1. First, @Haqiqatjou I must say it would be better, more productive, and fruitful for us to actually engage with the arguments as they are and refrain from strawman arguments and misrepresentations. If this is established, it'd be easier for us to understand each other.
1/28🧵
1/28🧵
2. There was no change in my tone nor in my position. The fact of the matter is that I have been struggling this whole time just to make you aware of our position and what we actually believe, so that if you have a legitimate criticism, it is based on reality and not sophistry.
You know, not every criticism is legitimate, and you won't appreciate a discussion with one who builds his argument against you on a sophistical argument that appeals to an ignorant audience but is clearly a fallacy in the eyes of anyone who knows what the discussion is about.
3. The clash with you was first on the principle that is clear-cut, which is that istighatha is shirk. You should be aware that our definition of istighatha is asking help from the creation regarding a situation or a need that God alone is capable of fulfilling.
Hence, we already rule out the ridiculous responses that we often hear from Sufis: "Oh, I also seek help from my medical doctor, or from my teacher, or from my mother." Our response is that this does not even fall into the category of istighatha due to the obvious and drastic
difference between the dead and the living, the present and the absent, and the capable and the incapable. However, what seemed to come from you was mockery of this very principle itself—that we consider istighatha to be shirk. You then appealed to certain situations and cases
that, as I said, are drastically different from the matter in discussion in order to obscure the actual issue, which we consider shirk.
4. No one denies that every matter may have nuances, exceptions, and different considerations. However, when we struggle with you to establish
4. No one denies that every matter may have nuances, exceptions, and different considerations. However, when we struggle with you to establish
the fundamental, I would say that it is fruitless to argue about the branches when the root is absent. If you were already mocking the principle of istighatha being shirk, how can we discuss what falls under this category and what does not? For now, we are flying over the roof,
making memes about what falls into this category and what may be a form of shirk without actually agreeing on the fundamental itself. And I know you are smart enough to realize this.
5. I should infer from your response that you retract your memes about interactions with jinn,
5. I should infer from your response that you retract your memes about interactions with jinn,
because I gave an example of Prophet Solomon doing so and I explained the details about it in the thread. But, what I still see persisting is that you are confusing tawassul and istighatha. In many cases, what you are addressing as istighatha is actually tawassul and vice versa.
You should be aware of the difference between the two, as well as the various cases within each category and how they could overlap. Yet, you come to what is definitive in our arguments—seeking help from the dead, the absent, the incapable, and that which is only due to God—
and you portray it as though it is a form of tawassul (whether legitimate or heretical tawassul). This mixing between the two categories is unacceptable because the first one should not be debated whatsoever. If you disagree with the definition of istighatha then you can specify.
However, it is inconceivable for you to understand what we mean by it and still claim there is nuance because nuance does not exist in this case whatsoever.
6. Most of your examples fall into the logical fallacy of equating the living, the present, and the capable with the dead,
6. Most of your examples fall into the logical fallacy of equating the living, the present, and the capable with the dead,
the absent, and the incapable. This is a contradiction and a combination of incompatible categories. Thus, we must first agree on the principle that asking from a present, living, and capable person is not from the same genus as asking from one with the opposite qualities.
If we agree on that, then even if I grant you that the Prophet, peace be upon him, or any other individual is in this world, present with those interacting with him, I can go a step further to say: Let us suppose we are in the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him,
and we know for certain that he is living in Medina, in his house, and that he interacts just like any other human being does. How does that justify me, living in Morocco, waking up in the morning, invoking his name, and saying, "O Prophet, heal my child, provide me with Rizq,
and forgive my sins"? Did any Muslim of those away from Madina do this in the life of the Messenger peace be upon Him? The same applies to any other so-called saint. The fact that they have departed from the worldly life to the afterlife strengthens the argument
that they are incapable of fulfilling what they could not even do when alive. This is absolutely shirk akbar.
Therefore, if we take your examples of prophets possessing miraculous capabilities and saints having karamat, that was certainly when they were present in this world,
Therefore, if we take your examples of prophets possessing miraculous capabilities and saints having karamat, that was certainly when they were present in this world,
interacting with those around them, before they passed away, and their actions were still enabled in the world. However, when they have departed from this world and their actions in it have been cut off—as the Prophet, peace be upon him, said—how can invoking their name
from anywhere in the world be justified? Yet in matter they cannot do even when in this life? This necessitates the divine quality of omnipresence for them to hear that call and grant that wish, especially when the request is for something that only God can fulfill.
Thus, someone who leaves the omnipresent, all-living, and all-powerful God Almighty in their situation of need to invoke a creature who has departed from this world, and who is incapable of fulfilling such a request, has undoubtedly fallen into shirk.
7. If that is clarified, then I assume you may have realized that what you consider to be in "the gray zone", or matters where there may be nuance and assessment, does not fall necessarily under the category of istighatha as we clearly defined it for you and asked you to condemn—
yet you refused. I am aware your view is that not every case of istighatha is shirk. However, I realized you have a clouded understanding of what istighatha is, and in invoking all of these examples, you have confused the scenarios and failed to distinguish what might factually
qualify as istighatha, which we deem shirk.
If this interaction produces the effect I was hoping for, then we should agree on the following points:
1. Shirki istighatha, as Ahl al-Sunnah condemn and deem as shirk, is something clear-cut, and there is no doubt about it.
If this interaction produces the effect I was hoping for, then we should agree on the following points:
1. Shirki istighatha, as Ahl al-Sunnah condemn and deem as shirk, is something clear-cut, and there is no doubt about it.
When someone is accused of doing it, we are not thinking about other scenarios except those heretical beliefs that are being practiced. You would not address a Sufi while knowing exactly what form of istighatha he engages in and then bring about your nuances.
2. Any other scenario that you consider a gray area does not necessarily fall under the istighatha we speak of. If it did, it would not be in that gray area in the first place. These scenarios are then assessed because they may fall into the category of istighatha depending on
one's intention or under the category of tawassul. The latter includes bid‘i tawassul, which is not shirk akbar, such as going to a grave of someone thinking they can hear you but not asking them to directly fulfill your need, instead requesting they make du‘a to Allah for you.
This is an innovation that leads to shirk, but it is not shirk itself as shaykh al-Islam elaborated on.
3. I do not believe that any of the brothers I personally know which you are interacting with disagrees with much of what I have affirmed here.
3. I do not believe that any of the brothers I personally know which you are interacting with disagrees with much of what I have affirmed here.
Therefore, I request, once again, that you stop the memes and reflect on what is being said. I wholeheartedly believe that I have clarified the matter to you extensively for the sake of Allah, and I hope my effort will not go to waste insha'allah.
Wa salam.
Wa salam.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...