Im sorry ya ikhwaan for not coming sooner, Im trying to limit my interneting
Firstly Brother before replying specificly to your post, I would just like to clarify weather or not you regard it as Shirk to:
1) Supplicate to Allah by the Status of the Prophet
I regard what Abu haneefa, maalik, Thawri, Awzaa'e, Basri, Qataadah, Ibn Khuzaimah, Ahmad, Bukharee, Abu Bakr al-Aujuree, and the countless Imaams of ahlu-sunnah have declared to be shirk before the invention of the innovation of mentioning anyone other than Allah even with the intention of tawassal came into existance withing the islamic ummah, of which one of he first ones to do so was none other than Ibn Arabi.
Here is the reality of the matter you just posted.
The problem with the innovated wasala, that the people of this form of tawwassul try to bring shubha about is through the route that "It is not shirk because the person beleives Allah to be one AND OnLY, THEY ARE MERELY USING THEM TO GET CLOSER TO Allah".
Such an analogy is like the analogy of the asharis trying to undermine their jahmic aspcts of beleifs. "we are not jahmiyyah because jahmiyyah outright negated Allah's sifaat. We only do so for some of His sifaat and our negation is only through the "tawil" of the sifaat" whcih in actuality their t'awil is the tahreef and ultimately the t'ateel of the sifaat.
in both cases, both groups make the kufr of the actuality of the issue to be "hidden". This "hiddenness" only beguiles those who befool themselves.
Ask the Prophet to supplicate for us at his grave
had this been done at any time within the salafu-saalih, I would not have minded. However I follow strictly the athari manhaj of Ahmad "If the salaf didnt do it, we dont do it, if it was not deen then, it is not deen now"
Say Phrases such as "Ya Muhammada" in a state of need and out of love but not with the intention that the Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him] can hear, [An example which I gave earlier which was that of Ibn Umar and the pain he had in his feet]
all of it is either shirk or the lead to it, and most of what you mention is the "leading" to it. this example is one of them and it only becomes shirk when the heart "itiqaadu" it beleives that the prophet has the "ability" to bail him out of some form of desctruction or to save him from nar by his shafa'a.
so in all three avenues you had mentioned, if it is not shirk (and there is a strong emphasis that i isnt), most certainly, the methods used in approch to these forms of worship is, and anything that leads to shirk in the deen is haraam by consensus, and we have the sufis to thank for tat, because now, if i wish to gain baraka form any relic form the prophet, I would no be harbpressed to contemplate on doing a seeking of baraka, due to the "shirk" the sufis had coupled with this blessed established act from the sahaba.
Brother I personally feel no one other than the Author himself has the right to retract Narrations that were Included in the Non Translated version, It is Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir and Translating it should Include everything he stated in it.
that is stupid. That means nobody can make any "abridged" versions in any place or time, which this publication was, was somehwat abridged. So the brother decided "If we are going to have to abridge it, we might as well keep everything that is best and supported and leave off the dhu'afa and errornous parts of it.
If they wanted an English Tafsir without these Narrations then they should have wrote there own and not attribute it to Imam Ibn Kathir
That again is stupid, because then the abridged version of Saheeh Bukhari now becomoes "not bukharee' and then what is it they are going to label it.
I agree with you at some point, ad it been me, I would have included the wole thing and then mde tahqee of the baatil and way out narrations from OTHER scholars and Imaams clarifyig the baatil i the issue thus whatever said in the actual text still remains baseless and ineffective as proofs. f course that is me and nobody is me.
Brother according to you the Sahaba never practiced it but according to us they did, you site the Muhaddiths that have regarded those Hadith as weak and we site the Muhaddiths that have regarded those Hadith as Hasan or Sahih.
the issue is not about my muhaditheen and your muaditheen, the issue is whether the ahkaam fo themuhaditheen on this specific realm fo riwayaat had the best arguements for their ahkaam in this realm.
The only reason why I accept al-Albanee over this issue is due ot he fact that the best guidance in the affairs of determining the ilal, etc, of any hadeeth is through the area of jarh wa t'adeel, of whcih if I say so myself, no one in any era, including shawkaani, has reached his accurateness in the judging of the ahadeeth from the route of its narrators. in fact Im willing to say there has been none like him in this regard since Dhahabee.
You are not explaining the types of help and why some fall under this Ayah, you are wrongly using the principles to interpret the Quran brother it is accepted by the people of Ilm that the Quran is looked at first and Hadiths are based around Quranic Ayah’s not what you are doing looking at the Practice of the Sahaba first and basing your Interpretation of the Ayah based on that.
Islam (quran and sunnah) is understood from the light of the salaf.
The reason why we look through the sahaab for the quran because any other route is in fact not the quraan therefore not Islam, because the only isam is their islam. The only islam is whom Allah attested to their islam, he did not attest to other Islam's accept their, thus their way is the only way. So really any harf of the quraan that lads to an understanding contrary to their is i fact not the quraan.
Just to expand on that further you are not defining the term ‘Help’ that is being mentioned in this Ayah, As soon as you define this term you will have to make the conclusion that this help refers to Independent help which is beyond the capabilities of Creation, It is the sort of help that is sought with the belief that the One being asked for can Independently help and such is not the belief among the Muslims with any creation not the Prophets nor the Saints, and if there was to be such a belief I have said before and I say It again it would be Shirk.
tht is the point. you are limiting the route of shirk through "help". Ths is "unshirkisizing shirk". becuase there are other factors. One being that the reality of how the aimah looked at "dua' is that it is worship.
Froom the concept of uboodiyyh form wat the hufaadh of the rleigion gave description of is that that one making du'a, is surrending their existance 9basically relaying their existance) on who the du'a is being made to. This is the concept of du.a that the one performing it is in total need of the one bein adressed.
before islam, from the jahiliyyah of the people was to convert this total relyment of the person making dua, on an intermediary due to a false pretense that this intermediary could merely help them in getting closer to Allah.
When Muhammad salallahu alaihi wa salam abolished it, this abolishment was uplifted by the time of the later 4th generation (after Ahmad's time) began the legitimization of this ritual.
Does Ibn Kathir say here that it is not permissible to seek the Prophets Shaifa? Or that these are the only means, He is specifically explaining that Ayah and to what he thinks it is referring to and if it is referring to good deeds then so be it, but it is not a statement which nullifies all other types of Means to Allah
tha is an incorrect attribution to hi regarding this affair ,when he clearly beleived hat "tawassul" in the Islamic sense was by obeying Him and performing the deeds that please Him.
For even his Teacher Ibn Taymiyyah was in favour of seeking means to Allah through the status of the Prophet Muhammad [Peace be upon him] and there is no reason for us to believe that Ibn Kathir believed otherwise.
yo hav fallen victim just as another did when using Ibn taymyyah when he tried to demonstrate his poit. When i had presented his specific hukm on the matter he turned to the revilement of Ibn taymyyah, thus I had to repel those revilements upon the detaild praise of him and the revilement of those who become of the reviled.
If you wish I could present to you this detailed fatwa from ibn taymiyyah thus repeeling this accusation that you attributed to him.
So I take it from that comment that you do not regard it as Shirk for someone to go to the Prophet Muhammad’s [Peace be upon him] grave and ask forgiveness from him and seek his Intercession?
thought your texts was "mking dua to him, not asking to him. We are ordered to mke du'a for him. This is another aspect of du'a, that the one making it is doig so due to the fact that he is deficient and in need. If we were ordered to make du'a for him, that is because he himself is in a state of need just as the one making the dua. du'a in the concept of uboodiyyah, is to turn to the one who has no need and in seeking something from this source. So even from a logica aspect of the religion it makes no logical snese to any muwahid that they shoul direct the act of woship or any of their du'a to other than Allah whether openly like the mushrikeen of old times of Nuh and Ibraheem, or in hiddenly like the mushrikeen of the prophet's tyime and those who revied that way of worship among the msulims 3 centuries after hi time within his ummah.
Abu Ibraheem
Thank you, i dont have to debate my point any further. The truth manifested at your own fingertips. Its human nature to criticize a thing, it may not be out of enmity. We have to remember that Imam Shafee was asked why he had such a good character and he informed that person that he listened closely to his critics. All because somebody criticizes it does not necessarily mean they are wrong. However what is in question here is the whole saint issue. What exactly is a saint and who is a saint according to the Qur'aan and Ahadith? Do saints sin? Why is the word saint even used? Where does the word saint come from and why is it applied to the auwliyah of Allah? and finally what is the difference between saints in Islam and saints in Judaism and Christianity which came to be worshipped by the Jews and the Christians? If we study the Qur'aan in its purity we will find that every believer is a friend of Allah. Which causes the next question to arrise "If only a saint can believe and a believer is a saint then does that mean that a non saint is a kaafir?" Now am i criticizing the saint or an ideaology? - if you can understand what straw i am tugging at then the discourse may be fruitful.
ahee you should read "Byaan al-Awliyatu-Rahmaan wal Awliyyatu-shaytaan (Friends of Allah and the friends of Shaytaan) by Imaam Ibn aymiyyah were he clearly locks into place the actuality of what constitues as awliyyah and a wali, and what constitues as shayateen khubatha acting as a wali to the people.
aLso you said
certainly know about your shaykh’s difficulties. Especially his runnings with the brelviyah where people refused to pray behind him accusing him of being a Deobandi. I have heard the shaykh being backbitten and even slandered. However i know better as i have had the privilege to learn from him. Salafi's would love his teachings only if they gave him the light of day. The whole misunderstanding of tasawuf which is known to the Salafiyah as Tazkiyah. Even Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah wrote much discourse about this neglected science which is Sunnah. In reality tassawuf and tazkiyah an nafs are the same thing, which ever name you choose to paint it with, the Salafiyah and the Brelviyah both accept this, but argue over matters such as loud dhickr , etc. Whats causing a lot of the friction and misunderstanding is the actions and beliefs of pseudo sufees doing acts of bidah and then seeking to justify them. And there is a great lack of people who are willing to understand both sides of the argument as well which then causes further friction. Its safe for me to say that i try to practice the tawheed of a “Salafi” whilst attempting to practice the spirituality of a “Sufi.” And I tend to take only from what is agreed upon by the scholars and leave well alone the disputed issues such as asking “saints” for help and so forth. In regards to your T and members:
here is what I have brought to clarify the matter to all
Shaykhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyah,Haafidh Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya and the people of hadith in general are certainly not indiscriminate towards sufism; at times, they are bitter and stated that the right attitude towards sufism, or any other thing, is to accept what is in agreement with the Quran and the Sunnah, and reject what does not agree'" [Majmu Fatawa Shaykh al-Islam, vol. 10, p. 82].
Ibn Taymiyah applies this principle of judicious criticism to sufi ideas, practices and personalities.
He divides the sufis into three categories:
In the first category of sufis whom he calls mashaikh al-Islam, mashaikh al-Kitab wa al-Sunnah and a'immat al-huda, [Majmu'at al-Rasa'il wa al-Masa'il, vol. 1, p. 179, and Majmu Fatawa Shaykh al-Islam, vol. 10, pp. 516-7 and vol. 11, p. 233] he mentions Fudayl b. Iyad, Ibrahim b. Adham, Shaqiq al-Balkhi, Abu Sulayman al-Darani, Maruf al-Karkhi, Bishr ëa-Hafi, Sari al-Saqati, al-Junayd b. Muhammad, Sahl b. Abd Allah al-Tustari and Amr b. Uthman al-Makki.
Later sufis whom he places in this category are: Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Shaykh Hammad al-Dabbas, and Shaykh Abu al-Bayan. These sufis, Ibn Taymiyah says, were never intoxicated, did not lose their sense of discrimination, or said or did anything against the Quran and the Sunnah. Their lives and experiences conformed with the Shariah (mustaqim al-ahwal) [Majmu Fatawa Shaykh al-Islam, vol. 10, pp. 516-7].
The second category consists of those sufis whose experience of fana and intoxication (sukr) weakened their sense of discrimination, and made them utter words that they later realized to be erroneous when they became sober [Majmu Fatawa Shaykh ël-Islam, vol. 10, pp. 220-1]. Some of them also did things [Majmu Fatawa Shaykh ël-Islam, vol. 10, pp. 382, 557] under intoxication of which the Shariah does not approve, but sooner or later they became sober and lived well. In this category Ibn Taymiyah mentions the names of Abu Yazid al-Bostami, Abu al-Husayn al-Nuri and Abu Bakr al-Shibli. But he condemns what they said or did in that state and offers apology for them on the ground that they were intoxicated (sukran), and had lost control over reason. [Majmu'at ël-Rasa'il wa ël-Masa'il, vol. 1, p. 168; Majmu Fatawa Shaykh ël-Islam, vol. 10, pp. 382, 557].
His criticism is directed to the third category of sufis who have believed in ideas and expounded doctrines which contradict Islamic principles [ wihdatul woojood and Al-hulool {incarnation}, or who have indulged in practices which are condemned by the Shariah.
The first sufi in this group is al-Hallaj [ the aquidah of God incarnate similar to all mushriks] [Majmu'at ël-Rasa'il wa ël-Masa'il, vol. 1, pp. 81, 83; Majmu Fatawa Shaykh ël-Islam, vol. 11, p. 18]. . . . Next to al-Hallaj the apostate, the sufis who draw strong criticism from Ibn Taymiyah are the ones who expound the doctrine of One Being or unity with God (wahdat al-wujud), such as Ibn ël-Arabi, Sadr ël-Din ël-Qunawi, Ibn Sab'in and Tilimsani. . . . . The apostate Ibn ël-Arabi, who is the central figure in this context (of wahdat ël-wujud ), Ibn Taymiyah subjects him to detailed criticism.
Ibn Taymiyah does not object to intensification of some approved forms of dhikr, or reliance on some methods for purifying the soul, with the neglect of others, provided it is within the limits of the Shariah [Majmu'at ël-Rasa'il wa ël-Masa'il, vol. 4, pp. 86-87].
It is worthwhile to note that Al-Hallaj was executed in Baghdad in 922 for saying "Ana al-Haqq" ("I am the Truth," i.e., God), and his former teacher, al-Junayd, was among those who gave the verdict that he should die. [See Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, in Tabakat al-Sufiyya, Edited by Nur al-Din Shariba, Maktaba al-Khanji, Cairo, 1986, pp. 307-8, for details.]
The third category of Sufis which includes two sub-categories, regardless of their tareeqah, worship others than Allaah, such as Prophets and “awliya’” [“saints”], living or dead. They say, “Yaa Jeelaani”, “Yaa Rifaa’i” [calling on their awliya’], or “O Messenger of Allaah, help and save” or “O Messenger of Allaah, our dependence is on you”, etc.
Also, they believe in wahdat al-wujood (unity of existence). They do not have the idea of a Creator and His creation, instead they say that everything is creation and everything is God [ Hinduism, pantheism, etc].
They unscrupulously claim that they take knowledge directly from Allaah, without the mediation of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They say, “Haddathani qalbi ‘an Rabbi (My heart told me from my Lord).”
so the term mutassawuf or commonly known to the english world as "sufi" has quite a broad meaning. And due to ahlu-sunnah who are real or actual salafees, understanding and knowing this reality, then when ahlu-sunnah partakes in refutation of sufis, it is directed at times to the second category of sufis and most of these rududd fall in the thrid category, and not the first, However to expound on this issue and little more, the problem in our times, and for quite a while, is that most of the world that ascribe to tassawuf usually find no fault or partake in the practices either in part or in full with the tenents that are inherent in the third category of tassawuf that Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah described.
SO if you are to apply the first category of sufis to be on the haq, then Bin Baz, Ibn Taymiyyah, and I are sufis and as Abu Haneefa said, one must follow at-tariqa asalaf. So I myself am in the tariqa of salafiyyah and since this tariqa has precedent by virtually a multiplicity of ulema throughout the eras, this tariqa is by far the best, correct and only tariqa, not to mention that there was no other tariqa outside of this tariqa in the first generations. our dhikr is the sunnah asaheeha and our waseela is the waseela that the Imaams of ahlu-sunnah expounded upon to be correct and the established way of making waseela to the greatest of all creation Abul-Qaasim Mustapha Muhammad ibn Abdillah salawatu llahi wa salamu alai. And our group sittings is the sittings of ilm, just as the sitting of Ibnu-Mubarak and Thawri, and Humaydee and Ahmad. This is the tariqa asalafi
Clarifying a Deception of Muhammad Hischam Kabbani
When discussing this subject, we often hear the labels of tampering by the saudis or salafees in matters such as this, only failing to look at the very usool of the people who promote these statements. I mean by this they claim this about those who they oppose yet they do not look at the fact that their very proponents of what they beleive in from its people are the very founders and pillars of altering.
here is one of their clear examples of altering (tahreef)
this was brought forth by the sufi, Kabbani
Quote:
Imam Ibn Taymiyya Mentions some Great Shaikhs of Sufism
>
> In the volume entitled cIlm as-Sulak, ("The Science of Travelling the
> Way to God"), which consists of the entire 775 pages of volume 10 of
> Majmaca al-Fatawa, he says (p. 516): "The great Sufi shaikhs are well
> known and accepted, such as: Bayazid al-Bistami, Shaikh Abdul Qadir
> Jilani, Junaid ibn Muhammad, Hasan al-Basri, al Fudayl ibn al-Ayyad,
> Ibrahim bin al-Adham, Abi Sulayman ad-Daarani, Ma'ruf al-Karkhi, Siri
> as-Saqati, Shaikh Hammad, Shaikh Abul Bayan.
>
> "Those great Sufis were the leaders of humanity, and they were calling
> to what is right and forbidding what is wrong."
Here are ibn Taymiyyahs words,
"
Quote:
as for those who were firmly upon the Straight Path from amongst those who traversed the path (al-mustaqeemeen min as-saalikeen) such as the majority of the shaykhs of the Salaf such as Fudayl bin Ayaadh, Ibraheem bin Adham, Abu Sulaymaan ad-Daaraanee, Ma`roof al-Kharkee, as-Siri as-Saqatee, al-Junaid bin Muhammad, and others. Also such as Abdul Qaadir, Shaykh Hammaad, Shaikh Abu al-Bayaan and others from the later scholars then all of these did not allow the one traversing the path to depart from the commands and prohibitions of the Sharee`ah even if he were to walk on water or fly in the air! Rather they impressed upon him the importance of leaving off all the prohibited matters until the time of his death. This is the truth which is proven by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Salaf."
So the questions arise: where did the Kabbani get the names Bayazid al-Bistami and Hasan al-Basri from? Where did he get the first sentence from? Where did he get the last two sentences from?
so it is true that Ibn taymiyyah distinguishes different classes of tassawuf, which is inccorect for all of us salafis to lump all of them in one single group, because if you get down to the technical usgage of what the term 'tassawuf" implies, if its meaning is the way to gain taqwa or the path to attain ihsaan, then salafis are the have more right to be sufi IN THIS SENSE of the usage of the term than do those who professly propagate tassawuf.
This is why there is a world of difference between the Imaam Alamaah Abdul-Qadir Jilaanee the true salafi,andthose who made shirk wiht him calling him gauth and other such terms and between him and the ultra hulooli itihaadi Ibn Arabi who they call "Shaykhul-Akbaar" wa iyaadhubillah
secondyl, it is appearent that we understand the following that im going to provide
In a unique manuscript of the H anbali Yusuf ibn cAbd
al-Hadi (d. 909 H./1503 CE), entitled Bad' al-culqa bi
labs al-khirqa, uncovered in the Princeton University
Library, Ibn Taymiyya is listed in a Sufi spiritual
genealogy with other well-known Hanbali scholars. The
links in this genealogy are, in descending order from
cAbdul Qadir Jilani:
Shaikh cAbdul Qadir Jilani (d. 561 H./1165 CE)
Abu cUmar b. Qudama (d. 607 H./1210 CE)
Muwaffaq ad-Din b. Qudama (d. 620 H./1223 CE)
Ibn cAli b. Qudama (d. 682 H./1283 CE)
Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 H./1328 CE)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751 H./1350 CE)
Ibn Rajab (d. 795 H./1393 CE)
the only thing, the only remote quote that implies affirmation of this caim is what was found in the Princeton Library, of the work of Ibn
Taymiyya himself, in a book named, Targhib
al-Mutahabbin fi labs Khirqat al-Mutammayyazan by
Jamal ad-Dan al-Talyani. Here are Ibn Taymiyya's own
words, as quoted from a work of his, al-Mas'ala
at-Tabraziyya:
"I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of
Shaikh cAbdul Qadir Jilani, there being between him
and me two Sufi shaikhs."
However, like all matters, just like the sunnah, things are weighed by way of it being mashoor. Basically if this issue suffered the critique of hadeeth acceptance, the grade it would be stamped on would be after it being khabru-waheed (such narrations are still accepted, it still goes through more stages. The claim also attains the rank of being ghareeb, not only ghareeb but it is also mursal, meaning the ending narrators are majhool.
in any case, whatever was brought forth above now must be looked at form the viewpoint of ibn taymiyyah
Ibn Taymiyyah viewed "tassawuf" in his famous fatawa regarding it that is on this site and you can read it here Salafees on Sufis where in it Ibn taymiyyah clarifies the nature of tassawuf and its types.
basically whatever sufiship that could ever be attributed to Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah must be by the route of what he himself viewed tassawuf to be, and such a state was classified by him in the first category, which would be salafiyyah on zuhd or the salafi path of the purification of the soul. This is because his view of his shaykh (al-jilanee), as well as my shaykh, is in the first category of sufis, by which in essence were from ahlu-sunnah, the salafiyeen of the 4th and 5th centuries and into the 6th.
One last matter to clarify is the fact that the ijaaza granted from Shaykh Abdul-Qadr to Ibn taymiyyah has nothing to do with "making waseela to graves" and "making tawaf" at the graves and accompanying them and from the other ill practiced innovations done by most sufis nowadays which further adds more khilaaf between the original "sufis" were upon versus modern day sufis.
The ijaazah granted to him stretching from Bani Qudamah to Ibn Taymiyyah was from the field of hanbaliyyah from which Ibn taymiyyah has his formal ijaazah of the hanbali school. That completely demolishes the idea of him being being what a modern day qadiri is since his ijaazah is mostly known through his hanbali affiliation, not exactly his "sufi" attribution. Even so, if it was from the world of tassawuf, again we would have to convert tassawuf to be what Ibn taymiyyah viewed as tassawuf, and what he viewed was the correct manner and what was the innovated manner, and not how the innovated mubtadiah view it wallahu alim
In fact you are right it is not an Article of Faith then how is it that for most of those that are against Tawassul they seem to make it the difference of Tawhid and Shirk, the difference of Iman and Kufr, The difference of a Muslim and a Mushrik?
here is what I have gathered
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 tafseer : “ It is Fa’eelatun with meaning what we do Tawassul with to Allah from actions of obedience and leaving sins”
Also 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 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”
Mahmoof 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 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”
( 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 Zyaratul 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.
Note : Among kibar Ahnaf who also defended Ibn Taymiyah, there is Badrudeen Al Ayni, as mentioned by Shukri al Aloosi in Ghayatul Amani v 2 p 128-132, Ibn Nasirudeen’s quoted Al Ayni in his book “ Rad Al Wafir” : “ The Madhab of Salaf is Ithbat with Tashbeeh, Tanzih without Ta’teel, Imam Malik was asked about His saying “ Ar Rahman ‘ala Arshi stawa” and he said “ Istiwa is known, the Kayf is Majhool, and Iman in it is Wajib and question about that is an innovation” and this Imam, Ay Shaykhul Islam, as I saw his creed and discovered his thinking, the one who is on this creed, how can we attribute him Hulool and Ittihad, Tajseem, or to what went people of Ilhad”
So it shows that many Kibar from Ahnaaf did not see any wrong in Ibn Taymiyah’s creed as Ayni, the Aloosi family, rather they defended him from unjust attacks of people of kalam and Tasawwuf.
Now to finish, let us quote from Muhadithul asr of Deobandiyah
In Faydul Bari, Kitab Jihad, v 3 p 434, 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 ar Shami for that.
As for His Saying : “ Seek Waseelah to Him”, this, even if it necessitates seeking f Wasitah, there is no prove 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 said 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 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
So one can see Shah Sahib denies any text from Salaf doing Tawassul with status, and he made a clear affirmation that tawassul of Khalaf is different that Tawassul of Salaf.
He also refuted claims of people doing Istidlal with the Ayah “ Seek Waseelah to Him” and the hadeeth of Umar doing tawassul with Abbas, which is a refutation of Al Kawtharee and many others who took daleel from them.
Such a great Muhadith like Kashmiri, who knew Kanzul A’mal and Hidayah by heart, who had a big nathar on books of Salaf and khalaf, could not find any text from Salaf doing Tawassul with names.
Also there is no text from Imam Abu Haneefah, nor his students permitting Tawassul with status, and it is well known that Muqalid should not act on any hadeeth nor saying of anybody except their Imam, as they do not know whether the hadeeth is abrogated, and they do not have faculty of istinbat, traking rulings from hadeeth.
But the shock is that we see Muaqlidoon of Abu Haneefah doing things without any text of their Imam, how is it possible that if this was done by Mutawatir from Sahabah, Tabiin, and Imams and we have no text from Abu Haneefah that he was doing tawassul with Status, nor any text from his students ?
If this practice was agreed upon by Salaf, where is mutawatir report of it, so none can deny it ? Where are many quotes from them ?
secondly, many of you attributed Abdul-Qaadir Jilaanee, my shaykh, to be on the methodology you all hold. I aks you were is there proof frtom my shaykh that he held these stances.
He refuted two peoples when he was asked "Was anybody on the correct path on an aqeedah other than Imaam Ahmad, he replied that has never happened and it will never happen"
again for a more ehnanced discusson about awluyah and the karamaat of awliyyah and he karamaat of the shayateen,all of this is clarified in the book of Ibn taymyyah "The Friends of Allah and the friends of shaytaan", and it is quite strnge that sufis have said that this work was a sufi work. To someone as contraversial as Ibn taymiyyah to the sufis, the most logical thig for a sufi to do would be to translate thios work to prove the "sufihood" of Ibn Taymiyyah. However, this line of thinking was not with the sufis particularly since it was the "salafis" who translated rthis work by Abu Rumaysah and you can find it online to order.
very very very very very very good read if i say so myself
asalamu alaikym