Tawassul through the deceased - looking for a clear proof

[sunniboy]

Assalamu alikum,

As you could tell from the title, my question is regarding tawassul through the dead. I know that this is the belief of a large proportion of the muslim umma, especially those with ashari and maturidi beliefs, but there are some points which I need a clarification for:

1- I have not found one proof of tawassul being made in the time of the prophet (pbuh) or by the four caliphates after him. All the proofs which I have seen given were for those who came after them, or from some narration of somebody doing something.

2- Everyone agrees that the prophet (pbuh) was the leader of creations. After his death, the umma faced a lot of hardships such as the redda in the times of Abu Bakr, and the killing at the times of umar and uthman, and the division of the umma at the time of Ali, *however*, during those hard times, none of them made tawassul through the prophet's grave, who was the best man who walked on earth.

3- Acts of shirk like idol worshiping started in the days of prophet Nuh (as) by having pictures of pious people who came before them only to remember them, and slowly this act turned into idol worshiping. Nowadays, a lot could be performing tawassul through the deceased with the firm belief that it is Allah swt who provides, but with time, people especially the ignorant ones, will start taking this practice as an act of worship, as seen nowadays. Nowadays in areas in Egypt, India and Morrocco, graves have turned into gatherings where people gather and shout and cry and dance and all sorts of crazy stuff goes on there. So since this is a possible outcome of this act, then why should it be performed when we could ask Allah swt directly?

I would appreciate answers to those questions.

Jazakum Allahu khairan
Wassalamu alikum

[Usman]

Wa'alaikumus Salaam,

Perhaps this may be of some use to you, (I've not checked the sources myself though)

Tawassul

http://www.livingislam.org/o/twua_e.html

[Usman]

So since this is a possible outcome of this act, then why should it be performed when we could ask Allah swt directly?

I agree.Everyone actually asked Allah Ta'ala Himself in Tawassul, but the thought behind tawassul is, that "O Allah, I love them, because they love you", so accept my Du'a.

Anyway,

This one's checked, but very long, so just visit the site :
(From the scholars of Ask-imam.com)

http://www.beautifulislam.net/duas/tawassul_waseelah.htm

Lemme put some excepts for you :

Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] narrates that once a blind person came to Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] and said, ‘Oh Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]! Ask Allah to cure me.’ Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] replied, ‘If you wish I will make Du’aa or else you may be patient and this is better for you.’ The man said, ‘Make Du’aa instead’, Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] then commanded him to make Wudhu properly and that he recites the following Du’aa, ‘Oh Allah, verily, I ask of you and I turn to you through your prophet, the prophet of mercy, O Muhammad [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], verily, I have turned to my Lord through you so that my need be fulfilled. Oh Allah, accept his intercession on my behalf.’ (Musnad Ahmad vol.4 pg.138; Sunan Tirmidhi; Sunan ibn Majah; Mustadrak Haakim and others). Imaams Tirmidhi, ibn Khuzaymah and Haakim have classified this Hadith as authentic. The words, ‘I turn to you through your prophet’ clearly proves Tawassul through the position of a person. Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] also told him that he should make the same supplication whenever he needed to. (al-Raddul Muhkamul Mateen pg.145)

Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] taught this du’aa to someone after the demise of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. That person’s need was also fulfilled.
Abu Umaamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] reports that a person requested Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Affaan [radhiallaahu anhu] to fulfil his need. Sayyiduna Uthmaan [radhiallaahu anhu] did not attend to him. The person complained to Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] about his plight. Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] told him to make Wudhu, go to the Musjid, offer 2 Rakaats of Salaat and recite the following Du’aa: ‘O Allah, verily I ask you and I turn to you through our prophet, the prophet of mercy (Rasulullah – sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). O Muhammad! Verily, I have turned to our Lord through you so that He may fulfil my need.’

The person then went to Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Affaan [radhiallahu anhu] who then [radhiallaahu anhu] immediately fulfilled his need and told him to return whenever he had any need in the future. (al-Mu’jamus sagheer vol.1 pg.184; al-Mu’jamul Kabeer vol.9 pg.17; Dalaailun-nubuwwah of Imaam Bayhaqi vol.6 pg.167-168)

Imaam Tabrani has mentioned that this Hadith is authentic. (al-Mu’jamus sagheer vol.1 pg.184). Allamah Mahmood Zaahid Al- Kawthari has also classified the chains of Baihaqi to be Saheeh (authentic). (Maqaalatul-Kawthari pg.391). For a detailed analysis refer to al-Raddul Muhkamul Mateen of Shaykh Abdullah Siddique al-Ghumarie pgs.141-157; Raf’ul Manaarah of Shaykh Mahmood Sa’eed Mamdooh pgs.125-131.

[IlyasLahoz]

assalamu 'alaikum.
I don't know enough about this topic to hold an opinion except to accept what the scholars say (ie that tawassul is permisssible and even recommended).

That being said, I've heard that the following ayat in the Qur'an explicitly points to asking Allah through the intermediary of the Prophet -Allah bless him and give him peace. Does anyone know if this is so?


"If they had only, when they were wronging themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft returning, Most Merciful" (4:64).

[abeer_xyz]

The Koran is a wasila, so is the Prophet for guidance. Here is an example of prayer from the Holy Koran that is related with Koran and the Prophet.

A. 3.53. Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness.

Now take notice of the following form of prayer.

B. Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then with the wasila of the Koran and the Messenger write us down among those who bear witness.

OR

C. Our Lord! With the wasila of the Koran and the Messenger write us down among those who bear witness.

Is there no difference between the two forms of prayer? What is the belief that backs one to add “with the wasila”? What is the meaning of wasila?
------------------

Let me have another example:

God asked us to look for wasila. One is sick. He looked his best for a good doctor, followed his prescription and prays to God for cure in the two following forms.

X. I went to the Doctor, and I followed his prescription; My Lord! Cure me.

Y. My Lord! Cure me with the wasila of the Doctor and the Prescription.

Is there no difference between the two forms of prayer (X and Y)?

[Live for Islam]

Assalamu Alaikum Warahmatullah,

It's usually advisable for non-Scholars to refer to the works of our learned Ulama when it comes to topics like this, rather than trying to tackle it by ourselves, Insha-Allah.

Thus I would recommend reading: Tawassul (Supplicating Allah through an intermediary) (http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-22324795) - by Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Khawthari (Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK)

Wassalam.

[haqq]

1- I have not found one proof of tawassul being made in the time of the prophet (pbuh) or by the four caliphates after him. All the proofs which I have seen given were for those who came after them, or from some narration of somebody doing something.

Assalaamualaikum,

Just because you have not found any evidence it doesn't mean that there is no evidence. Yes, there is evidence. You can read it HERE (http://www.themajlis.net/Sections-article94-p1.html).

Was-salaam,
haqq

[abeer_xyz]

Supplications in the Koran:

Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, those whose (portion) is not wrath, and who go not astray. (1.5-7)

Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. (2.127)

Our Lord! Give us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and defend us from the torment of the Fire! (2.201)

Our Lord! Pour out constancy on us and make our steps firm: Help us against those that reject faith. (2.250)

Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden Like that which Thou didst lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. Thou art our Protector; Help us against those who stand against faith. (2.286)

Our Lord! Let not our hearts deviate now after Thou hast guided us, but grant us mercy from Thine own Presence; for Thou art the Grantor of bounties without measure. (3.8)

Our Lord! we have indeed believed: forgive us, then, our sins, and save us from the agony of the Fire. (3.16)

Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger. then write us down among those who bear witness. (3.53)

Our Lord! Forgive us our sins and anything We may have done that transgressed our duty: Establish our feet firmly, and help us against those that resist Faith. (3.147)

Our Lord! we have heard the call of one calling (Us) to Faith, 'Believe ye in the Lord,' and we have believed. Our Lord! Forgive us our sins, blot out from us our iniquities, and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the righteous. Our Lord! Grant us what Thou didst promise unto us through Thine apostles, and save us from shame on the Day of Judgment: For Thou never breakest Thy promise. (3.193-194)

Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help! (4.75)

Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses. (5.83)

There are many more in the Koran.

Prayers I do in Salat:

Likewise there are many supplications that I was taught to perform in daily paryers, janaza prayers, breaking of fasting etc. that usually begin with “Allahumma”.

Are these supplications not enough for me? What shall be my problem if I carefully stick to these forms of supplications for my other needs?
---------------------------

Waseelah is to supplicate (make dua) to Allah Ta’ala by presenting the auspicious proximity to Allah Ta’ala enjoyed by either A’maal-e-Saalihah (Righteous Deeds) or Pious beings such as the Ambiyaa and Auliya. In simple terms, Waseelah is to make dua as follows: "O Allah! Accept my dua for the sake of Your Nabi…..(or a certain Wali)…..or (a certain good deed).” from http://www.themajlis.net/Sections-article94-p1.html

The meaning of Tawassul is: To ask Allah Almighty through the medium and intercession of another person. For example, one says: “O Allah! I ask forgiveness for my sins through the Wasila (intercession) of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace)”. from http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-22324795

Is it obligatory for me to follow Ulema when they try to teach me something that do not pass the standard and the spirit of the Holy Koran?

[shunni]

To say: oh Lord for the love of the prophet do this for me... is perfectly fine. It is like saying I maight not be worthy of asking, but since I love the prophet, and you love the prophet please do it for his sake.

shia do it like this : "ya shafi3an 3endal allah, 2shfa3 lana 3indal allah"

[GenN]

Assalmu alaykum,

I'm taking this from one of brother Slaman's posts which i read ages ago, which i think is excellent the way he explained it. Anyway i couldn't be bothered to search for that post again, so i've basically written it in my own words. If i have made a mistake can someone please correct me.

Before we progress on getting the evidences, we need to be able to differentiate between the differnt scenarios and know what they are called.

so :

"To say: oh Lord for the love of the prophet do this for me... is perfectly fine. It is like saying I maight not be worthy of asking, but since I love the prophet, and you love the prophet please do it for his sake."

that is tawasul. no difference o fopinion amongst ahlul sunna, it is fine.

"O prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (or name of awliay) i ask to to ask Allah for me .....""

Thats istigatha.

2 issues here regarding istigath here.

i. Done through the prophets (peace and blessings be upon them all)
ii. Done through awliya

regarding (i) then this splits into a further 2 issues

a) Done at the grave of the last prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (i'm NOT talking about other prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all as i am not sure about them)
b) done from another place/land

regarding (a) no differcence of opinion, it CAN be done as all of ahlul sunnah are agreed he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him can hear us in his grave)

b) differnce of opinon - perhaps the angels convey it to the prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) at his grave - i dunno this is dodgy ground - better safe than sorry.

regarding ii) then differnce of opion as from the time of sahaba its been a differnce wheter the awliya can hear or not in the grave.


well thats my 2 pence, i hope it made sense. i thought it may be beneficel to understand the differnces and categories so we can look for evidecnes of each point at a time rather than confuse these related issues.

was salaam.

[abeer_xyz]

To say: oh Lord for the love of the prophet do this for me... is perfectly fine. It is like saying I maight not be worthy of asking, but since I love the prophet, and you love the prophet please do it for his sake.
shia do it like this : "ya shafi3an 3endal allah, 2shfa3 lana 3indal allah"
There is a subtle difference between obedience and love. Obedience to the Prophet means accepting the revelations and the demonstrations by the Prophet. It essentially means obedience to God. So it is better to pray like this: “O my Lord! I am trying to obey the Prophet and the Imams, please forgive my sins, and grant me your mercy”.

God asked us to love Him more than any other entity. Then why should I not refer to the superior love during supplication? Better kind of supplication does not cost anything. Then why people are so interested in adding the words “with the wasila of” in their prayer in contrast to so many examples of supplications given by God Himself?

None of my acts has the merit to save me except God’s mere mercy. Loving God or the Prophet are also acts which do not attain at the perfect level. Then why should I pray like this: “O my Lord! For the sake of such act or such love give me such things”. Rather we should pray like this: “O my Lord! I love you, I love your prophet and I love the Imams, then accept my love and have mercy on me”.

Brother Shunni, please meditate on the way of supplications with wasila. See who gets the priority there? If supplication with wasila is of superior kind, why did God not give a single example in the Koran among so many examples there? If it is of inferior kind, what is the psychology behind the eagerness of doing this while it does not cost a penny to supplicate without wasila?

[shunni]

There is a subtle difference between obedience and love. Obedience to the Prophet means accepting the revelations and the demonstrations by the Prophet. It essentially means obedience to God. So it is better to pray like this: “O my Lord! I am trying to obey the Prophet and the Imams, please forgive my sins, and grant me your mercy”.

God asked us to love Him more than any other entity. Then why should I not refer to the superior love during supplication? Better kind of supplication does not cost anything. Then why people are so interested in adding the words “with the wasila of” in their prayer in contrast to so many examples of supplications given by God Himself?

None of my acts has the merit to save me except God’s mere mercy. Loving God or the Prophet are also acts which do not attain at the perfect level. Then why should I pray like this: “O my Lord! For the sake of such act or such love give me such things”. Rather we should pray like this: “O my Lord! I love you, I love your prophet and I love the Imams, then accept my love and have mercy on me”.

Brother Shunni, please meditate on the way of supplications with wasila. See who gets the priority there? If supplication with wasila is of superior kind, why did God not give a single example in the Koran among so many examples there? If it is of inferior kind, what is the psychology behind the eagerness of doing this while it does not cost a penny to supplicate without wasila?

[B]Dear bro Abeer,

I can only share my own logic on this. I thing its much superior to supplicate directly to Allah. Like I had mentioned earlier, there might be instances where you feel you need some more help, maybe because you are not feeling wothy enough to have this "meeting" with the Lord. In this situation you can invoke names that God loves, as to " induce him" to do you the favor. Allah has given us permission to so, partially because he wanted to reinforce our love for these individual /B]

[abu bakr]

brother none of the 4 imams or great scholars of the past recommended asking the dead to ask allah swt. in fact this is a form of shirk as in an authentic hadith narrated in tirmidhi nabi saw said "dua is worship". there fore it is not right for us to supplicate to the dead whether directly or indirectly. yes there is ascholarly difference in using a intermediary in dua for example "oh allah ask you by the virtue of so and so". this form of dua is bidah according to the correct scholarly opinion.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

none of the great scholars of the past? perhaps you could inform us who didn't approve and who did.... you appear to be knowledgeable on the topic.

[for abu bakr]

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

...and i would include the 4 imams in that question, by the way.

[abu bakr]

as far as imam abu hanifah is concerned he is against using intermediaries full stop. (I will present evdience). as far as imam shafi there is no authentic narration form him regarding using intermediaries in fact there is no mention in his books of using intermediaries. the same goes for imam malik. as far as imam ahmed ibn habla is concerned there are 2 opions form him one states that he says that it is permissable to use a means where as in anothe narration he mentions that it is wrong to use intermediaries.

nowhere do any of the imams say that it is permissable to ask the dead to ask allah swt. please present ur evdience if u think otherwise

[abu bakr]

imam muhiyideen barkawi Hanafi in his zyartul Qubur proves how the claim of imam malik using nabi saw as wasila by his tomb is a fabrication. if you want more details then please ask. imam ibn abdel hadi al-hanbali in Sarim Mumki also proves how it is a fabrication.

[Mossy]

Halal until proven haram or haram until proven halal? Pick one.

[ahsanirfan]

imam muhiyideen barkawi Hanafi in his zyartul Qubur proves how the claim of imam malik using nabi saw as wasila by his tomb is a fabrication. if you want more details then please ask. imam ibn abdel hadi al-hanbali in Sarim Mumki also proves how it is a fabrication.

LOL...

[abu bakr]

brother i think you need to understand the concept of bidah

[Muawiyah]

as far as imam abu hanifah is concerned he is against using intermediaries full stop.

The only thing that is proven from Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullaahu ta'ala in this regard is that he was against saying, "By the right of X over you" {BiHaqqi Fulaani `alyk}.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1481


as far as imam ahmed ibn habla is concerned there are 2 opions form him one states that he says that it is permissable to use a means where as in anothe narration he mentions that it is wrong to use intermediaries.

Tawassul is allowed in the Hanbali madhhab
http://www.geocities.com/fatawa_albani/tawassul1.html

And Imam Ahmad rahimahullaahuTa'ala considered Tawwasul permissable as is acknowledged by Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in his Qaidah al-jalilah.

And most importantly, the few `ulama of the past who dissented from the jamhur position in the matter of Tawassul, never termed it Shirk al-Akbar {or any type of shirk at all} like the modern day devient groups do.

[ahsanirfan]

brother i think you need to understand the concept of bidah

LOL.. and how do u define bidah?

[abu bakr]

Linguistically bidah(innovation) means a' newly invented matter.The Shareeah definition of bidah is :"A newly invented way [beliefs or action]in the religion ,in imitation of the Shareeah (prescribed law),by which nearness to Allah is sought ,[but] not being supported by any authentic proof-neither in its foundations ,nor in the manner in which it is performed"Al-Itisaam of ash-Shaatibee(1/37)

[Mossy]

brother i think you need to understand the concept of bidah

I know what it is in the Maliki madhab :cheesygri

[talib al-habib]

salams

oh dear...

1. dear brother Abu Bakr, perhaps you should check the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scholars on bid`a, which is that the bid`a proscribed in shari`a is that which was not found in the time of Rasulullah, Allah's peace and blessings upon him, AND which is against the principles of Qur'an, Sunna and the transmitted understandings of the early masters (`ijma). Imam al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim said of the hadith "Every new matter is an innovation":

This is an universal rule understood specifically (ammun makhsus). What is meant by it is new matters that are not validated by the Shari`a. That - and that alone - is what is meant by innovations (al-bida').

In fact, the scholars comprehend five levels of bid`a, from obligatory to haram.


2. Regarding tawassul (generally) and istighatha (specifically), someone mentioned the hadith of the blind man and its corollary, the hadith of the man in need. It is this latter hadith that contains explicit permission to make both tawassul AND istighatha through those who are not present.

Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] taught this du’aa to someone after the demise of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. That person’s need was also fulfilled.

Abu Umaamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] reports that a person requested Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Affaan [radhiallaahu anhu] to fulfil his need. Sayyiduna Uthmaan [radhiallaahu anhu] did not attend to him. The person complained to Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] about his plight. Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] told him to make Wudhu, go to the Musjid, offer 2 Rakaats of Salaat and recite the following Du’aa: ‘O Allah, verily I ask you and I turn to you through our prophet, the prophet of mercy (Rasulullah – sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). O Muhammad! Verily, I have turned to our Lord through you so that He may fulfil my need.’

This was:
1. After the time of Rasulullah (s) - ie: tawassul through those in barzakh.
2. Contains both the direct address to Allah using an intermediary (tawassul) and a direct address to Rasulullah (s) seeking his assistance (istighatha). The first hadith contains a direct address to Rasulullah (s) during his life but despite his physical absence ('go from here, make wudu...'); the second contains a direct address to Rasulullah (s) despite him having passed away.

There are other narrations, which you can check up in:

1. Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's Encyclopaedia of Islamic Doctrine - English (vol 4 is dedicated to the concept of tawassul - 200pgs).
2. Prof Tahir al-Qadiri's English-language books 'Tawassul' (400pgs) and 'Istighatha' (150pgs).
3. Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Makki's foundational book, 'Mafahim' which is in Arabic and surely will be in English soon, insha-allah..
4. The fatwa of Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari on istighatha specifically - also found on sunnipath - which appear to me to contradict Mufti Desai's fatwa on the direct appeal (istighatha) but which is the understanding of middle-eastern ahl as-sunna ulama.

These cover the topic from the perspectives of the Salaf and the Khalaf in more detail than any of us should require.

Further, I would respectfully ask you the following: what exactly is the problem with supplicating through the deceased? I assume that it is because, by doing so, one attributes to them a power (to benefit or harm) that they do not have. So asking your brother to make du`a for you is acceptable, but doing the same at a grave is not? Why? Because your brother has the power to help you, but the dead person does not, correct?

Most people who believe this draw the line at life and death (or presence and absence) - ie: the living present can help you, but the absent deceased cannot. This belief, however, is shirk - not greater shirk that removes one form the fold of Islam (and about which, incidentally,Rasul (s) said, 'I do not fear shirk for my umma'), but the lesser shirk that is, 'as hidden as a black ant crawling on a rock in the middle of the night.' It is the shirk of placing trust in the apparent external actions - in cause and effect - rather than in the True Cause and the True Originator of all acts. In reality, no-one benefits - in any way shape or form - except Allah Most High, but He in his infinite wisdom chooses to act through means - means that may be living, dead or inanimate.

The shirk or tauhid lies not in the act of istighatha or its denial, but about the deep understanding that Allah is the true giver and taker, as welll as the deep understanding that he works through means - only in order to make us respect those means.

And peace and blessings - eternal, infinite, perfect - upon the best of creation, our support and solace in this world and the next, whose life and life-after-death are a tremendous good for us, Muhammad al-Mustafa, upon his family, his companions, and his beloveds - the beloveds of Allah. al-Madad Ya Rasulallah.

was salam

[ahsanirfan]

Linguistically bidah(innovation) means a' newly invented matter.The Shareeah definition of bidah is :"A newly invented way [beliefs or action]in the religion ,in imitation of the Shareeah (prescribed law),by which nearness to Allah is sought ,[but] not being supported by any authentic proof-neither in its foundations ,nor in the manner in which it is performed"Al-Itisaam of ash-Shaatibee(1/37)

muhuhahahahahaha.... i know where that came from... allahuakbar.net????

man this is so funny.....

go check a REAL sunni site....

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i dislike defending matters which are clearly permissible in the sunni schools, especially in a sunniforum!! it really is a waste of time. brother abu bakr has simply sat with the wrong people and thus cannot see that the ulama of the 4 maddhabs have clearly accepted tawassul.

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said in his book al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib al-imam Abi Hanifa al-Nu`man, chapter 35:

When Imam al-Shafi`i was in Baghdad, he would visit the grave of Imam Abu Hanifa, give him salam, and then ask Allah for the fulfillment of his need through his means (yatawassal ilallah ta`ala bihi fi qada' hajatihi).

It is also related that Imam Ahmad made tawassul through Imam Shafi`i to the point that his son `Abd Allah expressed his surprise, and Ahmad replied: "al-Shafi`i is like the sun for the people and like health for the body." When Imam Shafi`i heard that the people of al-Maghrib made tawassul to Allah through Imam Malik, he did not object to it.

Imam Kawthari mentioned in his Maqalat (p. 412) that the hafiz al-Khatib al-Baghdadi mentions Shafi`i's tawassul through Abu Hanifa in the beginning of his Tarikh Baghdad (1:123) with a good chain.

Haytami also said in many places in his book al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqa li ahl al-dalal wa al-zandaqa (cf. p. 180) and al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 69): "Imam Shafi`i made tawassul through the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) when he said:



Al al-nabi dhari`ati wa hum ilayhi wasilati

arju bihim u`ta ghadan bi yadi al-yamini sahifati



The Family of the Prophet are my means and my

intermediary to him. Through them I hope to be

given my record with the right hand tomorrow.



This is found in Diwan al-Shafi`i as edited by `Umar Faruq al-Dabbagh (Beirut: Dar al-arqam, n.d.) p. 50.

Imam Malik was asked the following question by the Caliph Abu Ja`far al-Mansur: "Shall I face the Qibla with my back towards the grave of the Messenger of Allah when making du`a (after salams)?" He replied:

How could you turn your face away from him when he is the means (wasila) of your and your father Adam's forgiveness to Allah on the Day of Resurrection? Nay, face him and ask for his intercession (istashfi` bihi) so that Allah will grant it to you as He said: "If they had only, when they were wronging themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful (4:64)."

It is cited by al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa (2:92-93) with a sound (sahih) chain, and also cited by Samhudi in Khulasat al-Wafa, Subki in Shifa' al-siqam, Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya, Ibn Jama`a in Hidayat al-salik, and Haytami in al-Jawhar al-munazzam and Tuhfat al-zuwwar. See also Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-munki p. 244. Ibn Jama`a says in Hidayat al-salik (3:1381): "It is related by the two hafiz Ibn Bashkuwal and al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa' after him, and no attention is paid to the words of those who claim that it is forged purely on the basis of his idle desires."

Imam Ahmad made tawassul through the Prophet a part of every du`a according to the following report: `Ala' al-Din al-Mardawi said in his book al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456):

The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one's supplication (du`a) to use as one's means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi: yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du`a'ih -- "Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah."

The same report is found in Imam Ahmad's Manasik as narrated by his student Abu Bakr al-Marwazi.

Similarly the lengthy wording of the tawassul according to the Hanbali madhhab as established by the hafiz Ibn `Aqil in his Tadhkira was cited fully by Imam Kawthari in his appendix to Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din al-Subki's al-Sayf al-saqil included in Kawthari's edition of the latter.

i could go on. i think you get the picture though

[abu bakr]

"While visiting the Masjid an-Nabi, Jafar Mansur, the second 'Abbasid caliph, asked Imam Malik, 'Shall I turn my face to the Kaba or face Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) grave when reciting prayers?' [One stands between the Ka'ba and the Prophet's blessed grave when standing in the Masjid an-Nabawi.] Imam Malik said, 'How can you turn your face away from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam)! He is the cause of you and your father Adam ('alaihi 's-salam)! Turn your face to him and pray through him!' Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Makki wrote in his book Jawhar al-munzam that this report was so authentic that it cannot be rejected.

ANSWER
This narration has been answered in many ways. It should be noted here that Qaadhi A’yaadh transmits this report in his ash-Shifaa but does not authenticate it but he weakens it in another of his books.

Qaadhi A’yaadh the Maalikee authored a book titled Ziyarah of the Prophets grave and in it he brings authentic narrations how one should visit the Prophets grave. Then he goes onto mention the weak ones, and from them is the one mentioned above which is a lie.

One of the narrators of this report is Muhammad bin Humaid, who is extremely weak according to the majority of the scholars of hadeeth.

Haafidh Dhahabee brings in his book, “Ya’qoob bin Shaybah said he narrates many rejected narrations. Bukhaari said look into him. Abu Zur’ah said he was a lair. Fadhlak Raazee said Humaid has 50,000 ahadeeth but I do not take a single letter from him. Ishaaq bin Mansoor said I testify he is a liar. Saaleh Jazrah said we consider Ibn Humaid to be accused in everything he would narrates to us and I have not seen anyone bolder upon Allaah, he would take ahadeeth from people and then mix them up and I have not seen anyone more expert in lying on Allaah than Ibn Humaid and Shaazkoonee. Ibn Kharaash said By Allaah he lies and it has been mentioned by more than one scholar that Ibn Humaid would thief in hadeeth. Nasaa’ee said he is not trustworthy. Abu alee Neesaabooree said, I said to Ibn Khuzaimah to take the chains of Ibn Humaid as Ahmad bin Hanbal has praised him, he replied, he did not know him and if he got to knew him as we know him then he would have not praised him at all. Abu Ahmad al-As’aal said I heard Fadhlak Raazee say I entered upon Ibn Humaid and I found him adding chains to texts.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal 6/126 no.7459) see also Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb 9/108-111, Imaam Dhahabee also held him to be weak.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in his book, “Abu Nu’aym bin Adiyy said, “I heard Abu Haatim ar-Raazee in his house when Ibn Kharaash and a group of Scholars of ar-Rayy were with him and Ibn Humaid was mentioned and they all agreed upon his being weak in hadeeth, as he would mention something to be hadeeth that which he did not hear. He would narrate ahadeeth from the people of Basrah and Koofah to the Raaziyyeen. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb 9/110 no.6081)

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said, “He is alone in reporting confusing and confounded things from trustworthy narrators.” (Kitaab al-Majrooheen Minal Muhadditheen 2/321 no.1005), refer also to Kitaab al-Waseelah pg.71). Ibn Warrah also said he was weak Kitaab adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (3/54 no.2959)

Secondly
This narration is disconnected because Muhammad bin Humaid a-Raazee did not meet Imaam Maalik specifically during the reign of Abu Ja’afar Mansoor. As Abu Ja’afar died in 158H in Makkah and Imaam Maalik in 179H and Muhammad ibn Humaid in 248H who was a khurasaanee. Muhammad bin Humaid did not leave his homeland to seek knowledge except in the later years of his life when he was older, with his father. So from the dates it is not possible the narrator of this incident ie Muhamamd bin Humaid was in Makkah to witness this incident.

The last narrator of Muwatta from Imaam Maalik was Abu Mus’ab who died in 242H and the last narrator from all of his books was Abu Hudhaifah Ahmad bin Ismaa’eel as-Sahmee who died in 259H, none of them narrated this incident and in addition to this there are narrators in the chain who are unknown. Nor do any of the well known companions of Imaam Maalik narrate this incident. (refer to al-Qaa’idatul Jadeedah Fit-Tawassul wal-Waseelah (pg.71) of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah).

So this narration is weak on the account of disconnection and Muhammad bin Humaid being weak. Even if he was not weak the narration has to be mursal and in such a position the companions of Imaam Maalik hold such narrations are not reliable enough for them to be used in issues of fiqh.

Thirdly
There are a number of unknown narrators in this chain for example, Alee bin Fahr, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Faraj and Abdullaah bin al-Muntaab. All three individuals are unknown and therefore this narration is false.

Haafidh Ahmad ibn Abdul-Haadee said, “This chain is oppression and disconnected and is based on narrators who are not reliable enough to be used as evidence and they did not hear anything from Maalik nor did they meet him rather this narration from him is disconnected and is not continuous or connected.” (as-Saarim al-Munkee (pg.218).

And lastly Qaadhi A’yaadh also holds this narration to be weak and he was more versed with the Maalikiyyah then Ibn Hajr al-Maaki the Shaafi’ee. At this point it would be interesting to say the least that although Qaadhi A’yaadh brings this report in ash-Shifaa he does not authenticate it, and in the same book he reports an opinion of Imaam Maalik that he did not like that an individual come back and forth to the grave of the Messenger. (see ash-Shifaa (2/82).

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

thats one of the proofs you have attempted to disprove.

as for the others... please try.

secondly, who wrote the above? was it a salafi, the same type that forge and mistranslate texts such as riyad as-saliheen? there are plenty of books in the last 50 years that the salafi's have tampered with.

thirdly.. have you read ash-shifa brother? why don't you read it and check the section on visitation of the grave of our beloved:

"ibn wahb said that Malik said that when someone greets the prophet, and makes supplication, he should stand with hi face towards the grave, not towards qibla, draw near and greet him....."

furthermore the muwatta of Imam Malik:

"Malik used to stand at the grave of the prophet (s) and would pray on the prophet, abu bakr and umar....Malik said that the greeter should say, "Peace be upon you, O prophet...."

also read the texts of Imam Suyuti, as-Subki and other great scholars of the classical era and what they have to say regarding tawassul.

[faqir]

"al-hamdu lillahi al-ladhi as`adana bi nabiyyihi sallallahu
`alayhi wa sallama sa`adatan la tabid
wa ashhadu an la ilaha illallahu wahdahu la sharika lahu
al-wali al-hamid
wa ashhadu anna muhammadan `abduhu wa rasuluhu al-hadi ila
kulli amrin rashid
sallallahu `alayhi wa `ala alihi salatan taliqu bi jalalihi
la tazalu ta`lu wa tazid
wa sallama tasliman kathiran ila yawm al-mazid
wa ba`d fa inna Allaha ya`lamu anna kulla khayrin ana fihi
wa manna `alayya bihi fa huwa bi sababi al-nabi sallallahu
`alayhi wa sallam wa iltija'i ilayh
wa i`timadi fi tawassuli ila Allahi fi kulli umuri `alayh
fa huwa wasilati ila Allahi fi al-dunya wa al-akhira
wa kam lahu `alayya min ni`amin batinatin wa zahira."





Taken from Shaykh al-Islam al-hafiz Taqi al-Din al-Subki's "Fatwas", Vol. 1 p. 274, at the beginning of the fatwa entitled "The Descent of Tranquility and Peace on the Nightlights of Madina" (tanazzul al-sakina `ala qanadil al-madina).

[abu bakr]

brother there is nothing wrong with standing at the garve and sending salawat upon ur nabi saw and the companions. but during the dua one hsould stand facin kabah.

[B]extract from Zyaratul Qubur of Muhidin Barkawi hanafi

here are his words

Salamah ibn Waradan said : I saw Anas ibn Malik doing salam on the Prophet saw then he put his back towards wall of grave and did du’a, and this is from which there is no dispute between scholars, and the dispute is only in time of salam. Abu Hanifa sais one should also face qiblah during salam and he should not face the grave, and other than him said one should face grave during salam only, and none of the 4 Imams said to face the grave during du’a, except a lied story from Malik, and his madhab is opposed to that, and the same for the story reported from Shafi’I that he made purpose of du’a at Abu Hanifa’s grave, this is from clear lie, rather they said to face Qiblah during du’a and not to face grave so that du’a is done on graves, because du’a is worship as it is established from Tirmidhi in marfu’ form ( words of Prophets) : “ Du’a is worship” and salaf from Sahabah and Tabi’I made singled ibadah for Allah, and theyd id not do anything on the grave except what the Prophet saw permitted from salam to his companions and istighfar for them and mercy for them.

[faqir]

Seeking The Intercession Of The Prophet Of Islam:

A Scholarly Defense Of Its Legitimacy


Being the translation of a contemporary treatise which establishes that
seeking the intercession of the Prophet is sanctioned by the Qur�an and the
sunnah and refutes the claims of the Pseudo-Salafis that intercession is a
heretical innovation (bid�ah)


By the Azhari shaikh and hadith scholar Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Sadiq al-Ghumari


http://members.telering.at/islam/texte/0000/018_Intercession.pdf

[faqir]

"While visiting the Masjid an-Nabi, Jafar Mansur, the second 'Abbasid caliph, asked Imam Malik, 'Shall I turn my face to the Kaba or face Rasulullah's ('alaihi 's-salam) grave when reciting prayers?' [One stands between the Ka'ba and the Prophet's blessed grave when standing in the Masjid an-Nabawi.] Imam Malik said, 'How can you turn your face away from Rasulullah ('alaihi 's-salam)! He is the cause of you and your father Adam ('alaihi 's-salam)! Turn your face to him and pray through him!' Hadrat Ibn Hajar al-Makki wrote in his book Jawhar al-munzam that this report was so authentic that it cannot be rejected.

ANSWER
This narration has been answered in many ways. It should be noted here that Qaadhi A’yaadh transmits this report in his ash-Shifaa but does not authenticate it but he weakens it in another of his books.




Hmm.... I have come across the following:




Imam Malik was asked the following question by the Caliph Abu Ja`far al-Mansur:

"Shall I face the Qibla with my back towards the grave of the Messenger of Allah when making du`a (after salams)?"



He replied:

How could you turn your face away from him when he is the means (wasila) of your and your father Adam's forgiveness to Allah on the Day of Resurrection? Nay, face him and ask for his intercession (istashfi` bihi) so that Allah will grant it to you as He said: "If they had only, when they were wronging themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful (4:64)."


Cited by al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa (2:92-93) with a sound (sahih) chain, and also cited by Samhudi in Khulasat al-Wafa, Subki in Shifa' al-siqam, Qastallani in al-Mawahib al-laduniyya, Ibn Jama`a in Hidayat al-salik, and Haytami in al-Jawhar al-munazzam and Tuhfat al-zuwwar. See also Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-munki p. 244.

[faqir]

I noticed the brother quoted from Ibn Hajar al Asqalani. MashaAllah, from the noble Shaykh's Diwan, an original manuscript of which has been preserved at the Egyptian National Library:


By the gate of your generosity stands a sinner, who is mad with love,

O best of mankind in radiance of face and countenance!

Through you he seeks a means [tawassala], hoping for Allah�s forgiveness of slips;

from fear of Him, his eyelid is wet with pouring tears.

Although his genealogy attributes him to a stone [hajar],

how often tears have flowed, sweet, pure and fresh!

Praise of you does not do you justice, but perhaps,

In eternity, its verses will be transformed into mansions.

My praise of you shall continue for as long as I live,

For I see nothing that could ever deflect me from your praise







[my comment: Now THATS love! :) ]

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

وعن العُتْبيّ ‏(35)‏ قال‏:‏ كنتُ جالساً عند قبر النبيّ صلى اللّه عليه وسلم فجاء أعرابيٌّ فقال‏:‏ السلام عليك يا رسول اللّه‏!‏ سمعتُ اللّه تعالى يقول‏:‏ ‏{‏وَلَوْ أنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أنْفُسَهُمْ جَاؤُوكَ فاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ واسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّاباً رَحِيماً‏}‏ ‏[‏النساء‏:‏64‏]‏ وقد جئتُك مستغفراً من ذنبي، مستشفعاً بك إلى ربي، ثم أنشأ يقول‏:‏
يا خيرَ مَنْ دُفنتْ بالقاع أعظُمُه * فطابَ من طيبهنَّ القَاعُ والأكمُ
نفسي الفداءُ لقبرٍ أنتَ ساكنُهُ * فيه العفافُ وفيه الجودُ والكرَمُ
قال‏:‏ ثم انصرفَ، فحملتني عيناي فرأيت النبيَّ صلى اللّه عليه وسلم في النوم فقال لي‏:‏ يا عُتْبيّ، الحقِ الأعرابيَّ فبشِّره بأن اللّه تعالى قد غفر له‏.‏

al-Utbi said: "As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord. Then he began to recite poetry:



O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,

And from whose fragrance the depth

and the height have become sweet,

May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,

And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!



Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: O Utbi, run after the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him."

(Al Adhkar by Imam Nawawi, Ch: فصل‏:‏ في زيارة قبر رسول اللّه صلى اللّه عليه وسلم وأذكارها)


This is a Mashhur narration - none of the authorities have stated it is weak. Ibn Kathir mentions it in his Tafsir, Imam Qurtubi mentions it in his Ahkam Al Qur'an, Imam NAwawi mentions is further in his Majmu' , Ibn Qudama in his Mughni and so forth.

(more to come inshallah when i come back from work)

[samrqandi]

salaam alaikum

salman that was a nice answer, alhamdulillah, also this should be good as well:

From the Sahabi Malik al-Dar:

The people suffered a drought in `Umar's khilafa, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet sallAllahu `alayhi wa- Alihi wa-Sallam and said: "Messenger of Allah! Ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished." After this the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: "Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: Be clever!" The man went and told `Umar. The latter wept and said: "My Lord! I spare no effort except in what escapes my power."

Ibn Kathir cites it thus from al-Bayhaqi's Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7:47) in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (Ma`arif ed. 7:91-92=Dar Ihya' al-Turath ed. 7:105) saying: "isnaduhu sahih" and he also declares its chain sound (isnaduhu jayyidun qawi) in his Jami` al-Masanid (1:223) in Musnad `Umar. Ibn Abi Shayba cites it (6:352=12:31-32) with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: "rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi'isnadin sahih" and cites the hadith in Fath al-Bari, Book of Istisqa ch. 3 (1989 ed. 2:629-630=1959 ed. 2:495) as well as in al-Isaba (6:164 §8350=3:484) where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it. It is also thus narrated by al-Khalili in al-Irshad (1:313- 314) and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (2:464=3:1149). Al-Albani attempted to weaken this report in his Tawassul (p. 120) but was refuted in the lengthy analysis given by Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 262-278), which refutes other similar attempts cf. Ibn Baz's marginalia on Fath al-Bari, Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri's tract Wa-Ja'u Yarkudun, Hammad al-Ansari's articles "al-Mafhum al-Sahih lil-Tawassul" also titled "Tuhfat al-Qari fil-Radd `ala al-Ghumari," and other such literature. Ibn Hajar identifies the man who visited and saw the Prophet, upon him peace, in his dream as the Companion Bilal ibn al- Harith, counting this hadith among the reasons for al- Bukhari's naming of the chapter "The people's request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought" in his Sahih, book of Istisqa'.

[abu bakr]

[B]here is the following response to the story of Utbi and the bedouin.]


This narration is cited by later scholars like Ibn Katheer and Imaam Nawawee therefore it is incumbent upon those who bring this and other such narrations, to bring their chains as wording alone is not sufficient. For example in the above report Imaam Nawawee is citing the incidence from al-Mawardi and others and they from al-Utba, so where are the chains.

Mentioning such narration in an ordinary manner without their chains is not from the issues of being reliable in parting knowledge. This is more important in such issues of Aqeedah.

Firstly
However we find this narration is fabricated (Mawdoo) and it has no basis. There is no known authentication of this Utba however very little is know about him except that he was a historian as is mentioned in Taareekh Baghdaad 2/324, al-Ibar 1/413 and Shadhraat adh-Dhahab (2/65) but none of the authors of this book mentioned any praise of authentication of him.

Secondly
There is another narrator in the chain, Muhamamd bin Harb al-Hilaalee, who again is unknown and there is no recollection as to who he is.

The chain upto these two narrators is also unknown so how can an unknown chain be accepted.

Shaikh Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdul-Haadee said, “This incident as some people have mentioned and have narrated it from Utba without a chain, some narrate it from Muhammad bin Harb al-Hilaalee and some from Muhammad bin Harb from Abul-Hasan Za’afaraanee and he from the bedouin arab. Biahaqee has transmitted in Shu’bal Eemaan with a defective chain from Muhammad bin Rooh bin Yazeed Basree who said mentioned to me Abu Harb al-Hilaahee and then he mentioned the narration as above. Some liars have even raised the chain to Alee bin Abee Taalib just as will be mentioned. The summary of this incident of the bedouin is not worthy to be deduced from as evidence, its chain is defective and differing and its wording is fabricated.” (as-Saarim al Munkee pg.212)

Thirdly
In different wordings and differing chains of this incident another narrator is Haitham bin Adiyy and he was not trustworthy and also an arch liar as stated by Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een and Imaam Abu Dawood. Imaam Nasaa’ee and other said, Munkar al-hadeeth, abandoned in hadeeth.

For more details refer to Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (7/111-112 no.9319),
see also al-Mughnee (2/717)
adh-Dhu’afaa Wal-Matrookeen (3/179)
al-Majrooheen (3/92)
al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (9/85).

The narrators from Haitham bin Adiyy in this chain are Muhammad bin Haitham and Ahmad bin Muhammad, ie the son and grandson of Haitham bin Adiyy and their affair (of reliability) is not known ie they are majhool.

So this narration is fabricated, no matter who cites it.

[faqir]

Source?

Are you referring to the following hadith, the isnad of which has been confirmed as Sahih by the following notable muhadiths.......


From the Sahabi Malik al-Dar:

The people suffered a drought in `Umar's khilafa, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet sallAllahu `alayhi wa- Alihi wa-Sallam and said: "Messenger of Allah! Ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished." After this the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: "Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: Be clever!" The man went and told `Umar. The latter wept and said: "My Lord! I spare no effort except in what escapes my power."



Ibn Kathir cites it thus from al-Bayhaqi's Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7:47) in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya (Ma`arif ed. 7:91-92=Dar Ihya' al-Turath ed. 7:105) saying: "isnaduhu sahih" and he also declares its chain sound (isnaduhu jayyidun qawi) in his Jami` al-Masanid (1:223) in Musnad `Umar.

Ibn Abi Shayba cites it (6:352=12:31-32) with a sound (sahih) chain as confirmed by Ibn Hajar who says: "rawa Ibn Abi Shayba bi'isnadin sahih" and cites the hadith in Fath al-Bari, Book of Istisqa ch. 3 (1989 ed. 2:629-630=1959 ed. 2:495) as well as in al-Isaba (6:164 §8350=3:484) where he says that Ibn Abi Khaythama cited it. It is also thus narrated by al-Khalili in al-Irshad (1:313- 314) and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Isti`ab (2:464=3:1149).

Al-Albani attempted to weaken this report in his Tawassul (p. 120) but was refuted in the lengthy analysis given by Mamduh in Raf` al-Minara (p. 262-278), which refutes other similar attempts cf. Ibn Baz's marginalia on Fath al-Bari, Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri's tract Wa-Ja'u Yarkudun, Hammad al-Ansari's articles "al-Mafhum al-Sahih lil-Tawassul" also titled "Tuhfat al-Qari fil-Radd `ala al-Ghumari," and other such literature.

Ibn Hajar identifies the man who visited and saw the Prophet, upon him peace, in his dream as the Companion Bilal ibn al- Harith, counting this hadith among the reasons for al- Bukhari's naming of the chapter "The people's request to their leader for rain if they suffer drought" in his Sahih, book of Istisqa'.

[faqir]

Oh, I see you are referring to:




Al-`Utbi said: "As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Beduin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." Then he began to recite poetry:

O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,

And from whose fragrance the depth

and the height have become sweet,

May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,

And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!

Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: "O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.""

A report graded mashhur (established and well-known) and related by Nawawi, Adhkar, Mecca ed. p. 253-254, al-Majmu` 8:217, and al-Idah fi manasik al-hajj, chapters on visiting the grave of the Prophet; Ibn Jama`a, Hidayat al-salik 3:1384; Ibn `Aqil, al-Tadhkira; Ibn Qudama, al-Mughni 3:556-557; al-Qurtubi, Tafsir of 4:64 in Ahkam al-Qur'an 5:265; Samhudi, Khulasat al-Wafa p. 121 (from Nawawi); Dahlan, Khulasat al-Kalam 2:247; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir 2:306, and al-Bidayat wa al-nihayat 1:180; Abu al-Faraj ibn Qudama, al-Sharh al-kabir 3:495; al-Bahuti al-Hanbali, Kashshaf al-qina` 5:30; Taqi al-Din al-Subki, Shifa' al-siqam p. 52; Ibn al-Jawzi, Muthir al-gharam al-sakin ila ashraf al-amakin p. 490; al-Bayhaqi, Shu`ab al-iman #4178; Ibn `Asakir, Mukhtasar tarikh Dimashq 2:408; Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Jawhar al-munazzam [commentary on Nawawi's Idah]; Ibn al-Najjar, Akhbar al-Madina p. 147. A similar report is cited through Sufyan ibn `Uyayna (Shafi`i's shaykh), and through Abu Sa`id al-Sam`ani on the authority of `Ali.

Al-`Utbi's account of the Arab's tawassul for forgiveness at the Prophet's grave is famous: It is found in many books on the subject of ziyara (visiting the Prophet's grave in Madina) or manasik (rites of pilgrimage) by the many scholars of the Four Schools, none of whom have rejected it or declared it weak. See, for example, the translations of Ibn al-Jawzi, Nawawi, and Ibn Jama`a in the last section of this book. Those of the contemporary "Salafi" scholars who choose to contest this report of its established grade of mashhur, do not measure up to the reliability of a single one of the sources named above. As for the "Salafis'" recourse to the isolated opinions of Ibn Taymiyya or Ibn `Abd al-Hadi who have cast aspersions on the authenticity of the report, in the words of Ibn Jama`a: no attention is paid to it.

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

It shocks to see that Sidi Abu Bakr has cast a suspicious glance on this hadith knowing full well it is MAshhur with more then one chain of narration. Further, the meaning og the hadith is most definitely sound, as you can see the narrations by Al Asmai and Hafidh Abu Bakr.

Here is the hadith of Ali ibn Abi Talib regarding the same event:

رَوَى أَبُو صَادِق عَنْ عَلِيّ قَالَ : قَدِمَ عَلَيْنَا أَعْرَابِيّ بَعْدَمَا دَفَنَّا رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّام , فَرَمَى بِنَفْسِهِ عَلَى قَبْر رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَحَثَا عَلَى رَأْسه مِنْ تُرَابه ; فَقَالَ : قُلْت يَا رَسُول اللَّه فَسَمِعْنَا قَوْلَك , وَوَعَيْت عَنْ اللَّه فَوَعَيْنَا عَنْك , وَكَانَ فِيمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّه عَلَيْك " وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسهمْ " الْآيَة , وَقَدْ ظَلَمْت نَفْسِي وَجِئْتُك تَسْتَغْفِر لِي . فَنُودِيَ مِنْ الْقَبْر إِنَّهُ قَدْ غُفِرَ لَك

Qurtubi (http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KORTOBY&nType=1&nSora=4&nAya=64)

(Tafsir Qurtubi 4:64)

Here is what Imam Ibn Kathir says:

{لوجدوا الله تواباً رحيماً} وقد ذكر جماعة منهم الشيخ أبو نصر بن الصباغ في كتابه الشامل الحكاية المشهورة عن العتبي, قال: كنت جالساً عند قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم, فجاء أعرابي فقال: السلام عليك يا رسول الله, سمعت الله يقول {ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاؤوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول لوجدوا الله تواباً رحيماً} وقد جئتك مستغفراً لذنبي مستشفعاً بك إلى ربي. ثم أنشأ يقول:
يا خير من دفنت بالقاع أعظمهفطاب من طيبهن القاع وا لأكمنفسي الفداء لقبر أنت ساكنهفيه العفاف وفيه الجود والكرم

ثم انصرف الأعرابي, فغلبتني عيني فرأيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في النوم, فقال يا عتبي, الحق الأعرابي فبشره أن الله قد غفر له».

He says:

"And a group from amongst them including Shaikh Abu Nasrin his book Ash-Shamil, have mentioned the famous (Mashhur) story of/from al-Utbi'..."

then he narrates the incident.

[abu bakr]

brother imam ibn kathir and imam nawawi have mentioned it but they have not presented the narrators or chain. so how can you say that a saying is shaih without presetning its isnaad. i have presented the evidence and it shows how there are clear problmes with this chain. as for the hadith of bilal ibn harith then i will brng a refutation of that hadith inshallah.

[faqir]

I am sorry but your pseudo-Salafi refutations from pseudo-muhadiths mean Jack.

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

You have presented only one of the many narrations - you have skipped the one regarding Ali by Al Qurtubi, aswell as the many other hadith which in meaning are the same such as the hadith by Malik al Dar.

The act of the beduoin was seeking forgiveness through "speech" :

In تفسير الدر المنثور في التفسير بالمأثور/ السيوطي

وأخرج ابن المنذر وابن أبي حاتم عن سعيد بن جبير قال‏:‏ الاستغفار على نحوين‏:‏ أحدهما في القول، والآخر في العمل‏.‏ فأما استغفار القول فإن الله يقول ‏ { ‏ولو أنهم إذ ظلموا أنفسهم جاءوك فاستغفروا الله واستغفر لهم الرسول‏ } ‏ وأما استغفار العمل فإن الله يقول
{ ‏وما كان الله معذبهم وهم يستغفرون }

"And ibn al Mundir and ibn Abi hatim reports from Saeed ibn Jubayr that he stated: Seeking forgiveness is of two categories, one is through speech and the other is through action. And the evidence for the seeking forgiveness in speech is from the ayah : " And when they oppress themselves they come to you seeking forgiveness from Allah, and the Prophet sought forgiveness for them." And about the seeking of forgiveness in action then the evidence for it is in the ayah: "And Allah will not punish them while they seek forgiveness.""

Wallahu A'lam

[faqir]

Do you want to see something funny?

Read this:




Taken from Sayyid Muhammad bin 'Alawi al-Maliki's excellent book "Mafahim Yajib An Tusahhah (Notions that Must be Corrected)", pg. 141:


Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab said: "Sulayman bin Sahim has fabricated on me statements which I never said, nor have they ever came to my mind. and from amongst it: that I do takfir of those who perform Tawassul by the righteous, and that I do takfir of [al-Imam] al-Busayri because he said: "O most gracious of the creation", and that I burn Dala'il al-Khayrat.

"And my reply to this issue: Glory be to Allah! This is awful slander!"

Reference: "Rasa'il al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab", the eleventh epistle, pg. 64.

On the preceding page, he expresses his opinion on Tawassul by saying:

"The correct position according to us is the statement of the majority, that is it is makruh. Therefore, we do not detest those who perform it, and there is no detestation with regards to the issues of ijtihad. However, we do detest those who invoke the created objects in a much more serious manner than he who calls upon Allah but really intends by that the grave [of a righteous person], praying near the shrine of Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani or his likes and requests therein protection from sorrow and assistance in ones yearnings and the giving of sustenances. So where is [the seriousness of] this act in comparison to he who calls upon Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity, not calling upon anyone save Allah, but he says in his Du'a: I ask you by your Prophet or by the Messengers or by your righteous slaves, or he goes to a known grave [of a saint] and prays therein, but does not call upon anyone save Allah, bearing their religion to Him in sincerity..."

Reference: Fatawa al-Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, the third section pg. 68, printed by The University of Muhammad bin Sa'ud during Shaykh Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab week).





Interesting that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab is stating in the above that Tawassul is "makruh" - which is, of course, not true [as it is rather permissible or even recommended] but nevertheless this contradicts what his followers claim his view on the subject was....namely that it is tantamount to shirk.

[talib al-habib]

brother abu bakr

clearly you are an elderly and senior scholar who has devoted his life to specialising in hadith with full mastery of the 65 sciences related to hadith erivation and grading, specifically the subject of al-jarh wa al-ta`dil. I am equally sure that you are not merely repeating parrot fashion what you have read in books written by isolated scholars about whom you know nothing except that they agree with you on this specific point. I am certain that you are aware of the rankings and classifications of hadith scholars throughout the ages, by token of which you rank ibn Abd al-Hadi and 'Moulana Barkawi' above the Imams [arabic: those who are followed] ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Sharaf ad-Din Nawawi, and ibn Kathir. I assume this to be the case, because otherwise, I am sure that you would never conceive of casting aspersions upon the competence, reliability and precaution of the greatest hadith masters that the last 1000 years of this Umma have produced by implying that they gave classifications of 'sahih' without actually being aware of the chains.

Similarly, I am quite certain that your hand slipped during one of your previous posts, due to which you mistakenly classified the matter of tawassul as one of aqida; whereas according to the vast majority of scholars of the Ahl as-Sunna it is one of fiqh, and only deemed a matter of aqida by those who, like the Khawarij of old, are over-eager to transform matters of permissiblity, impermissiblity and ikhtilaf into affairs that will make or break one's very iman - and thus rendering at a single stroke vast expanses of the Muslim Umma beyond the pale of islam.

And I assume that you overlooked the fact that, no matter what the classifications of individual hadith, the matter of tawassul is reported through so many different chains, and by so many seperate narrations and evidences would render it an acceptable even if the individual chains are weak - which they are not. Perhaps this overlooking also applies to the fact that the incidences are confirmed by many high-ranking scholars from different madhabs, specialities, places and times, who have not only accepted them but derived legal rulings from them.

But I assume that you know all this anyway, which makes me wonder - why is it exactly that you oppose tawassul?

Forgive me for any offence caused.

talib

PS: I see that there has been no response to my previous post on the hadith of the Blind Man, which itself is the strongest primary evidence for tawassul, which even al-Albani declared authentic (in passing) in his little book on tawassul. There has also been a profound silence emanating from my little discussion into the rational basis for tawassul. Perhaps it is unworthy of attention, though they are not my thoughts but the repetition of those who have come before me.

[Abul Hasan]

as far as imam abu hanifah is concerned he is against using intermediaries full stop. (I will present evdience). as far as imam shafi there is no authentic narration form him regarding using intermediaries in fact there is no mention in his books of using intermediaries. the same goes for imam malik. as far as imam ahmed ibn habla is concerned there are 2 opions form him one states that he says that it is permissable to use a means where as in anothe narration he mentions that it is wrong to use intermediaries.

nowhere do any of the imams say that it is permissable to ask the dead to ask allah swt. please present ur evdience if u think otherwise


Please quote what you claimed from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. I had this saved from some yars ago:

Tawassul and Ahmad ibn Hanbal

Imam Ahmad said: "Let the one who makes du`a use the Prophet
(SAWS) as a wasila." The formulation of this is: "Allahumma, I am turning to you by means of Your Prophet Muhammad. Ya Muhammad, I am turning with you to my Lord."

This is cited by Ibn Taymiyya himself (1) in his Qa`ida fi al-Tawassul wal-Wasila (p. 98 and 155) where he attributes it to "Imam Ahmad and a group of the Salaf" and cites "Mansak al-Marwazi" as his source. This is Imam Ahmad's student for whom he dictated that book, Abu Bakr al-Marwazi.

Also (2) in his Radd `ala al-Akhna'i (p. 168) where he cites the
text of the du`a in full, similar to the du`a of the blind man in
al-Tirmidhi and elsewhere, all with the lafz Ya Muhammad.

The report of Imam Ahmad is mentioned elsewhere in the books of the Hanbali madhhab as it bears on the adab of du`â as a fiqh issue,
such as Ibn Muflih's Furu` (1:595), al-Mardawi's Insaf (3:456), Ibn
`Aqil's Tadhkira and others wal-Hamdu lillah.

There is also a riwaya in Tarikh Baghdad (1:123) in which al-Khatib
Narrates with his chain that Imam al-Shafi`i in Baghdad would visit Imam Abu Hanifa's grave for tabarruk and make a du`a of tawassul there.
Al-Haytami mentions it in chapter 35 of al-Khayrat al-Hisan.

There is also a riwaya from Imam Malik according to Ibn Jama`a
In Hidayat al-Salik (3:1381) and he said the hafiz Ibn Bushkuwal narrated it and, after him al-Qadi `Iyad. Shaykh al-Islam al-Subki declares it sahîh in Shifa'al-Siqam and al-Haytami mentions it in al-Jawhar al-Munazzam. The Riwaya states that Malik said to the Caliph al-Mansur, the Prophet (SAWS) is our Wasila in du`â.

Al-Hamdu lillah.

Hajj Gibril
------------------------

Insha'allah i will soon post the Radd of Shaykh Abdullah ibn al-Siddiq against al-Albani's weakening of the "Hadith of the man in need" - as in Tabarani and elsewhere. You should also refer to Shaykh Mahmud Sa'eed's radd on al-Albani in over 300 pages, known as Raf al Minara - on this subject matter.

[Abul Hasan]

salams

oh dear...

1. dear brother Abu Bakr, perhaps you should check the opinion of the overwhelming majority of scholars on bid`a, which is that the bid`a proscribed in shari`a is that which was not found in the time of Rasulullah, Allah's peace and blessings upon him, AND which is against the principles of Qur'an, Sunna and the transmitted understandings of the early masters (`ijma). Imam al-Nawawi in Sharh Sahih Muslim said of the hadith "Every new matter is an innovation":

This is an universal rule understood specifically (ammun makhsus). What is meant by it is new matters that are not validated by the Shari`a. That - and that alone - is what is meant by innovations (al-bida').

In fact, the scholars comprehend five levels of bid`a, from obligatory to haram.


2. Regarding tawassul (generally) and istighatha (specifically), someone mentioned the hadith of the blind man and its corollary, the hadith of the man in need. It is this latter hadith that contains explicit permission to make both tawassul AND istighatha through those who are not present.

Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] taught this du’aa to someone after the demise of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. That person’s need was also fulfilled.

Abu Umaamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] reports that a person requested Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Affaan [radhiallaahu anhu] to fulfil his need. Sayyiduna Uthmaan [radhiallaahu anhu] did not attend to him. The person complained to Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] about his plight. Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] told him to make Wudhu, go to the Musjid, offer 2 Rakaats of Salaat and recite the following Du’aa: ‘O Allah, verily I ask you and I turn to you through our prophet, the prophet of mercy (Rasulullah – sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). O Muhammad! Verily, I have turned to our Lord through you so that He may fulfil my need.’

This was:
1. After the time of Rasulullah (s) - ie: tawassul through those in barzakh.
2. Contains both the direct address to Allah using an intermediary (tawassul) and a direct address to Rasulullah (s) seeking his assistance (istighatha). The first hadith contains a direct address to Rasulullah (s) during his life but despite his physical absence ('go from here, make wudu...'); the second contains a direct address to Rasulullah (s) despite him having passed away.

There are other narrations, which you can check up in:

1. Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's Encyclopaedia of Islamic Doctrine - English (vol 4 is dedicated to the concept of tawassul - 200pgs).
2. Prof Tahir al-Qadiri's English-language books 'Tawassul' (400pgs) and 'Istighatha' (150pgs).
3. Shaykh Muhammad ibn `Alawi al-Makki's foundational book, 'Mafahim' which is in Arabic and surely will be in English soon, insha-allah..
4. The fatwa of Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari on istighatha specifically - also found on sunnipath - which appear to me to contradict Mufti Desai's fatwa on the direct appeal (istighatha) but which is the understanding of middle-eastern ahl as-sunna ulama.

These cover the topic from the perspectives of the Salaf and the Khalaf in more detail than any of us should require.

Further, I would respectfully ask you the following: what exactly is the problem with supplicating through the deceased? I assume that it is because, by doing so, one attributes to them a power (to benefit or harm) that they do not have. So asking your brother to make du`a for you is acceptable, but doing the same at a grave is not? Why? Because your brother has the power to help you, but the dead person does not, correct?

Most people who believe this draw the line at life and death (or presence and absence) - ie: the living present can help you, but the absent deceased cannot. This belief, however, is shirk - not greater shirk that removes one form the fold of Islam (and about which, incidentally,Rasul (s) said, 'I do not fear shirk for my umma'), but the lesser shirk that is, 'as hidden as a black ant crawling on a rock in the middle of the night.' It is the shirk of placing trust in the apparent external actions - in cause and effect - rather than in the True Cause and the True Originator of all acts. In reality, no-one benefits - in any way shape or form - except Allah Most High, but He in his infinite wisdom chooses to act through means - means that may be living, dead or inanimate.

The shirk or tauhid lies not in the act of istighatha or its denial, but about the deep understanding that Allah is the true giver and taker, as welll as the deep understanding that he works through means - only in order to make us respect those means.

And peace and blessings - eternal, infinite, perfect - upon the best of creation, our support and solace in this world and the next, whose life and life-after-death are a tremendous good for us, Muhammad al-Mustafa, upon his family, his companions, and his beloveds - the beloveds of Allah. al-Madad Ya Rasulallah.

was salam

:salam:

With regard to the narrations you mentioned I have attatched the refutation on Nasir al Albani, who attemptd to weaken all the key proofs on this issue. It is by the late Shaykh Abdullah ibn al Siddiq al-Ghumari from Tangiers, Morocco. This article specifically defends the authenticity of the "Hadith of the Man in Need" narration in the time of Uthman ibn Affan (ra).

Wassalam

Wassalam

[Abul Hasan]

Another piece i had saved:

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

Imam Abu Hanifa: His Supposed Objection to Tawassul (Using Intermediaries)

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

Imàm Abu Hanïfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only – as narrated from Abu Yosuf in Kitàb al-Àthàr–to the use of a specific wording in supplication, namely, “by the right You owe to So-and-so” (bi-haqqi fulàni ‘alayk), or “by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” (bima ‘àqidal-‘izzmin‘arshik).[1] The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allàh owes no-one any right whatso*ever except what He Himself conde*scends to state on His part as in the verse [To help believers is incumbent upon Us (haqqun ‘alaynà)](30:47). On the other hand, “by the right owed so-and-so” is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allàh Himself on pains of shirk. Imàm Abu Hanïfa said: “Let one not swear any oath except by Allàh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawhïd and sincerity.”[2] A third reason is that the expression “the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” is a lone-narrator (àhàd) report and is therefore not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.



Those that claim[3] that the Imàm objected to tawassul altogether are unable to adduce any*thing to sup*port such a claim other than the above caveat, which is not against tawassul but against a specific, prohibitive wor*ding in tawassul. A proof of this is that it is permissi*ble in the Hanafï School to say “by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence” (bi-hurmati/bi-jàhi fulàn). This is stated in the Fatàwà Bazzàziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatàwà Hindiyya) and is also the position of Abþ al-Layth al-Samarqandï among the major Hanafï Jurists, not to mention that of Imàm Ibn ‘Àbidïn among the later ones.

Even so there is authentic evidence in[1]the hadïth of Fàtima bint Asad, [2] the hadïth of “the right of those who ask You,”[3] the hadïth: “O Allàh, I ask you by the joints of power in the Throne,” and [4] the hadïth: “Do you know the right owed to Allàh by His slaves and the right owed by Allàh to his slaves?”[4] to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from Abu Hanïfa then either he did not deem these hadïths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abu Yusuf permitted the formula “By the joints of power…”. [5] Further, the oppo*site is also reported from him, namely, that he per*mitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn ‘Àbidïn said: “In the Tatàrkhàniyya: The Àthàr also report what shows permissibility.” Then he cites–from al-Qàrï’s Sharh al-Niqàya, al-Munàwï quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Salàm (cf. the very first of his Fatàwà in the printed Risàla edition), and al-Subkï – fur*ther explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amïr al-Hajj in the thir*teenth chapter of Sharh al-Munya that such permissibility is not limited to tawassul through the Prophet e. i.e. it extends to the Sàlihïn.



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

[1] Cf. al-Zabïdï, It hàf (2:285) and Ibn Abï al-‘Izz, Sharhal-‘Aqïda al-Tahàwiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237).

[2]Cf. al-Kasànï, Badà’i‘ al-Sanà’i‘ (3:8).

[3]Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmþ‘ al-Fatàwà (1:202-203) and his imitators.

[4]The first hadïth is narrated from Anas by al-Tabarànï in al-Kabïr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Abu Nu‘aym in his Hilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain contain*ing Rawh ibn Salàh concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawzï in al-‘Ilal al-Mutanàhiya (1:260-270), Ibn ‘Adï in al-Kàmil (3:146 #667), and al-Dàraqutnï in al-Mu’talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn Màkþlà in al-Ikmàl (5:15) declared him weak while al-Hàkim asserted was trustwor*thy and highly dependable (thiqa ma’mun) – as men*tioned by Ibn Hajar in Lisàn al-Mïzàn (2:465 #1876), Ibn Hibbàn in*cluded him in al-Thiqàt (8:244), and al-Fasawï considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdoh, Raf‘ [p. 148]). Al-Haythamï (9:257) said: “Al-Tabarànï narrated it in al-Kabïr and al-Awsat and its chain contains Rawh ibn Salàh whom Ibn Hibbàn and al-Hàkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound hadïth.” I was unable to find Abu Hàtim’s declaration of Rawh as trustworthy re*ported by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawï in his Mafàhïm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Shaykh Mahmod Mamdohin his discussion of this hadïth in Raf‘ al-Minàra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abu Hàtim although he con*sid*ers Rawh “truthful” (sadaq) and not “weak” (da‘ïf), according to the rules of hadïth science when no reason is given with regard to a nar*rator’s purported discreditation (jarhmubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdoh(p. 149-150) noted that al*though Albànï in his Silsila Da‘ïfa (1:32-33) claims it is a case of explicated discreditation (jarh mufassar) yet he himself de*clares identi*cally-formulated dis*creditation cases as unexplicated and therefore unaccept*able in two dif*ferent contexts! Ibn ‘Alawï adds that the hadïth is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbàs by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr – without specifying where – and from Jàbir by Ibn Abï Shayba, but without the du‘à. Imàm al-Kawtharï said of this hadïth in his Maqàlàt (p. 410): “It provides textual evidence whereby there is no difference between the living and the dead in the context of using a means (tawassul), and this is explicit tawassul through the Proph*ets, while the hadïth of the Prophet from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï ‘O Allàh, I ask You by the right of [the promise made to] those who ask You (bihaqqi al-sà’ilïna ‘alayk)’* constitutes tawassul through the generality of Muslims, both the living and the dead.”

*A hasan hadïth of the Prophet according to Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh who showed in his mono*graph Mubàhathat al-Sà’irïn bi Hadïth Allàhumma Innï As’aluka bi-Haqqi al-Sà’ilïn, narrated from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï by Ahmad in his Musnad with a fair chain according to Hamza al-Zayn (10:68 #11099) – a weak chain according to al-Arna’þt(17:247-248 #11156) who considers it, like Abu Hàtim in al-‘Ilal (2:184), more like*ly a mawquf saying of Abu Sa‘ïd himself; Ibn Màjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Amal al-Yawm wa al-Layla (p. 40 #83-84), al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (p. 47= 1:47 #65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawhïd (p. 17-18) [and his Sahïh (2:458?) as indicated by al-Busïrï in his Zawà’id (1:98-99)], al-Tabarànï in al-Du‘a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja‘d in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghawï in al-Ja‘diyyat (#2118-2119) and – mawquf – by Ibn Abï Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Abï Hàtim in ‘Ilal al-Hadïth (2:184). Al-‘Iràqï in Takhrïj Ahàdïth al- Ihyà’ (1:291) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth, as did the hadïth Masters al-Dimyàtï in al-Muttajir al-Ràbihfï Thawàb al-‘Amal al-Sàlih (p. 471-472), Ibn Hajar in Amàlï al-Adhkàr (1:272) and al-Mundhirï’s shaykh the hadïth Master Abu al-Hasan al-Maqdisï in al-Targhïb (1994 ed. 2:367 #2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudàma in al-Mughnï (1985 Dàr al-Fikr ed. 1:271). Shaykh Mamdohin his monograph refuted the reasoning of Nàsir Albànï and Hammàd al-Ansàrï in declaring this hadïth weak. The third hadïth is narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-Tabarànï in al-Kabïr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-Haythamï (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas‘ud by al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (2:157 #392) – Ibn al-Jawzï in al-Mawdu‘àt (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla‘ï in Nasb al-Ràya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-Suyutï in al-La’àli’ (2:68); [3] maqtþ‘ from Wuhayb by Abu Nu‘aym in the Hilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] Abþ Hurayra by Ibn ‘Asàkir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn ‘Arràq, Tanzïh al-Sharï‘a (1:228); and [5] Abþ Bakr in al-Tadwïn and al-Firdaws. The fourth is narrated from Mu‘àdh in the Six Books and Ahmad except for al-Nasà’ï.

[5]Cf. al-Kàsànï, Badà’i‘ al-Sanà’i‘ (5:126).

[6]Ibn ‘Àbidïn, Hàshiya (6:396-397).


Dr Gibril Haddad
------------------

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

JazakAllah khair Akhi Abul Hasan.

I would like your opinion as to whether the [false] accusation of shirk made by the Salafi / Wahabi deviant sect is tantamount to their making takfir upon the Muslims?

[abu bakr]

brother i think you are clearly mistaken when i was talkin about shirk. the method that is mentioned by imam ahmed ibn hanbal and other scholars is not shirk. rather some scholars have labelled this a bidah. but frankly speaking this is a fiqhi issue not one of tawhid and shirk. there are enough doubts in my mind to say that it is better to avoid it all together. in fact mufti ebrahim desai in his website advises muslims to avoid this because of fear of leading to shirk. now as far as calling upon the dead whther prophets or saints such as "oh abdul qadir jillani help me in my affairs" then this is shirk. unfortunately there are many bidati practices that take place in the graves such as kissing them, making tawaf around them, offering sacrifices and commeroting Urs. these actions have been unanimously condemned by the ulema.

[abu bakr]

The following are sayings of imam Abu haneefah regarding the etiquettes of supplication what mr haddad fails to do is mention all the sayings of imam abu hanifah. now brothers if you look at these sayings it clearly shows imam abu hanfifah's opposition on tawassul through nabi saw. also if you look at the books of imam abu hanifah, his students or any of the classical hanfi books you would find that there is no mention of making wasila through nabi saw. it is only contemporrary hanfi scholars who mention it.

It is not correct for anyone to call upon Allah except through Him and the permitted supplications that have been ordered as in the saying of Allah, the Most High:


"And to Allah belong the Most Beautiful Names, so call upon Him by them. And shun those who distort His Names, they will soon be requited for what they used to do." (al-A'raaf 7:180)


[ad-Dur al-Mukhtaar Ma'a Haashiya Rad al-MuHtaar 6/396-7]


* It is hated for the one who supplicates to say, "I ask You on the behalf of so and so, or on the behalf of Your Prophets and Your Messengers or on the behalf of the sacred house or on the behalf of al-Mash'ar al-Haraam (i.e. al-Muzdalifa - Ibn Katheer).


[SharH 'Aqeeda aT-TaHaawiyah p.234, SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar by al-Qaari' p.198]


* It is not correct for anyone to supplicate to Allah except by Him and I hate it to be said 'on behalf of Ma'aaqid (junctions) al-'Izz (of Might) Min 'Arshik (of Your Throne), or on the behalf of Your creation.


[at-Tawussul wal-Waseelah p.72, see SharH al-Fiqh al-Akbar p.198]

[abu bakr]

there are many of you who claim to follow imam abu hanifah then why dont you follow his position regarding tawassul. nowhere in his books or sayings has he recommended doing tawassul through the person of the prophet. in fact his sayings appear to be against the innovative tawassul.

[Muawiyah]

Looks like you haven't been reading what has been posted brother, we DON'T make tawassul in the way that has been disallowed by the Imam rahimahullah. We make tawassul "biHurmati Rasulillaah ..." not "biHaqqi Rasoolillah..." as Mulla `Ali Qari rahimahullah has said in his Qawaid ul Eemaan {as quoted by Shaykh Halejvi rahimahullah in his al-Yaqoot wal-Marjaan}

[analyzing]

We make tawassul "biHurmati Rasulillaah ..." not "biHaqqi Rasoolillah..."


whats that bro? whats the difference?

[Muawiyah]

biHurmati= by the sanctity of

biHaqqi= by the right of

[abu bakr]

brother they both mean the same. when some one asks by the status of nabi saw they it is the same as asking by the right of. this is becuase when you are using some ones status you are implying that the creation has a RIGHT over the creator. anyway enough on this bickering of tawassul i will now inshallah present to you sayings of some other imams on tawassul and i will show how there is no suhc consensus. there is a scholalry difference however.

[abu bakr]

Imam Abu Hanifa


“A person came to grave of Saleheen and said: Do you have any knowledge (of my hardship) do you have any affect(of my pleas to you) ? I am calling you from months and my plea to you is only that you do dua in my favor. Do you have come to know this or you are Ghaafil and without knowledge of this? After listening this Imam Abu Hanifa asked him ‘hal ajaboo laka’ did you got any reply he said ‘no’. Then Imam Abu Hanifa said: May Allah’s curse be upon you and may your hands be … What kind of things do you speak. You speak to those who cannot give reply those who have no power to do any thing and those who cannot listen any thing. (Gharaaeb)”



Imam fakhrudeen Raazi


“Kuffar made statues of their prophets and saleheens and had thought that if they worship them then they will become their intercessors to Allah. Just like those who now in our time go to graves and have belief that they saleheen will intercessor for them with Allah” (Tafseer Kabeer Volume 4 pg.553)



Shah Wali Ullah RH


He has written a long article in his book Hujjatullah Al-Baligha in the Byaan of Tauheed.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

there is scholarly difference. but the overwheling majority, including the mujtahids from amongst the maddhabs, the fuqaha permitted tawassul. it is accepted in the DOMINANT opinions of all four maddhabs... this is the consensus of the scholars of ahl al-sunna today...

perhaps you could name contemporary scholars who object?

[abeer_xyz]

Brother Usman, Salam alykum.


Sayyiduna Uthmaan ibn Hunayf [radhiallaahu anhu] narrates that once a blind person came to Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] and said, ‘Oh Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]! Ask Allah to cure me.’ Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] replied, ‘If you wish I will make Du’aa or else you may be patient and this is better for you.’ The man said, ‘Make Du’aa instead’, Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] then commanded him to make Wudhu properly and that he recites the following Du’aa, ‘Oh Allah, verily, I ask of you and I turn to you through your prophet, the prophet of mercy, O Muhammad [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], verily, I have turned to my Lord through you so that my need be fulfilled. Oh Allah, accept his intercession on my behalf.’ (Musnad Ahmad vol.4 pg.138; Sunan Tirmidhi; Sunan ibn Majah; Mustadrak Haakim and others). Imaams Tirmidhi, ibn Khuzaymah and Haakim have classified this Hadith as authentic. The words, ‘I turn to you through your prophet’ clearly proves Tawassul through the position of a person. Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] also told him that he should make the same supplication whenever he needed to. (al-Raddul Muhkamul Mateen pg.145)

Islam is not a cult of chanting with meaningless sounds. A statement of supplication should have a meaning and it should be rationally related with the context of my situation.

This hadith is a strong evidence in favor of tawassul. Now I need a son.

So I may pray to God: ‘Oh Allah, verily, I ask of you and I turn to you through your prophet, the prophet of mercy, O Muhammad, verily, I have turned to my Lord through you so that my need be fulfilled. Oh Allah, accept his intercession on my behalf.’

I do not find any sense in this supplication in my case. I mention the reasons below.

1. I do not have any means of communication with the Prophet to ask him for his intersession like the blind man had.

2. Similarly, I have no scope of obtaining the Prophet’s assurance that he agreed to intercede for me as the blind man had.

How can I say then: ‘Oh Allah, verily, I ask of you and I turn to you through your prophet, the prophet of mercy, O Muhammad, verily, I have turned to my Lord through you so that my need be fulfilled. Oh Allah, accept his intercession on my behalf.’?

One more point needs clarifications:

Seeking cure from blindness is a good thing. No Muslim, I think, shall advise a blind man to have patience and ask him to refrain from going to a doctor. Why then the Prophet first told him: “If you wish I will make Du’aa or else you may be patient and this is better for you”? What is the reason or rationale behind the Prophet’s desired proposal for patience?

Please help me in this regard.

[abu bakr]

brother i dnt intend to get into a big debate into tawassul as i already know both sides of the argument. people shouldnt be accussed of commitng shirk becuase they do tawassul through the prophet. as there is a difference of opinion on this. however, i think other practices such as calling upon the dead for help for fulfilling ones needs and making sacrifices to a saint or prophet, circumambulating the graves of saints, kissing the graves and other innovations have to be condemned just like the great scholars did.

i am a firm believer that the differences between the salafis and non salafi groups such as the deobandis and barelvis can be resolved as the differences themselves are over minor issues or trivial/non issues. i think it is important that we as muslims unite as the main reason as to why muslims are suffering globally is because lack of unity and bickering over trivial matters.

i would like ur comments in this regard

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

however, i think other practices such as calling upon the dead for help for fulfilling ones needs and making sacrifices to a saint or prophet, circumambulating the graves of saints, kissing the graves and other innovations have to be condemned just like the great scholars did.

i am a firm believer that the differences between the salafis and non salafi groups such as the deobandis and barelvis can be resolved as the differences themselves are over minor issues or trivial/non issues.

as salamu alaykum

1. contemporary scholars please - who follow maddhabs.

2. calling upon the dead - as long as one doesn't believe that person can answer the supplication, and it is a righteous person, it is allowed.

3. making sacrifices - i have not read this in any text. i don't believe anyone can defend this, or even tries to.

4. tawaf of graves - again, who defends this? no sunni scholars defend these practices; they do, however defend tawassul - completely different.

.... i would disagree that all issues are trivial. the constant accusations of shirk, bida and tawhid originated from one camp only; and has resulted in necessary defence, which often time can get out of hand. nevertheless, the majority of time its the salafiiyyah who are ranting, making takfir and most disrespectful to scholars of ahl al-sunna. there are plenty of books coming from the salafiyyah (in arabic) that contain the most vulgar statements regarding the scholars of madhhabs and tasawwuf. one such example is the great slander and even takfir that was made against Shaykh Sayyid al-Maliki (rahimahumallah).

another is your attempt to condemn tawassul through the righteous awliya.

[Alijj.u]

Not all differences are trivial. Differences on the fundamentals are irreconciliable, eventually one side has to yield or disappear. Many of these issues are so serious that they result in rendering lawful the spilling of blood.

When the Ummah was faced with Khâriji fanaticism from the time of our master ^Ali (karrama-llâhu wajhah) onwards it had no choice to fight them with words and eradicate them physically. The Mu^tazilah tried to find a position in between, as if there is always a middle way between two warring parties, and just started a new brand of sects which brought more problems.

Eventually we are talking about an ideology which is used to justify bombing the innocent, killing our families, our brothers and sisters. The fact that the Saudi government is very concerned with respectability and keeping its power makes it necessary for them to oppose the ruthless side of their ideology. Other Wahhabis just want to return to basic brutal practice and if the Saudis lose power, they will lose their "moderate" stance to return to their revolutionary roots, unless they repent and reintegrate Ahlsa sSunnah walJamâ^ah. May this last option come true.

The words "deobendis" or "braelwis" cover too large and various a reality to be reduced to a Wahhabis against Sunnis conflict.

[abu bakr]

brother the issue of tawassul is a fiqhi issue not of aqeedah that is what i am trying to say. i dont know of any renowned salafi scholar who has accused any one of shirk as far using a pious person as an intermediary ie using his status or dua. the salafi scholars have condemned those who directly call upon prophets or saints for help in mattters where only allah can help.

[abu bakr]

brother th fndamnetals of the deen are the 5 pillars of islam and 6 pillars of iman as well as the codes of halal and haram. as far as tawassul is concerned it is not an integral part of the deen. as long as we agree to the fundamnetals then we can get somewhere in terms of unity. and brother i dont think it is apporpriate to apply the characteristics of the kharijis to the salafis, there is a big difference. yes brother i agree salafis in general have to be more tolerant this includes the corrupt saudi royal family. i admire scholars such as sheikh abu ghuddah al fattah he has set an example as well as scholars such as the great sheikh yusuf al-qaradawi. i mean sheikh abu ghuddah didnt adopt an extremsit attitude he lived in sauid for many years he taught at the universities there and was buried in medina in al-baqi cemetry. he was not known to have a negative attitude towards salafis in fact he wokred alongside them. for a period of time he joined the muslim brotherhood (ikhwan ul muslimeen) and he was even appointed leader of the organisation as he was great friends wiht imam hassan al-banna who had salafi inclinations. in general the muslim brotherhood is moderate salafi organisation who emphasise unity and are very open minded towards non salafis.

[abeer_xyz]

brother the issue of tawassul is a fiqhi issue not of aqeedah that is what i am trying to say.
Supplication has a relation with Tawhid. Supplication has a relation with the essence and attributes of God.

“O my Lord, I turn to You through Muhammad.”

What exactly does this statement mean?

One possible meaning may be like this: “I turn to You as per guidance of the Prophet or as the Prophet’s teachings.” This is similar to saying: “O my Lord, I believed in your prophet, I accepted your religion that You revealed through Your Prophet. I turn to You in accordance with that way.”

One other possible meaning may be this: “I turn to You through the media of the Prophet.” This seems to me meaningless, incompatible with God’s essences and attributes. My question is: how can I face God through a media in between God and Me?

[abu bakr]

brother the wording which u have presented has nothing to do with tawhid because you are invoking allah swt alone. if one were to say "o i turn to you my lord and your prophet" then that would have implications on tawhid. the wording which you have presented ie “O my Lord, I turn to You through Muhammad.” is a method if supplication which some scholars have allowed and others have disallowed. no scholars have called that supplication a shirk although some may have called it bidah based on their respective ijtihads.

[ahsanirfan]

brother the wording which u have presented has nothing to do with tawhid because you are invoking allah swt alone. if one were to say "o i turn to you my lord and your prophet" then that would have implications on tawhid. the wording which you have presented ie “O my Lord, I turn to You through Muhammad.” is a method if supplication which some scholars have allowed and others have disallowed. no scholars have called that supplication a shirk although some may have called it bidah based on their respective ijtihads.

no u cannot call it a bidah because this type of dua is found in the hadith of the blind man... brothers here will provide the reference, insha Allah..

[Alijj.u]

The hadîth of the blind man reported by ^uthman ibn Hunayf (radiya-llâhu ^anhu) by atTabarâniyy in his great and little Mu^jams and he wrote: والحديث صحيح
"and the hadîth is sahîh"

[Alijj.u]

brother the issue of tawassul is a fiqhi issue not of aqeedah that is what i am trying to say.

I one declare tawassul to be shirk 'akbar it goes straight into the fundamentals.


i dont know of any renowned salafi scholar who has accused any one of shirk as far using a pious person as an intermediary ie using his status or dua.

Muhammad bin Jamil Zeno (as translated by Ibrahim M. Kunna) wrote on page 30 of the so-called "Islamic Guidelines For Individual And Social Reform":

"The Factors which nullify Islam
...
1. Calling on other than Allâh such as the Prophets or saints, the dead or alive but absent...
...
2. Dislike and unwillingness of the heart to accept the Oneness of Allâh and to seek help of Him Alone as opposed to the delight when calling on a Prophet or a pious man, the dead or alive but absent..."


the salafi scholars have condemned those who directly call upon prophets or saints for help in mattters where only allah can help.


In all matters, only Allâh can help.

As for the name "Salafi" it does not describe those who follow the doctrine of Muhammad ibn ^AbdilWahhâb.

[Alijj.u]

brother the wording which u have presented has nothing to do with tawhid because you are invoking allah swt alone. if one were to say "o i turn to you my lord and your prophet" then that would have implications on tawhid. the wording which you have presented ie “O my Lord, I turn to You through Muhammad.” is a method if supplication which some scholars have allowed and others have disallowed.

I am not aware of any orthodox Sunni scholar disallowing this method of supplication. The disagreement is among the ancestors of Wahhâbism for Ibn Kathîr contradicted his master Ibn Taymiyyah who had invented two conditions for tawassul not to be shirk: that the intermediary should be alive and present.


no scholars have called that supplication a shirk

Very true.


although some may have called it bidah based on their respective ijtihads.

Which ones?

[Azzam]

Tawassul is seeking nearness to Allah. It is agreed upon and allowed in three ways by all sunnis. Which are through one's good deeds, through another person who is living and present (when asked to make dua), and through the names and attributes of Allah Azza Wajal.

These are clearly shown through strong evidences. Either directly from the Quran or Sahih Hadeeth and they are highly consistent, with many examples. So this was a clear practice of Rasulullah SAW and His SAW's companions, (RA).

For example, we were instructed to ask Allah through his names. We can also see from the example when a group of followers as mentioned in the Quran

Our Lord! Lo! we have heard a crier calling unto Faith: "Believe ye in your Lord!" So we believed. Our Lord! Therefor forgive us our sins, and remit from us our evil deeds, and make us die the death of the righteous. (3:193)

So based on their believing in the Prophet sent, they asked to be forgiven.

And the same from the hadith of the three men who were stuck.

and when there is one alive and present. So the Prophet SAW instructed the companions about a man in Yemen, when they meet ask him to make dua for them, because his dua is always answered.

Umar b. al-Khattâb relates [Sahîh Muslim (2542)]:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There will come to you a person from Yemen who will be called Uways. He would have no one in Yemen except his mother. He will have been afflicted with leprosy and will have supplicated to Allah about it and He will have cured him except for a patch the size of a silver or gold coin. Whoever amongst you meets him should ask him to supplicate for your forgiveness.”

The fourth type to which there is disagreement is that of asking Muhammad SAW through His SAW's prophetic status. There is disagreement to this, because of the hadith different people see the hadith in different ways. Sh. Albani comments on it in his book about Tawassul.

There is the hadith of the blind man and it is sahih but there are other issues with this hadith that Albani mentions about it. If I have time I will post what he wrote but get his book it will put into perspective the whole issue.

Some scholars who are against the fourth type are divided into two categories. One who believes it is shirk and another who says it is a bidah.

I would go with the second issue, but that is my opinion. From my experiences when people have decided a position there is no point in discussing the matter and it is a waste of time.

Now about the position that it is shirk, they say that a quality is ascribed to an individual who is deceased that he can hear and respond, so any quality that is ascribed greater than the normal qualities of that state and reverence is given constitutes shirk.

However, the side who argues its bidah, say that as long as the person is still believing that only Allah is in control and Rasulullah SAW is not answering them but only acting as an intermediary than it is not shirk, but still wrong.

Then there is the side which allows this for the Prophet SAW and forbids on others. And then going further there is the group that allows it for the shuhadah and the awliya may Allah have mercy on them.

So I say leave the differences and stick to what people are agreed upon.

[Alijj.u]

Tawassul is seeking nearness to Allah. It is agreed upon and allowed in three ways by all sunnis.

That is the statement of your belief, not a premise we have to accept


Which are through one's good deeds, through another person who is living and present (when asked to make dua), and through the names and attributes of Allah Azza Wajal.

Indeed these three ways are correct. As for the "living and present" restriction, like all restriction, it needs to be based on Qur'ân and hadîth, and that is not about to happen.

The rest of your post is fine down to:


The fourth type to which there is disagreement is that of asking Muhammad SAW through His SAW's prophetic status.

What does it mean here
asking Muhammad SAW through His SAW's prophetic status. , give me an example please.


There is disagreement to this, because of the hadith different people see the hadith in different ways. Sh. Albani comments on it in his book about Tawassul.

There you are, so people are actually al'Albani. Now was he hâfiz alHadîth, that he should give opinion on the reliability of a hadîth? As you know, this is essential: you learn the main books of hadîths by heart from a scholar of hadîth, with the other elements of this huge science, then eventually your competence is recognised and you can start giving your opinion.


There is the hadith of the blind man and it is sahih but there are other issues with this hadith that Albani mentions about it. If I have time I will post what he wrote but get his book it will put into perspective the whole issue.

Let us have a look at that.


Some scholars who are against the fourth type are divided into two categories. One who believes it is shirk and another who says it is a bidah.

Which scholars?


I would go with the second issue, but that is my opinion. Subhâna-llâh! This means I hardly have the level to discuss with you for I am not entitled to give my opinion, I am still a mere muqallid.


From my experiences when people have decided a position there is no point in discussing the matter and it is a waste of time.

Be more patient with people? I see many people who change over time. Most of the time they just mature.


Now about the position that it is shirk, they say that a quality is ascribed to an individual who is deceased that he can hear and respond, so any quality that is ascribed greater than the normal qualities of that state and reverence is given constitutes shirk.

Does this statement cover the Prophet (salla-llâhu ^alyhi wasallam) talking to the dead kuffâr after Badr? Him teaching us to give salâm to the dead upon entering a Muslim graveyard?


However, the side who argues its bidah, say that as long as the person is still believing that only Allah is in control and Rasulullah SAW is not answering them but only acting as an intermediary than it is not shirk, but still wrong.

Where is the proof?


Then there is the side which allows this for the Prophet SAW and forbids on others.

Yes, this one I have heard of from some people but nothing more reliable. If they allow it by the Prophet (salla-llâhu ^alyhi wasallam), they need evidence to restrict it to him.


And then going further there is the group that allows it for the shuhadah and the awliya may Allah have mercy on them.

Well it was about time most of us got mentioned.


So I say leave the differences and stick to what people are agreed upon.

That is exactly what I read Shiites saying about ^Aliyy ibn Abî Tâlib, are you going to agree with them?

[samrqandi]

assalaamu alaikum

This thread is just repeating itself i dont know why people are continuing with it read the first 6 pages of this thread the answers should be in there but people will keep on insisting as is there norm. and al-albaniyy qouting him is not going to convince anyone whether these people have an obsession with him!

but refer to the first 5 pages of this thread and that will finish the discussion off. generally when people state the scholars have said we know who they refer to its quite obvious!

dont need to waste anymore time in this thread, it was dealt with in the first five pages so why waste time thats what i say!