Intercession by Wali ullah

[asadxyz]

:sl:

can we discuss intercession through the wali of Allah in some other thread? whether it is permissible or not, is majority of scholars are in the view of its permissibility etc etc?

Dear Muslamaan! intrecession by whome you re talking about ? By Living Walis or Dead Walis ?
Please elaborate.
Thanks

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

Allah said in His book about the associationist people of Nuh:

[They said: Do not forsake your gods, do not forsake Wadd, Suwaa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq, and Nasr.] Qur'an 71/23

Ibn Abbas and others of the first generations reported about this verse:

"These "gods" (mentioned in the verse) were a righteous people among the people of Nuh. When they died, the people were devoted to their graves. Later, they made images of them and worshipped them. This was the beginning of idol worship."

Anas (radiyallaahu ’anhu) related:

“In times of drought, ’Umar Ibnul-Khattaab (radiyallaahu ’anhu) used to ask ’Abbaas Ibn ’Abdul-Muttalib to pray for rain on their behalf. He himself would say: “O Allaah we used to ask Your Prophet to supplicate on our behalf to You, and You would bless us with rain. Now we ask the uncle of our Prophet to supplicate to You on our behalf, so bless us with rain.” Anas said: So they would be blessed with rain.”

Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 1010)

So why didn’t Umar and the rest of the Companions who were with him, go to the grave of our beloved Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam); or to the grave of the greatest of the awliyaa Abu Bakr, and make du’aa to them for rain? Why? Because they knew that doing so would constitute Shirk. Why didn't they ask them to make Dua' to Allaah for them, i.e. intercede for them?

Just thought that was worth pointing out before this topic moves forward.

[asadxyz]

:sl:

Allah said in His book about the associationist people of Nuh:

[They said: Do not forsake your gods, do not forsake Wadd, Suwaa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq, and Nasr.] Qur'an 71/23

Ibn Abbas and others of the first generations reported about this verse:

"These "gods" (mentioned in the verse) were a righteous people among the people of Nuh. When they died, the people were devoted to their graves. Later, they made images of them and worshipped them. This was the beginning of idol worship."

Just thought that was worth pointing out before this topic moves forward.

:
:sl:
Pre-empt ??? :giggling: :lol:
:w:

[NoName55]

MashaAllah, He is simply superb as always!

Pre-empt ???

best way!

prevention is better than cure

:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[IbnAbdulHakim]

jazakAllah khair for the link :)

[boriqee]

Imaam Fakhru-Deen ar-Razi on those who seek intercession of the dead

“And they worship besides Allâh things that hurt them not, nor profit them, and they say: "These are our intercessors with Allâh." Say: "Do you inform Allâh of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?" Glorified and Exalted be He above all that which they associate as partners with Him!”[10:18]

Imaam Razi said in his tafseer

“They(the polytheists) made these idols in the likeness of their prophets and elders. and they claimed that when they busy themselves with worship of these statues ,the elders will become their intercessors with Allah .Similar to them in this time are the actions of many people who busy themselves with glorification of graves of the elders(/great men) with the belief that when they glorify their graves(of the righteous) they will be their intercessors with Allah"[Tafseerul Kabeer]



{ وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ مَا لاَ يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلاَ يَنفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَـٰؤُلاۤءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِندَ ٱللَّهِ قُلْ أَتُنَبِّئُونَ ٱللَّهَ بِمَا لاَ يَعْلَمُ فِي ٱلسَّمَاوَاتِ وَلاَ فِي ٱلأَرْضِ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ }

ورابعها: أنهم وضعوا هذه الأصنام والأوثان على صور أنبيائهم وأكابرهم، وزعموا أنهم متى اشتغلوا بعبادة هذه التماثيل، فإن أولئك الأكابر تكون شفعاء لهم عند الله تعالى، ونظيره في هذا الزمان اشتغال كثير من الخلق بتعظيم قبور الأكابر، على اعتقاد أنهم إذا عظموا قبورهم فإنهم يكونون شفعاء لهم عند الله.

Fakhr al-Razi al-Ash’ari also said: ‘The majority of the greatest intellectuals said: the Dua is the greatest of all stations of worship’ (Sharh Asma Allah) Hence, if Dua is from the greatest of stations of worship, could it be directed to one other than Allah? And one guilty of it, could he be called anything but a Mushrik?

Furthermore, Fakhr al-Razi in his Tafseer reports al-Khattabi commenting on the Hadeeth: ‘The Dua is in fact worship’, meaning: that it (dua) is the greatest of acts of worship’!

Again, The Shafi'i-Ash'arite theologian, Fakhru-Deen ar-Razi states in his Tafseer; and this is the greatets proof coming from him PAY ATTENTION

"Those who said: 'We only worship these idols, which are sculptures of angels, so that they intercede for us. Hence, Allah falsified their claim saying: 'No intercession will be of benefit with Him, except for one He permits'. Hence, there is no benefit in you worshiping other than Allah, for Allah does not permit intercession for one who worships other than Him. You, by asking for intercession, have lost the right of intercession."

He also says: "Be certain, that the Kuffar said: 'We do not worship these idols because we believe they are gods that bring about benefit or harm. We only worship them... because these great beings become intercessors for us with Allah. Hence, Allah responded to them saying: 'Have they taken others besides Allah as intercessors? Say: Even if they do not posses a thing, nor do they understand?'


So lets analyze

he beleived that merely asking for shafa'a for whoever seeks it has by default lost the right that Allah originally gave him for shafa'a. That only makes sense considering your nullifying your chance of shafa'a since being a recipient of shafa'a ENTAILS that Allah waas pleased with your "following of the sunah" ad since the sunnah does not established seeking tawassul thereby trying to gain "shafa'a" then it follows you also fall outside the fold of thoe who deserve shafa'a

secondly, he viewed asking (du'a0 to be worship, which is the view of practically the majority of all muslims without doubt and supported heavily upon the tongue of tour nabi salallahu alaihi wa sallam where he said "dua is worship"


Oh he is not alone in this. I will bring the rest in another post bi ithnillah

asalamu alaikum

[boriqee]

what Im about to post in this an the following post is from the takhreej of akhoona Abu Zubayr since i beleive he di the best takhreej of it in the english language

1) To call upon other than Allah for a need, such as rain, etc, while believing that the one being addressed will answer the call is Shirk by agreement. For example: O Prophet! Send us rain!

2) To call upon other than Allah for a need, such as rain, etc, while believing that only Allah will answer the call is Shirk, by agreement. For example: O Prophet! Send us rain!

3) To call upon other than Allah, asking them to intercede for us with Allah is also Shirk. For example: O Prophet! Intercede for us with Allah!

4) To call upon the Prophet, asking him to make du’a for us is Shirk. For example: O Prophet! Ask Allah to grant us rain!

5) To call upon Allah alone, asking Him by His Prophet is a valid difference of opinion in Fiqh where none is censured. For example: O Allah! I ask you alone by Your noble Prophet!

[boriqee]

1) To call upon other than Allah for a need, such as rain, etc, while believing that the one being addressed will answer the call is Shirk by agreement. For example: O Prophet! Send us rain!

The following is what I wrote about this on another forum:

This is the most important of all issues that the Muslims must be very clear about, for this is the very foundation of our religion.

The danger of this issue must also be made clear, that if one is ignorant in this issue, and calls upon other than Allah, then he has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

1) Remember, that as a rule, there are aspects of this religion that are clear cut and well-established, whereby a person does not even need textual proof to believe in those aspects, and from them, worshipping Allah alone. Yet, the heretics and pagans will always bring arguments, as they did at the time of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – to cast doubt on that which is already established. Hence, they will bring arguments to suggest that making vows to idols is not Shirk, because making a vow itself is not worship. They can even argue that prostrating to someone other than Allah, or praying to him is not Shirk, because a Salah is not exactly an act of worship.

Here, a Muslim who has no knowledge, surely knows that idols are bad. No matter how corrupt a Muslim is, everyone knows that Islam is a monotheistic religion, which does not allow one to worship anyone besides Allah. Even a sinful Muslim knows that he should not prostrate to anyone besides Allah.

Yes, he might not be able to answer the counter-arguments, but he should still stick to the well-established facts about Islam. And hence, Allah’s censure of those in the Quran who leave the clear-cut Muhkam verses, and instead follow the ambiguous Mutashabihat, seeking thereby pure fitnah.

Meaning, if we have clear cut verses in the Quran, often repeated in nearly every Surah: Do not call upon anyone besides Allah; one seeking the truth knows that such verses are certainly clear-cut and open to no doubt. If one leaves these clear-cut verses and follows the twisted arguments of the pagans, he has surely followed the mutashabihat and therefore, led astray.

Please remember this principle, for this is applicable to host of issues where a layman like ourselves has little knowledge.

If someone argues with you how there is not Hadd for theft, etc, leave the doubts, and follow that which you know for certain.

2) One who advocates, or legitimises calling upon other than Allah is alien to Islam and its history. The Arabs before ‘Amr b. Luhay were upon the monotheistic religion of Ibrahim. When ‘Amr went to Syria, he saw people worshipping idols. He liked the idea, and brought one of the idols with him, and therefore, he became the first to introduce idols amongst the Arabs. And important point to note here is: The Arabs, in spite of worshipping idols, believed themselves to be on the religion of Ibrahim, and hence, they would make Hajj as they were taught to. They would even say: Labbayk Allahumma Labbayk, as we do today. The difference was, that they added to that: La sharika lak, illa sharikan huwa lak, tamlikuhu wa ma malak (You have no partner, except for whom You choose as a partner, whom you own along with what he owns). Read their Talbiyya for Hajj, for they clearly believed that Allah is the supreme God and He owns all other Gods, yet only by His power and decision, he makes other gods his partners. However, there kept appearing men – before the Prophet – who would abandon idol worshipping and tell the pagans that this is all bid’a. The Quraish will obviously pay no heed, for this is what they saw their forefathers doing. The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam – was sent as a Messenger to revive the religion of Ibrahim. Thus, his call was to abandon all acts of worship directed towards other than Allah. The Quran is filled with condemnation of these pagans, arguing that the pagans call upon those who cannot benefit them! And guess what? The Pagans do not disagree that the idols do not benefit them! Their only argument was: These are our intercessors with Allah. This is exactly what the pagans today claim.

3) The Quran is so crammed full of verses condemning – specifically – calling upon other than Allah, that as Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab says: Whoever has a copy of the Quran, and still calls upon other than Allah, is in no need of any evidence being established upon him. SubhaanAllah! Is there any evidence after the explicit and clear cut text of the Quran?! And if the Quran is not a sufficient evidence, then what use is the Quran which cannot even prove something as basic as this?!

For example, Allah says, and we are ordered to recite in every raka’ah: ‘You alone we ask for help’

These Mushriks say: Erm… not exactly, we ask others besides You too…

Allah says: ‘Indeed the Mosques belong to Allah, so do not call upon anyone besides Allah’

These Mushriks say: You may call upon others besides Allah

Allah says: ‘Who is more astray than the one who calls upon other than Allah, one who cannot respond until the Day of Resurrection, while they are unmindful of their invocation?’

These Mushriks say: ‘In fact the dead do respond to us, and hence you can call upon other than Allah’

Allah says: ‘Those you call upon besides Allah are servants just like you, so call upon them, and let them respond to you if you are truthful’

Mushriks say: ‘Yes, they are servants just like us, and yes, we would call upon them’

No need for me to keep quoting verses upon verses, for anyone who reads the Quran, I do not understand, how on earth he would miss such clear cut verses, unless if Allah has made him for the Fire. For how can one establish evidences against a person who recites iyyaka nasta’een in every raka’ah, yet still calls upon other than Allah!

4) Calling upon other than Allah is Shirk by agreement of the Muslims, past and present.

Mullah ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says commenting upon Hadeeth about the worst of sins where the Prophet said: ‘To make a rival unto Allah, while He created you’; Al-Qari says: ‘Meaning: To make someone his equal in your invocation and worship’

The Hanbalis have unanimously agreed that whoever takes an intermediary between himself and Allah, calls upon them and asks of them, has disbelieved by consensus. See for reference al-Furu’, al-Insaf, Kashaf al-Qina’, Sharh al-Muntaha and Ghayat al-Muntaha.

This consensus was also referred to by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his al-I’lam bi qawati’ al-Islam, even though he permits tawassul, i.e. asking Allah directly by the right of the Prophet, and not asking the Prophet instead!

Ibn al-Subki in his Shifa al-Saqam also regards asking other than Allah is Shirk, while arguing that Istighatha (seeking aid) through the Prophet is not Shirk. He says: ‘(by seeking aid)… we are not asking other than Allah, nor are we calling upon anyone but Him. Hence, the one asked in such invocations is Allah alone who has no partners, while the one on whose behalf the question is made varies. This does not necessitate Shirk, nor asking other than Allah. Likewise, asking by the virtue of the Prophet, is not actually asking the Prophet (directly), rather it is asking Allah (directly), by the virtue of the Prophet’. Meaning, if one were to ask the Prophet directly, it would be, not doubt, Shirk with Allah.

Al-Taftazani states in Sharh al-Maqasid that the Shirk which the early pagans were guilty of was making statues of righteous people and glorifying them in order to seek their intercession with Allah.

Al-Zabidi the Ash’arite theologian also concurred with the so-called ‘*******’ understanding of ‘invocation being the act of worship’.

Moreover, what would al-Zahawi do with the following Hadeeth: ‘When you ask, only ask from Allah. When you seek aid, only seek aid from Allah’?

Al-Qurtubi also states in the tafseer of the verse: ‘Your Lord said: Call upon Me, and I will respond to you!’, this proves that invocation is the act of worship, and this is what most of the mufassirin are upon’.

Fakhr al-Razi al-Ash’ari said: ‘The majority of the greatest intellectuals said: the Dua is the greatest of all stations of worship’ (Sharh Asma Allah) Hence, if Dua is from the greatest of stations of worship, could it be directed to one other than Allah? And one guilty of it, could he be called anything but a Mushrik?

Furthermore, Fakhr al-Razi in his Tafseer reports al-Khattabi commenting on the Hadeeth: ‘The Dua is in fact worship’, meaning: that it (dua) is the greatest of acts of worship’!

5) It is important to understand that the modern pagans are not different to the early pagans. In fact the modern pagans are worse. This is because the early pagans, when they were caught in a difficulty, they would call upon Allah alone, as Allah says: ‘When they aboard a ship, they call upon Allah, purifying the religion for Him. Yet, when He saves them and brings them to the land, they are instantly committing Shirk’

The pagans of today call upon other than Allah, even during hardships.

The only difference between the pagans of the old and 21st century pagans, is that the first ones actually called their idols ‘gods’ and acknowledged that they worshipped them; while the modern pagans – most of them – do not call their saints ‘gods’, nor do they claim to worship them, yet the actions they perform towards these saints are exactly the same as the actions performed by the early pagans to their gods. Hence, their actions in reality are the same, the difference between them is restricted to terminology.

I said ‘most of them’ for some of them actually refer to the Prophet – SallAllau ‘alaihi wa-sallam – as al-Awwal, al-Aakhir, al-Dhahir al-Batin! This Shirk was printed and distributed by ‘Alawi al-Maliki, the ‘Amr b. Luhay of the age who brought idolatry back to the Arabs after 1400 years!

[boriqee]

2) To call upon other than Allah for a need, such as rain, etc, while believing that only Allah will answer the call is Shirk, by agreement. For example: O Prophet! Send us rain!

This is what I wrote some time ago on a different forum:

Firstly, The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – made takfeer of the pagans for merely calling upon other than Allah, even though they explicitly declared that Allah is the only Lord, the Creator, the Provider.

This is reflected in the following verse:

‘Say: Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth? Or who controls hearing and sight and who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living and who arranges [every] matter? They will say: Allah. So say: Then will you not fear Him?’

As it is clear that although the pagans believed that Allah is the only provider, they still called upon their idols, claiming that they are merely their intercessors.

Similarly, Allah said of the pagans: ‘Most of them do not believe in Allah, except that they associate partners unto Him’

al-Tabari says in his tafseer: Their belief in Allah is their saying: Allah is our Creator, our Provider, who gives us death and gives us life; while their Shirk is to attribute partners unto Allah in His worship and invocation.

Secondly, when the Hanbali scholars and others explicitly stated the apostasy of the one who calls upon other than Allah, they do not differentiate between one who does so believing the response would come from Allah, and one who does so believing the response would come from the creation.

To differentiate between the two only first appeared after the Da’wah of Sheikh Miuhammd b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab. The advocates of this idea were simply seeking justification for one to call upon others besides Allah. Hence, they argued that when one says: ‘O Sidi ‘Abd al-Qadir, help me!’ He is in reality addressing Allah, while mentioning ‘Abd al-Qadir only allegorically, because he believes in his heart that the response will only come from Allah.

In response, we say that the statement: ‘O so-and-so, help me!’ is Sarih al-Kufr – an explicit statement of Kufr, which does not accommodate Majaz. Just like the word Talaq, is an explicit statement of divorce, and if one says it to his wife even in jest, his wife is divorced. He cannot claim: I only intended it allegorically, whereas my intention was not to divorce her. Similarly, when one makes a statement of clear-cut apostasy, such as: O Sidi fulan, help me! He becomes an apostate, and his claim that he intended something else would be of no use to him.

[boriqee]

3) To call upon other than Allah, asking them to intercede for us with Allah is also Shirk. For example: O Prophet! Intercede for us with Allah!

The following verdict from Allah about intercession should suffice:

“They worship besides Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, saying: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Do you inform Allah of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth? Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him!” (Yunus 18)

The Hanafi Maturidi theolgian, al-Taftazani states that the Shirk only occured amongst the pagans when "one of them died, who possessed a high station with Allah, they took an sculpture resembling him and exalted him, thereby seeking his intercession (tashaffu'an) and and taking him as means (tawassulan)." Sharh al-Maqasid

The Shafi'i-Ash'arite theologian, al-Razi states in his Tafseer: "Those who said: 'We only worship these idols, which are sculptures of angels, so that they intercede for us. Hence, Allah falsified their claim saying: 'No intercession will be of benefit with Him, except for one He permits'. Hence, there is no benefit in you worshiping other than Allah, for Allah does not permit intercession for one who worships other than Him. You, by asking for intercession, have lost the right of intercession."

He also says: "Be certain, that the Kuffar said: 'We do not worship these idols because we believe they are gods that bring about benefit or harm. We only worship them... because these great beings become intercessors for us with Allah. Hence, Allah responded to them saying: 'Have they taken others besides Allah as intercessors? Say: Even if they do not posses a thing, nor do they understand?'

Ibn Taymiyya says in reference to this verse: ‘He – Subhaanahu – informed about the pagans – as has preceded – that they took intermediaries between themselves and Allah, calling upon them and taking them as intercessors without Allah’s permission. Allah Ta’ala said: “They worship besides Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, saying: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Do you inform Allah of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth? Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him!” Hence, Allah informed that those who took them as intercessors are Mushrikun.’ Majmu’ al-Fatawa 3/105

Ibn Taymiyya also says regarding the intersession of the pagans (al-Radd ‘ala al-Bakri): ‘The origin of the pagan misguidance was that they thought that the intercession with Allah is like intercession with someone else – to his words – Allah is the Lord of everything, the owner and the creator, and therefore, none intercedes with Him except after his permission, and none intercedes on behalf of anyone, except one for whom Allah has allowed the intercessor to intercede. If Allah has not allowed (for him to intercede), the intercession is of no use, just as the intercession of Nuh was of no use for his son, or that of Ibrahim for his father, or that of Lut for his people, or the Prophet’s – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – prayer over the Munifiqin and his seeking forgiveness for them’

This shows that the early pagans were called Mushrikun for taking intermediaries as intercessors, without Allah’s permission.

This equally applies to those who take the Prophet as an intercessor without Allah’s permission.

Yes, the Prophet will be given the permission to intercede, which Ahl al-Sunnah firmly affirm. However, his intercession solely depends on Allah’s permission for him to intercede, and only for those whom the Prophet has been given the permission to intercede for.

For one to ask the Prophet to intercede for him, without Allah’s permission, is exactly like the pagans who interceded through al-Lat and ‘Uzza, without having any authority from Allah. There exists absolutely no difference between the two sets of pagans, the old and the modern.

Also, the fact that the Prophet will be given the right of intercession on the Day of Resurrection does not justify calling upon him in this world asking for his intercession. For the martyrs will also intercede, and so would the child who dies in infancy, etc. Yet, we all agree that taking all these people as shufa’a (intercessors) with Allah, is the very Shirk of the old pagan who would also take their prophets, righteous and angels as intercessors with Allah, having no authority from Allah.

This puts the modern pagans in a dilemma, for they have the choice of either taking the prophets, the angels, the truthful ones, the awliya and the shuhada, all as intercessors and intermediaries and join the pagan camp; or of leaving them all and taking none as an intercessor with Allah.

Lastly, Ibn al-Qayyim says in Madarij al-Salikin (1/332):
“From the forms (of Shirk): Requesting the dead for needs, seeking their aid and turning to them.

This is the basis for Shirk in the world. This is because the actions of the dead have ceased. He is not able to harm or benefit himself, let alone the one who seeks his aid, or asks him to fulfil his need, or asks him to intercede for him with Allah, for this is from his ignorance with respect to the intercessor and the one interceded for, as has preceded. This is because he (the intercessor) is not able to intercede for him with Allah, except with His permission. Allah did not make his ‘seeking aid’ and petitioning, a cause for Allah’s permission to be granted. The only cause that grants Allah’s permission (for intercession) is the perfection of Tawheed. Yet, this Mushrik comes along, with a cause that only prevents Allah’s permission (for intercession)!”

This should, at least, show that asking the Prophet for intercession being Shirk is not a ‘*******’ invention. How could it be when Allah is classified this act to be Shirk and further ordered the Prophet to fight the pagans for this very Shirk? And if the Quran is not a Hujjah (proof) for someone, then could there possibly be any other proof to satisfy him?

[boriqee]

4) To call upon the Prophet, asking him to make du’a for us is Shirk. For example: O Prophet! Ask Allah to grant us rain!

Some of the contemporary scholars (I think Salah al-Sawi and may be Ibn Uthaymin) opined that if one were to ask the Prophet to make dua to Allah at his grave, it would not be Shirk, but Bid’ah being on the brink of Shirk. The reason for this, as they say, is that if one believes in two premises;

i) The dead can hear (understanding of some evidences)
ii) the dead can supplicate (unsubstantiated assumption)

He can then ask the dead to make du’a for him, just as he would when he was alive.

They argue on this basis that it is not Shirk, but definitely a door to Shirk and a despicable bid’a which none of the early Muslims performed.

They also back their claim with a misunderstood statement of Ibn Taymiyya where he says that such action is a bid’a.

I find this opinion very problematic due to a number of reasons:

1) We all agree that seeking intercession from the dead is an act of Shirk and this is exactly what the pagans of the old would do. What is the difference between asking them to intercede on your behalf, and asking them to make dua on your behalf?

2) Although the Salaf differed whether or not the dead can hear, but they certainly did not believe that the dead can make du'a on their behalf, and hence never requested them to make dua.

3) Based on the second premise, asking the dead to make dua for a person, is asking him for that which he is not able to do, and that is how we defined Shirk: To ask the creation of something which only Allah can do at that particular instance. Hence, for example, if one were to ask his absent son to give him water, that would be foolish unless he believes his son has the power to hear him and answer his call, and that would be Shirk.

4) Are we to exempt the people of Shirk, if their Shirk is based on false assumptions? We surely did not exempt the early pagans of Shirk when they assumed the idols can hear and moreover intercede for them on their behalf. Why should we then exempt those who ask the Prophet to intercede for them assuming that he can? In other words, if a Mushrik were to say: O Lat! O ‘Uzza! Intercede on our behalf! Would that not be Shirk but merely bid’a?

5) The statements of Ibn Taymiyya, al-Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and the rest of the Fuqaha merely discuss calling upon the dead and the absent. The statements do not seem to distinguish between calling upon the dead for help, or calling upon them for dua. In fact, the scholars, including Ibn Taymiyya, explicitly regarded that to be Shirk. Yes, there is found one statement of Ibn Taymiyya where he calls it bid’a. However, bid’a is a general term and could equally include bid’a kufriyya which expels one from Islam, and this certainly happens to be the case when Ibn Taymiyya categorically considers calling upon the dead to make dua, as Shirk.

Ibn Taymiyya comments on those who ask the Prophet to call upon Allah in Iqtida al-Sirat al-Mustaqim:

‘It is from the Mercy of Allah that the du’a which necessitates Shirk, such as to call upon someone to do something, or to call upon someone to make du’a, it does not fulfil the need of the person, and even the fulfilment of need does not create any misconception except in minor cases. As for major cases, such as to seek rain during draught, or to avert an impending punishment, then this Shirk is of no use.’

Statements like above are plenty, not only from Ibn Taymiyya but also other scholars, and there is a consensus amongst the Muslims on not taking intermediaries and making them intercessors between ourselves and Allah, for that was the very Shirk for which the Quraysh were fought.

6) Assuming that the dead can hear and they can supplicate too, those who consider it bid’a and not Shirk, insist that it must be done at the grave of the Prophet alone, for asking the Prophet from one’s home is like calling upon the absent, which is Shirk. This has two problems:

i) If one considers that the dead can hear and therefore allow for one to ask the Prophet to ask Allah, should allow the same with the rest of the dead. Hence, he should allow one to go to any grave and ask the dead therein to make dua to Allah. As we can see, this is quite clearly problematic.

ii) Even if the dead can hear, practically speaking, I think it would be impossible for one to speak loud enough at the Rawdha of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – for the Prophet to hear would be quite impossible; knowing a) the construction around the grave, b) the crowd, c) the Mutawas with the stick and more importantly d) Allah’s command to lower our voices in presence of the Prophet.

Hence, practically speaking, even according to those who say it is merely a bid’a on the bring of Shirk, if one were to supplicate besides the grave in a manner where the Prophet cannot hear him, it would be akin to calling upon the absent, and therefore Shirk.

7) Lastly, although some of the modern day respected scholars differed whether it is Shirk or not, they have surely agreed that it is a bid’a, and no doubt that if it is not Shirk, it is still on the brink of it. A Muslim who values his faith should avoid that which is disputed over its permissibility, so how about avoiding that which is disputed over its apostasy?

Finally, the modern pagans who justify calling upon the Prophet and asking him to call upon Allah bring forth two arguments:

a) The Prophets are alive in the grave, so we can ask them to ask Allah, as we would before he was burried

b) The Prophet - SallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam - returns our Salams, and therefore, if we ask him to make du'a, he would do so.

In response to that we say:

i) Yes, the Prophets are alive in their graves, but their life is not in the worldly sense. The nature of their life we do not know. What we know for certain is that the Prophet died, as Allah says in the Quran: 'You will die'. What we also, therefore, know for certain that he will be resurrected. So if he was alive, as we understand life, there will be no meaning to his resurrection.

ii) Some of what is established for the Prophets, is also established for non-Prophets, such as being alive in the grave, praying, or even returning Salam. Yet, the Ummah is unanimous that taking people as intercessors with Allah is Shirk, and the Quranic verse is clear cut in that regard, whether they are prophets, angels, jinns, righteous and martyrs (who are also alive as Allah states). It is already established that when a Muslim gives Salam to his dead brother, his soul is returned so that he may respond to his Salam.

iii) Again, this is not an evidence that the dead is an intercessor with Allah. This idea is the making of the pagans, quite like the pagans of the old.

Final Word:
Remember, all people of misguidance have misconceptions and they all have misconstrued proofs, including the old pagans. Yes, they might not have a proof from the revelation, but they still believed their objects of worship to be righteous people who are closer to Allah. Point being, based on this evidence of theirs, be it textual or rational, they made such people as intercessors between themselves and Allah, without Allah giving them the permission to do so. On this account alone they were condemned as pagans.

The modern pagans also take the Prophet as an intercessor between themselves and Allah, while they have no proof, neither textual nor rational, that Allah has given the Prophet the permission to intercede for them or not, or whether or not they can ask the dead Prophet to make du'a for them in his grave.

[boriqee]

5) To call upon Allah alone, asking Him by His Prophet is a valid difference of opinion in Fiqh where none is censured. For example: O Allah! I ask you alone by Your noble Prophet!

This type of tawassul does not entail Shirk by agreement, but it is, nevertheless, a bida'i tawassul, over which the scholars have differed.

Bida’i tawassul is, as al-‘Allama Hasan al-Shatti al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali says while commenting on Matalib Ulin-Nuha, quoting Ibn ‘al-Imad al-Hanbali: ‘Tawassul through the righteous is for one to say: O Allah! I make tawassul to you through your Prophet Muhammad SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, or someone else, that you fulfil my need’

Take note, that the tawassul referred to here involves directly calling upon Allah and addressing Him alone, by the right of His creation. It does not involve calling upon anyone other than Allah, for that will be dealt with later on.

This type of Tawassul is differed over amongst the scholars, including the Hanbalis.

Some scholars, including Ibn Qudama allow this type of Tawassul, while other scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyya do not allow it.

The issue of tawassul is linked to swearing an oath by the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam.

Most of the scholars prohibit one from doing so, including a number of prominent Hanbalis, such as Ibn Qudama, Shams al-Din al-Maqdisi, Ibn Munajja, Ibn Taymiyya and others.

Most of the Hanbalis, however, allow one to swear an oath by the Prophet only, and this opinion is from the mufradat of the Madhab – meaning, no other Madhab holds this opinion but the Hanbali Madhab.

Those who favour this opinion argue that i) there is an explicit text from Imam Ahmad concerning this, and ii) since the Prophet is part of la ilaha illallah, it implies that when one swears by the Prophet, it is as if he is swearing by Allah, and therefore, the oath is enacted, the violation of which obligates kaffara (expiation).

Based on Imam Ahmad’s narration on swearing an oath by the Prophet, Imam Ahmad also opined that it is permissible to make tawassul through the Prophet – asking Allah directly by the right of the Prophet (and not asking the prophet).

However, in another narration, Imam Ahmad does not allow one to swear by the Prophet. Hence, it could be deduced from this narration that tawassul through the right of the Prophet is not allowed. This is known as al-riwaya al-mukharraja in the Madhab; and hence, two narrations from Imam Ahmad concerning tawassul; riwaya mutalaqa and riwaya mukharraja

This is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya, mentioned in all the major post-Ibn Taymiyya mu’tamad (reliable) books for fatwa.

Is Tawassul through the Prophet the Hanbali Madhab?

Firstly, hardly any of the Hanbali books before Ibn Taymiyya, deal with the topic of tawassul through the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, bar al-Samurri in his al-Mustaw’ib. Ibn Qudama fails to discuss it in any of his works, as well as Majd Ibn Taymiyya (Sheikh al-Islam’s grandfather) in his Muharrar. These two are known as the ‘two Sheikhs’ of the Madhab, and whatever they agree on is the Madhab. It seems both of them agreed not to even mention the topic of tawassul through the Prophet, let alone categorise it as the Madhab, wajh or even ihtimal (refer to the thread ‘Hanbali vs Salafi’ for the meaning of these terms).

Al-Mardawi, who authored his voluminous al-Insaf to determine what is or isn’t the Madhab mentions the issue of tawassul through the Prophet, without declaring it as the Madhab.

Secondly, the latter Hanbali scholars have two main methodologies of determining what is the Madhab. The easiest and the most common of them is by comparing between the two mu’atamad (reliable) works; i) al-Iqna’ and ii) al-Muntaha

Whatever al-Iqna’ and al-Muntaha agree on is the Madhab. When they differ, then whatever Ghayat al-Muntaha deems correct is the Madhab.

Now, al-Iqna’ mentions tawassul through the Prophet, while al-Muntaha remains silent and leaves the issue out completely.

Then Ghayat al-Muntaha, following al-Muntaha, also leaves the issue of tawassul out and gives no mention.

This further highlights that tawassul through the Prophet is not the madhab.

Furthermore, I do not know of a Hanbali who declared it to be the mu’tamad position in the Madhab, and if it was a mu’tamad position, al-Mardawi should have stated so, and if not, then it should have been stated in Ghayat al-Muntaha.

With respect to Ibn Qudama quoting al-‘Utbi’s narration in al-Mughni, then there are a few points we should bear in mind:

1) Ibn Qudama does not mention the narration as an evidence, but only as a citation, which is why he says: ‘yurwa’ – it has been narrated, indicating that the narration is weak, and therefore, not suitable as an evidence.

2) The ‘Utbi narration is not an evidence from what we know of Usul al-Fiqh, for evidence is what the Prophet said, did, or agreed to. The ‘Utbi incident – even if we were to assume it authentic – would have no bearing at all with respect to fiqh.

3) The narration does not – anywhere – indicate that ‘Utbi was making du’a to the Prophet. All it says is:


Quote:
And it is narrated from al-`Utbi who said, ‘I was sitting at the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) when a Bedouin approached and said, ‘Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. I have heard that Allah says {And if when they wronged themselves, they came to you and repented to Allah and the Messenger seeks their pardon they would have found Allah All-Forgiving and Most Merciful.} So I have come to you penitent for my sins seeking your intercession to my Lord.’


He does not say to the Prophet: ‘O Prophet, forgive me’, for that would be Shirk.

He simply did what he thinks he is told to do in the verse: ‘they came to you and repented to Allah’.

It is like a person coming to the Black Stone saying: I have come to you, seeking forgiveness of my sins. Meaning, he is not seeking forgiveness from the stone, or calling upon the stone to help. He is merely expressing his emotions, while seeking forgiveness from Allah alone.

As far as addressing the Prophet directly and asking him for help is concerned, then we have covered it in detail in the posts above.

What I would like to emphasise here is that this type of tawassul through the Prophet, as Ibn al-‘Imad defines, is where difference of opinion is allowed and respected, even if we believe that it may lead to Shirk.
Hence, I would end this section with the following words of al-Imam al-Mujaddid, Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali al-Najdi:

Regarding their statement with respect to al-Istisqa (praying for seeking rain): ‘There is no harm in making tawassul through the righteous’ and Ahmad’s statement: ‘tawassul is only allowed through the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam’, while they all say: ‘Istighatha (seeking aid) from the creation is not allowed’, then the difference (between the two is very clear, and it is irrelevant to what we are concerned with.

For some scholars to allow tawassul through the righteous, or for some to restrict it to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, while majority of the scholars forbidding and disliking it; these issues are from fiqhi issues. Even though the correct opinion in our view is the majority opinion that it is disliked, we still do not censure one who practises it (tawassul), for there is no censuring in issues of ijtihad.

However, our censure of one who calls upon the creation, is greater than the censure of one who calls upon Allah Ta’ala (alone); for he travels to the grave beseeching, next to al-Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir or others, seeking the alleviation of calamites, aiding the grief-stricken, attaining the desirables; where is this all from one who calls upon Allah, purifying His religion for Him, not calling upon anyone besides Allah, except that he says in his supplication: I ask you by Your Prophet, messengers, or the righteous servants, or travels to Ma’ruf’s grave or others’ to supplicate there, yet only supplicates to Allah, purifying the religion for Him, how is this relevant to what concerns us here?

(Fatawa wa masa’il al-Sheikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab page 41)

[boriqee]

After a review of the evidences above then i say that even one of he greatets upholders of tawassul, as-Subki, even he as well held tawassul only to ber right by asking allah through the so and so and not asking the so and so. I think Shah Waliu-llah was of this category as well.

inshalalh I willsee ifi should post what some of the hanafees said concerning making waseela i.e. tawassul

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

:sl: This is one of my previous posts.I am reposting it

Assalaamo Alaikum

What is the significance of Shirk ?

وَإِذْ قَالَ لُقْمَانُ لِابْنِهِ وَهُوَ يَعِظُهُ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تُشْرِكْ بِاللَّهِ إِنَّ الشِّرْكَ لَظُلْمٌ عَظِيمٌ﴿31:13﴾

(31:13) Remember the time when Luqman was admonishing his son, saying, "My son, join not another as an associate with God: *20 the truth is that joining associates (with God) is a grave iniquity
Is Shirk forgivable ??

إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيدًا﴿4:116﴾

(4:116) Truly it is only associating others with Allah in His divinity that Allah does not forgive, *144 and forgives anything besides that to whomsoever He wills. Whoever associates others with Allah in His divinity has indeed strayed far away.
Did the Mushriks of Mecca not believe in Allah ??

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ فَأَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ﴿29:61﴾

(29:61) If you ask them, *100 "Who has created the earth and the heavens and Who has subjected the moon and the sun?" they will surely say, "AIIah." How are they then being deceived?

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّن نَّزَّلَ مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوْتِهَا لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ قُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ﴿29:63﴾

(29:63) If you ask them, "Who sent down rainwater from the sky and thereby raised the dead earth back to life?" they will surely say, "Allah!" Say, "Praise be to Allah!" *101 Yet most of them do not use their common sense

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ :87﴾

(43:87) And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say, "Allah" *

What was their purpose of Worshiping of Idols ??

وَيَقُولُونَ هَـؤُلاء شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِندَ اللّهِ

(10:18) saying; 'These are our intercessors with Allah.'

مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى

(39:3) (and justify their conduct, saying): "We worship them only that they may bring us closer to Allah

Another form of Shirk
Below is from Tafsir Ibne Kasir:

﴿اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ﴾

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and the Messiah, son of Maryam) ﴿9:31﴾. Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith via several chains of narration, from `Adi bin Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, who became Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah. When the call of the Messenger of Allah reached his area, `Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured. The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah . `Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father, Hatim At-Ta'i, was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival, `Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah;
﴿اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ﴾
(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah). `Adi commented, "I said, `They did not worship them.''' The Holy Prophet(PBUH) said

«[b]بَلَى إِنَّهُمْ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمُ الْحَلَالَ وَأَحَلُّوا لَهُمُ الْحَرَامَ فَاتَّبَعُوهُمْ فَذَلِكَ عِبَادَتُهُمْ إِيَّاهُم»

(Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.)
(Tafsir Ibne Kasir )

Best of luck

[IbnAbdulHakim]

After a review of the evidences above then i say that even one of he greatets upholders of tawassul, as-Subki, even he as well held tawassul only to ber right by asking allah through the so and so and not asking the so and so. I think Shah Waliu-llah was of this category as well.

inshalalh I willsee ifi should post what some of the hanafees said concerning making waseela i.e. tawassul

asalamu alaikum

lol bro this is my opinion aswell

jazakAllahu khair for your effort, may Allah reward you :)

[boriqee]

lol bro this is my opinion aswell

jazakAllahu khair for your effort, may Allah reward you :)

although i respect you and hold you dear, i do not respect that opinion and nor is it free from having ta'an practiced on it, because while this maybe the opinions of "some" scholars, it was never an opinion in any of the first, well actually first 3 generations. whatever was not islam with them cannot be islam now.
That is why the majority have opined that this opinion was a bid'a, hence its ruling and the attitude practiced towards it, particualrly by me.

Since we are on the topic, maybe you could bring some evidences as to why you follow this opinion.

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

:sl:
I have not been able to understand the "dispute" of Tawassul.
There are so many prayers by Prophets recorded in the

1. Holy Quran
2. Sahi ahdiths

Does anyone of them show this "Tawassul"? If not then what is debate for?
The Holy Quran and Sunnah are the standard.No one else.
The Holy Quran calls itself as

1. Meezaan = Standard for every opinion whether that is right or wrong
2. Furqan = A tool which differentiates between "Haq" and "Batil"
3. Burhaan = Argument

Best of luck

[boriqee]

:sl:
I have not been able to understand the "dispute" of Tawassul.
There are so many prayers by Prophets recorded in the

1. Holy Quran
2. Sahi ahdiths

Does anyone of them show this "Tawassul"? If not then what is debate for?
The Holy Quran and Sunnah are the standard.No one else.
The Holy Quran calls itself as

1. Meezaan = Standard for every opinion whether that is right or wrong
2. Furqan = A tool which differentiates between "Haq" and "Batil"
3. Burhaan = Argument

Best of luck

dear brother
asalamu alaikum.

You have to understand ONE THING in particular. That there were some from among this ummah who wished to implore the practices of jahiliyyah. Thus they used the quraan for their shubuhaat (satanic douubts). This setting gained much momentum under the guise of "the path to ihsaan and zuhd i.e. tassawuf.

And here are the quranic references "used' for the promotion of the jahiliyyah arguements.

The two main proofs, or actually the only two is

1. the quranic ayaah with the wording that goes like, well I can't find the ayaah so ill say by memory

"And that they seek the means of approach to Allah"


2. I forget this refence ayaah as well but it goes along he lines of

"Had they come to you (oh muhammad) when they were in the wrong, and sought your foregiveness"

Might I add to this ayaah the fact that there is a report that a lesser companion after the prophet died actully came to he grave of the prophet.

So you see, akhee their arguement is based on the assumption that the quraan condones the act, as i said, the key word here is "assumption"

However when these texts are analysed along with contexytual poof form other ibaarah an-nass, as well as underlying statements of the sahaba and the salaf, one willeasily land on a totally clearer, orthodox, approach to the matter as opposed to the unorthodox, doubtful approach.


so no matter how grossly misinterpreted these versus are in the support of bi'i or unfounded type tawassul, the founation for their dispute is still the quraan.

I had brought somehting in this regard long ago and I think it would be befiting to post it here.

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

dear brother
asalamu alaikum.

You have to understand ONE THING in particular. That there were some from among this ummah who wished to implore the practices of jahiliyyah. Thus they used the quraan for their shubuhaat (satanic douubts). This setting gained much momentum under the guise of "the path to ihsaan and zuhd i.e. tassawuf.

:w:
I think you are referring to the Aya :
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ اتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَابْتَغُواْ إِلَيهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ وَجَاهِدُواْ فِي سَبِيلِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ﴿5:35﴾

(5:35) Believers! Fear Allah and seek the means to come near to Him, *58 and strive hard in His way; *59 maybe you will attain true success

But before discussing to the exact meaning of "wasila" which is being used a tool for misguidance ,let me tell you that concept of "intermediary" was already prevailing when the Holy Quran was revealed.Even the Mushrikeen of Mekka used to worship idols of Pious people not thinking them as "Allah" rather they used to take them as "intermediary".This is apparent from this Aya

مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى

and justify their conduct, saying): "We worship them only that they may bring us closer to Allah.

The minds of people were in complete control of these "Religious Leader" and the Quran tells us in the way:

اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ

9:31) They have made their scholars and monks as their Lords beside Allah,

And these leaders used to Cheat them of money :

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الأَحْبَارِ وَالرُّهْبَانِ لَيَأْكُلُونَ أَمْوَالَ النَّاسِ بِالْبَاطِلِ وَيَصُدُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ

(9:34) O Believers, indeed most of the scholars and monks of the people of the Book devour the wealth of others by evil means, and debar them

[B]But When Quran came one of its major tasks was that it released the people of these "Grips[/B]"

وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ

and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them
(Note:Words are worth noting)

A REVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLE WHICH DOES NOT EXEMPT EVEN PROPHETS:
مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُؤْتِيَهُ اللّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُواْ عِبَادًا لِّي مِن دُونِ اللّهِ وَلَـكِن كُونُواْ رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنتُمْ
تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ﴿3:79﴾
(3:79) It does not befit a man that Allah should grant him His Book and sound judgement and prophet-hood, and thereafter he should say to men: 'Become servants to me apart from Allah.' He would rather say: 'Become dedicated men of Allah, *67 in accord with the dictates of the Book you have been teaching and studying.

This was in reality freedom of thought which established a DIrect Link between mankind and Allah Almighty;And Allah declared :
وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ

(2:186) And if My servants ask you, O Prophet. concerning Me, tell them that I am quite near to them. I hear and answer the prayer of the suppliant, when he calls to Me.

Not only this declaration rather Allah promises :

وَقَالَ رَبُّكُمُ ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ

(40:60) Your *82 Lord says: "Call upon Me. I will answer your prayers

Note : No intemediary between mankind and His creator

When we recite Sura Fateha ,we declare two Links between us and Almighty Allah
;إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ ﴿1:5﴾

(1:5) You alone do we worship *6, and You alone do we turn for help

No intermediary between our "ibaada " and Him and similarly no intermediary in "Istiaana" between us and HIm

What is meant by WASEELA which we quoted in the first Aya:
Arabic Dictionary of Misbah Ul Munir :

( و س ل ) : وَسَلْتُ إلَى اللَّهِ بِالْعَمَلِ أَسِلُ مِنْ بَابِ وَعَدَ رَغِبْتُ وَتَقَرَّبْتُ وَمِنْهُ اشْتِقَاقُ الْوَسِيلَةِ وَهِيَ مَا يُتَقَرَّبُ بِهِ إلَى الشَّيْءِ وَالْجَمْعُ الْوَسَائِلُ وَالْوَسِيلُ قِيلَ جَمْعُ وَسِيلَةٍ وَقِيلَ لُغَةٌ فِيهَا وَتَوَسَّلَ إلَى رَبِّهِ بِوَسِيلَةٍ تَقَرَّبَ إلَيْهِ بِعَمَلٍ.

In short according to it waseela is the means to get near to Allah and that is with GOOD DEEDS)

Even the different Tafasirs are giving the exactly the same meaning.No one has mentioned any "Righteous ,pious or prophet " as intermediary.According to them the mean of getting near to Allah is

1. Good deeds
2. Avoidance of Sins

تفسير الطبري - (ج 10 / ص 290)
"وابتغوا إليه الوسيلة"، يقول: واطلبوا القربة إليه بالعمل بما يرضيه. (2)
* * *
و"الوسيلة": هي"الفعيلة" من قول القائل:"توسلت إلى فلان بكذا"، بمعنى: تقرَّبت إليه،

تفسير الألوسي - (ج 4 / ص 470)
{ الوسيلة } هي فعيلة بمعنى ما يتوسل به ويتقرب إلى الله عز وجل من فعل الطاعات وترك المعاصي من وسل إلى كذا أي تقرب إليه بشيء

زاد المسير - (ج 2 / ص 206)
قوله تعالى : { وابتغوا إِليه الوسيلة } في «الوسيلة» قولان .
أحدهما : أنها القربة ، قاله ابن عباس ، وعطاء ، ومجاهد ، والفراء . وقال قتادة : تقربوا إِليه بما يرضيه . قال أبو عبيدة : يقال توسلت إِليه ، أي : تقرّبت إِليه . وأنشد :
إِذا غفل الواشُونَ عُدْنَا لِوَصِْلَنا ... وَعَاَد التَّصَافي بيننا وَالوَسَائلُ
والثاني : المحبة ، يقول : تحببوا إِلى الله ، هذا قول ابن زيد

تفسير الثعالبي - (ج 1 / ص 411)
{ الوسيلة } : القُرْبَةُ
تفسير الثعالبي - (ج 1 / ص 411)
وقد فسر النبيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم الوسيلةَ التي كان يَرْجُوها من ربه ، « وأَنَّهَا دَرَجَةٌ فِي الجَنَّةِ لاَ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ تَكُونَ إلاَّ لِعَبْدٍ مِنْ عِبَادِ اللَّهِ ، وَأَرْجُو أَنْ أَكُونَ أَنَا هُوَ
الكشاف - (ج 2 / ص 23)
لوسيلة : كل ما يتوسل به أي يتقرّب من قرابة أو صنيعة أو غير ذلك ، فاستعيرت لما يتوسل به إلى الله تعالى من فعل الطاعات وترك المعاصي
You may differ but it is what I understand.
Best of luck

[boriqee]

Removed long quote.

well i agree with all you brought, Im not against you. but i htink you may have been a little restrictive with regard to wasela

you see, according to the interpretation of he majoirty of scholars, tawassul meant to "follow the prophet" i.e. the sunnah. I will clarify this inshallah in my next post with other added things to it.


and lastly, i dont think it is good for yourself to say "best of luck" rather you could say mabrook.

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

well i agree with all you brought, Im not against you. but i htink you may have been a little restrictive with regard to wasela

you see, according to the interpretation of he majoirty of scholars, tawassul meant to "follow the prophet" i.e. the sunnah. I will clarify this inshallah in my next post with other added things to it.


and lastly, i dont think it is good for yourself to say "best of luck" rather you could say mabrook.

asalamu alaikum

:sl:
I agree with you
Waseela = Taqarrub Illah = تقرب الى الله
What can be more effecient mean than following the Holy prophet :arabic5: and that is Ad-Deen (Quran /Sunna)???
Follow this Ad-Deen and you will get Taqarrub illahi.
Best of luck (Mabrook)

[boriqee]

Ar-Rasa’il Aqeedatu-Ashaabul-Hadeeth fi Tawassul

Inal-hamdulillah wa salatu wa salamu 'ala ashraafil anbiyaa e wal mursaleen, wa salatu wa salamu ana nabiyeen wa ala aalihi wa sahbihi ajma'een
Ya ayuu ahlil-ikhwaa wal akhwaat, asalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wa barakatuhu wa maghfirtuhu

Muqadimah

Im preparing this risaalah for those wishing to read the creed of the Righteous Imaams of ahlu-sunnati wal-athaar on their positions and statements regarding at-Tawassul.

In the beginning I have brought the definition of the word "Tawassul" to clarify what is actually being discussed.

Another point in clarifying the outline of this article is that the requester of this information did not give precedence to the quraanic ayaah and hadeeth on the view of tawassul under the pretext of "throwing our own (the salafee tafseer) opinion into the meaning of tawassul". So in trying to please Allah and appease my brother I have not added the quraanic ayaah or hadeeth in its initial opening like all other books of the Imaams are done, yet I have added them where I have deemed necessary to prove a point

A. The Discussion on Tawassul

Of course in this topic one must know the definition of the matter discussed.

at-Tawassul- this word in the arabic as is referenced repeatedly in the quraan and the hadeeth in the linguistic meaning refers literally to seek the means to draw closer to what one needs and desires.

Imaam ar-Raazi has stated that "tawassul', as a religious term, entails drawing closer to Allah by performing good deeds" (Mukhtar As-Sihah)

Haafidh in Katheer said in his tafseer

"al-Wasilah (root word of tawassul) is the means that one uses to obtain a need. al-Wasilah is also the best grade grade in paradise, the grade of the Messenger of Allah that is his residence in paradise"further stated by Ibn Katheer
"Oh ye who beleive, do your duty to Allah and fear Him. Seek al-Wasilah to Him"
Ibn Katheer reported that Ibn abbass had stated that al-Wasilah here means good deeds. This is also the tafseer of the mujtahid Imaams Mujaahid, Abu Wa'il, Hasan al-Basri, Qatadah, as-Suddi, ibn Zayd and others who are all noted Imaams and mufassireen.
Ibn Katheer added that Qatadah said that the ayaah means "draw closer to Allah by obeying Him and by performing the deeds that please Him", then, Ibn Katheer commented on this that this tafseer by these scholars is unopposed.

About the Ayah “ Seek Waseelah to Him”, Hanafi scholars said in tafseer "Seek Qurbah of Allah with actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Abu Layth Samarqandi, one of the big Hanafi scholar said about this Ayah : "Meaning seek Qurbah and Fadeelah with good deeds”

Imam Abu Su’ood Al ‘Imadi al Hanafi said in his tafseer
“It is Fa’eelatun with meaning what we do Tawassul with to Allah from actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Also an-Nassafi mentioned in Madariku Tanzeel that Tawassul as been used to
“What we do Tawassul with to Allah with actions of good and leaving sins”

Imam Mahmood Aloosi and his son Nu’man followed him :
“This is Fa’eelatun with meaning of what one does tawassul with from actions of obedience and leaving sins” and some people took daleel from this ayah to justify istighathah (to call upon others besides Allah) from Saliheen, making them Waeelah between Allah and slaves, and Qasam on Allah for them is to say : “O Allah we do Qasam on you with Fulan that you give us that” and some of them say to the absent or dead from pious slaves of Allah : “ Ya Fulan, invoke Allah that He gives us Rizq this and that”, and they think that it is from chapter of seeking Waseelah, and they tell from the Prophet saw : “ When things are difficult for you, then go to Ahle Quboor or seek help from Ahle Quboor” ( a fabricated narration), and all of this is far from the truth”

( Rooh Al Ma’ani v 6 p 124-125, Jala ul Aynayn p 494)

Imam Haskafi said in Durul Mukhtar, Fasl fil Bay’ :
“And in Tatar Khaniyah Ma’ziyan lil Muntaqa, from Abu Yussuf from Abu Haneefah : “ One should not invoke Allah except with Himself, and the Du’ah permitted in it and prescribed is what is taken from His Saying : “ And for Allah are beautiful Names, invoke with them” ( A’raf, 180), and this saying is makrooh : : Bi Haqq of Your Prophets or Nabi or Awliyah…”

Ibn Abideen As Shamee said in explanation of “except with Himself” : “ Meaning with his Dhat, His Sifat and His Names”

Allamah Rustami Al Hanafi said :
“Know that in this saying ( of Abu Haneefah) there is restriction to Tawassul of Tawassul Ismi in du’a in Names of Allah and His Sifat. And the condition of these muqalideen is that they leave the saying of their Imam, and follow their desire without knowledge…and our shaykh ( Ar Ribati) Al fadil Al Allamah Al Adeeb, Jami’ Al Ma’qool and Manqool, one of the Afadil Hanafiyah fair refuting Quburiyah, has some Kalam important in istidlal from this saying of Imam Abu Haneefah, and he quoted sayings of Hanafi scholars cutting backs of Quburiyah…” ( Tibyan p 182 of Rustami, see also “Kowakib Ad Duriyah fi tahqeeq Waseelah Shar’iyah” p 125 of Ribati Al Hanafi”

Mahmood Aloosi Sahib Roohul Ma’ani said about Tawassul of Sahabah :

“That one seek Du’a, Shafa’ah, so the Tawassul and Tawajuh is in truth with his du’ah and his Shafa’ah, and this is from what is not forbidden, as for what is in language of a lot of people, that meaning is to ask Allah with his dhaat, and do Qasam on him with it, this is subject of dispute, and you have known words on it, and it has been put in Iqsam not legislated the saying of someone : “ O Allah, I ask you with status ( Jahun) of Fulan” because this is not proven from any of the salaf that he invoked like that…And Tahqiq of kalam in this topic is that istighathah from creation, and making him a waseelah in meaning of asking for his du’a, there is no doubt for its permissibility, if the one asked is alive, and if the asked is dead or absent, then it is not hidden for the scholar that it is not permissible, and it is from the innovations that none of the Salaf did, and none of the Salaf came with this, while they were most desiring people from creation to do good deeds…and Taj Subki insulted Al Majd ( Ibn Taymiyah), as it is his ‘adat (meaning that it is the usual character of subki to act as a bigot as he is well known for this among the scholars) and said : “ And tawassul is Hassan, and Istighathah with Nabi saw to the Lord, and none from the Salaf or khalaf denied this until Ibn Taymiyah came, and he denied this, and deviated from Sirat Mustaqeem, and innovated…. (Al Aloosi answered ) : “And you know that Du’a Mathoorah from pure Ahle Bayt and others from Aimah, there is not in them Tawassul with his Respected Dhat…the one who claims a text, then he should present it”

Thus what Mahmud al-aloosi is saying in reply to as-subki is in order for your claim to be repected as "legitimate" then bring forth the claims that allow you to hold such beleifs, otherwise you will forever be rendered in the realm of bida and inacceptence.

( Rooh Al Ma’ani v 6 p 126-127 and Jala Ul Aynayn of his son Nu’man Al Aloosi p 497-498)

And Shukri Aloosi, great son of Mahmood Aloosi said in Ghayatul Amani in refutation of Nabbahani about Tawassul with du’a : “ And this is done with alive, and not dead, and this is tawassul with their du’a and their Shafa’ah, because the alive is sought for that, and for the dead, nothing is sought from him, not du’a nor anything else” ( Ghayatul Amani v 2 p 335)

For more on Tawassul and other innovations of graves, see the book of Nu’man Al Aloosi Al Hanafi “ Jala ul Aynayn fi Muhakamati baynal Ahmadayn” in which he refutes Ibn Hajar Al Haytami’s attack against ibn Taymiyah, on Tawassul, ibn Arabi, taqleed, Asma wa Sifat, Ismah of Anbiyah and many other attacks of AL Haytami, that Al Aloosi called unjust and leaving ways of scholars by attributing things to ibn Taymiyah he never said.

Also Ziyaratul Qubur of Al Barkawi Al Hanafi, Majalis ul Abrar of Roomi Al Hanafi, Khazeenatul Asraar translation of Majalis ul Abrar of Subhan Baksh Al Hindi Al Hanafi for refutation of innovated Tawassul that are done on graves of Saliheen, the many books of Shukri Al Aloosi against Yussuf Nabbahani Ash Shazili.


Now I beleive I shall bring the Indo pak monster on this discussion

In Faydul Bari, Kitab Jihad, v 3 p 434, al-Alaamah al-Imaam Anwar Shah Kashmiri said

Chapter : “ One who seeks help with weak and Salihin”
Know that the tawassul for Salaf was not as it is practiced between us, because when they wanted to do Tawassul with someone, they went to the one they wanted to do tawassul with, also with him, so he makes du’a for them, and they sought help from Allah, making du’a to Him, hoping His answer…

As for the Tawassul with names of Salihin, as it is known in our time, in which the one who is done tawassul with is not aware of our tawassul, rather his being alive is not a condition, and tawassul is only done with mention of their names, thinking they have status in front of Allah, and acceptation, so Allah will not make ( du’a) vain with mention of their names.

This matter, I do not like to enter it, nor do I claim any prove from Salaf, nor do I make Inkar. Look at Shami for that.

As for His Saying : “ Seek Waseelah to Him”, this, even if it necessitates seeking of Wasilah, there is no proof for Tawassul with only names, and Ibn Taymiyah went to its forbiddance, and Sahibu Durul Mukhtar enabled it, but he did not give any text from Salaf.: end of Kashmiri’s words

Anwar Shah Kashmiri also says in Faydul bari, Abwabul Witr v 2 p 379 :

“Allah we used to do tawassul with our Prophet saw” : There is not in this ( shar’i tawassul mentioned in hadeeth) the Tawassul known, that is done secretly, until he has no perception from basis ( meaning the one who is done tawassul with has no knowledge of that), rather there is in this the Tawassul of Salaf, and it is to come to a man of Satus in front of Allah, and he asks him to invoke Allah…as was done with Abbas, uncle of the Prophet saw, it was Tawassul of mutaakhireen, then why did they need to go to Abbas with them, Tawassul with their Prophet saw after his death was sufficient for them, or with Abbas without his presence, and this kind of things is permissible for mutakhireen, and Hafiz ibn Taymiyah forbade this, and I am doubtful ( mutraddidun) in this, because a text from Imam came in quoting of Qadoori that Iqsam to Allah without His Names is not permissible, and he took from negation of Iqasam negation of Tawassul, and if tawassul is Iqasam, then the case is as said by Ibn Taymiyah, and if it is not Iqsam, it remains permissible.

As for taking ( daleel) from his saying saw “ You are given Rizq with your weak” then this is not supporting this, because it is not Tawassul, but the meaning is that Allah gives you your rizq with Ri’ayat ( taking care) of weak and Ri’ayah of their being with them, not the Tawassul with toungue : “ Allah give us Rizq with Waseelah of Fulan”…

End of Kashmiri’s words

Oh student and seeker of knowledge and truth, how clear it is to understand the truth and from where falsehood departs from it.



[B]Tawassul as Worship

The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

“If you ask in prayer then ask only Allah, and if you seek help, seek it only from Allah.” (Reported by Ibnu Abbaas and collected by at-Tirmidhee. See Imam an-Nawawee’s 40 Hadeeth)

“Du’aa (invoking or calling upon) is worship.” (Sunan Abu Dawood vol.1 p387 no.1474)

And I (Allah) created not the jinn’s and humans except they should worship Me (Alone). (adh-Dhariyat 51:56)

Say (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam): Verily, my Salat (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinn’s and all that exists). (al-An'am 6:162)

Now it must be pointed out for further understanding of the matter that tawassul implies both religious and material. as for the material type, it entails the material means and methods that will help people attain benefit that ALlah has created for them on earth. This type of tawassul is the same for both beleivers and disbeleivers. Example, water is needed to quench thirst, and food is needed to satisfy hunger. So food is the wasilah of hunger and water is the wasilah of thirst.

As for the religious wasilah, it entails every method that help obtain the religious objectives that ALlah has legislated in His Book or by the tongue of His messenger in the sunnah. This type is exclusive for the beleivers, those who seek to obey Allah's commandments and satisfy the obligations that He has required them to fulfill. This type of wasilah also includes the uttering of the shahadah with sincerity, knowledge, love, and certainty of it (the shahadah). The shahada is a waasilah for the soul to be saved from the hellfire.

as for the religious wasilah, mankind is by defualt unable and religiously crippled to uncover the knowledge of religious wasilah except throuhg revelation. Hence the Past Imaams of the sunnah have stated that "Everything in the dunya (worldly affairs) is halal (permissible) unless there is a text making it haraam (impermissible), and everything in the ibaadah (Worship) is forbidden unless there is a text allowing it"

The legal types of tawassul are three

Tawassul by Allah's names and attributes, tawassul by the righteous and good deeds that one performs, and tawassul by soliciting the du'aa of a righteous, living person.

Tawassul to Allah by invoking His Most Beutiful of Names and Perfect Attributes is legislated for muslims, according to the Quraan and Sunnah and the consensus of the scholars of Islam throughout the ages.

The proof for this is that Allah said "And the Most Beautiful Names belong to Allah, so call on Him by them, and leave the company of those who belie or deny His Names"

As for the legislated tawassul by the righteous, good deeds that one performed, then invoking Allah by the slave's love for the prophet, which is one of the necessary elements of Islam, is included in this type of Wasilah that entails invoking Allah through one's good deeds. Loving and believing in the prophet and following his sunah are the origin of all good deeds.

Tawassul by asking a righteous living person to perform du'aa on one's behalf is yet another type of tawasul that is allowed. this is among the very known matters like believers asking each other for such an such. There are some hadeeth and actions of the sahaba that prove the validity of this tawassul which ahlu-sunnah is fully in 100 percent agreement with.

I hope this clarifies the matters

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

:sl:
Actually asking for Du'aa from the Righteous alive people is not under discussion.That is 100% permissible.
Many people came to Holy Prophet and asked for "Du'aa".And its permissibility not debatable.Moreover this not "Twassul" is strict sense.
I am mainly concerned about the sense of Tawassul which is the backbone of "sufism".
Mabrook.
(Is this ok ?)

[boriqee]

actually it is not "sufism" as you say. it is only practiced by sufis, more particularly, the mystics.

the backbone of sufism is to purify the heart. it is a science, but in the case of people who call themselves "sufi" they are far removed form the actual science of purifying he heart since the 'sufism' that is known in our times a more of a monoplized sectarian ploys of attaining righteousness.

tawssaul itself is a fiqhi arguement mentioned in the books of fiqh, that actually reaches the aqeedah of the muslim, hence we have certain imaams making takfeer depending on the persons type of tawassul despite its fiqhi appearence.

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

actually it is not "sufism" as you say. it is only practiced by sufis, more particularly, the mystics.

the backbone of sufism is to purify the heart. it is a science, but in the case of people who call themselves "sufi" they are far removed form the actual science of purifying he heart since the 'sufism' that is known in our times a more of a monoplized sectarian ploys of attaining righteousness.

tawssaul itself is a fiqhi arguement mentioned in the books of fiqh, that actually reaches the aqeedah of the muslim, hence we have certain imaams making takfeer depending on the persons type of tawassul despite its fiqhi appearence.

asalamu alaikum

:sl:
What purifies the Heart is "Al -Islam".Why to give another name ? I cannot understand.Is Sufism more effective than Islam? If both are same then kindly call it as Islam not Sufism.
Mabrook

[tears4husain]

:sl: who is the wali ullah?:D

:sl:

Allah said in His book about the associationist people of Nuh:

[They said: Do not forsake your gods, do not forsake Wadd, Suwaa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq, and Nasr.] Qur'an 71/23

Ibn Abbas and others of the first generations reported about this verse:

"These "gods" (mentioned in the verse) were a righteous people among the people of Nuh. When they died, the people were devoted to their graves. Later, they made images of them and worshipped them. This was the beginning of idol worship."

Anas (radiyallaahu ’anhu) related:

“In times of drought, ’Umar Ibnul-Khattaab (radiyallaahu ’anhu) used to ask ’Abbaas Ibn ’Abdul-Muttalib to pray for rain on their behalf. He himself would say: “O Allaah we used to ask Your Prophet to supplicate on our behalf to You, and You would bless us with rain. Now we ask the uncle of our Prophet to supplicate to You on our behalf, so bless us with rain.” Anas said: So they would be blessed with rain.”

Related by al-Bukhaaree (no. 1010)

So why didn’t Umar and the rest of the Companions who were with him, go to the grave of our beloved Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam); or to the grave of the greatest of the awliyaa Abu Bakr, and make du’aa to them for rain? Why? Because they knew that doing so would constitute Shirk. Why didn't they ask them to make Dua' to Allaah for them, i.e. intercede for them?

Just thought that was worth pointing out before this topic moves forward.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl: who is the wali ullah?:D

:w:

Sorry bro, what do you mean? For example, Abu Bakr is an Awliya of Allaah, no doubt the greatest of them...

[IbnAbdulHakim]

bro izaree i thought we was talking about intercession on yawmal qiyamah by the blessed awliyaa of Allah?

if you need proof for this then i can find it without a doubt?

but first is this the proof you are asking for or did you think i was talking about intercession whilst on dunya by dead awliyah of Allah? :?

[asadxyz]

bro izaree i thought we was talking about intercession on yawmal qiyamah by the blessed awliyaa of Allah?

if you need proof for this then i can find it without a doubt?

but first is this the proof you are asking for or did you think i was talking about intercession whilst on dunya by dead awliyah of Allah? :?

:sl:
Awlyallah will be intercessors on Yawmul Qiyaamah ( يوم القيامه )???? Really ??
Mabrook

[IbnAbdulHakim]

:sl:
Awlyallah will be intercessors on Yawmul Qiyaamah ( يوم القيامه )???? Really ??
Mabrook

lol yes my brother Alhamdulillah, the pious hafidh of quran will get intercession as will the shuhadaa', Alhamdulillah :)

[boriqee]

:sl:
What purifies the Heart is "Al -Islam".Why to give another name ? I cannot understand.Is Sufism more effective than Islam? If both are same then kindly call it as Islam not Sufism.
Mabrook

No, what purifies the heart is Ihsan. it is just that ihsaan is part of islam. Islam itself does not purify anything. had it been so, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen. Yet there were disbeleivers in the guise of islam, thus they are munafiqeen. Islam is the Law required for the beleiver. When i ask you to blend me 20 dollars, islam does not dictate to you that you give it to me, and emaan would make your heart contemplate and only ihsaan would dictate that for you, because on the mere level of islam, then you have the islamic right to say no. And no one could say "your not acting islam' by saying no because you have made no offense against islam. As for thelevel of emaan, then you can have faith by saying no and still have your faith in tact, because saying no, while it is helping your brother, would not remove your emaan, but if you have ihsaan, and then said now, thelevel of your ihsaan is what decreases.

I said all of that for what to show that
1. fiqh is what is used for the sciences of the shar'iah
2. aqeedah is used in the sciences of emaan and
3. the tazkiyyatu-nafs is what is used for the sciences of ihsaan. This tazkiyaatu-nafs, is (with the same meaning as Ibn taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul-wahhab and others) tassawuf, i.e. sufism. It is not that sufism is one thing and islam is another. if that is thecase then why do we not call fiqh and shariah islam. why call it fiqh, why call it aqeedah.

Now im in no way defending tassawuf in absolute terms, im just relaying that one must understand from which avenue someone is coming from when they use the word tassawuf or sufism. That is because i come acorss to many who read at one breathe the statement of shaf'i'ee about tassawuf, and then read a monster like Jilaanee or Ibn taymiyyah saying how "tassawuf' is good.


Ibn Abdul-Haakem said

bro izaree i thought we was talking about intercession on yawmal qiyamah by the blessed awliyaa of Allah?

if you need proof for this then i can find it without a doubt?

but first is this the proof you are asking for or did you think i was talking about intercession whilst on dunya by dead awliyah of Allah?

You know, now that i think about it, the discussuion deviatd form the topic.

No, brother, you don't have to worry, shafa'aa is an article of faith, and whoever denies it becomes a heretic just as whoever denies the hawd, the nuzool of isa, the coming of mahdi, the ruyah of he beleivers on allah, etc etc etc.

Now i didnt think you were talking about that. hoever i do know that the main ingrediant for the issue of tawasssul to the dead is for their desire of shafa'a, so it is very well connected.

Awlyallah will be intercessors on Yawmul Qiyaamah ( يوم القيامه )???? Really ??
Mabrook

yes, by Allah's permission

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

Originally Posted by asadxyz

What purifies the Heart is "Al -Islam".Why to give another name ? I cannot understand.Is Sufism more effective than Islam? If both are same then kindly call it as Islam not Sufism

.

No, what purifies the heart is Ihsan. it is just that ihsaan is part of islam. Islam itself does not purify anything. had it been so, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen. Yet there were disbeleivers in the guise of islam, thus they are munafiqeen.

:sl:
On this statement I can only say:

إِنَّا لِلّهِ وَإِنَّـا إِلَيْهِ رَاجِعونَ
Islam = اقراربالسان وتصديق بالقلب
I do not know your definition of "Islam".If you are considering Munafiqeen's apparent "islam" as the real Islam ,then you are highly mistaken.When a muslim talks about Islam ,he is talking about that Islam about which the Holy Quran has said :

إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللّهِ الإِسْلاَمُ

(3:19) The true religion with Allah is Islam
الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِي وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ الإِسْلاَمَ دِينًا

This day I have perfected for you your religion, and have bestowed upon you My bounty in full measure, and have been pleased to assign for you Islam as your religion. (Follow, then, the lawful and unlawful bounds enjoined upon you.)(5:3)

وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلاَمِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الآخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ﴿3:85﴾

(3:85) And whoever seeks a way other than this way a submission (Islam), will find that it will not be accepted from him and in the Life to come he will be among the losers.
فَمَن يُرِدِ اللّهُ أَن يَهْدِيَهُ يَشْرَحْ صَدْرَهُ لِلإِسْلاَمِ (6:125)
(6:125) Thus, (it is a fact that) whomsoever Allah wills to guide, He opens his breast for Islam;
أَفَمَنْ شَرَحَ اللَّهُ صَدْرَهُ لِلْإِسْلَامِ فَهُوَ عَلَى نُورٍ مِنْ رَبِّهِ

39:22) Now, can the person whose breast Allah has opened for Islam *40 and he is walking in the light shown by his Lord *41 (be like the one who has learnt no lesson from these things)?

إِذْ قَالَ لَهُ رَبُّهُ أَسْلِمْ قَالَ أَسْلَمْتُ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ﴿2:131﴾

(2:131) When his Lord said to him, "Surrender," *130 he promptly responded, "I have surrendered to the Lord of the Universe (and become a Muslim)
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ ادْخُلُواْ فِي السِّلْمِ كَآفَّةً وَلاَ تَتَّبِعُواْ خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ﴿2:208﴾

(2:208) O Believers, enter completely into Islam *226 and do not follow in" the footsteps of Satan, for he is your avowed enemy

AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT YOUR NAME GIVEN BY QURAN (IT IS NEITHER SUFI ,NOT SECT ,X,Y,Z ......) BUT ;
هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ

Allah had called you "Muslims" (22:78)

I am sure Islam is everyting for a muslim.
Best of luck

[Musalmaan]

No, what purifies the heart is Ihsan. it is just that ihsaan is part of islam. Islam itself does not purify anything. had it been so, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen. Yet there were disbeleivers in the guise of islam, thus they are munafiqeen. Islam is the Law required for the beleiver. When i ask you to blend me 20 dollars, islam does not dictate to you that you give it to me, and emaan would make your heart contemplate and only ihsaan would dictate that for you, because on the mere level of islam, then you have the islamic right to say no. And no one could say "your not acting islam' by saying no because you have made no offense against islam. As for thelevel of emaan, then you can have faith by saying no and still have your faith in tact, because saying no, while it is helping your brother, would not remove your emaan, but if you have ihsaan, and then said now, thelevel of your ihsaan is what decreases.

I said all of that for what to show that
1. fiqh is what is used for the sciences of the shar'iah
2. aqeedah is used in the sciences of emaan and
3. the tazkiyyatu-nafs is what is used for the sciences of ihsaan. This tazkiyaatu-nafs, is (with the same meaning as Ibn taymiyyah, Ibn Abdul-wahhab and others) tassawuf, i.e. sufism. It is not that sufism is one thing and islam is another. if that is thecase then why do we not call fiqh and shariah islam. why call it fiqh, why call it aqeedah.

Now im in no way defending tassawuf in absolute terms, im just relaying that one must understand from which avenue someone is coming from when they use the word tassawuf or sufism. That is because i come acorss to many who read at one breathe the statement of shaf'i'ee about tassawuf, and then read a monster like Jilaanee or Ibn taymiyyah saying how "tassawuf' is good.


Ibn Abdul-Haakem said



You know, now that i think about it, the discussuion deviatd form the topic.

No, brother, you don't have to worry, shafa'aa is an article of faith, and whoever denies it becomes a heretic just as whoever denies the hawd, the nuzool of isa, the coming of mahdi, the ruyah of he beleivers on allah, etc etc etc.

Now i didnt think you were talking about that. hoever i do know that the main ingrediant for the issue of tawasssul to the dead is for their desire of shafa'a, so it is very well connected.



yes, by Allah's permission

asalamu alaikum

:bravo: :D

quiet surprised. masha'Allaah, very well said, cent% agreed. :sl:

[Musalmaan]

The famous hadith found in the widely circulated and read Forty Hadith compiled by Imam Nawawi. It was narrated by 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (radiAllahi anhu), and is found in sahih Muslim;

"One day we were sitting in the company of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, when there appeared before us a man dressed in pure white clothes, his hair extraordinarily black. There were no signs of travel on him. None of us recognized him. He sat with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. Resting his knees against his and the palms of his hands on his thighs,

he said, 'O Muhammad, tell me about Islam'.

The Messenger of Allah replied, 'Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, to establish the prayer, pay the zakat, observe the fast of Ramadan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House if you are able to do so'.


He said, 'You have spoken the truth,' and we were amazed at him asking and then verifying that he had spoken the truth.

He then said, 'Inform me about Iman'.

He replied, 'It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and in the divine destiny of both good and evil'.

He said, 'You have spoken the truth'.

He then said, 'Tell me about Ihsan'.

He said, 'It is to worship Allah as if you see Him, for though you do not see Him, surely He sees you'.

He then said, 'Inform me about the Hour'.

He replied, 'The one who is asked knows no more than the one who is asking'.
He said, 'Tell me some of its signs'.

He said, 'That the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress, and barefoot, destitute shepherds will compete with one another in the building of magnificent buildings'.

Then he (the questioner) went on his way but I stayed with him (the Prophet) for a long while.

He said to me, 'Umar, do you know who this questioner was?'

I replied, 'Allah and His Messenger know best'.

He said, 'He was Gabriel. He came to instruct you in your religion."

[Musalmaan]

Best of luck

I hope you read the sahih hadith and don't portray hadith against Qur'an, it reveals yours (series of) ignorance in the matter of tafaqqahu-fid-deen (understanding the deen of Allah). but i hope you'll agree now and wont do jarah(quarrel) with the ppl. of knowledge.

[asadxyz]

I hope you read the sahih hadith and don't portray hadith against Qur'an, it reveals yours (series of) ignorance in the matter of tafaqqahu-fid-deen (understanding the deen of Allah). but i hope you'll agree now and wont do jarah(quarrel) with the ppl. of knowledge.

:sl:
Dear why annoyance??

.Let me know if I have put anything except definition of Islam which the Holy Quran has given.'(None of my own words)
Can you show my own words which are annoying?

If you think that Islam does not purify the heart as Izaari has put.I have not objection that is your own faith.
May God bless all of us.
Mabrook:
:w:

[Musalmaan]

:sl:
Dear why annoyance??

.Let me know if I have put anything except definition of Islam which the Holy Quran has given.'(None of my own words)
Can you show my own words which are annoying?

If you think that Islam does not purify the heart as Izaari has put.I have not objection that is your own faith.
May God bless all of us.
Mabrook:
:w:

Dear, Quran is Truth but your interpretation is false, and thats the difference you are ignoring with your ignorance. your using the verses of Quran where ever you desire. They Ayah of Quran is Haq but your interpretation and your understanding is false. Those verses is not giving the definition of Islam or is it? ( اقراربالسان وتصديق بالقلب )

Did you read the Haith-e-Gabriel of Sahih Muslim? now Whose interpretation do we have to accept?

Do you really know what you're doing? with whom you are coming against?

Think plz.

[asadxyz]

Dear, Quran is Truth but your interpretation is false, and thats the difference you are ignoring with your ignorance. your using the verses of Quran where ever you desire. They Ayah of Quran is Haq but your interpretation and your understanding is false. Those verses is not giving the definition of Islam or is it? ( اقراربالسان وتصديق بالقلب )

Think plz.

:sl:
Thanks a lot for pointing out that these Quranic ayas are not giving definition of Islam.Then what are those (Quranic Ayas) showing??
You have not answered this question about what Izaari said :]

No, what purifies the heart is Ihsan. it is just that ihsaan is part of islam. Islam itself does not purify anything. had it been so, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen

You have also said :

Did you read the Haith-e-Gabriel of Sahih Muslim? now Whose interpretation do we have to accept?

My question is how Hadith -e-Gabriel contradict Quran? Where does it say that that "Islam itself does not purify anything".
Is this not " A big accusation which both of you are putting on the Holy Prophet and Hadith ??

Al-islam is comprehensive term by itself it encircles all aspects of Aqeeda and actions including all detailed components

I will appreciate your guidance.
Thanks

[Musalmaan]

:sl:
Thanks a lot for pointing out that these Quranic ayas are not giving definition of Islam.Then what are those (Quranic Ayas) showing??

Thanku also for accepting the truth. For knowing the correct interpretation of those ayah, you can refer to authentic tafsir of Qur'an like Tafsir Ibn Khathir, Ma'ariful Qur'an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi'i r.a. etc.

You have not answered this question about what Izaari said :]
I will appreciate your guidance.
Thanks

I don't think so izaree had questioned there or that he was replying to ME, but in case, if you want to ask me what Izaari was telling there,
so i can hardly interpret him that he *meant* to say or what is suppose to know for us is that even munafiqeen say that they are muslim and their religion is islam but they are missing the important aspect of religion Islam know as Iman, which means affirmation and confirmation in the heart. in the heart they still deny the verses of Qur'an or anything which prophet Muhammad sallallahu alihi wa sallam has brought along with him, they deny it, due to this nifaaq in heart they are not muslims. They are known as munafiqeen who even saying that islam their religion they are not beleiving the truth.

Ihsan is the aspect of Islam which means to strive for excellence in achieving piety. Also known as Tasawwuf/Sufism in the context of various branches of the Islamic sciences that has developed, Tasawwuf is a branch of Islamic knowledge which focuses on the spiritual development of the Muslim. There are verses of Qur'an and Hadith for its importancy, like Hadith-e-Gabriel.

I hope I answered more now.

:w:

[asadxyz]

[QUOTE=Musalmaan;775578]

Ihsan is the aspect of Islam which means to strive for excellence in achieving piety. Also known as Tasawwuf/Sufism in the context of various branches of the Islamic sciences that has developed, Tasawwuf is a branch of Islamic knowledge which focuses on the spiritual development of the Muslim. There are verses of Qur'an and Hadith for its importancy, like Hadith-e-Gabriel.

Tasawwaf and Sufism are alien terms in Islam.Show me in the Holy Quran or Any Hadith which are narrating these terms.

No you evaded my question :
He said :

B]No, what purifies the heart is Ihsan. it is just that ihsaan is part of islam. Islam itself does not purify anything. had it been so, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen [/

B

Both of you assumed that Munafqeen's faith is "real Islam".That is not Islam.
Who told you this? Why do you call their faith as "Islam"?
Both of you talking about "Islam itself does not purify anything"
:w
please be to the point

[Musalmaan]

^^ i'm sorta not have so much free time, someone else might entertain you. :)

[boriqee]

Islam = اقراربالسان وتصديق بالقلب
I do not know your definition of "Islam".If you are considering Munafiqeen's apparent "islam" as the real Islam ,then you are highly mistaken.When a muslim talks about Islam ,he is talking about that Islam about which the Holy Quran has said :

your not getting it akhee, let me make it simpler

my definition of islam is the same as the prophets. When he was asked what is islam he sauid
1. to make shahadah
2. make salah
3. saum
4. zakah
5. make hajj

That is Islam. But how does islam "purify' someones heart. had islam been the sole source of purification of he heart, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen. You see, if islam purifies the heart as you say, then when the munafiqeen "accepted islam" then by default right then and there on the mere acceptence of islam it should have purified their hearts.YET it didn't. But we, as well all know, do not logically conclude reality with this reasoning.

rather what is necessary with the actions of islam is "ikhlaas fi deen"

so when it is stated 'la ilaha ilallah muhammada rasulullah" No one can ever say that that is not islam. rather it is islam. But how will that statement gurantee the purification of the heart of someone who says it. NO rather what will advance this purification is not the mere statement but to
1. have muhaba (love) for it
2. yaqeen (certainty) that it is a reality
3. ilm (knowing) of its reality
and the rest of the conditions of la ilaha ilallah.

You see islam is not connected with the niya of the person who proclaims it. Islam is concerned with the outer actions of people. when the khaliph enforces islam as law, that does not entail that he forces you to have muhaba of the shahada or that you have certain knowledge of la ilaha ilallah, he is merely forced by default to ensure that you remain under the shadow of the mighteist statement i.e. the sahahada.

so all those ayaah about islam has nothing to do with the topic of 'purifying the heart" of the one who accepts islam, all of thoe ayaah are related to the victorious status and virtuosness of islam, and not that it itself purifies anyones heart.

lets take a common example throughout he world today. Today we have many many sinful muslims on this earth, they rob, they steal, they even deem it permissible to act out of terrorism, they fornicate, and worst of all many wish to follow and be like their greatest enemy, america. Had "islam" been the sole factor in the purification of the heart, this reality would not have been in existance. That would mean that if what you udnerstand was the reality, then all those muslims would not be sinful at all on the mere premise of their being "muslim" or having "Islam"

that is why it is said that all muhsineen (those with ihsaan) are mumineen (beleivers) but not all mumineen are muhsineen and ALL mumineen are all muslimeen BUT NOT ALL muslims are mumineen


secondly you completely went in the foul ball area with this statement

Both of you assumed that Munafqeen's faith is "real Islam"

I cant speak for musalman, but i can only assume, but as for me as a certainty and as for him based upon husn adhaan, we do not view the islam of the munafiqeen as 'real islam" Thats is not what I said verbatim nor was the implication behind my statements indicating that.

rather i said that if islam purifed hearts, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen and not that the islam of them is real Islam.

The implicated meaning of my statement is that when those kuffar who accepted islam and became munafiqeen, then why were they munaifqee if islam itself purifies the heart. By the virtue of their accepting islam, their conversion should have by default purified their hearts so that they would not have been munafiqeen. This is the reality of the implication of your statement that islam purifies the heart. All I said was that if this was true, there would not have been no such thing as munafiqeen, and not that the islam of the munafiqeen is real islam

I hope you consider and reflect the reality that is being relayed to you here akhee.

asalamu alaikum warahmtullah

[boriqee]

Why do you call their faith as "Islam"?
Both of you talking about "Islam itself does not purify anything"

We call their faith islam because it is the prophet who gave thm their islamic rights. even the mnere reality of his receiving revelation from allah about he munaiqeen and who they are still did not overide the fact that the prophet remained in obedience to the islamic dictates. The islamic dictates baased on this issue is that he narrated

"Whatever is establishd by certainty can only be removed by certainty"

so they were treated as muslims and had the same shariah rights as muslims, and that would not have been negated until a certainty was established i.e. their apostating. But since they did not explicitly apostate, they just hid their kufr, and the islamic shariah, ISLAM itself dos not necessitate that you act off of uncertainty, it only necessitate that you act on certainty.

so while we know that they had no islam and they were fake, they were still treated with the same islamic rights that every other muslim enjoys and is forced to adhere to.


so again, if islam does purify in and of itself on the mere islmic level, then explain whow there were such thing as munafiqeen. had islam purifed thehearts, there would not have been such thing called munaifqeen because by default everyone who coms to islam by defualt has their hearts purified.

again if what you say is true then why is the majority of muslims sinful. If what you say is true, then by the mere notion that they are muslims is by default assuming that their hwearts are purifed by default of their being muslim. but no person on earth, both muslims and non muslims views that by entering islam, then by default your heart is purified

asalamu alaikum

[asadxyz]

We call their faith islam because it is the prophet who gave thm their islamic rights. even the mnere reality of his receiving revelation from allah about he munaiqeen and who they are still did not overide the fact that the prophet remained in obedience to the islamic dictates. The islamic dictates baased on this issue is that he narrated

"Whatever is establishd by certainty can only be removed by certainty"

so they were treated as muslims and had the same shariah rights as muslims, and that would not have been negated until a certainty was established i.e. their apostating. But since they did not explicitly apostate, they just hid their kufr, and the islamic shariah, ISLAM itself dos not necessitate that you act off of uncertainty, it only necessitate that you act on certainty.

so while we know that they had no islam and they were fake, they were still treated with the same islamic rights that every other muslim enjoys and is forced to adhere to.


so again, if islam does purify in and of itself on the mere islmic level, then explain whow there were such thing as munafiqeen. had islam purifed thehearts, there would not have been such thing called munaifqeen because by default everyone who coms to islam by defualt has their hearts purified.

again if what you say is true then why is the majority of muslims sinful. If what you say is true, then by the mere notion that they are muslims is by default assuming that their hwearts are purifed by default of their being muslim. but no person on earth, both muslims and non muslims views that by entering islam, then by default your heart is purified

asalamu alaikum

:sl:
Thanks for reply but what will you say about this aya if Munafiqeen are going were to be treated equally ?

وَلاَ تُصَلِّ عَلَى أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُم مَّاتَ أَبَدًا وَلاَ تَقُمْ عَلَىَ قَبْرِهِ إِنَّهُمْ كَفَرُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَمَاتُواْ وَهُمْ فَاسِقُونَ﴿9:84﴾
(9:84) And in future you should never say funeral prayer for anyone from among them; who dies nor stand at his grave, for they have denied Allah and His Messenger and died the while they were transgressors.

Mabrook

[boriqee]

first of all that is because the messenger received revelation about them being munafiqeen. The companions did not knowwho they were except one whom the prophet entrusted the names of the munafiqeen went.

So it was a command from Allah to the prophet. Now how does that ayaah apply to us who do not know who the munafiqeen are. Im pretty sure in the 14 centuries after the prophet, there have been thousands of munafiqeen that they themselves have received janazah.

POINT BEING

while we kow te islam is so comprehensive and entails aqeedah of emaan and ihsaan, The actuality of islam is on one side, the actuality of emaan is on another side, and he actuality of ihsaan is on another side which is why i said to you before that ti is said that every muhsin is a mumin butnot every mumin is a muhsin and every mumin is a muslim BUT NOT every muslim is a mumin (meaning not all muslims are beleivers) Yet they are treated with the rights of islam beause no one has the authority to pronounce nifaaq upon another person except in superbly minor and detailed matters whee a group of scholars asses and review the reality and nature of the individual, example being, Abdullah Bin Saba, the starter of the shia religion.

So you are left with two scenarios left in your understading if you still adopt this understanding of yours

1. you are by default of your view signifying that the mere accepting of islam of a convert, or the mere "being muslim" of the one who is muslims is by default purified in the heart OR
2. if they are not upon real islam then they aren to muslim, thus you'll be making takfeer of te muslims who are upon that.

please understand islam is necessary before reaching further into the realms of emaan and ihsaan, and without it, emaan and ihsan cannot be attained, but islam is what is obligated upon the slaves of the creation of man, and to have faith therin, but not ihsaan i.e. purifying your heart to a point that you see Him (not as a reality) but you know He sees you. But not all who profess islam actually have faith, which is why there is such thing as munafiqeen.


And that is why when an ISLAMic state is erupted, all it enforces is the laws of Islam i.e. shariah as is extracted form the scholars of fiqh and usoolu-fiqh i.e. the ahkaam of Allah

The khalifa is not ordered by Allah to enforce "sincerity" upon your shahadah or that you purify your heart, that is your job to take up the task, not his. Had Islam purified the hearts automatically, there would not have been no job in trying to rectify yourself, you would already by default be rectified just by pronouncing shahada and doing the other four ACTS of Islam.

asalamu alaikum