Archive

Archive for the ‘Shirk’ Category

Why only One God and not two or more than two gods? — Imam al-Tabari

September 11, 2017 Leave a comment

 

Our description has made it clear that the Creator and Originator of all things was before everything, that night and day and time and hours are originated, and that their Originator Who administers and manages them exists before them, since it is impossible for something to originate something unless its originator exists before it. (It is also clear that) God’s word:

“Don’t (the unbelievers) look at the camels (and reflect) how they were created, and at the heaven how it was raised, and at the mountains how they were set up, and at the earth how it was spread out flat? (Quran 88:17-20)

contains the most eloquent evidence and the most effective proofs for those who use reason to reflect and the mind to be instructed, that the Creator of all those things is eternal and that everything of their kind is originated and has a Creator that is not similar to them. That is because everything mentioned by our Lord in this verse, the mountains, the earth, the camels, is dealt with and administered by man, who may move it around and manage it, who may dig, cut, and tear down, none of which he is prevented from doing. Yet, beyond that, man is not able to bring anything of that into existence without a basis (to work from).

 

The conclusion is that the one who is incapable of originating those things could not have originated himself and that the one who is not prevented from managing and organizing whatever he wishes could not have been brought into existence by someone like himself and he did not bring himself into existence. Further, the One Who brought (man) up and gave him substantial (‘ayn) existence is the One Who is not incapable of (doing) anything He wishes, and He is not prevented from originating anything He wants. He is “God Unique and Forceful.” (Quran 12:39)

 

Someone might ask:

Why should it be disapprovable to assume that the things you have mentioned result from the action of two eternal (beings)?

The reply would be:

We disapprove of that because we find that the administration is continuous and the creation perfect. We say:

If the administrators were two, they would necessarily either agree or disagree. If they agree, the two would conceptually be one, and the one would be made two merely by positing two.

If they differ, it would be impossible to find the existence of the creation perfect and (its) administration continuous. For each one of two who differ does what is different from what his fellow does . If one gives life, the other causes death . If one of them produces existence, the other produces annihilation . It would thus be impossible for anything in creation to exist in the perfection and continuity it does.

God’s words: “If there were other gods except God in (heaven and earth), both would be ruined. Praised be God, Lord of the Throne, (who is above) what they describe“; (Quran 21:22) and: “God has not taken to Himself a child , and there has been no god together with Him. Otherwise, each god would have gone off with what he created and risen over the others. Praised be God (who is above) what they describe. He knows what is unseen and what is observable, and He is exalted above their associating (other gods with Him)” (Quran 23:91) -these words of God are the most eloquent evidence and the most concise explanation as well as the most effective proof for the falsehood of those falsehood-mongers who associate (other gods) with God.

 

That is because, if there were another god except God in the heavens and the earth, the condition of the two as to agreement and disagreement would necessarily be the one I have described. Saying that there may be agreement implies that saying they are two is wrong. It confirms the oneness of God and is an absurd statement in as much as the one who makes it calls the one two. Saying that there may be disagreement indicates ruin for the heavens and the earth, as our Lord says : “If there were other gods except God in them, both would be ruined.” (Quran 21:22) For if one originates and creates something, it would be the other’s business to put it out of existence and invalidate it. That is because the actions of two who differ are different, just as fire that warms and snow that cools what fire has warmed.

 

Another argument (would be this):

If it were (true) as those who associate other gods with God say, each one of the two whom they consider as eternal would necessarily be either strong or incapable.

 

If both were incapable , each one, being incapable, would be defeatable and not be a god.

 

If both were strong, each one of them, by virtue of being incapable of subduing the other, would be incapable and being incapable would not be a god.

 

If each one of them were strong enough to subdue the other, he, by virtue of the strength of the other to subdue him in turn, would be incapable. God is above the association of other gods with Him!

 

It has thus become clear that the Eternal One, the Creator and Maker of all things is the One Who existed before everything and Who will be after everything, the First before everything and the Last after everything. He existed when there was no momentary and extended time, no night and no day, no darkness and no light except the light of His noble face, no heaven and no earth, no sun and no moon and no stars. Everything but He is originated, administered and made. He alone by Himself created everything without an associate, helper, and assistant . Praised be He as powerful and forceful!

 

[The history of al-Tabari, vol. 1, pg. 218-220]

 

Advertisements

What is the validity of doing Nafth unto water?


 

[Nafth =puffing out breath with little saliva]

 

Question:

What is the validity of doing Nafth unto water?

 

Answer:

There are two types of Nafth.

One type is intended to seek the blessing of the one who does Nafth. This is definitely forbidden as a type of Shirk, for one‘s saliva is not a source of blessing. In fact, blessing is not to be sought in anybody‘s traces except in Prophet Muhammad‘s. It was true in his lifetime, and is still true on condition that his traces are there. Um-Salama kept some hair of the Prophet‘s in a silver container, and when a patient asked her for treatment, she washed the hair with water which was given to the patient to drink.

Except for the Prophet‘s case, no blessing is to be sought through anybody‘s saliva, sweat, garment, etc. Therefore, Nafth on water is considered a type of Shirk if the  aim is to get the blessing of the Raqi‘s saliva, for if one attributes I causes to other than Allah, it is considered a type of Shirk.

 

 

In the other type of Nafth, the Raqi does Nafth on a container of water on which Qur‘anic recitations were done. For example, Al-Fatiha — what a great cure Al-Fattha is – can be recited, and then Nafth can be done. This type of Ruqya was done by some Salaf, and it has proved effective by Allah‘s permission. When the Prophet went to bed, he used to recite Al Ikhlaas, AlFalaq and Aimas Suras, and to do Nafth into his own palms, which he passed over his face and over whatever parts of his body his palms would reach.

 

[Ifta‘ Permanent Committee, Fatwas on Treatment Using the Qur‘an and the Sunnah, Ruqyas and Related Issues, by Ibn-Baz and Ibn-Uthaimeen, pp.9-10]

 

“……………To Bura Maan Gaye”- A Poetry on Falsehood of Barelwis

January 14, 2014 7 comments

 

Umar Bhar Karte Rahe Shauk Se Shirk O Bidat,
Hamne Tawheed Ko Bataya To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Kaun Mardood Hai Gustakh e Rasool (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam),
Aa’ina Unn Ko Dikhaya To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Kunde Fatiha Shab e Barat aur Milad Nabi,
In Ko Bidat Bataya To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Maangte Rehte Hain Imdad Vo Sada Gairo Se,
Hamne Allah Ko Pukara To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Dete Rehte Hain Ye Gali Hame Har Sham O Shehar,
Haq Ka Paigam Sunaya To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Unchi Qabro Ko Gira Do, Hai Farman’e Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam),
Hamne Unko Jo Sunaya To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Dar-Badar Sar Ko Jhukana Nahi Shaan e Momin,
Hamne Ki Unn Ko Nasihat To Bura Maan Gaye

 

Shirk Hai Ye Taweez Ye Gande Ye Talsim,
Ye Farmaan E Nabi Unn Ko Sunaya to Bura Maan Gaye

 

Eating food prepared for a Christian festival

December 22, 2013 4 comments

What is the ruling on eating food prepared for a Christian festival? What is the ruling on accepting their invitation to their celebrations of the birth of the Messiah (peace be upon him) [i.e., Christmas celebrations]?

 

Praise be to Allaah.

It is not permissible to celebrate innovated festivals such as the Christmas of the Christians, or Nowrooz (Persian New Year) or Mahrajaan (Persian festival), or festivals that have been innovated by Muslims such as the Prophet’s birthday in Rabee’ al-Awwal or the Israa’ in Rajab and so on.

It is not permissible to eat from that food which the Christians or Mushrikeen prepare on the occasion of their festivals.

It is also not permissible to accept their invitations to join them in their celebrations of those festivals, because this encourages them and is tantamount to approving of their bid’ah, which gives the wrong idea to ignorant people and makes them think that there is nothing wrong with that. And Allah knows best.

From Al-Lu’lu’ al-Makeen min Fataawaa Ibn Jibreen, p. 27.
Taken from Islamqa

[Part1] The Heretical and Deviant Concepts Of The Bareilwi’s & Soofee’s and their Likes.

August 13, 2013 3 comments

 

Malfoozaat (writings) is a book of Ahmad Radha Khaan (d.1340/1921) who was the founder of the Indian subcontinent sect known as Bareilwi’s. However this word has been misconstrued and translated as Ahlus- Sunnah Wal-Jamaah which is highly erroneous. The Bareilwee’s however do not like to use this term rather they use terms, which are synonymous with soofee terminology. For example they will attribute themselves to one of the soofee tareeqah like, Qaadiree or Naqshbandee and so on. In essence they are bareilwees, which is best understood to be a subsect of soofism and it is related to the more vast classification of soofism by the tareeqahs.

 
The western Soofee sympathisers and propagators in the west like Hishaam Kabbanee, Nuh Ha Meem Keller, Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Abdul-Hakim Muraad, Gibril Fouad Haddaad and others all promote and endorse Ahmad Radha Khaan and his works, they defend him, revere him and promote him in whatever form possible, sometimes directly and most directly when answering questions. We will mention some statements from this book, which will highlight some defective and corrupt beliefs of the bareilwis. Some of these examples will clearly show some of the shirk of the bareilwis which propagate and secondly it will shed some light on the beliefs of bareilwi church father, Ahmad Radha khaan.

 

(1) Ahmad Radha Khaan was asked are their muslims amongst jinns and angels. He replied,

“An angel became muslim and she would often come to visit me. One day she did not come so I questioned her, she replied, “One of my close friends died in Hindustaan (Hindh-Early day India) so I went there and on the way I saw Iblees praying the salah.”

(Malfoozaat (1/29).

 

 

(2) Someone asked Ahmad Radha Khaan concerning the drowning of Junaid Baghdaadee when he said ‘Yaa Allaah’ (Oh Allaah). Ahmad Radha Khaan replies, “It was the river of Hadeeqah where Sayyidee Junaid Baghdadee was travelling and he started to walk on the water as he did on the land. Another man who was behind him who also needed to get across the river but there was no boat at the time. He saw Junaid walking across the water so he asked, “How may I cross” so Junaid said, “Say Yaa Junaid Yaa Junaid (Oh Junaid Oh Junaid). So the man did as he was told and he started to walk on the water as he did on land. When he reached  the middle, The accursed Shaytaan put whisperings in his heart that Junaid is saying Yaa Allaah and he said to me to say Yaa Junaid. So I also started saying Yaa Allaah, and immediately he fell into the water??? he said, “Oh Junaid im going (to die).” So Junaid said, “Say Yaa Junaid Yaa Junaid.” I started to say it again and eventually i crossed the river.” when they were both across the man behind said to Junaid, “Why is it that when you say ‘Yaa Allaah’ you walk and do not drown and when I say ‘Yaa Allaah’ I drown.” Junaid said,

“Oh childish one, you have not even reached Junaid yet and you want to reach Allaah.”

(Malfoozaat (1/131).

 

This is the belief of the Bareilwi soofees that The accursed Shaytaan put whisperings in his heart to say Yaa Allaah and you have clearly read that the soofees call the people to their worship as did Junaid here.

 

 

(3) Ahmad Radha Khaan writes,

“There were Two walee’s and they lived either side of a wide river, one day one of them made rice pudding and told his servant to take it to his friend. The servant replied “Master, how can I, there is a river in the way, how will I get across, I have no sailing equipment” the man replied “go to the river and say to it I have come from a man who has not slept with his wife”. The servant was amazed as the walee had children nonetheless he thought it was important to follow what the walee had said. He did as he was instructed and immediately a path formed between the river, he walked across and gave it to the other walee who ate the rice pudding and said “Give my salaam to your Master” the servant replied “I can only do that when I get across the river” The walee replied say to the river “I have come from the one who has not eaten for 30 years” the servant was amazed as the walee (Supposed Pious man) had just eaten in front of him, he got to the river and did as he was told and another path was formed between the river gave him way and he walked across.”

(Malfoozaat (1/131-132).

 

 

(4) Ahmad Radha Khaan writes,

“Our peer (holy men) can be present in every place in 10,000 places in 10,000 cities at one time” and he gives an example, “it was possible for Sayyidee Fathe Muhammad Quddus to be present in 10 different gatherings at once.”

 

Then Ahmad Radha gives an evidence for this which was, “Look at Krishan Kehnayyah, he was a disbeliever and he would also be present in a number of places at once.”

(Malfoozaat (1/141-142).

 

 
Ao’odhoobillah, look at this in order to substantiate his aqeedah of shirk he gives the example of the hindu mushrik kaafir god. Furthermore we thought the soofees bareilwis held the beliefs that Allaah was incarnate (hulool) and present everywhere (Wahdatul-Wajood-Unity of existence) we did not know they held the same corruptive and false belief for their holy men.

 

 

(5) Ahmad Radha Khaan says,

“The earth and heavens cannot remain in existence if it were not for the presence of a Ghauth.”

(Malfoozaat (1/142).

 

 
A gauth is a person who (according to the soofee bareilwis) has been given special rights and authority by Allaah to look after the affairs of the creation. This is clear Shirk in the Lordship of Allaah by the Soofee Bareilwis as even the Mushrikeen of Makkah did not hold this belief.

 

Furthermore we ask the bareilwis soofees a question, that if this is the case then we would like to know the name of the gauth of this time and the names of the previous ones who kept the earth in existence.

 

[Comp. & Trans: Abu Hibbaan & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari]

[Taken from: http://ahlulhadeeth.wordpress.com/]

 

Fabricated narration in Kitab at-Tawhid- Explanation by Shaikh Saalih al Uthaymeen

August 3, 2013 5 comments

 

Ibn Abbas (May Allah be pleased with him) commented upon verse of Qur’an ‘But when He gave them a Salih (good in every aspect) child, they ascribed partners to Him’: ” When Adam had sexual relation with Eve, she became pregnant. At that time Iblis (Satan) came to them and said “I am the one who caused your expulsion from Paradise. Obey me, otherwise I shall cause your child to grow two horns like a deer by which he will puncture your belly when he comes out! I will do it! I will do it!” Satan thus frightened them (Adam and Eve) and said to name the boy “Abdul-Harith;’ (slave of the earth cultivator). They (Adam and Eve) did not obey him (Satan) and a dead child was born to them. When Eve became pregnant a second time, Satan again approached them and repeated the same demand but again they did not obey. And the second child was still born dead. She [Eve] became pregnant a third time, Satan again came to them and put the same demand mentioning what had happened before. Adam and Eve were overcome by love for the child and named the boy “Abdul-Harith (slave of the earth cultivator)”. And this is what Allah said (in the verse): “They made partners with Him for what they were given”.

[Reported by Ibn Abi Hatim]

Tawheed

Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen [rahimahullah] said: And this story is false from number of angles:

1] That there is no authentic narration concerning that from Prophet Muhammed [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] – and it is from the kind of information that cannot be obtained except by revelation and Ibn Hazm said concerning this story, “Indeed it is a report that is superstitious lie.”

 

 

2] If this story was concerning Adam and Eve, then they either made repentance from the Shirk or died upon it, so whoever makes it permissible to hold that a single one of the Prophets died upon shirk than that is something severely wrong. And if they repented from Shirk, then it does not befit the wisdom, justice and mercy of Allah, that He mentions their mistakes and not their repentance from it. When Allah, the Most High, mentions the mistakes of some of the Prophets and Messengers, He mentions their repentance from it, as in the story of Adam and his wife, when he ate from the tree and they repented from it.

 

 

3] That the Prophets are protected from shirk by the agreement of Scholars.

 

 

4] That it is confirmed in the hadith of intercession, that the people will come to Adam and seek intercession from him, then he will excuse himself, due to eating from the tree and that is a sin, and if shirk had occurred from him, it would have been stronger excuse.

 

 

5] That in this story it is mentioned that Shaytan came to them and said: ‘I am your companion who got you out of paradise’, so if he said that, they would have known with certainty that he was an enemy to them and would not accept anything from him.

 

 

6] That in this story is his saying: ‘I will cause it to have horns that will puncture her belly….’, if he believed that it is possible he could actually do that, then this is shirk in Lordship because none but Allah is able to do that. And if he didn’t believe it was possible, then it is not possible to accept his saying.

 

 

7] The saying of Allah, the Most High: ‘Exalted be Allah above what they associate with Him’ [7:190] The pronoun is plural and if it was concerning Adam and Eve, it would have been in the dual form… But what is correct is that Al-Hasan [rahimahullah] said: ‘Indeed those intended in this verse are not Adam and Eve’, and what is meant is the polytheists from the children of Adam (descendants), as was mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his tafisr.

[See Al Qawl al Mufeed, 2/156-157]

 

Source: salafimanahj.com

O Grave worshippers! We want Answers

March 31, 2013 1 comment

 

10 questions for the  Grave  worshipers  (Qabarparast).

 

In Indian peninsula and else where, it is quite common to invoke a dead person for example like yaa Khwaja, yaa Ali, etc etc, for situations when they need help.

 

So here is a list of queries that such a person should be asked:

 

1.

Can the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, hear from a long distance?

 

For eg. people can invoke Khwaja Ajmeri from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, USA, Canada, etc. from all over the world.

 

Can he, i.e., Khwaja Ajmeri, can hear them from such a long distance.

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

2.

Can the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, hear simultaneously from many people at the same time (Multitasking)?

 

For eg. many people may invoke Khwaja Ajmeri from all over the world at the same time.

 

Can he, i.e., Khwaja Ajmeri, can hear them at the same time or a queue is required.

 

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

 

3.

Can the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, understand all the different languages?

 

Because there are many different languages and dialects throughout the world.

A Tamil will invoke or call upon in tamil language.

A Srilankan will invoke or call upon in sinhalese language.

A Britisher will invoke or call upon in english language.

A French will invoke or call upon in french language.

A Chinese will invoke or call upon in chinese language.

An Indonesian will invoke or call upon in indonesian language.

An Arab will invoke or call upon in arabic language.

A Japanese will invoke or call upon in japanese language.

 

Sometimes it also happens that the person (for e.g., Khawaja Ajmeri) whom people are calling upon or invoking, died as an illiterate. So is it that, after his death, can he understands all the different languages and dialects?

 

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

 

4.

Can the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, can hear a dumb person or can he hear a person who is invoking him or calling upon him in his heart?

“And Allah is Knowing of that within the breasts.” 3.154

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

5.

Whether the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, needs to sleep or take a break? Or he (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri) is ever awake and doesn’t require a rest?

 

As we know very well that Allah (Subhanahu wataala) never requires a sleep or rest as follows:

“Allah! There is no god but Him: the Living, the Eternal. He neither slumbers nor sleeps.” – 2.255

 

If the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, needs to sleep or take a break then we must have a time table so as to when we should call or invoke him so that he may not get disturbed or the call should not get unheard.

 

For instance, the person may be calling or invoking YA KHWAJA al madad, but KHWAJA might be having a nap, so no help for the poor caller.

 

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

 

6.

Can the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, solve all the problems of the people?

 

If that is the case, then what is the use of Allah (nauzbillah)? Or else if the person (for e.g., Khawaja Ajmeri) has a limitations, then in such a case, we must have a list of things that the person (for e.g., Khawaja Ajmeri), can resolve and what he cannot.

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

 

7.

Can the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, cause harm to the people or his duty is just to lend a safe hand for the people in trouble?

 

Has anyone heard that KHWAJA AJMERI causes people to be in trouble?

 

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

 

8.

Who causes the people to be in trouble? Is it the person (for e.g., Khwaja Ajmeri), dead or alive, or Allah (Subhanahu Wataala)?

 

If Allah (Subhanahu Wataala) causes the people to be in trouble and the person, dead or alive, he delivers people from their miseries then, naudhubillah, Allah (Subhanahu Wataala) would be considered as an oppressor whereas the person, dead or alive, would be considered as a helper.

 

“And if Allah afflicts you with any harm, then none can remove it except Him; and if He wanted good for you, then none can turn away His grace, He brings it to whom He wishes of His servants. And He is the Forgiver, the Merciful.” – 10.107

 

 

 

9.

If Allah (Subhanahu Wataala) is adamant on causing harm and the person, dead or alive, is adamant on relieving the caller, then who will win?

 

Allah says: “Indeed your Lord is the Doer of what He wills” [Sûrah Hûd: 107] and “(He is the) Doer of what He wills.” [Sûrah al-Burûj: 16]

 

 

10.

If someone dies, then to whom shall we call upon or invoke for salvation for that dead person?

So if you can call upon Allah (Subhanahu Wataala) after the death of any person then why not call upon Him alone when you are alive for other benefits.

 

This is a very simple task for Allah (Subhanahu wataala) but is it possible for Khwaja Ajmeri also?

 

[ From lecture of Shaikh Meraj Rabbani (hafizahullah)]

 

%d bloggers like this: