1. Since @Haqiqatjou claims requesting anything from a Jinn, under any case or circumstance, constitutes shirk, we ask him: are you accusing Prophet Solomon (S) of shirk? He asked his assembly, which included both humans and Jinns, to bring the throne of Saba's queen.
1/25🧵
1/25🧵
A Jinni responded, "I can bring it to you before the blink of your eye." It is evident that Prophet Solomon had Jinns under his control as part of his troops, and if, on principle, any interaction with these unseen beings is shirk, as Daniel seems to posit,
then it would logically follow that he is accusing Prophet Solomon peace be upon him of falling into that issue [Hashah], along with many other prophets who may have had interactions of the same genus.
2. Daniel is no longer interested in having a civil academic discussion or sincerely seeking the truth of the matter. The entire discussion has devolved into a meme and an engagement farm for likes and comments.
He portrays his opponents as though they allow what he makes memes about, whereas their principle was that an interaction with a living, present, and capable entity is not shirk in and of itself. This does not mean that every form of such interaction follows the same ruling,
nor does it mean it is permissible in every case, circumstance, or for any reason.
3. There is a discussion among scholars about using Muslim Jinns for good actions, such as requesting them to bring a healing plant that grows in an environment difficult to reach,
3. There is a discussion among scholars about using Muslim Jinns for good actions, such as requesting them to bring a healing plant that grows in an environment difficult to reach,
or asking them to search the house for magic done to someone who is sick so that it may be nullified.
However, there is nuance under this matter, and a scholar may typically not allow it even if the intention is good, and deem it as haram,
However, there is nuance under this matter, and a scholar may typically not allow it even if the intention is good, and deem it as haram,
not because the mere act of requesting from a living, present, and capable entity constitutes shirk in and of itself, but because the vast and intricate nature of such interactions makes it a complex matter. Human beings may not fully comprehend why some of its aspects
could actually be shirk or lead to shirk.
This caution is accurate because Jinns live in a realm entirely different from ours. Although one may assume they are interacting with a Muslim Jinn, there is no way to guarantee such a claim.
This caution is accurate because Jinns live in a realm entirely different from ours. Although one may assume they are interacting with a Muslim Jinn, there is no way to guarantee such a claim.
It is highly probable that the Jinn is a demon lying and seeking to seduce the human to lead them astray from Islam. This is where the situation differs from that of Prophet Solomon peace be upon him, as he had both humans and Jinns subjected to his authority by God.
They could not go beyond his dominion without facing divine punishment. Such authority is not available to the average person.
We know from the Qur'anic verse that many men have enjoyed Jinns, and many Jinns have enjoyed men in return.
We know from the Qur'anic verse that many men have enjoyed Jinns, and many Jinns have enjoyed men in return.
It is deduced from this that Jinns typically do not help human beings unless they derive some form of benefit or enjoyment. Alternatively, humans may have to make a payment, which itself may constitute shirk. Due to the darkness and complexity of such interactions,
humans remain vulnerable, unable to ascertain the reality or intentions of Jinns.
The prohibition, therefore, is not strictly due to requesting from a living, present, and capable entity but because of what often results from such interactions.
The prohibition, therefore, is not strictly due to requesting from a living, present, and capable entity but because of what often results from such interactions.
In most cases, these interactions end poorly for the person. This is why the Sahabah and the Salaf did not engage in such practices or use Jinns for battle or to acquire what was otherwise beyond human limited ability.
4. This vulnerability that may lead a person to shirk is very obvious in the case of Jinns, but it is not exclusive to them. It can also occur with fellow humans. For instance, if a poor person seeks financial help from a wealthy disbeliever,
they may put themselves in a position of exploitation. The wealthy person might agree to provide financial assistance but under conditions that require the poor individual to commit blasphemous acts.
Entering such situations is typically prohibited because it is like
Entering such situations is typically prohibited because it is like
throwing oneself into destruction. However, the prohibition is not based on the mere interaction with a living, present, and capable entity but rather on the consequences and nuances surrounding the situation.
This is precisely why scholars such as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah,
This is precisely why scholars such as Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah,
who do not see a fundamental problem with the interaction in and of itself, make it conditional on fulfilling strict criteria—criteria that rule out most situations and make such occurrences exceedingly rare.
Meanwhile, scholars who have completely closed the door on such interactions have done so from the perspective of sadd al-dhara’i (blocking the means), ensuring that sorcerers and the like do not exploit this as a pretext to deceive people into engaging in prohibited acts.
5. If you try to think of any situation where this interaction constitutes shirk or leads to it, you will find that it is not based on the principle of requesting from a living, present, and capable entity. Rather, it is always due to other surrounding factors.
Thus, the judgment of each particular situation depends on a combination of all these nuances.
I do not need to highlight here the drastic difference between this and invoking a dead, absent, and incapable person for the fulfillment of something they could not even do when alive,
I do not need to highlight here the drastic difference between this and invoking a dead, absent, and incapable person for the fulfillment of something they could not even do when alive,
let alone after their death. This distinction has been repeatedly emphasized. Even Daniel himself knows this, which explains why the discussion has turned into memes that misrepresent our beliefs.
I am not taking the time to write these detailed responses merely to refute Daniel
I am not taking the time to write these detailed responses merely to refute Daniel
or expose his lack of knowledge about the topic and the positions of his opponents. Rather, I am appealing to his sense of dignity and intellectual integrity. I urge him to read what we say with an eye of contemplation, not with an eye to detect "meme material"
to dodge the main points and speak endlessly about irrelevant matters.
I have given you no room, Daniel. Should we expect you to ignore this as you have done previously? If you have any sincere questions that will help you understand the matter better, feel free to ask.
I have given you no room, Daniel. Should we expect you to ignore this as you have done previously? If you have any sincere questions that will help you understand the matter better, feel free to ask.
There is no issue in exchanging thoughts and ideas until we arrive at the truth. However, I request that you refrain from wasting our time and effort on what does not benefit us.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...