asking the living.
However, the problem with this is several fold. One, you have no sure knowledge that the person you are calling to is able to even hear you. Yes, it is established that the dead can hear if Allah makes them. Secondly, you have no idea whether they can hear you.
Therefore, if you open the door of istighatha then you get pseudo-shirk amongst the uneducated masses. You will have someone who loses his cow in the desert saying "ya abdul Qadir jilani help me find my cow" or "ya such and such, grant our village rain". This is an affliftion and it is a kalima that outwardly is kufr. Now, i know that Muslims do not take these awliyas to be Gods beside Allah and cannot therefore be seen as polytheists. However, and especially knowing what happened to Christians, it is a very dangerous door.
Now, the salafis go too far (as usual) because they make unfounded claims. Some of them, such ad the ignoramus Dawah man, claim that simply talking to the dead is shirk. That is an idiotic claim and one devoid of logic. Others think that talking to the jinn (which is highly inadvisable) is shirk. Once again an idiotic claim.
Shirk is to worship something else as a god beside Allah. Simple as that. It is that you take the rights and essential attributes of Allah, and you attach it to someone else. So for example, if you believe (likr some extreme shias do) that Fatima created the universe, then you are a mushrik. The issue with istighatha is that it comes close to the realm of dua, which is an essential point of worship. You may, unknowingly, call on someone in such a way that you elevate him to the status of Allah.
So its a very very very slippery slope, and what illustrates that is the extremists in Iran and India
At its basis, istighatha is to ask someone to help you with something they can help you with. This is permissible. Now, lets say you had sure knowledge that a deceased person could come to you and you tell him "go get this money and bring it back to me" then theoretically, this would be no different than asking the living.
However, the problem with this is several fold. One, you have no sure knowledge that the person you are calling to is able to even hear you. Yes, it is established that the dead can hear if Allah makes them. Secondly, you have no idea whether they can hear you.
Therefore, if you open the door of istighatha then you get pseudo-shirk amongst the uneducated masses. You will have someone who loses his cow in the desert saying "ya abdul Qadir jilani help me find my cow" or "ya such and such, grant our village rain". This is an affliftion and it is a kalima that outwardly is kufr. Now, i know that Muslims do not take these awliyas to be Gods beside Allah and cannot therefore be seen as polytheists. However, and especially knowing what happened to Christians, it is a very dangerous door.
Now, the salafis go too far (as usual) because they make unfounded claims. Some of them, such ad the ignoramus Dawah man, claim that simply talking to the dead is shirk. That is an idiotic claim and one devoid of logic. Others think that talking to the jinn (which is highly inadvisable) is shirk. Once again an idiotic claim.
Shirk is to worship something else as a god beside Allah. Simple as that. It is that you take the rights and essential attributes of Allah, and you attach it to someone else. So for example, if you believe (likr some extreme shias do) that Fatima created the universe, then you are a mushrik. The issue with istighatha is that it comes close to the realm of dua, which is an essential point of worship. You may, unknowingly, call on someone in such a way that you elevate him to the status of Allah.
So its a very very very slippery slope, and what illustrates that is the extremists in Iran and India
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
For those wanting a brief summary about the core issue of what yasir qadhi states about the understanding of tawheed by salafis have a look at this thread
Salafi understanding of tawheed
Salafi understanding of tawheed
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
What yasir qadhi talks about is a very detailed discussion where he clarifies the issue of asking the dead, the underlying reason why those who follow the teaching of miaw view it as shirk and the opposing view that is held by the majority of scholars who don't see it as shirk unless accompanied by intention and belief.
Followers of the najdi dawah believe that the pagans,muslims christians, jews etc all have affirmed tawheed rububiyyah ie Oneness in Allah's Lordship and where we differed is tawheed ibadah/uluhiyyah ie Oneness in Allah's Worship. To them Rabb and Ilah have different meanings and are not inclusive of each other, ilah is simply an object of worship. In their understanding they separate the attributes of lordship from the meaning of ilah.
Laakin for us there's no difference between rabb and ilah as they are both synonymous, your god and lord are one and the same. An individual can not worship multiple gods and still claim to have one lord. Similarly it's impossible for a person to have tawheed that Allah is the true Rabb and then go on ahead to worship other gods. So when salafis affirm that the pagans believed in multiple gods beside Allah they don't mean that the pagans had multiple lords beside Allah, which is absurd as a god and lord are the same.
How does this relate to the issue of istighatha ? Since the pagans affirmed that Allah was their only Rabb a belief that they share with us muslims, their shirk occurred when they worshipped others with Allah eg by calling upon, invoking, sacrificing for their idols. So when those muslims perfom istighatha with the saints they're committing the same actions as those pagans. Hence the accusation of shirk by the salafis.
That distinction that you make matters little to salafis as they've already defined a god as anything that one directs any act of worship to meaning the saints have become objects of worship to these muslims who do istighatha as they are asking them of things that should be only sought from Allah. Whereas when the rest of us believe a God to be a being that possess power and control to salafis this isn't the case as they gave a different meaning to the word ilah/god.
This separation between rabb and ilah, how they define it and most importantly how they then use it interpret the Quran and Sunnah arriving at their aqeedah is the issue of contention. Yasir qadhi does a great job at this and explains in great length. You won't be able understand where salafis have gone wrong without understanding this issue.
Last edited:
@AdoonkaAlle can I ask abdulqadir Jilani RA to cure me?
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
sxb hada aan ku weydiyo what makes you believe that i subscribe to those type of beliefs ? are you asking me simply because i critique the salafi dawah that you espouse ? do you think that anyone who disagrees with the salafi aqeedah has no legitimate reasons for doing so ? or is that you believe that those who are against salafis do so on the basis of advocating for haram actions etc ?
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
@JalleGeesi no worries sxb if you got more questions about my view regarding the salafi aqeedah just ask as i don't mind. We can have a fruitful discussion without assuming the worst and most importantly be just to each other.
*stumbles in on the Sufi convention*
You cannot and you should not unless you have specific knowledge that he, whether as a living person or dead, has some form of information or ability that would act as thr SABAB for Allah to cure you.
Assim Al hakeem makes valid points watch this video for clarification
The salafi division of tawheed in of itself is an innovation designed to foster tafkir.
Wa lakin, it is as you say. They fail to realize that the christians dont have tawheed uluhiya or tawheed rubbibiya because the Christians would claim that Jesus is their Lord God (Al Rabbul Ilahi) and they believed that their priests had the power to make (not interpret) something as halal or haram. How can someone claim that Christians have tawheed ur rubbubiya or tawheed uluhiya. Its absurd.
As for the Salafi claim that the meccan mushriks had any kind of tawheed, it would be hilarious if it were not dangerously blasphemous. Their claim is refuted by one verse in Surah Saad
"Has he made ALL THE GODS into ONE GOD. This is truly an astonishing thing" 38:5
The Salafis need to understand that no Muslim in their sane mind is a MUSHRIK. HOWEVER, THERE IS NEED FOR CARE BECAUSE AS THE SHIAS AND VARIOUS EXTRME SUFIS HAVE SHOWN, THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF PSEUDO SHIRK IN THIS MATTER ESPECIALLY IN THE MASSES. I SAW A VIDEO OF A MAWLA IN KASHMIR AFTER JUMMAH COMING OUT WITH A HEAD OF THE PROPHETS HAIR AND THE WOMEN WERE ALL RAISING THEIR HANDS AS THOUGH THEY WERE ASKING THE HAIR FOR DUA.
NOW I KNOW THEY DONT BELIEVE THAT THE HAIR IS GOD BUT I HAVE NO DOUBT IN THE MOMENT THAT SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE OF THEIR IGNORANCE, SAID WORDS THAT - IF A SCHOLAR SAID THEM - WERE TANTAMOUNT TO KUFR. THEREFORE, THAT IMAM WRONGED THEM
We are in a sad state when Assim al Hakeem is who we take knowledge from.
If you watch the video, he says do not take knowledge from me take it from the scholars and their source which is quran and sunnah.
greenvegetables
halal and earthy
Stop.
St
p.
S+0p
STOP REFERRING TO YASIR QADHI FOR ANYTHING. HE IS NOT AN ISLAMIC AUTHORITY OR EVEN SOMEONE WITH BASIC FOUNDATIONS IN THE DEEN OF ALLAH AZZA WAJJAL.
St
p. S+0p
STOP REFERRING TO YASIR QADHI FOR ANYTHING. HE IS NOT AN ISLAMIC AUTHORITY OR EVEN SOMEONE WITH BASIC FOUNDATIONS IN THE DEEN OF ALLAH AZZA WAJJAL.
Brother, its clear that he is straw manning yssir. Theyre not just towards him in all reality
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Exactly it forms the basis from which they utilise to label muslims as mushriks making their blood and wealth halal for them. It's not surprising to understand why the najdi dawah is the main dawah preferred by khawarij like isis etc
It's really shocking how absurd such claims are, they say except for a few people majority of bani affirmed tawheed rububiyyah and that the shirk took place in tawheed uluhiyyah and al asma wa siffat.
Chrisitians believe in the 3 gods while the pagans of mecca believed in 360 gods just by this fact alone this would make the shirk of meccan pagans worse due to the number of gods. Miaw states in his books that the muslims of his time were worse than the pagans of mecca meaning that the shirk muslims supposedly committed in that era was worse than those of the pagans. I wouldn't even compare the shirk of the christians to that of the meccan pagans let alone have the audacity to claim that pagans of mecca were better than muslims
I understand that but shirk just as kufr has conditions that need to met before it's applied on any one muslims that's why it's important to investigate the issue properly. Our deen requires that there has to be clear cut evidence that before estabilishing ruling on any issue this is especially true for the more sensitive matters like shirk and kufr.
Furthermore seeking blessing from the relics of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is something that is established in the deen. The sahaba used to seek blessing from his cloths, wudu, sweat, hair and even saliva. So it has a basis in the deen, now the thing is that some people might make mistakes in the manner of seeking blessing from these relics out of ignorance etc such as what you described of raising hands but this in no way entails that what they're doing is shirk or even close to it.
Shirk comes into play as a result of peoples intention and belief, with the extreme shia and sufis this is something that one sees clearly but their actions shouldn't be conflated with those of the average muslims who while following their imams end up doing mistakes or even haram actions that they for the most part are ignorant about. Vast majority of muslims go to graves of either well known and trusted scholars, imams in their countries and end up doing disliked, prohibited actions around the graves of these people but this and of itself shouldn't be a reason to over exaggerate their actions to the extent of accusing them of shirk etc.
Unless one investigates and has clear cut evidence that leaves no room for doubt that they have indeed committed shirk the best course of action is to advise them with that which is better and correct their mistakes. When you also factor in that some scholars of the past allowed istighatha with the deceased etc it even becomes complex this is why issues such as shirk and kufr need to be approached carefully as the end result may have dire consequences etc.
A very sound post but the Salafis will ignore it.
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Laakin those with an open mind will be receptive to it and as for those who have not studied the salafi aqeedah properly other than what they've been taught or learnt themselves then we ask Allah to guide both them and us to that which is right.
You see alot of those who subscribe to the najdi dawah simply haven't researched much about it and take for granted that this the correct islam. If it took yasir qadhi more than a decade to leave this movement despite him knowing about the issues, having studied their aqeedah, being an active adherent of the movement what about the average muslim who lacks the skills, knowledge etc to be able to see the flaws, how long do you think it would take ?
Ameen Ya Rabb
Wallahi. What makes it worse is that it is a movement of slogans and polemics against Tassawuf and the Ashari Aqeeda to the point where you will see them put terms in brackets where they do not fit. I once had to rebuke a cousin of mine for quoting a text where Ibn Hajr mentioned Zindeeqs. In brackets, the translation had (Soofees and Christians). I said, ya akhi, this translator has lied upon Ibn Hajr and slandered the noble practitioners of Tassawuf in the past who were the ones who defended Islam time and time again.
Umar Tall, Omar Mukhtar, Ahmed Gurey, ect. All Sufis and all fought against gallos and colonialists.
Now name me one Salafi group that fought Gallos. The closest one is the Taliban and they're not really Salafi. Just some wild Afghans.
Salafiya has killed millions of Muslims in the past century. How many gallos have they fought?
AdoonkaAlle
Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
I completely understand, sometimes due to blind adherence and also fanaticism they end up editing the texts and put their own understanding. They do this especially when it comes to issues like tawassul where classical scholars not only said it was permissible but also encouraged it you will see comments of the editor giving their own opinion and understanding etc
My position is that not everyone who adheres to any one movement is the same some are more understanding while others are more extreme as such we should act accordingly to those whom we engage of any particular group.
Trending
-
-
Somali guy: "I love Arabs even if they mistreat me as an abeed"
- Started by Araabi
- Replies: 39
-
Don't you dare waste your opportunity in the West and don't get too comfortable!!- Started by πππππππ πππππ
- Replies: 102
