{FREE} Hanbali Acts of Worship: from Ibn Balbans the Supreme
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HANBALI ACTS OF WORSHIP: FROM IBN BALBANS THE SUPREME SYNOPSIS PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Musa Furber, Ibn Balban Al-Hanbali | 130 pages | 01 Jun 2016 | Islamosaic | 9781944904036 | English | United States Hanbali Acts of Worship Published by Islamosaic available at Mecca Hence, bearing witness to the truth of His Oneness with recognition is the bounds Allah Himself has determined, for having the power of intercession. The criteria therefore to distinguish between a valid and invalid intercession, as per Quran, is in knowingly bearing witness to the Truth, which is an issue of internal belief rather than mere outward actions. This implies that believing an object to be an intercessor is not by itself equivalent to shirk or enough to implicate one of taking the object as an ilaah besides Allah. This would force the wahhabiyyuun to admit even more, because it would be absurd for one, to claim as valid the belief that an object is an intercessor yet accuse someone of shirk when one seeks intercession from this very attribute of intercessor. It is equivalent to claiming that it is permissible to believe someone could be a doctor yet it is not permissible to seek from the attribute of doctor-ship that is being applied to the doctor. The principle is an incoherent assertion framed in a poorly phrased ambiguous manner containing nothing by which it could be qualified as a valid principle, let alone being a principle beneficial in understanding the fundamentals of shirk. Moreover, intercession cannot be granted except with the permission of Allah, so it makes no sense to seek it from anyone else. Allah is the One who gives permission to the intercessor to intercede; no intercessor can initiate his intercession. This is a great contradiction and obvious shirk, because he is asking first and not doubting that his high position will enable him to help him, then he asks him to take him by the hand out of generosity and kindness, otherwise he will be doomed. It may be said: How can you ask him first for intercession, then ask him to be kind to you? If you say that intercession can only come after permission from Allah, then how can you call upon the Prophet blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and ask him to intercede? This renders invalid your seeking intercession from anyone other than Allah. If you say: All I want is to seek his help by means of his high position and intercession, by the permission of Allah. Again, what will make you know what the Day of Recompense is? How can belief in both this and that coexist in one heart? If you say: I asked him to take me by the hand and be kind to me by virtue of his high status and intercession,. The response is: It comes back to seeking intercession from someone other than Allah, and that is the essence of shirk. End quote. Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahab writes:. Amongst them were people who worshipped the angels, some who worshipped the prophets and the righteous men and others who worshipped stones, trees, the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or the moon. It was not for me to say what I had no right. And Manaat, the other third? By the One in whose Hand is my soul, these are the ways. The argument accuses him of quoting verses revealed regarding the idolaters, and misapplying it upon Muslims who have nothing to do with idolatry. With the inclusion of this principle, he seems to be making the point that the objects the polytheists worshiped varied and was not merely restricted to idols. This apologetic in any case though misses the point of the argument that is made against him. That the polytheist worshiped something other than idols is therefore irrelevant here, as the verses which he applies upon Muslims where revealed with a meaning specific to those real stone idols and not regarding conscious living beings. Such verses would apply to all objects, but only in context to the polytheists to whom this verse was revealed. The actions of the polytheists are merely an outcome and expression of their polytheistic belief. These verses therefore would apply only to those individuals who carry such polytheistic beliefs. The polytheist would not seize being a polytheist on mere account of a pause in their outward act of calling someone besides Allah. Their belief is the foundation of their actions. These verses cannot be applied upon an individual without taking into context the belief of the individual, which takes us to the next point;. Worship is linguistically defined or can be made synonym, to servitude, which is an act or state of being a slave. Its primary and significant aspect is obedience but broadens as, obedience with humbleness or humility. It also includes actions like love and fear, as is essential to servitude in humbleness and humility. This meaning is significant to understand, because, the essential linguistic meaning of worship is not some mere religious rituals or outward acts, as some people suppose. Therefore, none of this is what constitutes the essential meaning of worship. The meaning of worship as servitude instead is the utmost or highest servitude. This utmost servitude can be seen to occur from the perspective of the subjective state as well as objective state [1]. The utmost servitude occurs subjectively when the subjective self believes in devoting his utmost or highest submission to the object. This subjective state of worship is essentially a belief and inward act. The outward actions are an outpouring or continuation of this belief. Hence, the obedience and love for the messenger of Allah does not constitute worship devoted to the messenger himself because the obedience and love that is given here is not with the belief of devoting an equal or greater or as a rival to Allah. The ultimate servitude on the other hand occurs objectively when the object is believed to be attributed with divinity or Lordship in one form or the other. Because, when attributing the object with Divinity or Lordship, it also necessitates the belief that the subject is in ultimate servitude to that object, as a result of the Lordhood and Divinehood the object has over the subject. Therefore, worship whether objectively or subjectively is essentially founded and emerging from inner belief and not separate from them. The outward actions would entail worship when it is emerging from such inner belief. For worship is the ultimate servitude and submission to an object even linguistically, rather than mere seeking from an object. Worship is not based on the treatment of an object as some kind of a vending machine up in the clouds. Seeking Allah would indeed constitute worship but only when Allah is sought in worship, i. It is in this sense that invoking Allah constitutes the essence or core of worship i. There is no real outstanding point made by this principle. And furthermore despite claiming that they worshiped various objects, his principle lacks the essential definition of worship. Rather as mentioned above, it is an outcome of conscious belief and inward state. The fourth principle is that the mushrikeen of our time are worse in their shirk than the mushrikeen who came before. This is because those who came before committed shirk during times of ease and made their worship purely for Allaah during times difficulty. However, the shirk of the mushrikeen of our time is continuous, during times of ease and difficulty. In this final principle, he begins by alleging that polytheists committed shirk only at times of ease. The Quranic verse he brings forth as proof is the action of polytheists at times of extreme difficulty, where they used to direct themselves only to Allah abandoning their stone idols. The author interprets this action to mean that polytheists were actually monotheists at such difficult times. This absurd conclusion is a result of the falsehoods in his previous principles. This conclusion is implying that, a polytheist who leaves his idol for a moment and directs himself to Allah, becomes a monotheist at that specific moment. It requires no deep thinking to notice the absurdity of such a conclusion, for tawhid is not a mere switching from an idol to Allah. There has to first be an absolute negation of false gods and along with it proceeds then the affirmation of Allah as God. More importantly, any action dedicated to Allah, whether it consists of invoking at times of difficulty, an annual pilgrimage to the house of Allah or anything else, without this monotheistic belief, is rejected and deemed invalid. The author then alleges that this action of polytheists i. By this argument he attempts to establish his case that, the mere outward act of invoking for help, constituted an act of worship. But such a claim is false, since as mentioned before, an action without purity in belief is in fact void. Yet they were considered as worshiper of idols [Quran , 4]. Why this distinction? This fact, that such actions of polytheists did not constitute worship, is an invalidation of these innovated principles and definitions that has reduced tawheed, shirk and worship to external practical actions without any connection with internal belief. If it were true then, the dedication of actions by polytheists for Allah, from their invoking at times of difficulty or their sacrifice, fasting or pilgrimage would have been considered as worship of Allah. Furthermore, the fact that Allah says the Meccan polytheists worshiped idols and did not worship Allah as well as the fact the Quran was revealed to call Mushriks to worship Allah only, proves that the core meaning of worship is objective and not dependent on revelation or time-place.