Question about for Abuz Zubair on the Hadith of the dhatu anwaat

[Tuwaylib]

assalamu alaikum,

i am a little bit confused about the hadith of Abu Waaqid al-Laythi and the dhatu anwaat.

When reading in Fat-h al majeed it seems to me that shaykh Abur-Rahman considered the companions asking the Prophet (saw) to make a dhatu anwaat for them as major shirk because of the reaction of the Prophet (saw) and him reciting the ayah about Bani Israeel. This then leads me to wonder, if it is considered major shirk, then it seems that their is 'udhr for these sahabah because they were new in leaving kufr as mentioned in the beginning of the hadith. If this is the case, how do the scholars who say there is no 'udhr bil jahl explain this hadith?

The other issue is, when reading Ghaayat al murid, its seems the shaykh considered the asking for a dhatu anwaat to be minor shirk, and it was major shirk only in combination of 1) esteem and reverence for the tree, 2)religious devotion to the tree, seek to be near it (im assuming some sort of worship) and 3) hanging their weapons on the tree seeking barakah.

It seems that shaykh saalih says that the companions did not do what they asked and if they had done it would have been major shirk. But their statement, and seeking without the action was minor shirk. However, later in his explanation he says that if one wipes the pillars of the Haram or something with the belief that the place is blessed or a waseelah to cure him then that is minor shirk. So if the companions did hang their swords in the same way believing it was blessed wouldn't that be minor shirk?

Here are my other questions related to the above:

1) Please correct me if i am mistaken in any of the understanding i put forward from my readings. The explanation in Fat-h al-Majeed wasn't 100% clear to me.

2) Was it or was it not major shirk for asking the Prophet (saw) for a dhatu anwaat?

3) If it is major shirk, how do the scholars justify no udhr bil jahl when it would seem the Prophet (saw) excused them because they didn't know?

the other two questions are on the premise that asking the Prophet (saw) for a dhatu anwaat is minor shirk.

3) The ayah recited by the Prophet (saw) about bani israeel asking Musa (AS) to make a god like theirs...seems to indicate major shirk. If asking for the dhatu anwaat was minor shirk how would this ayah fit into the explanation of the hadith?

4) sh. Muhammed ad-dudu considers it shirk mu7abbah, if that is the case how can it be used as proof for 'udhr bil jahl for the shuroot of takfeer since one wouldn't make takfeer on minor shirk? (this is from his fatwa i attached in the 'help me prepare' section'

JazakAllahu khair for your help

[Tuwaylib]

bump bump bump

[Abuz Zubair]

I have problems understanding this issue as well, but I do find al-Farraj's work convincing.

He quotes al-Shatibi, IAW and IT stating that what the companions did was not actually Shirk in and of itself.

The other point we must also understand that when Mashaykh like Ibn Baz and Ibn Jibrin (and the rest of the Imams of Najd) discuss Takfeer, they mean by it the takfeer on account of which a person will be punished in the fire of hell. For this reason, when they say: no takfeer without iqamat al-hujja, they mean the takfeer coupled with eternal punishment.

Likewise, when they excuse a person due to jahl in major Shirk, then that implies just the outward takfir and not inward takfir. Meaning, in the law the person is categorised as a Kafir, and therefore, there is no funeral for him, nor burial amongst the Muslims, nor is it allowed to pray for him. Yet, because he was a jahil, or a very new Muslim who died in his early Islam, or someone living in the desert, and hence, the message did not receive him, he would be tested for his faith on the Last Day. These people are regarded to be from Ahl al-Fatra, to whom the message of Islam does not reach.

The ayah recited by the Prophet (saw) about bani israeel asking Musa (AS) to make a god like theirs...seems to indicate major shirk. If asking for the dhatu anwaat was minor shirk how would this ayah fit into the explanation of the hadith?


The Prophet resembled their question to the question of Banu Israel. But resemblance only indicates partial resemblance and no full resemblance, i.e. the resemblance existed only in the fact that they asked the Prophet if they could imitate the pagans, not that they asked the prophet for something which is in and of itself Shirk. This is also the understanding of Ibn Taymiyya and al-Shatibi.

sh. Muhammed ad-dudu considers it shirk mu7abbah, if that is the case how can it be used as proof for 'udhr bil jahl for the shuroot of takfeer since one wouldn't make takfeer on minor shirk?

Sorry, I didn't understand this.

[Tuwaylib]

assalamlu alaikum,

where can i get a hold of al-farraj's work you speak of?

i understand that the mashayikh of najd speak of takfir in a dunyawi sense. However, i would then ask is the hujjah that is to be established to be established on the last day for the jahil, or whomever?

the understanding that al-Farraj gives, is this also the understanding of the mashayikh of najd? (logically, i can only conclude that it must be otherwise it would seem difficult to stick with their dunyawi 'udhr position)

In sh. muhammed ad-dudu's fatwa i attached in another thread he discusses the issue of takfir ala mu'ayyin. His argument is for the hujjah to be established even for a dunyawi takfir. So he goes on in the fatwa about the shuroot of takfir and he brings up his proof of knowledge that something is shirk. He uses the hadith of the dhatu anwat, but what confused me is that he didn't consider the shirk to be major. If sh. muhammed the shirk to be minor, then how can it be a proof agains takfir, since one wouldn't make takfir on someone for minor shirk.

JazakAllahu khair

[Abuz Zubair]

where can i get a hold of al-farraj's work you speak of?

It's available every in Saudi... dunno if you can buy it online..

i understand that the mashayikh of najd speak of takfir in a dunyawi sense. However, i would then ask is the hujjah that is to be established to be established on the last day for the jahil, or whomever?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Iqamat al-Hujja is required before one can be sentenced to the fire of hell, which is essentially takfeer.

Before Iqamat al-Hujja, if a person commits an act of Shirk, he automatically becomes a Kafir, although, takfeer (condemning him to hell) may only take place after iqamat al-hujja, either in this life or the next, Wallahu Alam.

This is what I understand from the statements of the Imams of Najd.

the understanding that al-Farraj gives, is this also the understanding of the mashayikh of najd? (logically, i can only conclude that it must be otherwise it would seem difficult to stick with their dunyawi 'udhr position)

It certainly seems so. Sh Ibn Jibrin has written a forward to his work, in fact, two forwards as far as I remember. Sh Salih al-Fawzan has written a forward to a similar book by Abul-'Ala al-Rashidi expressing the same views. Besides, al-Durar al-Saniyya is crammed full of this belief.

As for Sh Muhammad al-Daddu, then I haven't read much from him on 'Aqida. Although, I did hear something from him about Ash'aris being from Ahl al-Sunnah, etc... and from what I heard, I doesn't seem that 'Aqida is actually his field.

[Tuwaylib]

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Iqamat al-Hujja is required before one can be sentenced to the fire of hell, which is essentially takfeer.

Before Iqamat al-Hujja, if a person commits an act of Shirk, he automatically becomes a Kafir, although, takfeer (condemning him to hell) may only take place after iqamat al-hujja, either in this life or the next, Wallahu Alam.

This is what I understand from the statements of the Imams of Najd.
.

I may have mis understood the whole issue altogether. I thought takfir was the pronouncement of someone to be a kafir. And when we speak of udhr, it was whether there is udhr for a particular person becuase of jahl and therefore pronouncing him to kafir would be held back until proof was established on him.

For example: In Quackland, everyone dresses like Muslims, says shahadah, prays, fasts etc...but they also commit major shirk by doing tawaf around a saint's grave and make sijdah to it because that is what they were taught and they know no better.

From my understanding the mashayikh of Najd would consider them kafir 'ala dhahir just because of the mere fact that they did an act of worship to other than Allah. Whether their ignorance is an excuse or not will be an issue on the day of judgement but in a dunyawi sense they are kafirs and are to be treated as such.

The other side would argue that we cannot prounounce them to be kafirs because their jahl is an excuse for them. Once proof has been established on them and they continue with their major shirk is when they can be prounounced as kafirs.

Thus with this understnding i was wondering when the establishment of proof on them would be before condemning them to hell for sure-- in terms of how the mashayikh of najd would understand.

please clarify if i am misunderstanding jazakAllahu khair

[Abuz Zubair]

From my understanding the mashayikh of Najd would consider them kafir 'ala dhahir just because of the mere fact that they did an act of worship to other than Allah. Whether their ignorance is an excuse or not will be an issue on the day of judgement but in a dunyawi sense they are kafirs and are to be treated as such.

This is the correct understanding, at least according to the najdi scholars.

The other side would argue that we cannot prounounce them to be kafirs because their jahl is an excuse for them. Once proof has been established on them and they continue with their major shirk is when they can be prounounced as kafirs.

Thus with this understnding i was wondering when the establishment of proof on them would be before condemning them to hell for sure-- in terms of how the mashayikh of najd would understand.


This side understands the nature of takfeer slightly differently. While the Najdis argue that takfeer is a process by which a person is actually condemned to Hell, the other side argues that takfeer is only a process to declare a person as a Kafir, while not knowing his condition in the hereafter.

This is why they also say that we do not state that any human being will be in the fire of hell or paradise, even if he dies a kafir... whereas the Najdis restrict this principles only to Ahl al-Qibla, and to be honest, this is what I found in the writing of Ibn Abil-'Izz and Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani.

[sunnih]

assalamu alaikum,
It seems that shaykh saalih says that the companions did not do what they asked and if they had done it would have been major shirk. But their statement, and seeking without the action was minor shirk. However, later in his explanation he says that if one wipes the pillars of the Haram or something with the belief that the place is blessed or a waseelah to cure him then that is minor shirk. So if the companions did hang their swords in the same way believing it was blessed wouldn't that be minor shirk?


.......

As-Salamu alaikum. May Allah reward the brothers for their posts. I would like only to mention a few words in relation to what I have quoted from the brother's post:

Regarding the minor shirk that the sheikh is pointing to is the minor shirk of taking as means those means that are not considered as means from the sheria. Thus if you think that the pillars of the Haram are blessed therefore if you wipe them you take from this blessing of Allah which He has bestowed upon them then this is minor shirk as you have taken wiping the pillars of Haram as a means to attain blessing while believing that the blessing is from Allah and the blessing that you take is in fact the blessing of Allah. However, if you think that the pillar in and of itself gives blessing or removes harm this is major shirk. So in the case of minor shirk the blessing or the removal of harm is believed to come from Allah and as one believes that what Allah has blessed if you touch it you will take some of it this is taking as means that which the shariah has not made a means and this is one of the kinds of minor shirk. If the blessing or the removal of harm is attributed to the pillar then it is major shirk.

So if the companions intended to hang their weapons so that the tree would bless them, this would be major shirk but if they thought that they hang them there and Allah blesses them or that they would be blessed by touching the tree that was blessed by Allah then this is minor shirk.

The act of the companions is in fact a question and as they obeyed the Messenger in His judgement they were not charged with shirk. The fact that the Messenger replied in such a manner does not necessarily imply that this is major shirk as it was his way to block the harm before it happens just like he said that have you made me an equal to Allah when he heard : "what Allah and Muhammed wish" even though this is considered as minor shirk if it is in expression only. (Also see the explanation of sheikh ul islam Ibn Taymiyah in iktida...) And Allah knows best.

[sunnih]

Assalamu alaikum.

Just to make it a little bit clearer the position of sheikh ul-islam Muhammed ibn Abdul Wahab r.a:

He says (sheikh ul-islam) in kashf esh-shubuhat at the eighth response (you can see the version in english translated by Yasir Qadhi (a critical study of shirk) page 179:

"...The children of Israel did not actually do the act nor did the companions. And there is no difference of opinion that if the children of israel went ahead with the act, they would have become kuffar. Likewise there is no difference of opinion that had the companions disobeyed the Messenger, when he prohibited them and instead if they took dhat anwaat after this prohibition, they would have become kuffar too. And this is the point".