Did the texts from the Book and the Sunnah come down dividing tawhid (the oneness of Allah) into oneness of worship, oneness of lordship, and oneness of the names and attributes, or is that division from the independent legal reasoning of Ibn Taymiyyah?

The questioner : There is a final point regarding the issue of oneness of worship and oneness of lordship. Is this a text in Islam, or is it the independent legal reasoning of Ibn Taymiyyah or others? And is the Muslim obligated to study tawhid (the oneness of Allah) in this formulation, or is he permitted to study tawhid in a different formulation, provided that it leads to the same result?

The Shaykh : If the question is valid,The questioner : and if we consider that the division of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) into three categories by some scholars is a means, and it is not so in my belief, then we say that by whatever means the Muslim should understand the testimony that there is no god but Allah, which Allah commanded us to understand by the explicit text of the Noble Qur'an: But what is the means they intend when they say, or is it, that one understands tawhid by whatever means?

The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh, this inquiry is from me personally.

The Shaykh : From you?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : We say, may Allah forgive you.

The questioner: Amen.

The Shaykh : So, can we discuss this topic with you? How can we reach an understanding of this testimony and this good word by a means other than the method of division explained by the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him)? The truth, and I say the truth, is that Ibn Taymiyyah did not bring anything new. Oneness of lordship is textually established in the Qur'an. Oneness of worship, oneness of attributes, all these things are textually established in the Book and the Sunnah. But Ibn Taymiyyah clarified these meanings by interpreting their texts from the Book and the Sunnah, so it became obligatory for the Muslim to adopt this concise formulation; because not every Muslim is able to understand, for example, the text of oneness of lordship, where the text of oneness of worship comes from, or where the oneness of attributes comes from. The general public, who are obligated to understand the testimony of tawhid, cannot understand them except through the path of the scholars. If we overlook the division of Ibn Taymiyyah, which clarifies the texts of the Book and the Sunnah from which he extracted these three types of oneness of lordship, oneness of worship, and oneness of attributes, what means can we imagine to reach an understanding of this reality, the reality of "There is no god but Allah"? We are giving an example now. Many of the later generations and those who adhere to certain theological schools see no harm at all in one of their singers saying in their songs, which they call religious songs:
"For from Your generosity is the world and its like, and from Your knowledge is the knowledge of the Tablet and the Pen."
This speaker's statement became a followed religion, his statement became an established matter that is not denied. Rather, it became a saying from which they seek blessing, and they try to benefit from reciting this poem. They place a jug of water so that the blessing of this disbelief or this shirk (associating partners with Allah) is dissolved in this water, and it is given to the sick to drink so that they may obtain healing. This type, I wonder, if we leave aside this terminology for which the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah had the distinction of being the first to explain and clarify it for people, what do we call it? Is this shirk in lordship? Is this shirk in worship? Is this shirk in attributes? We are now conceding that we do not say it is from this or that, but what can we say if we leave aside this terminology?

The questioner : We say it is shirk, just as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: We tell him it is not permissible, even if we break it down into these items... shirk, I mean the three: lordship and worship...

The Shaykh : We called it shirk, we did not differ on this. But is this shirk equal to the shirk of one who associated with Allah in His worship, the one who prostrated to an idol, is his case the same as the one who believed that his Prophet knows the unseen? Undoubtedly, this is shirk, and this is shirk, this is disbelief and this is disbelief. But without a doubt, the one who studies the Book and the Sunnah understands that this type of shirk is different from that type of shirk. I am actually surprised by this question, and even more surprised by your saying that this came from you. And while I believe you, I say this did not come from you, but from the environment in which you live. That is certain. Otherwise, how can a person who understands the Book and the Sunnah be satisfied with just saying, "This is shirk"?

The questioner : Excuse me, our Shaykh, can the scholars, for example, study these details, but I am asking about the general Muslims. Are they permitted to study this detail...

The Shaykh : My brother, regarding the general Muslims, we mentioned earlier that the general Muslims cannot understand the sources of these three types. But they must distinguish between shirk in lordship, which is denying Allah the Exalted, like the communists and the materialists and their like, and shirk in worship, which is prostrating to a created servant like oneself, and shirk in attributes, which many of the righteous fall into. The reason is that they did not understand that this is shirk, and of the type of shirk in attributes, not shirk in worship or shirk in lordship. Then I return to say, what do we say about such as his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Do we say he associated partners with Allah and the matter is ended? Meaning, do we leave the general public to understand the texts in their ignorance? And you ask, are they obligated to study? We say no, they are obligated to understand, and they cannot study, but based on what we hear from some people that you created this division, well, we created it. What do you say about the one who says:
"For from Your generosity is the world and its like, and from Your knowledge is the knowledge of the Tablet and the Pen."
Our companion said, and that is all, he cannot contradict his creed, but he does not represent the others who are afflicted by their companionship or debate. He said this is shirk and he was correct, but it is very difficult to get that admission from those people. Then if they concede to you and say to you, "As you said, did you understand that they truly understand this shirk, or did they say to you, 'This is shirk' in a debate, as if they said to you, 'By the life of your father's head,' they say to you, 'Shirk.' Well, shirk, but in reality they approve of it and do not care at all to deny it. Likewise, they approve of these songs that contain this type of shirk. So I want to say, if the common person does not understand the meaning of shirk and its categories, he may mix up what is conventionally named. And I return to say, there is no dispute in terminology if we do not contradict the Shari'ah. What do they say about the scholars' division? And I think they do not contradict this division, just as they contradict the division of tawhid into three categories: major shirk and minor shirk. Do they accept this, as far as you know of them?

The questioner : They accept it.

The Shaykh : Well, is there in the Book and the Sunnah what is called major shirk (associating partners with Allah) and minor shirk? Of course not, it does not exist. So how do they accept the division of shirk into major and minor, while admitting—and we testify with them—that we do not actually find in the Book any shirk described as major shirk, nor any shirk described as minor shirk? This is the first point. Second, we do not find in the Book a detailed breakdown of major shirk into parts and parts, nor a detailed breakdown of minor shirk into parts and parts. Rather, this is the scholars' correct understanding derived from the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So if they accept with us the division of shirk into major and minor, even though we do not have this division in the first place, and even if it were found in a dispute, we do not have a detailed breakdown saying major shirk is such and such, and minor shirk is such and such. Do we then mix the two types of shirk? So if a person swears by his father, or his grandfather, or his head, or similar forbidden oaths, do we simply say that by swearing by other than Allah, he has committed shirk and apostatized from the religion? No, we have a detailed distinction: sometimes one is a mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) who has apostatized from his religion, and sometimes one is a mushrik whose shirk is merely verbal. This also reminds us of the division of kufr (disbelief) and the division of shirk into two other categories: doctrinal kufr and practical kufr, doctrinal shirk and practical shirk. This is not in the Book and the Sunnah. The meaning of this position, in brief, is the absolute denial of the scholars' efforts in clarifying the texts of the Book and the Sunnah, whether as principles (usul) as they say, or as branches (furu'). Oh, Glorified is Allah! It is a strange and peculiar position. They do not deny that some scholars delved deeply into detailing the branches to the extent that they addressed explaining some branches that are imaginary and cannot be conceived to occur. There are many, many examples of this, some of which a Muslim would be ashamed to mention out of modesty. I will mention two examples: one for this, and one for its opposite, which does not have this element of modesty, but is impossible. If a man dies and leaves behind seventy grandfathers, how much does each grandfather inherit? What is his right? Yes, seventy grandfathers, we can reach Adam in seventy grandfathers. What is this imagination? They do not deny this type of branching. And if they criticize the Khalaf (the later generations), they say this is for the sake of sharpening the minds. But what do you say if one of them says—and this is the second example, which is shameful to mention—if a man sits with his wife and inserts his member into her and his member splits into two parts, one part entered her and one part came out of her, is ghusl (the full ritual bath) obligatory on him or not? (He laughs, may Allah have mercy on him). No one from these Khalaf denies this branching. Why is the division of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) into tawhid al-rububiyyah (oneness of lordship), tawhid al-uluhiyyah (oneness of worship), and tawhid al-asma' wa al-sifat (oneness of the names and attributes)? Why is the division of shirk into major and minor? Why is the division of kufr into doctrinal kufr and practical kufr? ... This is a very difficult problem, for accepting the existing disagreement among people today; and therefore the saying of the common people is true for them: "Everyone is on their own religion, may Allah help them." But this is the truth, there is no obscurity in it, so leave me alone regarding the intentions of the people, for this is a matter they do not represent. Perhaps I have answered you as well?

The questioner : Yes, may Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And you likewise. Let the turn go to someone else, may Allah reward you with good.
Al-Halabi : The issue is their denial of this division, in addition to the fact that it did not come from nothing, as the professor mentioned, but they were preceded by others, like many of the scholars such as Abu Ghuddah and others, and one named Marzuq al-Maydani or something like that. In his book *Al-Bara'ah min al-Asha'irah* (Disavowal of the Asha'irah), they spoke about this issue and refuted it. In reality, their refutation of this was a result of the practical dispute between them and Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah) alone, and with the Salafi call in general. Even though Shaykh al-Islam was preceded in this by Ibn Mando. Ibn Mando, in his book *Al-Tawhid* (The Oneness of Allah), has this type of division. And Dr. al-Faqihi, the researcher who edited the book, provided an actual date for the issue and the division of tawhid into three categories, and proved that Shaykh al-Islam was preceded in this and was not alone. And if he had not been preceded, the matter is as you mentioned, our Shaykh.

The questioner : ... This detail by the Shaykh, may Allah reward him... Our Shaykh, I, the people... I do not claim infallibility for anyone. Some scholars after him looked into this ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and were satisfied with it, especially the Sunni ones among them. This is the basis for their acceptance of this division, and not their taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence) of Ibn Taymiyyah.