Supplicating: 'O Messenger of Allaah!'
Imaam Sayyid Nadheer Hussayn ad-Dahlawee

Is it permissible to say ‘O Messenger of Allaah’ (يا رسول الله) any where other than in the presence of the Prophet of Allaah’s grave?


The phrase ‘O Messenger of Allaah’! (يا رسول الله) is used to call upon and invoke the Messenger of Allaah. However, when invoking someone, it is important that the one being called upon is present or else he would not be able to listen to or respond the call. There are some people who believe that the Messenger of Allaah is omnipresent [1] according to their belief, the one that is omnipresent encompasses the knowledge of all things. However, the one that truly encompasses the knowledge of all things is none other than Allaah, the Most High alone, and this is one of His unique attributes. To assign such a unique attribute to anyone other than Allaah is to associate partners with Him, which is the greatest sin one can commit. In his book entitled ‘Miftahul-Quloob’, Mulla Husain Khabbaz[2] has written that:

‘To call upon the dead believing that they are omnipresent [as Allaah is with His knowledge], for example to say ‘O Messenger of Allaah’! (يا رسول الله) or ‘O Shaykh Abdul-Qadir Jailaanee! [3]’ etc., then know that this is disbelief. It is for this reason that in the books of [Hanafi] Fiqh[4], it has been narrated that if a person was to conduct a marriage, bear witnessing that Allaah & His Messenger are both his witnesses, then this marriage contract would be considered invalid, whilst the one who conducted this marriage would be considered a disbeliever because of their belief that the Prophet of Allaah knows the knowledge of the unseen.’ Refer to Bahrur-Ra’iq[5] and others.

I say [Sayyid Nadhir Husain Dehlawi] to make a distinction whilst calling upon somebody by saying ‘O so and so!’, whether it be a prophet or anybody else, whether it is whilst sending prayers on the prophet in Salaah or on any other occasion… then this is not feasible because you should only call upon somebody that is present and can hear you, and the Prophet is not omnipresent [as Allaah’s knowledge is omnipresent].With regards to sending prayers upon the Prophet, then this is something that has been established in authentic Hadeeth where the angels convey the prayers that are sent upon him[6]. Therefore the person who calls upon and invokes somebody that is not present is indicating that they believe that the one being called upon is omnipresent and it is this type of belief that has been defined as associating partners with Allaah. Therefore, it is very important that a Muslim abstains from using such words and actions that imply such heretical beliefs i.e. associating partners with Allaah. If somebody was to argue by using the prayer ‘Salaatul-Hajjah[7]’ as a proof and evidence then the answer to that is that at the time when Salaatul-Hajjah was prayed, the Prophet of Allaah was alive and present amongst the believers, but now he is dead and no longer with us. Although the same wording is adopted, it is only said in its narrative form in the past tense, just as one does when he supplicates in the Tashhahud. In his book entitled ‘To attain the blessings of Allaah by explaining the meaning of At-Tahiyyat [Tashhahud], Sheikh Abdul-Huq Muhaddeeth Dehlawi[8] has written:

‘That the response to those who argue that in the Tashhahud we send prayers on the Prophet by addressing him in the first person [i.e. saying O Prophet!], although he is not present is as follows: The prayer upon the Prophet in the Tashhahud is in its narrative form in the past tense which occurred during the incident of Miraj. Further, it has been narrated by Imam Bukhari in his Saheeh on the authority of Abdullah ibn Masood who said:

‘The messenger of Allaah taught me the Tashhahud [with] my palm between his palms, the way he taught me the Surahs of the Qur’an [which began with the following words]: ‘’All compliments, prayers, and pure words are due to Allaah, Peace be on you, O Prophet…’’ This was while he was among us, but after he passed away, we would say ‘Peace be on the prophet.’[9]

Therefore, to use the aforementioned words as proof and evidence [is out of context and] is incorrect. And Allaah knows best!

16th Ramadan 1267 AH,
Fataawa Nadheeriyah
Book of Eemaan and Beliefs
Volume 1 page 159-161.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jam’aah do not believe that Allaah is omnipresent. Rather they believe that Allaah’s knowledge is omnipresent [i.e. His knowledge encompasses all things apparent and hidden). Ahlus-Sunnah Wal-Jam’aah further believe that Allaah, the Most high, is above the seven heavens, above His Arsh, and separate from His creation in a manner that befits His majesty. This is established from the Qur’an & Sunnah, as well as the consensus of the companions of the messenger of Allaah. [TN]

[2] I could not find a biography of Mulla Husain Khabbaz. After asking Sheikh Uzair Shams Al-Hindee of Makkah, he informed me that in his opinion it may be that Imam Nadhir Husain Dehlawi quoted this reference from a manuscript, and Allaah knows best. [TN]

[3] Abdul Qadir Jilani [in Arabic] or Gaylani [in Persian] was born in Ramadan 470 AH in the Persian province of Jilan in Iran south of the Caspian Sea. He went to Baghdad to seek knowledge when he was 18 years old, where he studied Aqeedah, Hadeeth and the Hanbali Fiqh with many scholars. Many fabricated books have been attributed to him along with false allegations of his involvement of a Sufi order known as Qadariyyah. What is known is that he was a man of Sunnah and upon the Aqeedah of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, and Allaah knows best. He died in Baghdad in the year 561 AH at the age of 91 years. [TN]

[4] For example refer to the English translation of Fatawa-I-Qazi Khan, Volume 1, page 34 with Arabic text relating to Islamic Law, by Fakhruddin Hasan bin Mansoor Al-Uzjandi Al-Farghani (d.592 AH), translated and edited into English by Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf Khan Bahadur & Maulvi Wilayat Husain, Published by Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, reprinted 1994. The text is as follows: A man marries a woman citing as witnesses Allaah and His Prophet, the marriage is void, (on the authority of the Prophet himself, on whom be the blessings of Allaah), the Prophet having laid down , that “There is no marriage except when there are witnesses,” whilst every marriage that takes place is witnessed by Allaah: and some of the learned have held that such marriage involves Kufr (blasphemy or infidelism), because it involves belief that the Prophet knows the hidden things, which is blasphemy. [TN]

[5] Bahrur-Ra’iq’ is an explanation of one of the most eminent books of Hanafi Fiqh known as Kanzud-Daqa’iq by Abul-Barakat Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Mahmood An-Nasafi (d.710 AH). It was authored by Zainul-Abedeen bin Ibrahim bin Nujaim Al-Hanafi who also authored ‘Al-Ashbaa wan-Nadhaair’ (another important book of Hanafi Fiqh). He died in the year 969/970 AH. For more details for his biography refer to Abdul-Hay Lucknowi’s marginal notes on Al-Fawaaid-Al-Bahiyyah, and the publisher’s introduction of Al-Ashbaa wan-Nadhaair page 20-21, Idaratul-Qur’an wa Uloomul-Islamiyyah, Karachi Pakistan, second edition 1424 AH/2004 [TN]. The text of ‘Bahrur’Raiq’ is as follows: “If a person conducting a nikaah was to testify that Allaah and Muhammad were his witnesses, then this person has actually believed that Allaah’s prophet has knowledge of the unseen, thus making him a kaafir” [Bahrur-Ra’iq (5/16)].

[6] Refer to Saheeh Ibn Hibban Hadeeth no: 2293 and Al-Hakim: 2/421 which has been graded Saheeh [authentic] by Imam Dhahabee. Also refer to Sunan Abee Daud Hadeeth no: 2041 graded Saheeh [authentic] by Imam Ibn Taymiyah. [TN]

[7] In praying Salaatul-Hajjah, one is required to properly undertake Wudhoo, pray two rak’ahs, and then to single out Allaah alone in supplication [asking only Allaah for whatever one is in need of]. The supplication that was referred to by Imam Nadhir Dehlawi and by which some people take out of context and try to use as proof and evidence for their deviant ways is based on a Hadeeth reported by Uthmân bin Hunaif (may Allaah be pleased with him) where a blind man afflicted with the sickness having lost his eyesight came to the Messenger of Allaah (Allaah bless him & give him peace) requesting him to supplicate to Allaah for him to restore his eyesight. The wording of this supplication is as follows: ‘Oh Allaah, I ask you and turn to you through the intermediary of Muhammad, the prophet of mercy, O Muhammad! I turn to my Rubb through you [supplicating to Him alone] that He may restore [cure] my eyesight. O Allaah! Accept his supplication [intercession] with respect to me, and accept this supplication of mine by giving me [good] health. Reported by Imam Al-Bayhaqi in Dalaail-An-Nubuwwah 6/167-168, Imam Ahmed in his Musnad 4/138, Imam An-Nisa’ee in Amalul-Al-Yawm wal-Lailah 418, while Imam Al-Hakim declared it Saheeh [authentic] according to the conditions of Imam Bukhari & Imam Muslim. Imam At-Tirmidhee has reported another similar narration but with out the wording of ‘pray two rak’ahs’, refer to Sunan Tirmidhee Hadeeth no 3578 declared Saheeh [authentic] by Allamah Albani. An important factor in relation to understanding the aforementioned narration that was mentioned by Allamah Albani and is valuable in obtaining the proper understanding of this Hadeeth is that the blind man sought intermediary through the supplication of the Messenger of Allaah, he did not seek the intermediary of the Messenger of Allaah himself. For further details refer to the book of Allamah Albani At-Tawassul its different types and its rulings. [TN]

[8] His full name is Shah Abdul-Aziz bin Al-Muhaddeeth Shah Waliulllah bin Abdur Rahim Al-Muhaddeeth Ad-Dehlawi Al-Umaree Al-Farooqee. Born in the year 1159 AH, he started to memorise the Qur’an at the age of five. Among the books he authored are: 1. Fathul-Aziz which is an explanation of the Qur’an in Persian. 2. Majmooah-Fatãwaa 3.Tauhfa Ithnaa-Ashariyyah is a refutation of the Shias, and numerous other books. In the later period of his life he tried to reform the Muslims of India by calling them to follow the Sunnah and abandoning the blind-following of Madhabs. He died on the 7th Shawwal 1239 AH and was buried next to his father. Refer toTaraajim Ulema Ahlil-Hadeeth fil al- Hind page 84-94. [TN]

[9] Recorded in Saheeh Bukhari, vol. 8, The book of asking permission, Chapter 28, Hadeeth number: 6265 [English Edition, Darussalam] [TN]

[10] He is Imam Sayyid Nadhir Husain Dehlawi. born in the year 1220 AH corresponding to 1805 CE. He left home at the age of 17 in search of Islamic knowledge. He arrived in Delhi on the 13th Rajab 1243 AH where he studied under the most prominent scholars of Islam of that era. From amongst his teachers include Allamah Shah Muhammad Ishaaq Dehlawi (1192 AH-1262 AH) who was the grandson of Allamah Shah Abdul-Aziz Dehlawi. Imam Sayyid Nadhir Husain Dehlawi authored over 60 books, from amongst them is his Fatãwaa known as Fatãwaa Nadheeriyyah in 2 volumes, and Mayaarul-Huq on the issue of Taqleed (blind-following a particular Fiqh Madhab). He called to Tahweed and taught Hadeeth and defended the Sunnah all his life. He is considered unanimously amongst Ahlus-Sunnah wal Jama’aah as one of the Imams of his time who revived Ad-Dawah-Salafiyyah in the Indian subcontinent. He died on the 10th Rajab 1320 AH corresponding to 15th October 1902 CE. Those amongst his senior students include Allamah Shamsul-Huq Adheemabaadee (d. 1329AH), Allamah Abdur-Rahmãn Mubarakpuree (d.1353 AH), Allamah Thanaullah Amritsaree (d.1368 AH.) and many others. Refer to the introduction of Fatãwaa Nadheeriyyah page 26-51 for a detailed biography of the Imam. [TN]

Fataawaa Nadheeriyah Book of Eeman and Beliefs Volume 1 page 159-161.

jazakAllah khair, i read bits

Jazakillah Khair, there's loads of nasheeds and stuff these days with Ya Rasulullah and all aren't there?

Yeah, I always felt uneasy about that.

asalamu laikum

I could not find the thread that was posted by salafi jihadi about this issue. However i did wish to explain one more matter regarding it

Phrases such as wa mu'tasimah! wa muhammadah! Were never understood in the Arabic language as call for help. This call simply indicates one's sorrow, at least according to the language of the arabs

Hence, when the woman cried out wa mu'tasimah! She was declaring her sorrow over herself during al-Mu'tasim's reign.

When the companions cried out wa muhammadah! They were declaring their sorrow over the Prophet in their fight against Musaylima, and it was also their battle cry.

Similarly, when al-Mudhaffar Qutuz fought the Tatar at 'Ayn Jalut, the battle cry was wa Islamah! They were declaring their sorrow over Islam and not calling upon Islam for help.

The Arabs, similarly often utter wa huznah! wa asafah! Meaning: O my grief! O my sorrow!


and i beleive this to be the underlying reason why when those narrations were brought, particually from kalim at-tayyib, example, isa going to the grave of muhmamd sand saying ya muhammad, it is a calling of sorrow and not calling upon other than Allah which is why the imaams who may have made these narrations sahih did not connect these narrations with "calling upon other than Allah"

asalamu alaikum

Question:
It has become popular among people to wear necklaces on which it says “Ya Muhammad”. What is the ruling on wearing it around one’s neck or hanging it in one’s car?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah. It is not permissible to write “Ya Muhammad” on the necklace.
Firstly: because this wording is akin to du’aa’, and it is well known that it is not permissible for anyone to call upon anyone other than Allaah, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And the mosques are for Allaah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allaah”
[al-Jinn 72:18]
“And who is more astray than one who calls on (invokes) besides Allaah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them?”
[al-Ahqaaf 46:5]
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him): “If you ask, then ask of Allaah, and if you seek help, then seek the help of Allaah.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (2516); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmidhi.
Secondly: Some of the ignorant wear these necklaces or hang them in their cars in the belief that they bring some benefit and ward off some harm, and they seek blessing from it, thereby falling into shirk, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that wearing amulets is shirk. As narrated by Abu Dawood (3883) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.
It is well known that Islam came to block every route that may lead to shirk.
Moreover the rights that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has over us are many, and they cannot be fulfilled merely by putting his name on necklaces, medallions and frames.
The rights of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) over us are that we should believe in him and in what he told us, obey his commands, heed his prohibitions, submit to his rulings and accept them, follow his Sunnah, send blessings upon him ( (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)), defend him and refute those who criticize him and disbelieve in him. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon him. And Allaah knows best.


Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid.

Source

Sister,

But what exactly are you trying to prove using those arguments sister? What are the scholars in the fatawa you've linked to trying to prove? Are they trying to prove that it is permissible to call upon other than Allaah, i.e. the Messenger? Or are they saying that it is permissible to say "Ya Muhammad" when it is only being used as simply a way to remember and recall the Messenger, and dua is not being directed to him?

(This is a genuine, sincere question, with the intention to sincerely understand your position. I've never gotten response to this from those that deem it is permissible to call on the Messenger)

But then the martyrs are alive as well, why not call and make dua to them as well?

And we know that their being alive, is not like our life. They are alive in the Barzakh, not in this Dunya. If the Messenger was alive in the likes of our current life, why should he not be outside here with us? Why should he be in his grave? Why did Abu Bakr, when the Messenger had passed away, state in his speech to the people: "If you worshiped Muhammad, know that Muhammad is dead, but if you worship Allah, He is Alive and never dies."

And Allaah's saying: "Indeed, you are to die, and indeed, they are to die." This indicates that he is not alive in our life, as mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir: "This is one of the Ayat which Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, quoted when the Messenger of Allah died, so that the people would realize that he had really died." and then he, rahimullah, quotes the ayat from Surah Ale Imran: "Muhammad is but a Messenger and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him..." and says: "The meaning of this Ayah is that you will certainly depart this world and be gathered before Allah in the Hereafter."

So the Messenger is alive, but he is not alive in a life the likeness of our life - because if he was, why should he remain buried?!

And the Qur'an is full of ayaat, arguments, invitations to the oneness of Allaah in our worship, so why call upon other than Allaah? What hinders people from calling upon Allaah alone?

The best and most balanced explanation I've read regarding saying 'Ya Muhammad" comes from Shaykh Yasir Qadhi:

[...]

Akhi, seriously we need to pause for a while and ask ourselves: what exactly are these people trying to prove? Can any sane Muslim seriously try to legitamize directly asking the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam for something that only Allah should be asked of? Matters like life and death, sustenence, forgiveness, cures, etc... Is this was the Quran tells us to do? Is this why the beloved Rasool was sent: so that HE be taken as an object of worship besides Allah?

If any person openly proclaims such beleifs, then he has contradicted numerous explicit verses in the Quran, and there is no serious need to show his deviancy. He has placed himself to a level similar to some groups of the Christians.

All of this needs to be taken into perspective... to say 'Ya Muhammad' does not entail any of the above. There are various types of nidaa (calling out), one of which is to recall the person whom you mention. Numerous are the verses of pre-Islamic poetry in which the poet addresses his beloved; this does not imply that he is beseaching her or making du'aa to her! It is only that he is recalling and remembering her to such a level that it is as if she is in front of him. Again this is an issue which all linguists agree upon - just look up any book of Arabic grammer under the chapter of Nidaa.

Also, note how Ahl al-Bid'a seek to use vague or inauthetnic hadeeths, which they pick and choose selectively from a wide array of sources (for example, al-Mu'jam al-Kabeer of at-Tabarani is by no stretch of the imagination one of the primary sources of our religion, with all due respect fo course to the great scholar of hadeeth who compiled it), and yet they ignore explicit verses in the Quran, and authentic ahadeeth in the Saheehayn!! Who was it who said, "Do not take my grave as a place of regular visitation, and send salaat upon me wherever you are, for it reaches me..."? Notice, he is in fact stating that we should not regularly visit his grave to say salaam to him, much less make du'aa!! (Again, the prohibition is on FREQUENT visitation, and not the actual visitation). Who was it that said, "Allah's curse is on the Jews and Christians because they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship?" And this is in regards to worshipping ALLAH at these location, how much more the evil when the grave itself becomes the object of worship?!

Really, there is no need to quote obscure scholars for such blatant shirk: ask this person what exactly is he trying to prove. Is he stating that we can make du'aa to the Rasool and ask him to forgive our sins? If he is, then he should support the Christians in their claims to be people of Paradise, for his actions are no different from theirs.
Or is he trying to prove the high rank and status of our Rasool, and the many blessings he has been given? If it is the latter, then this is something we all agree with, and has nothing to do with directing acts of worship to him.

The hadeeth about 'calling out to the servants of Allah' when one is lost is also weak; again this can easily be shown. But even if one is not aware of this ruling, you simply need to ask yourself: is this what our religion is about? Is this the meaning of la ilaah illa Allah...that we direct our du'aas, love, fear, hope, and acts of worship to all of the creation besides Allah? Once a person understands the essence of Islam, the meaning of the kalimah, and the shirk of the Jahiliyyah Arabs, everything will be put in place. All of these 'evidences' that are brought forth simply cannot hold up against the entire message of the Quran. Remember that Allah mentions in the Quran itself that some of its verses are of ambiguous meaning, and those who have a disease in their hearts will try to use these verses in order to prove their falsehood. If this is the case with the Speach of Allah itself, how much more so when we are dealing with ahadeeth whose authenticity might be difficult for the average layman to verify?

Always go back to the clear verses in the Quran and the ahadeeth that are in the famous works of Islam, and don't allow one obscure text to contradict the very gist of our religion.

Yasir

http://forums.almaghrib.org/showpost...5&postcount=24

I just went and re-read one of the links, and came across this:

Can you please explain this to me? I cannot see anything here except clear blatant shirk.

And this:

And:

Sister, how do you not see the reality of this?! How many times Allaah has commanded us in the Qur'an to call upon Him alone if we have any wish or need! How many times has the beloved Messenger forbidden us from raising graves and worshiping Allaah at graves?! How much greater can it be if one were to supplicate to other than Allaah at a grave? Yet how can these, as quoted from your link, state that we ought to come to them and their graves and seek help from them?

Sister, 'Have you considered: if there came to you the punishment of Allah or there came to you the Hour - is it other than Allah you would invoke, if you should be truthful?'

Sister, "Have you considered: if Allah should take away your hearing and your sight and set a seal upon your hearts, which deity other than Allah could bring them [back] to you?"

Sister, has not Allaah, the Most High said: "Say, "Indeed, I have been forbidden to worship those you invoke besides Allah." ?!

How strong are these arguments from the sayings of Allaah from Surah al Ana'am.

How clear is the Truth from what these people are calling you towards! Please take the time to consider this with a calm mind; are not these people calling you towards seeking aid and help from other than Allaah when the entire Qur'an stands as a witness against them?!

Consider this saying of Ibn Qayyim from 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)!”

I am sincerely looking for a clear explanation of them from you Sister, and it is not to put you or those scholars down. I want to see how what has been stated in that article can be other than a form of shirk. Please explain it to me. May Allaah forgive me if I have offended you.

May Allaah forgive us and grant us insaaf.

The only thing I'm saying is that different scholars have different views. And I know that the Moderators of this forum have difficulty in accepting that fact, unfortunately, so I felt as I needed to provide links as to proclaiming Ya RasoolAllaah is not wrong.

I don't agree with asking people at their graves and stuff, I just disagree with the fact that proclaiming Ya RasoolAllaah is wrong.

what im having trouble 'digesting' is why a matter of Aqeedah (creed/belief) -as opposed to physical worship eg prayer, etc, - would cause such 'deviance'
amoungst the scholars...
but diff does it make if its at a grave or otherwise?