Dear Muslamaan! intrecession by whome you re talking about ? By Living Walis or Dead Walis ?
Please elaborate.
Thanks
Intercession by Wali ullah
- Thread starter asadxyz
- Start date
- Replies 44
- Views 10K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Dear Muslamaan! intrecession by whome you re talking about ? By Living Walis or Dead Walis ?
Please elaborate.
Thanks
Ibn Abi Ahmed
IB Legend
- Messages
- 7,915
- Reaction score
- 2,837
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
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
"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."
“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.
Last edited:
:
Allah said in His book about the associationist people of Nuh:
Ibn Abbas and others of the first generations reported about this verse:[They said: Do not forsake your gods, do not forsake Wadd, Suwaa', Yaghooth, Ya'ooq, and Nasr.] Qur'an 71/23
Just thought that was worth pointing out before this topic moves forward."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."
Pre-empt ??? :giggling: :lol:
IbnAbdulHakim
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
jazakAllah khair for the link 
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
“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
Last edited:
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!
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!
The first type
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!
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!
The second type
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.
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.
The Third Type
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?
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?
The Fourth Type
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.
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.
The Fifth Type
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)
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)
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
inshalalh I willsee ifi should post what some of the hanafees said concerning making waseela i.e. tawassul
asalamu alaikum
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
«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
IB Addict
- Messages
- 16,476
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
lol bro this is my opinion aswell
jazakAllahu khair for your effort, may Allah reward you
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
I have not been able to understand the "dispute" of Tawassul.
There are so many prayers by Prophets recorded in the
- Holy Quran
- 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
- Meezaan = Standard for every opinion whether that is right or wrong
- Furqan = A tool which differentiates between "Haq" and "Batil"
- Burhaan = Argument
Last edited:
I have not been able to understand the "dispute" of Tawassul.
There are so many prayers by Prophets recorded in the
- Holy Quran
- 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
Best of luck
- Meezaan = Standard for every opinion whether that is right or wrong
- Furqan = A tool which differentiates between "Haq" and "Batil"
- Burhaan = Argument
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
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
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
- Good deeds
- Avoidance of Sins
"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
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
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
Last edited by a moderator: