Yasir Qadhi: (1) Ash’arism & Sufism Were Separate & Merged (?). (2) Calling to Other Than Allah is Shirk (?). Shaykh Abu Adam Responds.

As always, Shaykh Abu Adam — a champion of Sunni-Ash’ari doctrine — dissects Yasir Qadhi’s pseudo-Sunni jargon with precision and alacrity. May Allah `Azza Wajal shower Shaykh Abu Adam abundantly with His Blessings and Guide Yasir Qadhi to Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah!

Question:

assalamu ‘alaykum

Yasir Qadi says:

“The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism, and not pure Ash`ari thought. Although, of course, in our times the two movements (which, once upon a time, were distinct and separate), are now one. I have written and am presently writing a number of papers on the merging of these two movements. Basically, this issue goes back to the Ash`ari definition of ilah, which, as al-Razi and others state, means ‘the one who can independently create?’ Hence, if you don’t believe your dead Shaykh can create life or give you sustenance himself, but rather does so by a power given to him by Allah, this would not be shirk according to that definition. As we proved in our class ‘Light of Guidance,’ the Arabs of old also believe their idols were given powers by Allah, and did not claim they had independent powers. Additionally, our definition of shirk is taken from the Quran, and is ‘to give the rights of Allah to other than Allah,’ and du`a is a sole right of Allah. But all of this is a separate topic, meant for another article!”

Before Yasir Qadi posts his articles, my question is: Were the Sufis really a ’separate’ movement than the Ash`aris. Is such an idea being spread out by the so called ‘Maliki-in-Fiqh-Salafi-in-Creed’ scholars of Mauritania? I am not aware of such from the Islamic Sunni institutions of Morocco.

jazak Allahi khayr

Answer:

Yasir Qadi is merely a demagogue that uses rhetorical tricks rather than proofs, and knows how to manipulate his audience with a shipload of hidden assumptions. He likes to use words like “obviously,” “of course,” “everybody that is reasonable knows,” “we have proved elsewhere,” or “will prove in the future,” and the like, to dodge the fact that he cannot prove what he is saying. (I have highlighted them below for your amusement). And of course he is far too busy to engage in a proper dialogue. I have made some brief comments on what he said below:

Yasir Qadi says: The permissibility to make du`a to the dead is of course an import of (late) Sufism and not pure Ash`ari thought;

The issue here is what does he mean by du`a? If he means prayer, then no Muslim will disagree that it is kufr to make du`a to the dead. If, however, the meaning of du`a here is simply calling, without any sense of worship to the person called, then this is another matter.

Should someone claim that every du’a is worship then how would they understand the following verse in the Holy Qur’an:

لاَّ تَجْعَلُواْ دُعَآءَ الرَّسُولِ بَيْنَكُمْ كَدُعَآءِ بَعْضِكُمْ بَعْضاً

“Make not the addressing (du’a’) of the Prophet among you like your addressing one another…”

So basically we cannot interpret du`a to mean worship in every context. A call without worshiping the called upon is just a call, and it is not shirk. Moreover, calling a person who has died is done every day in every single one of the 5 daily prayers, where a Muslim says, “Ya Ayyuhan-Nabi,” i.e. “O Prophet!” Clearly then, calling a person who has died is not an import of late Sufism.

Yasir Qadi says: Although, of course, in our times the two movements (which, once upon a time, were distinct and separate), are now one. I have written and am presently writing a number of papers on the merging of these two movements.

Wahabism is a movement. It started about 200 years ago under the guidance of the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim, who were both chief heretics in their time. By playing the games of the Batiniyyah sects, hiding and lying about their real beliefs, they managed to preserve their necks, though there were a few close calls.

The Ash`ari school is not a movement, it is the school of the Sunni belief system. Its name comes from Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash`ari, not because he made up the school’s belief, but because he defended, detailed and systematized the belief of Sunnis to the extent that most Sunni scholars after him cannot but admit that he is their imam. That is, either him, or Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi, who did the same thing as Ash`ari did at approximately the same time, but in another location.

Likewise Sufism has been around since the beginning, whether it went by that name or not. Sufism is simply the art of following Sunni Islam, while trying to distance oneself from the desires and vanities of this life. It is the science of applying Islam to one’s life to the fullest extent, especially on the inside.

Yasir Qadi says: Basically, this issue goes back to the Ash`ari definition of ilah, which, as al-Razi and others state, means ‘the one who can independently create’. Hence, if you don’t believe your dead Shaykh can create life or give you sustenance himself, but rather does so by a power given to him by Allah, this would not be shirk according to that definition.

This is a fallacious argument. How does saying that the word ‘ilah’ means ‘the one who can independently create’ also mean that something other than Allah can create? The definition does not say that there can be a ‘dependent creator.’ It simply says that Allah creates independently of anything or anyone. In fact, when you say that Allah creates independently, you are saying that Allah does not create through an agent, so it is implied that no one and nothing other than Allah creates, i.e. it is not possible that someone be given a power to create.

A person who believes that his dead Shaykh can create life and give sustenance by a power given to him by Allah is indeed a blasphemer. No Muslim believes that, and Sunni Sufis certainly do not believe that. Ash`aris do not believe that other than Allah can create. There is only one creator.

Note that by “create” we mean to bring into existence, or to have independent influence on events.

Yasir Qadi says: As we proved in our class ‘Light of Guidance’, the Arabs of old also believe their idols were given powers by Allah, and did not claim they had independent powers. Additionally, our definition of shirk is taken from the Quran, and is ‘to give the rights of Allah to other than Allah’, and du`a is a sole right of Allah. But all of this is a separate topic, meant for another article!

The du`a that is prayer, i.e. worship, is only for Allah. However, merely calling is not only for Allah. As usual the Wahabis have a great preoccupation with words, with an incredible blindness to the ranges of meaning behind them.

His definition of shirk is not very clear. What does he mean by ‘give the rights?’ For example, if I give Zakaat to an official collector, then it is Allah’s right that this money is given to the poor. So if the collector takes the money for himself (and he is rich), has he committed shirk according to Yasir? It is a strange definition.

A better definition of shirk is ‘to attribute to Allah a partner, part or a likeness to creation.’ This is because the belief in Allah’s Oneness is the belief that ‘He does not have a partner, part or a likeness to creation.’

Questioner says: Before Yasir Qadi posts his articles, my question is: Were the Sufis really a “separate” movement than the Ash’aris. Is such an idea being spread out by the so called ‘Maliki-in Fiqh-Salafi-in-Creed’ scholars of Mauritania? I am not aware of such from the Islamic Sunni institutions of Morocco.

Sufism is really just a branch of the Islamic sciences that a person focuses more or less on. It is not really a movement, although there are of course Sufi movements. So there is no separation between Sufism and Ash`arism. However, like in all the sciences, some scholars are more famous for one thing than the other. Then we also find those unique individuals that master them all. For example Al-Qushayri is a famous imam of both Ash`ari creed and Sufism.

The problem that Wahabis have with merely calling the name of a dead person comes from their belief that Allah is a kind of creature. This makes it difficult for them to come up with a way of thinking of themselves as monotheists. After all, since what they worship and call Allah (but isn’t actually Allah), is simply another physical thing, all physical things become potential rivals. This leads to paranoid delusions, such as thinking that calling the name of a dead person is shirk.

For a Muslim, however, the basis for monotheism is clear. It is the belief that Allah does not have a partner, parts or a likeness to creation. As long as one believes this, one has not committed shirk by calling a dead person, because one does not believe that the dead person has any power to create at all, but is merely a creation, whose calling may or may not correlate with a desired effect created by Allah.

(Authored by Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji)

Source: http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/wahhabi-contentions-1-asharism-and-sufism-were-separate-and-merged-and-2-calling-to-other-than-allah-is-shirk/

Advertisements

5 responses to “Yasir Qadhi: (1) Ash’arism & Sufism Were Separate & Merged (?). (2) Calling to Other Than Allah is Shirk (?). Shaykh Abu Adam Responds.

  1. If That’s the case then we cannot accuse non-Muslims also for calling on other than Allah as we do not know what is in their hearts. Living in the Indian Subcontinent i have witnessed that people given in to Sufism have more love and respect for their Shaikhs than for the sahabas. They know more about their peers and auwliyas(all heresays) but will not even know the names of Ashara Mubasharah. We hear baseless stories that peers have when the ship was drowing people were told to remember their Peers(Shaykhs). What is this if not shirk?

    • You said,

      “If That’s the case then we cannot accuse non-Muslims also for calling on other than Allah as we do not know what is in their hearts.”

      Answer: You know what is in their hearts because you already know they are non-Muslim. You said it yourself. Read your statement above again and reflect at the absurdity of what you are saying.

      When we talk about tawassul and istighaatha, we’re talking about Muslims: Not some non-Muslim who believes Jesus is the “son of God”, or some Hindu who believes multiple “gods”. You should be ashamed for comparing Muslims to non-Muslims in this respect.

      But this has always been the Wahhabi problem: Blatant takfeer and classification of Muslims as being outside the bounds of Islam. Such arrogance is unacceptable, especially more so when it contradicts the great ulema who classified such acts as noble and in full agreement with the Qur’an and Sunnah.

      This is not to deny that there are people out there who mix right with wrong. But throwing away the baby with the bathwater is not what the ulema did. They understood and followed the right and rejected the wrong, and did not throw the good with the bad in the heapbin of bid’ah and kufr.

      May Allah Guide you and all of us on the Right Path. Aaameen.

      Wassalam,
      Sunni1

  2. What nonsense.. Allahs says clearly in the quran, “Verily those whom you call upon besides Allaah are slaves like you..” [al-A’raf 7:194] and this joker can try to defend it. May Allah Expose the truth and destroy falsehood!

    • You are misinterpreting the Qur’an just like the Khawarij did. The Khawarij were notorious for applying verses about kuffar to Muslims. The Qur’anic verse you quote refers to polytheists and NOT Muslims. No scholar of Ahl al-Sunna wa’al Jama’ah interpreted that verse to refer to Muslims who were doing tawassul and istighatha. If they did, then there should be evidence for this. You won’t find it.

      Ibn Kathir (Allah bless him) in his al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (6/324)mentioned that the battle cry for Muslims was “O Muhammad!”. Would you accuse the Muslims of violating the Qur’an, committing sin, or, worse, doing shirk ul-akbar? Na’udhubillah.

      You also conveniently ignored one of the evidences presented in my other post (
      https://sunni1.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/new-yasir-qadhi-and-istighatha-asking-for-help/):

      In Imam Bukhari’s “al-Adab-ul-Mufrad”, he related the following about Ibn Umar that his leg was numbed and he was told: Mention the name of the most beloved person to you. He then said: “O Muhammad.” The result was as if his leg was untied from a knot. This is specific evidence as related by Imam Bukhari in which “Ya Muhammad” is specifically mentioned. Are you saying Ibn Umar violated the Qur’anic verse you quoted by “calling upon” Prophet Muhammad (peace & blessings be upon him)?

      There are plenty of ahadeeth that prove that “calling upon” someone is not always synonymous with worshipping the person called upon. If you have evidence that it DOES, then give your evidence. If you do not have evidence, then stay silent or else risk accumulating ugly sin. You do not know the intention of one who calls upon another in all instances. Therefore, assuming that calling upon someone in all instances is equal to worshipping that someone is a leap of faith devoid of veracity and certainty. Are you willing to risk your salvation by clinging to this assumption? What if you’re wrong?

      Before you accuse something of being “nonsense”, make sure you investigate the matter thoroughly. You may be slandering the Quran and Sunnah unknowingly and making a mockery of yourself in the process.

      May Allah Guide you and all of us on the Path that Pleases Him most. Aaameen.

      And Allah Knows Best.

      Wassalam,
      Sunni1

  3. Subhanallah, Alhamdulillah!

    I had heard Yasir Qadhi’s definition of shirk, and I had found it strange. Shaykh Abu Adam did an excellent job explaining, refuting and dispelling the many misconceptions in Yasir Qadhi’s words.

    May Allah Bless and Reward Shaykh Abu Adam, as well as you for providing it in the form of an analytical article.

    Keep up the good work!

    Jazakallah Khair

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s