Daniel @Haqiqatjou disagrees with our view that going to the grave of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or any other figure and asking them for healing, protection, etc., is blasphemous.
The irony is that right after claiming it is not shirk akbar, he goes on to say:
1/11🧵
The irony is that right after claiming it is not shirk akbar, he goes on to say:
1/11🧵
it might not even be shirk at all! What does this even mean? Is there some kind of "shirk meter" Daniel uses, where sometimes it’s full, sometimes half, sometimes 30%, and sometimes 90%?
How can something "not be shirk" yet simultaneously "might not even be shirk at all"?
How can something "not be shirk" yet simultaneously "might not even be shirk at all"?
This is like saying, "Daniel is not a Muslim; he might not even be Muslim at all!" Doesn’t such a statement insinuate that there’s a percentage of Islam present in him based on this expression?
Currently, Daniel seems utterly confused and is wandering aimlessly in his argument.
Currently, Daniel seems utterly confused and is wandering aimlessly in his argument.
If someone definitively asserts that an act is shirk, and his response is, "NO, I disagree," then logically, he should be claiming it is definitely not shirk.
But since Daniel is an ignoramus and fears being trapped by his words, he sprinkles these nonsensical phrases.
But since Daniel is an ignoramus and fears being trapped by his words, he sprinkles these nonsensical phrases.
So, what is it? There are only a few options:
1. You disagree entirely and assert that such acts are definitely not blasphemous.
2. You agree that it is definitely blasphemous but argue that there might be exceptional cases (XY or Z) where it isn’t.
1. You disagree entirely and assert that such acts are definitely not blasphemous.
2. You agree that it is definitely blasphemous but argue that there might be exceptional cases (XY or Z) where it isn’t.
In that case, you’re required to provide an example of a situation where istighatha; seeking help in matters only God can address is not blasphemous. But you can’t.
3. Or you propose asking someone for something exclusive to God either absolutely or in a particular context,
3. Or you propose asking someone for something exclusive to God either absolutely or in a particular context,
is "partial shirk," like 30% shirk, or even "not shirk at all," thereby exposing yourself to ridicule as a lunatic.
The other issue you’ve been hammered about, yet consistently refuse to answer, despite knowing you would objectively lose this debate
The other issue you’ve been hammered about, yet consistently refuse to answer, despite knowing you would objectively lose this debate
if you are afraid to specify your position on such a basic level. Is it 100% shirk to go to the grave of Mary, Wadd, Suwâ’, Yaghûth, Ya’ûq, and Nasr and ask for healing and protection, or is it 100% not shirk? It is just one of the two.
Furthermore, who is your representative in this matter? From the beginning, we have clearly stated that we hold Ibn Taymiyyah's position. Who is your Imam? You claim to represent the majority position, so name one particular individual from this supposed majority!
Or since we are in a game of percentages, are you secretly holding 1% of the position of each individual, then combining these into 100% and telling us you represent the majority position?
If you truly have a person whose position you represent, name them.
If you truly have a person whose position you represent, name them.
I repeat for the fifth time: if you fail to meet these two simple requests, you have objectively lost this discussion and the debate before it even happens. Jake @MMetaphysician is not going to debate a liar.
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...