عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

Nullifying the Tripartite Division of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism)
Author : Dr. Hassan Abu_Arqoub
Date Added : 14-09-2021

Nullifying the Tripartite Division of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism)

 

Some claim that Tawheed is divided into three categories: (i) Tawheed Ur Ruboobyah (Lordship) (ii) Tawheed Ul Uloohiyyah (Worship). (iii) Tawheed Asma Wa Sifaat  (Divine Names and Attributes). They have also claimed that the Prophets (Peace be upon them) weren`t sent save for Tawheed Ul Uloohiyyah, which is believing that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah alone. As for Tawheed Ur Ruboobyah, which is believing that there is only one Lord for the universe, there is no disagreement on this amongst Muslims and polytheists. They have based their view on the verse in which Allah Says (What means): "If indeed thou ask them who has created the heavens and the earth and subjected the sun and the moon (to his Law), they will certainly reply: "God". How are they then deluded away (from the truth)?" [Al-Ankabut/61].

 

The proponents of this division started accusing Muslims who sought intercession from the Prophets and saints with disbelief under the pretext that they turned to the latter instead of Allah. This way, they have become like the polytheists who didn`t commit disbelief on account of Tawheed Ur Ruboobyah as they believe that Allah is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe. Rather, they left Tawheed Ul Uloohiyyah by ascribing partners to Allah in worship, as this group claimed.

 

If we reflect on the Quran, the Sunna, and the views of the Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet), the Tabiin (The Successors), and the Tab'i At-Tabi'in (Those who came after the Tabiin), we realize that there is no mention of such division either in word or meaning. Rather, it is an invented heresy that Muslims didn`t come to know until the Seventh Century of Hijrah.

 

Whoever ponders on the Quran and the Sunna of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) finds no difference between Tawheed Ul Uloohiyyah and Tawheed Ur Ruboobyah.

 

The evidence from the Quran is reflected in the following verses:

 

First: "Nor would he instruct you to take angels and prophets for Lords and patrons. What! would he bid you to unbelief after ye have bowed your will (To God in Islam)?" [Al-Imran/80].

 

Second: "O my two companions of the prison! (I ask you): are many lords differing among themselves better, or the One God, Supreme and Irresistible?" [Yousef/39].

 

Third: "Saying, "I am your Lord, Most High"." [An-Nazi`at/24]. "Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Al-Qasas/38].

 

Fourth: "O Messenger. proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith." [Al-Ma`idah/67].

 

The evidence from the Prophetic Sunna is reflected in the following narrations:

 

First: Narrated Anas Bin Malik:

One-day Allah's Messenger (PBUH) came out (before the people) and `Abdullah bin Hudhafa stood up and asked (him): "Who is my father?" The Prophet (Peace be upon him) replied: "Your father is Hudhafa." The Prophet (Peace be upon him) told them repeatedly (in anger) to ask him anything they liked. `Umar knelt down before the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and said thrice: "We accept Allah as (our) Lord and Islam as (our) religion and Muhammad as (our) Prophet." After that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) became silent." [Bukhari].

 

Second: Al-‘Abbas b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib (May Allah Be Pleased with him) reported God’s messenger as saying: "He who is well-pleased with God as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as messenger will experience the savour of faith." [Moslim].

 

Third: Abu Dawood narrated in his Sunn (Book) the following:

We went out with the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) accompanying the bier of a man of the Ansar. When we reached his grave, it was not yet dug. So the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) sat down and we also sat down around him as if birds were over our heads. He had in his hand a stick with which he was scratching the ground. He then raised his head and said: Seek refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave. He said it twice or thrice.

The version of Jabir adds here: He hears the beat of their sandals when they go back, and at that moment, he is asked: O so and so! Who is your Lord, what is your religion, and who is your Prophet?...." [An-Nawawi explanatory].

 

Based on the aforementioned, we conclude that the polytheists believe that Allah exists but ascribe partners to Him in worship claiming that this brings them closer to Him. This led the proponents of the tripartite division to understand that the polytheists` belief is tantamount to Tawheed Ur Ruboobyah although it has nothing to do with Tawheed/Monotheism. Rather, it is believing that God exists. Associating partners with Allah Indicates that they believe that He exists but worship another God along with Him. Therefore, Allah Ordered in the following verse Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) to say (What means): "Say: "What thing is most weighty in evidence?" Say: "God is witness between me and you; This Qur’an hath been revealed to me by inspiration, that I may warn you and all whom it reaches. Can ye possibly bear witness that besides God there is another God?" Say: "Nay! I cannot bear witness!" Say: "But in truth He is the one God, and I truly am innocent of (your blasphemy of) joining others with Him." [Al-`An`am/19].

 

He The Almighty also Said: "Say: "Bring forward your witnesses to prove that God did forbid so and so." If they bring such witnesses, be not thou amongst them: Nor follow thou the vain desires of such as treat our signs as falsehoods, and such as believe not in the Hereafter: for they hold others as equal with their Guardian-Lord.

 

Conclusion:

 

First: The tripartite division of Tawheed is an invented heresy that has no basis in the Quran, the Sunna, and the views of the Sahabah, the Tabiin and the Tab'i Al-Tabi'in.

 

Second: In the Quran, the Sunna, and the views of the Sahabah, the Tabiin, and the Tab'i Al-Tabi'in, Al-Uluhiyah and Al-Rububiyah are used interchangeably.

 

Third: There is no Tawheed (Monotheism) without Tawheed. A person is either a monotheist or a polytheist, which are opposites that contradict one another.

 

Fourth: Every monotheist believes in the existence of Allah, but not every believer in the existence of Allah is necessarily a monotheist.

 

Fifth: The polytheists believed in the existence of Allah but associated partners with Him in worship, as described by Allah, so the proponents of the tripartite division of Tawheed called this Tawheed Ar-Rububiyah, which contradicts the Quranic texts.

 

Sixth: The polytheists believe in the existence of Allah, but this belief is distorted with ascribing partners to Him, denying the Messengers, the Scriptures, the hereafter, the resurrection, and describing the angels as females, and by doing so they failed to realize a single tenet of faith to be saved by before Allah. Still, someone would claim that their problem is the alleged Tawheed of Al-Uluhiyah?!

 

Seventh: The danger of this division lies in the fact that it makes the polytheists amongst the people of Tawheed Ar-Rububiyah although they definitely aren`t for they don`t have true faith. This also contradicts with the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah. In addition, the proponents of this false division have made it a basis for tagging Muslims with disbelief just because they disagreed with them over secondary issues of Islamic jurisprudence, such as seeking intercession from Prophets and saints, in addition to purely jurisprudential issues that have nothing to do with the Islamic doctrine.

 

 

The published article reflects the opinion of its author

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

 
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?

If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.

What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on praying seated due to severe obesity, given that I experience hardship in performing the prayer — especially when rising from the ground after sujūd to perform the next rak‘ah?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Standing, when one is able to do so, is a pillar of the prayer. However, whoever would experience severe, intolerable hardship, or fears harm to himself or to a limb due to obesity, or finds that standing causes him to lose his khushū‘ (humble focus and concentration) in prayer, then there is no objection to his praying seated on a chair or on the ground, performing rukū‘ (bowing) and sujūd (prostration) through gesture — provided that the gesture for sujūd is made lower than that for rukū‘. Whoever is able, at any point, to properly perform any one of these pillars, is obligated to perform it in full; for omitting it is a concession that applies only in cases of genuine inability. The Prophet ﷺ said: "When I command you to do something, do of it whatever you are able." (Related by al-Bukhārī). As the scholars of fiqh have established: what remains possible is not waived on account of what is difficult.
The criterion for determining genuine inability, as chosen by Imam al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (raḥimahullāh), is that the worshipper experiences hardship that causes him to lose his khushū‘.
As for voluntary (nafl) prayer, there is no objection to performing it while seated, even if one is able to stand. However, rukū‘ and sujūd must still be performed [in their proper physical form] by anyone who is able to do so. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More