Misconceptions of Istighathah and Tawassul - Part 1
[Thread]
Misapplying Qur'anic verses-
One of their arguments is that, as the Qur'an says, the idolators believe in Allah and believe that He is the one Who created the heavens and the earth, but despite this, they worship idols and deify them. They say that Muslims who
believe in Tawassul and Istighāthah are no different to these idolators. The truth is however, that there are three key differences between these idolators and Muslims who believe in Tawassul and Istighathah:
1. The idolators believe God will not benefit them due to their rejection of the resurrection and the other tenets of belief, such as the Pool (Hawdh), Paradise etc.
2. Alongside their belief in Allah, the disbelievers deified Idols and took them as gods, as Allah says, 'Did they make their gods one God?'
3. The idolators believed that the idols could benefit them and harm them independently of Allah. The Muslims who believe in Tawassul and Istighathah, however, do not believe that the righteous have the ability to benefit or harm independently of Allah.
The usage of the verse,
ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى زلفى
"We worship them only that they may bring us closer to Allah"
Clearly as stated in this verse, 'we worship them'. Indeed, worshipping any other than Allah is shirk as He is the only one worthy of worship.
Muslims who believe in Tawassul and Istighathah do not worship the righteous when calling upon them. Linguistically understood as calling. The people who oppose Tawassul and Istighathah then use the Hadīth, 'Du'aa is an essence of worship/Du'aa is worship'.
It is apparent that this Hadīth is referring to the Du'aa which is used by Muslims as worship. Du'aa is translated as 'calling', therefore it has to be broken down into to baskets:
1. Calling upon someone affirming the belief that he will benefit you independently (which is also the Du'aa we make to Allah)
2. Calling as general usage (which we do on a daily basis when calling a person for eg. "Oh Zaid! Give me the cup!"
From this, we have understood that if the Hadīth was applied for 'calling', then people are committing shirk everyday, as they are 'calling'. The two baskets states the two understandings of Du'aa.
Furthermore, as the Hadīth states in one of its variations, 'is an essence'
It implies that worship is needful of not only the act, rather it requires the belief in Allah, as well. When a person prays his daily prayer, without reading the required prescriptions; will his prayer be accepted? When a person prays our prayer, without the belief in Allah,
was it classed as a Ibaadah?
ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى**
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. To express the perfection of his power, for perfect and complete power expressed all types of things, the moral, the immoral, good, bad, benefit and harm. If it was restricted to only a [few] types in opposition to other types, then it is deficient.
Therefore, in the creation of different types, there is an expression of His complete and perfect power, and also the subjugation of His will.
2. To express independence from His creation and He exalts any need in sense of their worship and obedience.
3. To express the beauty/goodness of Imān and all types of worship to match it with the ugliness of Kufr and sins.
Since the beauty of Imān can be acknowledged by the intellect, we must also he able to acknowledge the ugliness of Kufr and sin. By that, the servant appreciates
What is worship ('Ibādah) according to Imām Abū Hanīfah?
He was asked: "Tell me about worship, what is it?"
He replied: "the term worship combines obedience with desire, fearfulness and affirmation of Lordship.
This is due to the fact that when the slave obeys Allāh in faith,
then hope and fear from Allāh enters his heart, so when these three qualities enter his heart, then indeed he has worshipped him.
(Note how he includes Rububiyyah in worship)
And a person cannot be a believer without hope and fear in Allāh, but there are believers with lesser or more hope than others. A person who obeys anyone in fear of punishment from him, or hope of his reward without Allāh [giving him initially], has indeed worshipped him.
Massive L for this Qadiyani clown, completely misses out the Istidlal before which mentions the Hadith that "Allah did not make Shifā in that which has been made Haram for you"...contrasting with khamr becoming Halal for the thirsty one in a necessary state, likewise when
one is in absolute need and has certainty that the act mentioned by Ibn 'Ābidīn will bring Shifā, then it absolutely necessity it will be permissible. But ofc, this Kafir doesn't want to mention istidlal and context because he is half brained and also doesn't know basic Fiqh.
Also hilarious how he doesn't even translate ضرورة and makes it general 🤣
cannot be together in one state, nor can he be limited and unlimited in one stated due to the meeting of two opposites, and that is all impossible.
He also states, Allah isn't encompassed by the six directions, rather he encompasses them and limits them. He also mentions Allah
is described of fawq mutlaq - complete aboveness which Allah already had before he created creation, thereby negating that Allah literally enters his creation or becomes above it after it starts existing.
The first point has a very simple answer, that is because those who they debated, including their followers were known for ascribing encompassment to Allah.
Al-Iskāfī (d.220 AH), Ja'far bin Mubashar (d. 234 AH), 'Ulāf (d. 235 AH), Ja'far bin Harb (236 AH) and al-Jubbā'i (303 AH)
who are who the majority of Mu'tazilah are following – they all state Allah is in every place. Hence, the scholars would not only adhere to freeing Allah from direction itself, but rather also transcending Him from any type of encompassment and mixing with creation.
At-Tahāwī's words are very clear in his celebrated 'aqídah text. Besides that, the translation is completely wrong and the pronouns relate to the previous sentence if we go by these manuscripts. Nevertheless, even if At-Tahāwī stated Allāh being above, it will be an aboveness
1. This does not even change anything about Abū Hanīfah seeing it as shirk or not as dislike is a Fiqhi matter
2. An-Nātifī [d. 446], who proceeds Ibn Abil-'Izz, explains the statement of seeking closeness by the 'Arsh is because it implies Allah is settled upon the 'Arsh.
3. The statement 'it should be forbidden' is Ibn Abil-'Izz, not Imāmuna nor Sahibayn. Furthermore, there is a difference between something being disliked and something being forbidden.
Dislike = Makruh Tahrimi
Forbidden = Haram
4. Nevertheless, it does not change anything, as Abū Hanīfah and the companions are remaining in Mas'alah Fiqhiyyah.