Quote:
Originally Posted by Muj4h1d4  
Yeh I've seen that as well and I totally disagree with it.
But I don't get how saying Ya Rasool Allaah is wrong 
(Don't give me massive fatwa's please, explain in simple english) |
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by snakelegs but by saying that, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person saying the namaz thinks that the prophet can hear it. i think it is just a poetic form and nothing more. no shirk. no funny business.
so i think it's the same when someone says ya nabi! it doesn't mean that they think the prophet can hear it - it's just an expression, no?
so how is it wrong? |
simple because yaa, as an expression by default of the arabic, entails a form of calling i.e. du'a.
Secondly, while the "intention" is not present with someone to make shirk, when "yaa" coupled with other than Him is calling, like for example, yaa jilaanee, yaa rifaa'i, yaa nabi etc, then the term itself shar'i wise is sarih al-kufr i.e. a clear cut statement of apostacy. It is just like a person who does not intend to make shirk, but then makes sujood to a diety, the two actions are themselves sarih al-kufr. And as we know emaan is not only 'tasdeeq" (what the heart holds to) but AS WELL as statements and actions.
ya has the same cnotation as "wayy" like in "waylulli" or "waylanaa" i.e. woe to me or to us. it is a call and vocal exclamation. The difference is that "wayy" is made as a du'a where as yaa is a specific kind of du'a, a du'a of asking.
that is why the statement itself is wrong from its very basis because outside the fact that
1. there's absolutely no narration that weh ave that the companionscall our prophet like this after his death just for the sake of saying it
2. it was never a practice employed by any of the salaf
but it is wrong from the basis of that which is leads to, istighatha.
In usoolu-fiqh, whatever leads to a haraam is itself haraam, you could say haraam li ghayrihi. So now imagine the most haraam issue in this universe, the shirk with Allahu-ta'ala.