Thread by @ClassicalMuslim

𝗖𝗢𝗥𝗥𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗙𝗜𝗬𝗬𝗔𝗛:
𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗸 𝘂𝗿-𝗿𝘂𝗯𝘂̄𝗯𝗶𝘆𝘆𝗮𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗯𝗶̄𝘆𝗮𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗝𝗮̄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗶̄ 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗯𝘀

How Allah's response to the mushrikūn's talbīyah reveals their shirk ur-rubūbiyyah as well as a major error in Salafi doctrine.

ᴄᴏɴᴛᴇɴᴛs
[1] The Salafi argument

Proofs against Salafiyyah:
[2] Sūra 30:28
[3] Sūra 17:111
[4] Sūra 12:106

[5] Conclusion: the "partners" the mushriks ascribed to Allah were their lords and the talbīyah is evidence 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 Salafis, not for them.

[1] ᴛʜᴇ sᴀʟᴀғɪ ᴀʀɢᴜᴍᴇɴᴛ

The hadith sources tell us that during their hajj the Jāhilī Arabs used to chant the following prayer, known as the talbīyah:

‘At Your service, O Allah! You have no partner – except the partner that You have; You own him and whatever he owns.’

[1.2]
For those new to this topic, Salafis use this to say that the mushriks did not believe their idols to be 𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠 (having ownership/power over creation), since they believed Allah 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑒 had this status (𝑡𝑎𝑤ℎ𝑖̄𝑑 𝑢𝑟-𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑢̄𝑏𝑖𝑦𝑦𝑎ℎ).

[1.3]
Thus, Salafis insist that the partners the mushriks ascribed to Allah were not partners "in His lordship" but rather "in His worship" - meaning, they committed shirk by giving a share of their ritual acts of worship that should be for Allah alone, to their idols as well.

[1.4]
Salafis then make the analogy that a Muslim who seeks intercession with Allah by addressing those in the grave for intercession/shafā’ah, has likewise made a "partner in worship" - because he has "shared" an act of worship (calling for help) with other than Allah.

[1.5]
By contrast, the orthodox Sunni position is that the mushriks did regard the idols (their "partners with Allah") as 𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠, believing they had a share of power/ownership over creation. Thus they had NO 𝑡𝑎𝑤ℎ𝑖̄𝑑 𝑢𝑟-𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑢̄𝑏𝑖𝑦𝑦𝑎ℎ as Salafis claim.

[1.6]
The proof is in sūras 30:28, 17:111 and 12:106 which the Sahāba, tabʿīn and mufassirūn (evidenced below) all say were revealed in response to the mushriks' talbīyah. This is critical because how Allah responds to someone's claim 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 how we understand that claim.

[1.6/2]
If a mushrik says "Allah has a partner" and Allah responds, "No there are no other lords besides Me" this means that by the word "partner" the mushrik intended 𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑑. The true meaning of the mushrik's words lies in Allah's judgment, not some group's interpretation.

[2] ғɪʀsᴛ ʀᴇsᴘᴏɴsᴇ
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 & 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗲-𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿 [𝗔𝗿-𝗥𝘂̄𝗺 𝟯𝟬:𝟮𝟴]

Let's begin with the following Qur’anic analogy, which was revealed, according to the salaf, in direct response to the mushrikūn's talbīyah:

[2.2]
The salaf who confirmed that this ayah was Allah’s response to the mushrikūn's talbīyah include:
• Ibn ʿAbbās (sahābi)
• Ibn Jubayr (tabiʿī)
• Muqātil (tabʿī)

[2.3] 𝗔𝗻 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗱
The mushriks claimed Allah had partners "He owned". Allah responds that this is like a master who shares his wealth equally with his slave, so that the slave becomes a partner and the master now fears him as his equal.

[2.3/2]
Likewise, if Allah shared what He owned (i.e. creation) with His slave, that slave would become an equal/partner in owning a part of creation.

An owner of creation is a 𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑑.

That's why the master would fear him, for a partner is a potential rival.

[2.3/3]
Note that the slave's "ownership" is not dependent on the master's permission. He owns 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦, just like the master, and is free to do as he wills with his property. Again, this is why the master would fear him, because he's now a rival 𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟.

[2.3/4]
So Allah is saying: "None of you have slaves that you would share your wealth equally with, for if you did they would become rivals which you'd fear could overpower you. So if 𝑦𝑜𝑢 would not make your slaves equal partners, how can you make such a claim about Allah?"

[2.3/5]
In summary, the "partners" they worshipped were regarded as their lords/co-owners of creation, and this understanding conforms to that of all the mufassirūn. Here, for instance, is Aṭ-Ṭabarī and Ibn ul-Jawzī:

[2.4] 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗯𝗶̄𝘆𝗮𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗱
Allah's analogy exposes an absurd paradox in the talbīyah: you can't claim someone is a partner (equal in ownership/status/lordship) with the master and, 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒, say that the master still owns them.

[2.4/2]
You cannot be both a 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑟 and 𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑑 at the same time. Remember, in the analogy, the master fears the slave, as by making him a co-sharer he now has a potential threat, a rival to be feared like other free men. Thus, in reality, the partner cannot be owned.

[2.5] 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆

So far…
• The mushriks' talbīyah is an absurd paradox, exposed as shirkul-rubūbiyyah.
• Allah's response completely contradicts the Salafi understanding.
• Salafi use of this "evidence" shows they prefer a mushrik's absurd claims over Allah's Judgement.

[3] sᴇᴄᴏɴᴅ ʀᴇsᴘᴏɴsᴇ
𝗔 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘁𝘆 [𝗔𝗹-𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮̄ʾ 𝟭𝟳:𝟭𝟭𝟭]

The shirk ur-rubūbiyyah in the verse just discussed is consistent with sūra 17:111, which the tabʾī authority al-Qurāḍī says, was also revealed in response to the talbīyah:

[3.2]
Mulk refers to what Allah owns (creation) and has authority/power over. So when Allah rejects a partner in His mulk as a response to the mushriks’ talbīyah, we know that the 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 meaning of "partner" in the talbīyah is a co-sharer who owns & rules creation, i.e. a lord.

[3.3]
Allah’s response, again, reveals the mushriks’ talbīyah to be shirk ur-rubūbiyyah and this is echoed in the definition of 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑟𝑘 given in Lisān ul-ʿArab (the most authoritative Arabic dictionary):

[4] ᴛʜɪʀᴅ ʀᴇsᴘᴏɴsᴇ
...𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗿𝗶𝗸𝘀 [𝗬𝘂̄𝘀𝘂𝗳 𝟭𝟮:𝟭𝟬𝟲]

Now for the final verse.

The tabʾī authorities ad-Dahhāk and Ibn Zayd interpret the following verse as Allah’s response to the mushrik’s talbīyah:

[4.2]
Imām aṭ-Ṭabarī cites this narration in his tafsīr. His interpretation of the verse, therefore, tells us how he understood the mushriks’ talbīyah – and, like the previous verses we have seen, he regards the “partners” in their talbīyah as their lords:

[4.3]
There is a logic to aṭ-Ṭabarī’s comment: the mushriks worshipped the idols because they believed they were lords; they regarded them as lords because they believed they were Allah's literal offspring, who, like all offspring, inherit the attributes of their parent.

[4.4]
This is not aṭ-Ṭabarī’s personal reading. The identification of the mushriks’ “children of Allah” as their lords is in the Qur’an itself. When the mushriks claimed Allah had offspring (23:91; 53:19-21) Allah’s response below shows that they understood them to be lords.

[5] ᴄᴏɴᴄʟᴜsɪᴏɴ

Allah has exposed the mushriks' talbiyah 3 times as proof of their shirkur-rubūbiyyah. Knowing this, any Salafi who uses the talbiyah to say "the mushriks did not ascribe lordship to their idols" has thrown aside Allah’s words for that of a mushrik's.