What is the Ruling on Invoking Other than Allah-Ask Shaykh YQ #155

Brother Nawaz from India, he emails a very lengthy question describing certain issues that are going on in his area in his district, and mentioning some of the sectarian problems that are happening in his homeland. But in particular, there's a question that is a very relevance to us. And he mentioned that in his particular town, the majority of people follow a interpretation of Islam, in which they are encouraged to visit the graves, and to invoke the Saints for their for their needs. And he is saying that recently, he has come across a new, you know, scholar, a new, he has not heard of this, you know, new group, and he mentions it by name. And he has benefited from this group and online and

whatnot. And this new group is saying that the practices of his culture and of his people are actually shook, and that anybody who does these types of practices of invoking the saints is in fact committing Shrek. So now he is emailing me asking that he has heard a number of my lectures and now what does he do because his family and his entire society is involved in these rulings.

One

out of seven,

poverty can in

a him fast

recovery.

Now, this is a very important a very necessary question. And it is one that requires time to elaborate on. So for those of you that will be able to listen to the longer lecture and disregarded humbler. That's great. If for some reason, you cannot listen to the remainder of this lecture. In a nutshell, I will conclude that this action is not something that is approved in the Quran and Sunnah. And that we should not be asking saints or the prophets of the lesson of our needs that we have, and that this is the position of the vast majority of the roadmap of the past and of the present. And I will also be arguing that doing so is actually opening up the door to shift. However,

if your family and if your friends are involved with this practice, then you must treat them as Muslims and consider them to be Muslims. And you should use your utmost wisdom and your utmost patience to try to convince them to give up these practices. That is the short summary. But now we're going to go into the longer, elaborate more elaborate lecture. Now for the detailed response. Actually, this, this question is particularly awkward for me to answer for two reasons. First and foremost, if you're listening to me regularly, you are seeing that I am trying my best to preach tolerance and respect of other interpretations of Islam, especially those opinions that are followed

by the for legal schools, and especially with the mainstream movements and groups of Islam. However, this particular issue, in reality, it is difficult for any one strand to accept the others, because some big words are being used. And for example, the word should is being thrown around. And so obviously, when a group accuses another of committing Schick, which is the one unforgivable sin in Islam, it's very difficult for either group to then say, Okay, this is something we can agree to disagree, and then be gentle, and, and whatnot. It's not like a filter issue, you know, is the saliva of the dog nudges or 401k? is a cat, how much do we give, you know, we can clearly agree to

disagree on many issues of, you know, interpretation of law, and of the finer details of law. But what is to be done? When the question that is being asked, the differences of opinion are quite literally over eemaan and coiffeur, and tauheed and schilke. This is really what the the, the the question entails. And so, obviously, it is made awkward because I don't want to preach a hatred of anybody who you know, lowers his head to Allah subhanho wa Taala. I don't want to

flame the fans of sectarianism. So as I give this response, I find it very difficult to, you know, try to balance to do that, but inshallah, I still hope to be able to do that. In fact, I will go so far as to state I would venture that this question of invoking the saints. This question is the single most contentious and problematic issue in all of Sunni Islam. You know, certainly Islam is not one unified, monolithic whole, within Sunni Islam. You'll have many strands and you have many differences of opinion, legal and even, yes, some theological issues as well.

And I would say I cannot think of any issue that is potentially more problematic and more divisive within Sunni Islam with regards to this issue still, despite that, I will try my best in this response to preach a type of tolerance. And inshallah, let's see, let's see what the result of that is going to be. Also I said this this question is awkward for me for two reasons. Also, another reason why this question is is is awkward is because, in particular, when it comes to me answering the question, so I have had a change of opinion, with regards to my own response to this question. And for many, many years of my life more than a decade of my life, I followed one particular

opinion. And in fact, you can easily look up other YouTube videos of mine from 1015 years ago, you can look up books that I have published, you know, from 20 years ago, in which I very, very clearly advocated for one particular opinion, which I'm going to come to soon, however, around a decade ago around, you know, literally a decade ago, eight, nine years ago, I went through a number of, you know, intellectual changes and rethinking through, and frankly, this question, this question was the catalyst, and it was the main cause for me to research very, very intensely for a number of months where I would, you know, go over, you know, again, much can be said, I don't have time right now for

this. And over the course of that timeframe, I myself began advocating another position, which is the position I began this lecture upon. And in fact that answering this question, almost a decade ago, in my own mind, was the primary cause that I, myself had a bit of a transformation. And I went from one, you know, strand of Islam. And I moved on from that, that strand, because this question for me, was one that I modified by my opinion. And so this is a particularly

awkward question, because I'm telling you from now that you will find YouTube lectures and you will find books of mine, in which I hold a position that is slightly different, it's not radically different, slightly different than what I will be advocating in this particular lecture and have been advocating for around a decade. So you'll find two different opinions of, of my own inshallah, this is, you know, the reality of all people who study Islam for their entire lives and who do scholarly research that, you know, over the periods of their lives, they are presented other evidences and they modify or adopt or change their opinions. And so I hope that inshallah that is

what I am demonstrating this as well. Now, we also want to make one final disclaimer that this lecture today is about a very specific issue. And that is the issue of invoking the saints and or the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam. For our needs. This is not an issue about another topic that is called tawassul via the names of somebody so to say, for example, Oh Allah, I ask you by the right of your nebby by the help of your newbie, that is a separate topic. So they said no, that's a separate topic. Maybe another question, I will do that topic. But today's topic is to call out and say yeah, I Li method. Yeah, AbdulQadir Gilani, Yara, Sula, law, give me this, do that prevent this.

So this answer today is about a very clear cut scenario. And that is to call out to other than a law and to ask something from the being that you are calling out. And to ask something of this world or even of you know, the next life like something that you ask him, and you expect your your, your request to be responded to. Now, with regards to this question, academically speaking, just purely academically speaking, there are three primary opinions that are found within scholarly circles that claim to be Sunni. Okay, three primary opinions amongst groups of Roma. And they all claim that they are and asuna Well, Gemma, the first opinion, is that the action of invoking a saint to call out to

a being to say, yeah, so and so do this for me. Okay. Yeah. So and So yeah, Abdulkadir agenda, any idea that the rasulillah whatever it might be, I'm in trouble helped me, my son is sick cure him, you know, I need to find a job, you know, help me find a job. The first opinion is that the mere action of doing this is in and of itself major shift, that the action is major shift. Now, the and so therefore, the action will or would constitute something that has the potential to expel one from Islam. Now, within this first opinion, let's call this opinion one major shift. You have two sub opinions, one a and one B.

When he says that, therefore the one who does it becomes emotional.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it, no way out. It's like a double arrow double as somebody intentionally taking the muscle half hour to Billa and throwing it on the floor stomping on it, knowing it is the most half wanting to disrespect the most half. There is no excuse unless you're threatened by death. There is no excuse to do something of this nature. So any Muslim who invokes the dead who calls out to a saint who invokes the prophets of the law while you send them group one a would say that action of theirs has expelled them from Islam, and they are no longer a Muslim. And they need to re accept the Shahada, and restate the Shahada, and repent to Allah subhanho wa Taala,

or else they're outside the fold of Islam, okay, this is one a, one B says the action is an action of Shrek. But the Muslim who does the action and is very, very ignorant, very unaware living in a faraway land or not really having studied the Quran, not knowing the the the evidences that that Muslim who simply follows what his society says follows a misguided scholar, that we shall excuse him out of his ignorance, and we'll cut him some slack. So we'll say the action is an action of shirk. But this Muslim is excused because he's ignorant. And ignorance is an excuse, according to one B for this action. Okay, so one a, we don't excuse for ignorance, it is basically anybody who

says the calima should know better. And if you say la ilaha illAllah. And then you call to the st. Automatically that has made you a mushrik. And then one B says, while there are evidences that have their you know, Mister interpretation, and a person's mind is not fully aware, and he's an ignorant person. And so he follows his scholarly community in class. And therefore, we will make an excuse for the ignorant person. And we will treat that person as a Muslim, even though he will state that your action is an action of should and Cofer so outwardly, we treat him as a Muslim, and we consider him to be a Muslim. But in reality, we say your deed is the deed of should, and if you know better,

and if you study the evidences, then really you have left the fold of Islam. So one be the action is shooting, but the person is excused because of ignorance. Now, one B was the position that I myself followed for 15 years of my life, and I preached and I taught, and I wrote books, defending one beat some of the most advanced arguments in the English language ever written, and ever defending paradigm, one B, were actually by yours truly. And so I'm very well well familiar with the arguments and counter arguments for that position. Now, which group holds this position? Generally speaking, it is the followers of Mohammed even Abdul Wahab and the natural movement of Saudi Arabia and the

ladies movement of Indian Pakistan, that this movement generally it is a very clear cut, that the action is always an action of Sheikh one, he says, Therefore, the person is machinic. And one B says that the person might be excused because of ignorance. Now, again, I'm being academically historical right here, whether you agree with this or not, but it is the truth. The early followers of Mohammed Abdul Wahab were on opinion, one eight, and the person himself was upon opinion one a, but his later followers and the Modern School of that trend, the modern scholars of that movement, generally speaking, they're upon one beat. So this is a disconnect between the early and the founder and the

early direct descendants, the grandsons and the the people who are proponents of the movement, pre 1900, that generally speaking, they were more sympathetic to one a, and that is how they dealt with their opponents, regardless of snippets and phrases that one faces in their books, but in reality, they treated their opponents as if there are non Muslims, if they disagreed with their interpretation. And modern followers of the school many of my own teachers are one B, and one B is basically the action issue but we'll cut them some excuse out of ignorance, okay. So this is the first opinion. The second opinion, which is now the opinion that I follow. The second opinion is the

opinion that invoking the saints it is how long and it is evil. And it is an evil innovation, a religious innovation, a bitter, and it is a stepping stone to shift. It is opening the doors to shift, but it is not shift in and of itself. Unless that action is accompanied by a belief that you're calling out to a God. It is accompanied by a belief that

You are defying that entity that you are calling. So, opinion to says that the action is evil and how wrong and bedarra and Moncure and the stepping stone to shirk, but it is not necessarily should in and of itself. And if a person has a particular leader or belief about the one they are calling, then it becomes shift. And if they have another leader or belief, then it is held on but it does not become in and of itself shift it is dangerous. And it is something we warn against, but in and of itself, it is not going to be shook unless the person doing it believes that they are worshipping a being that is worthy of worship that has independent powers that has the powers of a god. And this

is the position of the majority of modern day magic is for sure this is the Maliki madhhab. And it is also many of the Hanafi scholars and really a lot of the Shafi scholars of Egypt and Syria and in the in terms of the strands of Satanism, this is the default position of the Deobandi movement as well. And it is also the position of many of the scholars and other famous institutions that they would say that it is wrong and it is evil and it is a stepping stone to Schick but that it is not in and of itself schilke unless the action is associated with a belief or it is accompanied by a belief that is going to be a belief of should and therefore the actual then also become an action of Shere

Khan. As I said, I myself am now an advocate of this second position I used to be one be and now I am very staunchly in opinion to

the third opinion, the third opinion, which is there, and factually speaking, factually speaking, one finds it amongst scholars in from around 700 600 years ago. It's nothing that's you know, we cannot say that this is a new opinion, I have done an extensive amount of research in this and you will actually find statements from respected so neuro dama but again, factually speaking very, very small minority going back 500 years, 600 years, even one of them 700 years, and they will say that it is permissible, those scholars said permissible and some of the modern followers of that trend will say it is Mr. hub, it is not just permissible, but it is encouraged and it is pleasing to Allah

to ask these entities for our needs. And this is the position that is found in some Hanafi scholars in some chapter is called as of our times and it is predominant in some interpretations of the soul for Sufism, not all not all, many of the scholars of the soul, wolf are in the second category. And some of them are in the third category. And in our times to make us understand like you know what we're talking about. So the popular trend in our Indian Pakistani circles would be the Burrell v. trend of Islam. And so group one is like the earlier d 70 bucks on group two is like the deobandis and group three is the three is like the babies and they have their positions in this regard. Now,

what further complicates the answer to the simple question of should we or should we not what further complicates This is that because this issue is so sectarian based within these strands, and because this issue has been advocated or criticized for over 600 700 years, this issue has been discussed and extrapolated upon and commented on for hundreds and 1000s of pages. And for So for the last 800 years. Anything that you can possibly think of saying it has been done on any one of these camps, and it has been analyzed, it has been commented on, it has been refuted counter refuted counter counter refuted. And by the way, so one of the things we need to understand is that there

are levels of advocating and refutation. There are levels. Generally speaking in this q&a that I'm doing with all of you, all of these q&a series at home that I have over right now 160 or something, something questions done in this regard. So generally speaking, I'm not going into that level of detail. I'm simply doing the first level and what is the first level the first level is the level that is used by the the average Muslim who wants to learn and the beginning student of knowledge which has to present the evidence has to prove the point that is level one, you caught your evidence as you're bringing the Quran and Sunnah you bring the sameness of the aroma, that is level one, of

course level one each of these groups has done that they have proven from their paradigm they think they have proven each one of them has advocated group one, a group one B, group two, group three, they've all proven from their versions of understanding. They quote their particular verses they quote their verses decode the verse

is the same with the traditions, that is level one, level two comes along, and then refutes each one of these. So level two will then come and take the evidences of the second group and the evidences of the third group and refute them. And the same goes for this. And the same goes for that. And then level three comes and refutes the refutations and also goes does, you know goes into a lot more analysis of who says what and what not. And we can go on and on. And therefore, dear viewer, I cannot confuse you in this basic lecture. This is a very basic q&a. And anything that I say in these 2030 minutes, anything that I say, can easily be taken to level two and level three and refuted and

to be brutally honest, I'm able to then refute that level either, because again, I've done this research, this is my area of 14 expertise, which is Islamic theology. And I have done a lot of research and in particular, this issue, I have read no exaggeration, 1000s of pages in this regard. And I know the evidence is inside out. So anything I say, because it is a basic lecture, those that disagree will easily be able to then latch on and then go to their level two. But of course, I don't have time nor even the energy or desire to go to my level two and level three. So we have to simply leave it at that and state that, believe it or not, every single one of these movements, has refuted

the others in their own paradigm in their own ways. And

one of the things that I would advise the advanced student of knowledge to do is to if you really, really want to research, you will have to break away from reading the books of only your own federal car. Because this is one of the most common problems of the advanced student, don't say this to the average person, the average person, you follow the show that you like an end of story, the basic student of knowledge should not go and read every single book that would confuse them the basics to the knowledge sticks with one school masters it and then moves on. But you see the advanced students one of the one of the mistakes of the genuine researcher is that they do not want to read what the

other schools say, from their own books, and from their own teachers, the teachers of the other school, rather what they do, they restrict themselves to what their own teachers spoon feed them. They restrict themselves to refutations that their own teachers have chosen. So their own teachers will say, Oh, those guys say x and to refute x, you say why those guys say Ah, you fruit a, you say B. And so the student feels Oh, I know all the evidences, but the student has never actually studied with the other side, the student has never read cover to cover, they might read a you know, snippet here and there. But they don't study cover to cover. And they don't immerse themselves in the

worldview and the and the entire psychology and paradigm of the other school. And so they fail to understand the other school. Now, this is not to say that all of them are correct, obviously, they are not all correct, clearly, in the end of the day, the action is either shoot, or it is how long and a stepping stone to shoot or it is is almost to have, it cannot be all three simultaneously. And neither am I advocating that what I am saying is that the advanced student of knowledge, the advanced researcher, should not and cannot restrict himself to only listening to one group of scholars if they really want to understand the psychology and this is what I myself did almost a

decade ago, is that I read directly from the writings and teachings the entire, you know, refutations and counter refutations, and I read them back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. Whereas before this point in time, I was basically relying on one strand to tell me what they said and how to refute that. And that's not the way to, to go independent. And so during that research, as I said, it made me realize that one a and one B is problematic. And by the way, it is problematic for multiple reasons of them is that you will have to make fear of the scholars who advocate these actions and if you know the names of those scholars, those are some very well known names there is

no way out of it even if you say that the ignorant person is excused What do you say to the audience? What do you say to them famous aroma of the strands of Islam that have advocated this and this is one of the reasons that I myself went down researching only to discover that in fact, one a and one beat does not make any sense actually, position two is the one that is sound and actually does make sense, which is that the action is dangerous and it is held on and it is evil, but in and of itself it is not shipped unless it is accompanied by a particular intention and theology. Now, what do we do because you see whether we like it or not, you will find Rama and not just modern

dilemma because we have to understand these movements very old wisdom the urban deism, you know Allah Hadees

They might be modern, only 120 years old. But the concepts that formed them, they go back hundreds of years, literally centuries, if not before this. So this notion of invoking the saints, the calling out to the dead, you find people in the seven hundreds of the hijra, literally seven hundreds of the hijra, you find people advocating all three positions, some of them said that it should in and of itself, someone that said it's how to move should not do it, and some of this editors job is why not okay. So, what exactly you know, is to be done here. And, and again, to not go into a lot of detail, but we need to understand each one has a particular definition of worship

and definition of Riba and definition of,

and definition of tawheed. And, and based on their definitions, they can then advocate completely different worldviews. So for example, the first position which is the position of Iraq global hub, the first position is that Doha is an act of worship in all scenarios and senses, and it is a soul right of Allah subhana wa Tada. So whoever makes to our to other than a law has committed shift. It's a very simple, very watertight in its own worldview, that if you say that calling out to anybody for your worldly need is a draw, and do it the right due to Allah subhanho wa Taala, then one plus one equals two. So to call out to anybody other than a law is therefore shift. Okay. So

this is the position that advocated by the first school, the second school says, that no, calling out in and of itself is not necessarily should rather the shift element will come if you believe that the one you are calling is a God isn't a law, and you are wanting to worship that either there must be the intention of worship, why because actions are judged by intentions. And if you did not intend to worship other than a law, then you cannot be held liable for worshipping other than Allah in them. And Umberto beneath is a very simple, very common sense logic. And they give actually many solid examples, and of those examples is that every single ritual every single deed, if you don't do

it, you know, for the intention of shidduch it will not constitute *, but it might be how long for example, such The is the classic example right, such as the prostration we can prostrate to an entity out of respect, and that prostration it used to be highlighted in the previous Shetty as such as use of and his parents is the Quran says, who will have a ruler who suggests that they bow down and such and to lower the head in respect to somebody else is something that is still found in Eastern cultures, it was found in Western society, you know, a man would lower his head to the lady you lower your head in respect, and in the Sherry as of previous profits, it was allowed, our

*tier has come and they have said and the sorry, the Profit System has said it is haraam. It is not allowed. It's not sure how to lower your head out of respect to a person. It's not Schulich. Nobody says this even group one does not say this, that if you lower your head out of respect, because the angels bow down to Adam, it could not be a theological shift. It's allowed by Allah for their Shetty. But our *tier has come and forbidden it.

So if you were to bow your head to a person out of respect, you would not be considered a machine. If you go to the Far East, and everybody's bowing and you're like, Okay, I'll also about you're not considering the president to be a god, you that's what they're all doing is how long you shouldn't do that. But it is not *ting. Now, if you bow down to the statue of a God, and you prostrate thinking that the God is worthy of respect than the shirk was, the difference is your Nia, in the first case you didn't intend to worship in the second case you didn't intend worship of a deity. Likewise, this group will argue to call out to an entity is not in and of itself should look rather

only if you believe that that entity has powers and is worthy of worship and is a God, would it be considered shift? Otherwise, it would be wrong. And this is, as I told you, my in my opinion, the more sound answer theologically, it actually fits and makes sense. Because again, whatever I say, now you can easily go to level two, that's the problem. But the point being that you can call somebody and ask somebody for something that they're capable of doing. So I can call my friend and say, Hey, can you pick me up? Give me a ride. And that's obviously not Should I can call my child and say, can you help me with the groceries and in Arabic, this is a type of drop. And from the

perspective of group three, we're going to come to they are saying it's the

same genre, the same philosophy, the same idea that I'm calling an entity and asking that entity something that that entity can do. I don't intend worship, I don't intend, that's a god. And the response is that obviously Allah has not given them that power, but see the mistake of ascribing a power to an entity. That mistake if you think Allah gave that power does not constitute shift, it constitutes a mistake. So one cannot extrapolate that calling a dead entity for your needs is in and of itself shift. And again, that's much can be said here. But position number two basically says that it is held on but not sure. position number three, as we explained, they state that asking the

debt as I already explained very briefly, is not a bad and it is not. Rather they say it is simply asking an entity something that Allah has given them the power to do, just like I gave you the examples of if I'm in my car in the garage, and I call out to my son, hey, son, come help me lift the groceries. Nobody would say this *.

group three says the same philosophy. Again, I'm not equating I'm talking about the philosophy that when you call out to the st. A law has given the saints some powers according to group three, and the st will then give you what you want. Just like my son has physical strength Mashallah, who is a young man, right? He's stronger than me. Mashallah. So I call my son to lift the groceries. group three says the same philosophy. I'm calling a mahalo. group three says we're not calling a god. We're not considering this to be a god. We're not giving divine powers. We know that Allah has given that entity those powers not. Not it is not a God, and we are not worshiping that entity. And so

they have their evidences for doing it. And of course, I mean, I disagree with this paradigm for multiple reasons of them. Is that the the undeniable reality is that the earliest of generations the Sahaba abubaker. So therefore, the Allahu I remember the top these great companions, none of them, none of them ever called out to the Prophet sallallahu. It he was sending him after he left this earth, despite the fact that there were so many problems happening. There was a drought that people died, there was a plague in Syria, again, 10s of 1000s of harbor died. There was Civil War, over 50,000 people were killed civil war between the companions. And never once did one of the groups say

Yasuda lamented. Yeah, so and so help me out help they want. They didn't do that. Because they understood that that's not why Allah sent the messenger. So a lot while he was sending them, we have to really think a little bit critically, Is this why our Prophet system was sent that us beings call other than a law in our times of need Is that why? What are shady I came with, so we have to be a little bit more critical here. I know the arguments of group three, I'm aware of the thought and the various things that use that I want to talk about them in this brief q&a. But I want to ask a simple psychological question. Do you really think that this is what the religion of Islam is about? That

when we're in trouble when my child is sick, when I don't get a job, I think of previous generations and people that have gone on and invoke them from for my needs, or should I call out to Allah subhana wa tada and say, oh, Allah, yeah, how far we are exactly. I'm a nun. Jaco, we shall secure my son. What is the reality of the meaning of the kalama? So again, I mean, I, I think that this is something that really we need to be clear about. And also, by the way, another thing that we can say, and it is a bit of an emotional argument, it's not fully academic, but it is still something that I think should be said, that it is undeniable that in those places where such veneration occurs

of the saints, in those places, where the graves they are bowed down to and people tie things and knots and whatnot, in those types of areas, really the line between Islam and between paganism becomes very, very blurred. And that is why at these shrines and in these, you know, types of subcultures, one finds people, maybe of a paganistic faith tradition, are also coming and participating. And I have visited the great land of India to is the land of my ancestors, my my all my afforda my grandfathers were born in India and they migrated to Pakistan. My parents were both born in India and then came to Buxton as young children. So it is the land of my ancestors. I'm not

saying this in a in a negative thing. But I have seen with my own eyes, multiple places, that in these locations of Muslim shrines, there are Hindus that also come and participate. But you will never find a Hindu come to the masjid and pray five times a day, but you will find in these areas

people of different faiths merging together, and it kind of indicates that they see a commonality with what is happening here, that doesn't make sense to the rest of the oma. And that is why really, we need to be, you know, very clear and firm, we all have to have read lines. And for me, I do preach tolerance, and I do preach, definitely don't preach, you know, sectarianism, but at the same time, there must be reasonable limits, and of those limits is that we do not invoke the dead for our needs. Now, that having been said, Remember, my position is not the position of group one anymore, I do not consider the action to be inherently should in and of itself. And by the way, the FD there is

a very again, the evidence is used by group three, they are very similar to but not exactly the same as the psychology of those who worship rather than a lot, but it is not the same. And that's a key point here. Unlike what group one says, the group one says, I will explicitly state that their evidences are the same as the evidences of the Quran, that is simply false. That is totally false. The kurush when they worship their gods, they recognize them to be gods, and they recognize what they're doing is worship man Budo, whom we only worship them, they considered it to be worship, but no Muslim ever says I am worshipping the prophets, Allah Larson, I'm worshiping God that a Janani or

Ali or these other you know that no Muslim says this, or believes this in their mind, it is not worship, and in their mind, it is not worship, if they don't consider it to be worship, and we believe in them and amount of money at how can we consider to be worshipped. Also, Allah says in the Quran, woman yet the room Allahu Ella and her whoever calls out to another ILA. besides Allah shall have no excuse. On the day of judgment, it is very clear, whoever calls out to anila. So to call out to a non Isla, I can call my son and say help me in and of itself, this is not, it cannot be *ting, it could be haraam. And so to call the dead is how wrong because the shediac does not

allow us. But it is not should to simply call out, if you don't consider the being that you call out to be an idiot, or on again, it's very clear in this point, look at the technical language. So the point being the kurush. And even, you know, the pagans of our times and whatnot, the gods that they worship, they consider them to be gods, and they consider them to be icons of worship. Whereas these misguided Muslims and they are misguided, but they're also Muslims, these misguided Muslims do not consider these entities to be gods. And they also do not consider their actions to be worship. And therefore, I don't agree with group one, two considers this to be should, in any scenario, rather,

group two is the one that is more sound, and it makes all the evidences fit, fair and square in this regard. Now, all of this having been said, and this is a very long response, but it needs to be done. That my advice, and especially our brother is writing, you know, from the lands of India, the lands of our own forefathers. My advice is that, you know, you mentioned that the majority of your family, the majority of your peoples are doing this, your own village is doing this. So, now that you have been exposed to another ideology, and it looks like you've been exposed to group one, you know, you're saying that, you know, the the the Salafi movement has basically, you have been exposed

to that. So realize there's a group too as well, that is the position that I'm advocating and that is the majority position, historically, speaking simply in terms of quantity, simply in terms of the number of scholars, you will find group two is the majority, even to group one online Mashallah to article or their presence is indeed immense. And, of course, my own respected teachers and the scholars of Saudi Arabia, pretty much they're all on group one, and I respect them and I appreciate them. But at the same time, the notion of considering other Muslims to be committing Schick is indeed very problematic and it is itself an opening door to danger as we have seen amongst many

extremist movements. So I do not consider the action to be an action of should rather I say that and by the way, even if you follow group one in shallow to either your following group one be okay, in which case excuses are made for the average lay person, and they are considered to be Muslim within the fold of Islam. So my advice to you dear brother, my advice to you is that

this action is not correct, but the people that are doing it are your kith and kin, and they are your fellow Muslims as well. They are Muslims. And so do not begin with a hostile manner of trying to correct them throwing out adjectives like *can, Cofer and whatnot because it's going to turn people away as we have seen in the last 30 years.

is going to turn people away. On the contrary, approach them with gentleness and with manners and approach them not by negating what they do, but by affirming who Allah is. Not by criticizing the icons that they're generating. But by talking about the love of Allah talking about Allah is Samir Allah is Vasil. Why would you go to another entity when a law can hear you when a law sees you? Allah answers you Allah is rezac, Allah is Shafi Allah use keep on mentioning the attributes of Allah, preach to them by affirming the power of Allah, and not by negating their doctrines. And by talking about their teachers know, how can they I mean, no Muslim is going to reject you, when you

come to him talking about the power of Allah, the majesty of Allah, the names and attributes of Allah, so approach them in this wise manner, and also approach them as well, by mentioning the fact that, you know, why did the process that I've come to he comes to that, you know, other entities are worshipped or did he come, you know, so that we all turn to Allah subhanho wa Taala. So, approach them with gentleness with with wisdom, and do not antagonize be thinking in the long term. And, you know, I realized it is an emotional issue, but we cannot increase the sectarianism between our own Muslim Brethren, and especially to your brother you are writing from a land where, unfortunately,

certain strands of these polytheistic religions and the BJP party and others, they are going down the route of fascism, the route of almost genocidal tendencies, and in this stage, and in this context for us, Muslims to turn against each other, and for us Muslims to stab each other in the back because, you know, I mean, I have been to India many times, and I have many, you know, colleagues and friends and mentors from there. And I know for a fact that this interest, sectarianism between this strand and that strand, it has reached such nasty levels that friends of mine, colleagues of mine, Muslims, other strands have reached out to the BJP. And other strands have

said, Oh, that guy is a fanatic. And that guy is an extremist, because he preaches other than, you know, position one or position two or position three. And so you have our own Muslim Brethren, thinking that it is better to reach out to the BJP and be against another Muslim because of this interest, sectarian hostility. Surely, we can all agree that that is ludicrous. Surely we can all agree that that is not allowed. Please, dear brother, even as you adopt a position, understand that the people who advocate these other positions are within the fold of Islam, as long as you follow one beer two or three, they're all within the fold of Islam and treat them like fellow Muslims and

be gentle and wise with them and realize that your job is to preach in the best of manners and the wisest and manners is that Allah subhanho wa Taala guides me in new to that which he loves.