Be in the Know...With Marifah.net
The other day I came across a hot new traditional Islamic site which promises to rank right up there with Masud.co.uk and Living Islam due to its excellent collection of articles exposing the errors of the so-called "Salafis". The site is called Marifah.net, and they have sections covering Aqidah, Fiqh, Hadith and Tasawwuf.
I've already printed and read most of the articles on the site, and while in some cases similar content can be found elsewhere, quite a few of the articles are original translations previously unavailable in English (at least as far as I know). I especially enjoyed Assessment of the Division of Tawhid into Uluhiyya and Rububiyya since it very effectively deconstructs and exposes the errors of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (from whose name the "Wahhabi" eponym is derived).
Insha'llah, this article will be of great value to those Muslims who have been duped by the "Salafi" misuse and abuse of Qur'anic verses relating to the beliefs of the pagan Arabs and other idolaters. This is especially because, to the uninformed, the "Salafi" explanation of these verses often seems to make sense, as does their applying these same Qur'anic verses to the practices of Muslims who (allegedly) "worship saints and tombs." Unfortunately for the "Salafis" there's another view that all thinking Muslims need to consider, and that's the view of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah...which is exactly what the article in question sheds some light on. So all the Muslims out there, especially converts in the West, who have concluded that the "Salafi" 'aqîdah, including their three types of tawhîd, is beyond reproach...well stand by for a shock.
As Assessment of the Division of Tawhid into Uluhiyya and Rububiyya ably shows, there are plenty of Qur'anic verses that simply do not fit into the narrow interpretations of the "Salafis"—who are ironically adhering to an understanding that came about long after the time of the true Salaf, as the article makes clear:
"Their view that tawhîd divides into uluhiyya and rububiyya was unheard of before Ibn Taymiyya and is unimaginable as you shall soon learn. The Messenger of Allah—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—did not say to anyone who accepted Islam ‘there are two tawhîds, and unless you single out Allah in uluhiyya you are not a Muslim’ and neither did he demonstrate this in a single discourse and this was not heard from a single member of the salaf who they [the followers of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn `Abdul Wahhab] boast of following in everything."This erudite exposé goes on to demonstrate that, as always, the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah agrees with all of the textual evidence, not just a few conveniently selected Qur'anic verses which are subjected to hermeneutical distortion.
Not only that—and possibly more importantly—the article addresses head-on the "Salafi" (i.e. Wahhabi) claim that the pagan Arabs were monotheists in tawhid al-Rubuiyya, since they had only "one Lord", but polytheists in tawhid al-Uluhiyya’ since they worshipped idols. I encourage anyone who has bought into, or been bamboozled by, this "Salafi" distortion of the Qur'anic text to read and reflect on the proofs in this article, since they clearly demonstrate that the "Salafi" construct is haphazard and untenable. This is of utmost importance in these trying times when the Muslim Ummah, already under external attack from all sides, is being internally poisoned by a narrow, divisive and intolerant brand of Islam that not only imprudently brands large numbers of Muslims as disbelievers, but implies that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars were misguided for the overwhelming majority of Islamic history. Once this is realized and understood, it's easy to see why the Salafi-Wahhabi movement has been labeled Neo-Khawarij, since those who adhere to this heresy "took (Qur'anic) verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the believers” [related in Sahih al-Bukhari]...so reflect on that.
Insha'llah, there will be a lot more to come from Marifah.net...
Labels: Ibn Taymiyyah, Salafism, Theology - Islamic, Wahhabism
posted by @ 1:09 AM
Comment Guidelines
10 comments
10 Comments:
Salaamun 'alaikum,
that is an excellent piece that implodes the Salafi-Wahhabi position on Tawassul.
Fi Amanillah
assalamu alaikum,
sidi what do you have to say about the following:
http://philomantis.wordpress.com/2007/02/10/ibn-arabis-classifications-of-tawhid/
-nuqtah
www.nuqtah.muslimpad.com
As-salamu 'alaykum,
Excellent question! There seems to be a difference of opinion on this matter, even amongst traditional 'ulama, although these differences might be more apparent than real. I think many of those who strongly condemn the so-called "three categories of tawhîd"—going so far as to mockingly call it the "Wahhabi Trinity"—do so not because it's totally baseless, but because of how this man-made dogma is used.
Indeed, in the methodology (minhaj) of so-called "Salafis", not only are these categories very much the focal point of their teachings, but they are adhered to in a very rigid and dogmatic way. This is so much so that denial of the "three categories of tawhîd" is tantamount to kufr and apostasy. So even though these categories aren't similar to the Christian Trinity in any theological sense (and they actually might be useful in showing the flaws in Trinitarian beliefs), they have fallen victim to the same phenomenon in which a man-made doctrine is given such a lofty, dogmatic, rigid and quasi-divine status by some people that it becomes a blunt instrument for determining who is and is not a proper believer. Needless to say, Ibn 'Arabi didn't use the categories of tawhîd in this way...
There's another article on Marifah.net which puts forward the position that what's wrong with the categories of tawhîd is not the categories themselves, but the way in which they were used by Ibn Taymiyya and Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab. So please read The Divisions of Tawhid, in which it says:
"The first person to classify [or invent] tawhîd into three categories as described above was Ibn Taymiyya. And along with this classification, [and based on it] he followed it up with invalidating intercession (tawassul) of messengers and pious people. He branded those who believe in intercession as polytheists and considered them out of Islam with the claim that such intercession invalidates the Unity of Worship (tawhid al-uluhiyya). He thus attributed polytheism (shirk) to pious predecessors and leaders among Muslim scholars because they allowed intercession. By doing this, he fell into a great mistake and manifest heresy. However, if we reflect upon this matter, we realize that such a classification is correct in principle even though false and invalid in its purpose."
So really the issue is not the categories themselves, but how they've been put to an incorrect use. I feel it's worth mentioning, however, that the author of the above article accepts Ibn Taymiyya's claim that the pagan Arabs (mushrikîn) believed in tawhîd al-rububiyya, although based on the article discussed in my original posting above, I feel this position has been shown to be untenable. Indeed, even if the pagan Arabs paid lipservice to so-called tawhîd al-rububiyya, in the same way Christians do, that doesn't mean that their tawhîd al-rububiyya is wholly correct...which is a point that Ibn Taymiyya seemingly missed...wa Allahu 'alim.
Thanks for the comments!
Assalam-o-Alaikum,
Very nice review and i love the site too. It looks very promising MashAllah.
Walaikum us salaam
assalamu alaikum,
Jzak Allahu khair for the response. Whether or not I wholly agree with your conclusions, is not the issue here.
But in the light of the article I linked to, the claim that:
""The first person to classify [or invent] tawhîd into three categories as described above was Ibn Taymiyya"
...seems rather inaccurate, Wallahu a'alam.
Wassalaamu alaikum.
As-salamu 'alaykum,
As far as "The first person to classify [or invent] tawhîd into three categories as described above was Ibn Taymiyya" being inaccurate...well maybe not. If you notice, the last line of the article you linked to about Ibn `Arabi’s Classifications of Tawhîd says: "Finally, Ibn `Arabi went on to determine 36 categories of Tawhîd in all."
This is quite significant, since I'm rather confident that Ibn 'Arabi didn't say that there are "36 and only 36" categories of tawhîd, which would almost smack of a definition of Allah—similar to those who incorrectly believe that Allah's names are limited to 99 rather than being infinite (or at least unknown).
Although I'm not certain if their doctrinal rigidity in this regard and be traced directly back to Ibn Taymiyya, the "Salafis" who claim to be his followers today staunchly insist that there are three and only three categories (or classifications) of tawhîd. Indeed, any group or scholar that promotes or argues for a fourth category of tawhîd, such as tawhîd al-hakimiyya, is promptly labeled with charges of innovation, misguidance and heresy.
So in the final analysis the statement that, "The first person to classify [or invent] tawhîd into three categories as described above was Ibn Taymiyya" might well be correct, especially since the article that was put forward in order refute this showed that Ibn 'Arabi had 36, not 3, categories of tawhîd. As far as I know, no one has ever charged Ibn Taymiyya with being the first one to talk about tawhîd in such a manner, but Allahu 'alim. I know that some scholars of the past categorized tawhîd in four, not three categories, although I'm not sure if they did this before or after Ibn Taymiyya's time. However, I am quite certain that they didn't use their four categories to anathemize Muslims. Ultimately, as I stated above, the real concern about the three categories of tawhîd, as put forward by Ibn Taymiyya and his followers, was the rigid and takfiri way in which they used the categories...wa Allahu 'alim.
assalamu alaikum,
there is a very good article refuting the pope theologically by sh. sai'd fawdah.
Wa 'alaykumu as-salam wa rahmatullah,
So far, I've only read portions of the Christians and Greek Philosophy article, but based on the parts that I have read, I would recommend Benedict XVI and Islam, by Abdal Hakim Murad, instead.
Anyway, the fact that the Thomist theology of the Roman Catholic Church is dependent on Greek philosophy and contains elements that are unacceptable to Islamic monotheism is certainly true.
In contrast, Sunni Islam was rather critical of Greek philosophy. In the end, it's interesting to see that Sunni theologians, namely the Ash'aris, took a middle course between not rejecting Greek thought in toto nor using it as a foundation for their theological views, but rather established a striking balance between revelation and reason...giving slight favor to the former.
We shouldn't want it any other way, since if putting revelation before reason is not what Abrahamic monotheism is all about, then what is? Certainly not saying, "Excuse me, O Controller of Every Atom in the Universe, I find your commandment regarding such-and-such to be unreasonable"...and may God save us from all that. I pray that He gives us all the faith to bow in submission as our forefather Abraham did—peace and blessings be upon him and all of his noble offspring...Amin.
The article though shows the essence of the pope's claim. The pope claims that Islam is unreasonable since it does not conform to greek philosophy, this is his basic syllogism if you look through the text of his speech. Since Christianity conforms to greek thought then it is 'reasonable.'
Sh. Sai'd Fawdah, who taught kalam to Sh. Nuh Keller, shows that greek philosophy (a) has many illogical assertions, (b) is a vast array of schools of thought and not one, (c) that Muslims did take those good things from greek philosophy that did not contradict reason.
If you look at tawheed from the point of view of theoritical vs action-based, you get the bipartite division. And if you wish to look at the fact that the majority of mankind affirms Allah to be the Rabb, yet do not worship Him or affirm His perfect Nature, you get the tripartite division.
Consider the Hindus and I have had the opportunity to discuss theology with them many times. The standard response you get from an educated practicing hindu is that "Hinduism like Islam believes that there is one creator." So are they consider monotheists?
A classification of tawhid has been used throughout islamic history to better explain this most important concept. I highly recommend to not approah these issues dogmatically. "This classification is not from my camp so it must be wrong." Bad attitude in general.
There are many classifications of tawhid that can help an individual understand tawhid completely and in turn help us practice it to the fullest. You can number the classification or just explain (like they did early on).
What these classifications are used to justify is a totally different debate? The Quran is the world of Our Lord however scholars have derived multiple legitimate opinions on the same issue from this same source. In a similar fashion, various scholars have the same understanding of tawhid (virtually). They strive to address the following 3 main questions:
Do you believe that Allah is the only Lord?
Do you believe that Allah should be worshipped alone?
Do you believe that Allah is unique in His Names and Attributes?
Now various scholars can use this to justify various opinions on how we should worship and other matters of theology. For example, some allow all types of tawassul, some restrict it very much and others reject it completely.
These differences did not translate into takfir among the scholars. Ignorant laymen of our times and before have used such various opinions to do takfir.
Again, I feel that many issues were confounded in this post. The issues of classificaiton of tawhid, various opinions on tawassul, and using different theologies to do takfir need to be addressed separately so as not have a hodg-podge of views that don't makes sense.
If someone does not accept a particular ‘classification,’ it does not harm their faith in any way as long as they attest to the proper definition of tawĥīd which includes all three ‘components’ of tawĥīd. Infact, mentioning this classification is only an additional explanation.
Post a Comment
<< Home