Scholars of Ahl al-Sunna Who Did Permit Istighatha from the Deceased

[faqir]

:salam:

There are numerous threads on this forum with quotes from scholars who do not permit Istighatha (seeking aid) from the deceased. Clearly this falls into the normal differences we encounter amongst the scholars of Islamic Law. But, I think it only fair that the opinions of other scholars ( non-Barelwi ;) ) from the past and present who did permit it (with conditions, of course) are also considered. Please see below:


Imam Khayr al-Din al-Ramli on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/cqgea8w)

Imam al-Kawthari on Istighatha, Isti'ana and Tawassul (http://tinyurl.com/6hsbw3p)
[Full article of Imam al-Kawthari available HERE (http://tinyurl.com/d7da632)]

Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli's Fatwa on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/622h6pw)

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Seeking Aid With the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) (http://tinyurl.com/67t97am)

Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu' (http://tinyurl.com/68edcbq)

Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-Abdari on Tawassul and Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/6bamala)

Imam Mustafa ibn Ahmad ash-Shatti al-Hanbali on Shirk and Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/62cqd8n)

Imam Busiri's Istighatha & Imam al-Haytami's commentary upon it (http://tinyurl.com/bsmpt4v)

Najm al-Din al-Tufi Quotes a Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/bmawp6c)

Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabahani, Shaykh abd al-Ghani al-Nablusi, al-Allamah Imam Abdul Hayy al-Shurunbali and Shaykh al-Khalili on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/bnzr3s8)

'Allamah Yusuf b. Ahmad al-Dijwi al-Azhari on Tawassul and Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/d37uwt4)
[Read his treatise posted on aslein.net HERE (http://aslein.net/showthread.php?t=7871)]

Istighatha of Shaykh `Uthman Dan Fodio (http://tinyurl.com/cl5ch6d)

Habib Zayn b. Sumayt on Istighatha and other 'Issues of Controversy (http://tinyurl.com/6e455rt)

Habib Umar bin Hafiz on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/6bv6qgq)

The Hadith: 'O Slaves of Allah! Help Me!' and the opinion of various `Ulema regarding it and their acting upon it (http://tinyurl.com/69o5slt)

Shaykh Yusuf Khattar Muhammad on al-Madad (http://tinyurl.com/5syc3mj)

Istighatha in Ibn `Abdidin's Radd al-Muhtar (http://tinyurl.com/btp7h2r)




(p.s. I hope the moderators will allow these links to remain! I see no point in wasting bandwidth and copy / pasting here instead)

[abul_hussain]

Clearly this falls into the normal differences we encounter amongst the scholars of Islamic Law.

But apparently these normal differences seem to be deviant differences when it comes to differences in creed however, differences in determining what is shirk or not shirk here is called "normal differences"



But, I think it only fair that the opinions of other scholars ( non-Barelwi ) from the past and present who did permit it (with conditions, of course) are also considered. Please see below:


You can add few more scholars ( non-Barelwi ) to the list who approve and promote seeking help from the dead creation like
Sultan al Awliya Nazim Haqqani
Shaykh al-Islam Tahir al-Qadri
Shaykh Hisham Kabbani
Shaykh Nuh Ha Meem Keller
Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad ( TJ Winters )
Dr GF Haddad
Shaykh Muhammad Yacoubi
Shaykh of sh. Nuh , Sh. Shaghouri
Shaykh Abdul Hadi Kharsa

the list could be very long one...... but what is the evidence they used from Quran & Hadith and understanding of Salaf us Salih to make seeking help from dead permissible ?

[faqir]

Obviously accusations upon muslims of polytheism and infidelity would not be considered a valid or acceptable difference but that was not my understanding of what the posters in other threads were alluding to. As for the evidence used from the Qur'an and Hadith, this is highlighted in many of the articles linked above. Kindly refer to them.

:salam:

[abdul12345]

Asalaam
What is the position of the 4 imams on istigatha

[faqir]

'alaikum salam.


What is the position of the 4 imams on istigatha

Well, according to Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, prior to Ibn Taymiyya no scholar had considered istighatha (seeking aid) through the Prophet :saw: to be impermissible. He says:

"From amongst the untruths of Ibn Taymiyya which no scholar before him had said, and whereby he created dissent between the people of Islām, is that he denounced tawassul and istighātha (seeking aid) through him ; and that is not as he had decreed (i.e. that it is impermissible)."

[Quote from the article posted above: Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Seeking Aid With the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) (http://tinyurl.com/67t97am)]

Please refer also to some of the other articles posted above.

[abdul12345]

Well istigatha is a big issue, to ask from the dead, did the 4 imams not write anything specific alongside other rulings.

[aMuslimForLife]

Well istigatha is a big issue, to ask from the dead, did the 4 imams not write anything specific alongside other rulings.

Istigatha is only a big issue for a wahabi.... cause the true Ulama Of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah have dealt with this issue... A Wahabi can't even get it straight about Tawhid, how is it possible for them to tell you about shirk??? Think about it, if they can't tell you what is true about Allah, how is it possible for them to tell you about shirk.....

[Sultaan]

Istigatha is only a big issue for a wahabi....

So why do hundreds of Arab Ash'ari shuyookh oppose it, some of them anti-Wahabi?


cause the true Ulama Of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah have dealt with this issue...

So the many Barelwis worshipping with the Hindus is a sign of Ahl-Sunnah?


A Wahabi can't even get it straight about Tawhid, how is it possible for them to tell you about shirk??? Think about it, if they can't tell you what is true about Allah, how is it possible for them to tell you about shirk.....

So why are your Habashi cousins, the most extreme Ash'aris in our times, stooges for the mujassimah Nusayris? Why are your shuyookh congratulating the Nasara on their day of kufr Christmas?

[bugmenot]

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur’an (http://quran.com/35/13-14),



“That is Allah, your Lord; to Him belongs sovereignty. And those whom you invoke other than Him do not possess [as much as] the membrane of a date seed. If you invoke them, they do not hear your supplication; and if they heard, they would not respond to you. And on the Day of Resurrection they will deny your association. And none can inform you like [One] Acquainted [with all matters].”



See also (http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/) this (http://www.deoband.org/2009/02/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istigatha/).

:hawla:

[aMuslimForLife]

So why do hundreds of Arab Ash'ari shuyookh oppose it, some of them anti-Wahabi?
I am unaware of the specifics you are talking about, but it is possible that you'll find traditional scholars opposing it, but I doubt they will label you a mushirk or a kafir for doing it.... Unless you are doing istighatha in away that opposes what the traditional scholars have considered permissible....

You'll find traditional Shafi scholars who oppose the hadra by the Sufis but it is still permissible in the Shafi madhab... You find traditional Shafi scholars who oppose the dominant opinion that shaving the beard is makrooh and prefer the opinion that is haraam... but the dominant opinion in the late Shafi madhab concerning shaving the beard is still makrooh... So it is not strange to find scholars opposing the dominant opinion of a madhab but their disagreement with it isn't usually like the disagreement that Wahabis have of it that are accompanied with shirk and kufr etc etc...

You'll will always find disagreements among human beings, it is a natural aspect of the human being... a person would be lying if they told me that they personally agreed with everything their shuyukh have taught them... There will always be something that you will disagree with your shaykh... always.... Most people just bite their lip... There will always be something that your shaykh does, that goes against the dominant opinion of the madhab.... always... I haven't studied a single text in Islam except a shaykh saying, it would have been better if the Imam would have said this or that... or while the dominant of opinion of the madhab is this, in modern times it is not possible to fulfill so do this or that.... even in Arabic grammar... the ajromiyyah I remember a shaykh telling me it is not the most accurate text... but Allah placed his baraka in this text so we teach from it...

So it is possible to find traditional scholars disagreeing with some positions within traditional Islam...


So the many Barelwis worshipping with the Hindus is a sign of Ahl-Sunnah?

The fallacy of this argument is in the question... Simply because you have this group or that group agreeing with Ahlus Sunnah on a point doesn't make them Ahlus Sunnah... There are Wahabis who believe that Bukhari is Sahih, it doesn't make them Ahlus Sunnah.... however seeing Bukhari as sahih can be a sign that one is Ahlus Sunnah because the Shia don't regard Bukhari as Sahih... So what doesn't your question really mean????



So why are your Habashi cousins, the most extreme Ash'aris in our times, stooges for the mujassimah Nusayris? Why are your shuyookh congratulating the Nasara on their day of kufr Christmas?

The Habashis are considered Ahlul Bidah by most of our Ulama.... and in regards to the second question, I have no idea what you are talking about... I don't know the context in which they were congratulating the nasara... I don't why they did it... what does that even mean???

And Allah knows best.

[Abu Yunus]

As-salamu alaikum, Faqir.

In your opinion, who is your earliest Mujtahid scholar to allow such Istighathah?

The scholars you quote seem rather late in Islamic history.

[SASLAMS]

I am unaware of the specifics you are talking about, but it is possible that you'll find traditional scholars opposing it, but I doubt they will label you a mushirk or a kafir for doing it.... Unless you are doing istighatha in away that opposes what the traditional scholars have considered permissible....

You'll find traditional Shafi scholars who oppose the hadra by the Sufis but it is still permissible in the Shafi madhab... You find traditional Shafi scholars who oppose the dominant opinion that shaving the beard is makrooh and prefer the opinion that is haraam... but the dominant opinion in the late Shafi madhab concerning shaving the beard is still makrooh... So it is not strange to find scholars opposing the dominant opinion of a madhab but their disagreement with it isn't usually like the disagreement that Wahabis have of it that are accompanied with shirk and kufr etc etc...

You'll will always find disagreements among human beings, it is a natural aspect of the human being... a person would be lying if they told me that they personally agreed with everything their shuyukh have taught them... There will always be something that you will disagree with your shaykh... always.... Most people just bite their lip... There will always be something that your shaykh does, that goes against the dominant opinion of the madhab.... always... I haven't studied a single text in Islam except a shaykh saying, it would have been better if the Imam would have said this or that... or while the dominant of opinion of the madhab is this, in modern times it is not possible to fulfill so do this or that.... even in Arabic grammar... the ajromiyyah I remember a shaykh telling me it is not the most accurate text... but Allah placed his baraka in this text so we teach from it...

So it is possible to find traditional scholars disagreeing with some positions within traditional Islam...


The fallacy of this argument is in the question... Simply because you have this group or that group agreeing with Ahlus Sunnah on a point doesn't make them Ahlus Sunnah... There are Wahabis who believe that Bukhari is Sahih, it doesn't make them Ahlus Sunnah.... however seeing Bukhari as sahih can be a sign that one is Ahlus Sunnah because the Shia don't regard Bukhari as Sahih... So what doesn't your question really mean????



The Habashis are considered Ahlul Bidah by most of our Ulama.... and in regards to the second question, I have no idea what you are talking about... I don't know the context in which they were congratulating the nasara... I don't why they did it... what does that even mean???

And Allah knows best.

he could be talking about the letter to the pope a few years back by habib Ali aljifri & was signed by most of the worlds major ulama. in my opinion it was more of a call to Islam.

[Muzzammil Husayn]

Imam Khayr al-Din al-Ramli on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/cqgea8w)

Khayr al-Din al-Ramli also said in his Fatawa

http://ia600404.us.archive.org/2/items/FATAWIKAIR01/FATAWIKAIR01.pdf


وأما النذر الذي ينذرونه أكثر العوام كأن يقول يا سيدي فلان يعني به وليا من الأولياء أو نبيا من الأنبياء إن رد غائبي أو عوفي مريضي أو قضيت حاجتي فلك من الذهب أو الفضة أو الطعام أو الشراب أو الزيت كذا فهذا باطل بالإجماع لأنه نذر لمخلوق وهو لا يجوز لأنه أي النذر عبادة فلا تكون لمخلوق والمنذور له ميت والميت لا يملك وإنه إن ظن أن الميت يتصرف فى الأمور كفر إلا أن قال يا الله إني نذرت لك إن فعلت معي...ا


“As for the vow which most of the commoners undertake, like saying ‘O my master so-and-so,’ intending thereby a saint from the saints or a prophet from the prophets, ‘if my lost property is returned to me or my patient is cured or my need is fulfilled, you will have of gold or silver or food or drink or oil such-and-such [amount],’ this is baseless by consensus, because he made a vow to creation which is impermissible because it, i.e. the vow, is worship, so is not [permissible] for creation, and the one to whom the vow is made is dead having no ownership, and if [the person making the vow] thinks that the deceased freely disposes in the matters, he has disbelieved...” (Fatawa Khayriyyah, vol 1 p 20)

Clearly, the commoners who perform istighathah of the dead are far more likely than those who perform nadhr to them to believe the dead freely dispose in the matters in which they are asked for help. Based on the same reasoning therefore, that such istighathah leads to the belief that the dead freely dispose in these matters, it should be ruled impermissible.

'Allamah 'Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi (d. 1304) was asked about the same issue referred to in the above link, of saying: "Ya Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir shay’an lillah," and he replied:

“It is binding and necessary (wajib) to abstain from these sort of recitations. Firstly, [because] this recitation consist of the wording ‘shayy’an lillah‘ and certain jurists consider these wording disbelief (kufr)…

"Secondly, such recitation consists of calling on the dead from a distance and it is not established from the Shari’ah that saints have the power to listen to a call from far distance. However, it is established [from Shari'ah] that the people of the grave hear the salam of the visitors to their graves. But to consider that anyone beside Allah is hadhir nadhir at all times and is aware of the evident and hidden, is shirk… And our ‘ulama have said that anyone who believes that the souls of the saints are hadhir and ‘alim (knowing), is a kafir. Although, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jaylani (may Allah have mercy on him) is one of the great luminaries of the Ummah al-Muhammadiyah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his virtues and excellent qualities are innumerable, but it is not established that he hears the distressed caller from a distance. And to hold a belief that he is aware of his disciple’s affairs all the time and hear their calls, is shirk." (Mujmu’ah al-Fatawa, 2:189-190) http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/

And 'Allamah Qadi Thana Allah Panipati (d. 1225 H/1810 CE) said:

"And the statements of the ignorant ones: ‘Ya Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani shay’an lillah‘ and ‘Ya Khawaja Shams al-Din al-Panipati shay’an lillah‘ (‘Oh Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani give something for the sake of Allah’, and ‘Oh Khawaja Shams al-Din Panipati give something for the sake of Allah’) are not permissible. In fact, they are shirk (polytheism) and kufr. But if someone says: ‘Oh my lord, through the mediation of Khawaja Shams al-Din Panipati fulfil the following need of mine…’ then this will be correct." (Irshad al-Talibin, p.18.) http://www.deoband.org/2009/02/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istigatha/

[warea]

Khayr al-Din al-Ramli also said in his Fatawa

http://ia600404.us.archive.org/2/items/FATAWIKAIR01/FATAWIKAIR01.pdf


وأما النذر الذي ينذرونه أكثر العوام كأن يقول يا سيدي فلان يعني به وليا من الأولياء أو نبيا من الأنبياء إن رد غائبي أو عوفي مريضي أو قضيت حاجتي فلك من الذهب أو الفضة أو الطعام أو الشراب أو الزيت كذا فهذا باطل بالإجماع لأنه نذر لمخلوق وهو لا يجوز لأنه أي النذر عبادة فلا تكون لمخلوق والمنذور له ميت والميت لا يملك وإنه إن ظن أن الميت يتصرف فى الأمور كفر إلا أن قال يا الله إني نذرت لك إن فعلت معي...ا


“As for the vow which most of the commoners undertake, like saying ‘O my master so-and-so,’ intending thereby a saint from the saints or a prophet from the prophets, ‘if my lost property is returned to me or my patient is cured or my need is fulfilled, you will have of gold or silver or food or drink or oil such-and-such [amount],’ this is baseless by consensus, because he made a vow to creation which is impermissible because it, i.e. the vow, is worship, so is not [permissible] for creation, and the one to whom the vow is made is dead having no ownership, and if [the person making the vow] thinks that the deceased freely disposes in the matters, he has disbelieved...” (Fatawa Khayriyyah, vol 1 p 20)

Clearly, the commoners who perform istighathah of the dead are far more likely than those who perform nadhr to them to believe the dead freely dispose in the matters in which they are asked for help. Based on the same reasoning therefore, that such istighathah leads to the belief that the dead freely dispose in these matters, it should be ruled impermissible.

'Allamah 'Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi (d. 1304) was asked about the same issue referred to in the above link, of saying: "Ya Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir shay’an lillah," and he replied:

“It is binding and necessary (wajib) to abstain from these sort of recitations. Firstly, [because] this recitation consist of the wording ‘shayy’an lillah‘ and certain jurists consider these wording disbelief (kufr)…

"Secondly, such recitation consists of calling on the dead from a distance and it is not established from the Shari’ah that saints have the power to listen to a call from far distance. However, it is established [from Shari'ah] that the people of the grave hear the salam of the visitors to their graves. But to consider that anyone beside Allah is hadhir nadhir at all times and is aware of the evident and hidden, is shirk… And our ‘ulama have said that anyone who believes that the souls of the saints are hadhir and ‘alim (knowing), is a kafir. Although, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jaylani (may Allah have mercy on him) is one of the great luminaries of the Ummah al-Muhammadiyah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and his virtues and excellent qualities are innumerable, but it is not established that he hears the distressed caller from a distance. And to hold a belief that he is aware of his disciple’s affairs all the time and hear their calls, is shirk." (Mujmu’ah al-Fatawa, 2:189-190) http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/

And 'Allamah Qadi Thana Allah Panipati (d. 1225 H/1810 CE) said:

"And the statements of the ignorant ones: ‘Ya Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani shay’an lillah‘ and ‘Ya Khawaja Shams al-Din al-Panipati shay’an lillah‘ (‘Oh Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani give something for the sake of Allah’, and ‘Oh Khawaja Shams al-Din Panipati give something for the sake of Allah’) are not permissible. In fact, they are shirk (polytheism) and kufr. But if someone says: ‘Oh my lord, through the mediation of Khawaja Shams al-Din Panipati fulfil the following need of mine…’ then this will be correct." (Irshad al-Talibin, p.18.) http://www.deoband.org/2009/02/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istigatha/

Your stretching the quote of Imam Ramli. From what you quoted he seems to refering to those who donate material stuff to the person in the grave which is agreed upon as imperssible and foolish.

[Ansari]

Your stretching the quote of Imam Ramli. From what you quoted he seems to refering to those who donate material stuff to the person in the grave which is agreed upon as imperssible and foolish.

Since when is donating material stuff kufr? He talks about tasarruf fil umur which is the aqida of many people who claim they perform istigatha.

[warea]

Since when is donating material stuff kufr? He talks about tasarruf fil umur which is the aqida of many people who claim they perform istigatha.

Would you translate Imam Ramli's whole discussion on vows ? So we get what he considers as permissible and impermissible. Rather than just one angle.

This quote cannot be brought here to prove a point because the statement which Imam Ramli discusses is not somethin anyone permits. The only last underlined line which is now being used to equate with the understanding of ttassaruf is a then a discussion of tassaruf. Why club it and make isthighasa itself shirk when its a seperate issue? And the quote with one line on it barely does any justice to understanding what he meant.

Moroevr I'm not aware of anyone attributting tasarruf in the way you imply it. Its just in the way Isa alaihi brought dead to life or in the way you believe your own ability to move your hands as you will. Moreover, the isthighasa most do is by the meaning of tawassul. They expect the person in the grave to help him within their ability which means through their prayers to God. This is why isthighasa, tawassul and shafaat that muslims everywhere do is essentialy one. While some isthighasa done are in situations where they expect some help from their karamat that Allah has gifted them with, and has basis in the hadith "o servants of Allah! Help me!".

[SeekerOfGuidance]

:salam:

There are numerous threads on this forum with quotes from scholars who do not permit Istighatha (seeking aid) from the deceased. Clearly this falls into the normal differences we encounter amongst the scholars of Islamic Law. But, I think it only fair that the opinions of other scholars ( non-Barelwi ;) ) from the past and present who did permit it (with conditions, of course) are also considered. Please see below:


Imam Khayr al-Din al-Ramli on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/cqgea8w)

Imam al-Kawthari on Istighatha, Isti'ana and Tawassul (http://tinyurl.com/6hsbw3p)
[Full article of Imam al-Kawthari available HERE (http://tinyurl.com/d7da632)]

Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli's Fatwa on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/622h6pw)

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami on Seeking Aid With the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) (http://tinyurl.com/67t97am)

Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki on Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu' (http://tinyurl.com/68edcbq)

Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-Abdari on Tawassul and Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/6bamala)

Imam Mustafa ibn Ahmad ash-Shatti al-Hanbali on Shirk and Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/62cqd8n)

Imam Busiri's Istighatha & Imam al-Haytami's commentary upon it (http://tinyurl.com/bsmpt4v)

Najm al-Din al-Tufi Quotes a Refutation of Ibn Taymiyya on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/bmawp6c)

Shaykh Yusuf al-Nabahani, Shaykh abd al-Ghani al-Nablusi, al-Allamah Imam Abdul Hayy al-Shurunbali and Shaykh al-Khalili on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/bnzr3s8)

'Allamah Yusuf b. Ahmad al-Dijwi al-Azhari on Tawassul and Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/d37uwt4)
[Read his treatise posted on aslein.net HERE (http://aslein.net/showthread.php?t=7871)]

Istighatha of Shaykh `Uthman Dan Fodio (http://tinyurl.com/cl5ch6d)

Habib Zayn b. Sumayt on Istighatha and other 'Issues of Controversy (http://tinyurl.com/6e455rt)

Habib Umar bin Hafiz on Istighatha (http://tinyurl.com/6bv6qgq)

The Hadith: 'O Slaves of Allah! Help Me!' and the opinion of various `Ulema regarding it and their acting upon it (http://tinyurl.com/69o5slt)

Shaykh Yusuf Khattar Muhammad on al-Madad (http://tinyurl.com/5syc3mj)

Istighatha in Ibn `Abdidin's Radd al-Muhtar (http://tinyurl.com/btp7h2r)




(p.s. I hope the moderators will allow these links to remain! I see no point in wasting bandwidth and copy / pasting here instead)

:salam:

You managed to only gather a handful of names from the khalaf, not more than what you would find for other disastrous anomalous opinions that are being propagated today by pseudo-traditionalists and pseudo-salafis.

Since istagathah can have many forms, varying from those that are permissible to those that are shirk, it's important to define the exact words of istagathah that is being justified.

Which of the above names have unambiguously permitted words similar to: "Oh Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani, guide me along the straight path" ?

And from the names you have left, how many are accepted as Mujtahids, or even as a scholar from the first seven centuries AH?

:ws:

[Saad]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Istighathah/istimdad is a mushtarik (common) word. The istighathah in the statement of 'Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki (etc.) is a reference to the correct form of tawassul. Also, his student 'Allamah Tahir Patni Shahid has claimed consensus of the Muslim scholars on its prohibition. And there were scholars before Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah who refuted seeking aid from the dead.

'Allamah Ibn Jawzi (d.597 AH) has brought forward a fatwa from 'Allamah Abul-Wafa ‘Ali ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali (d. 488 AH) on the prohibition of asking the dead for help in his Tablis al-Iblis.

G.F Haddad writes in reply to a question, “Are Hanbali and Athari aqida the same?”

“…This is the strain that a few Hanbalis embraced in their own positively Ash'ari creeds such as Ibn `Aqil, Ibn al-Jawzi, and al-Saffarini…”

Ibn Jawzi writes on page 136:


قال ابن عقيل: لما صعبت التكاليف على الجهال والطغام عدلوا عن أوضاع الشرع إلى تعظيم أوضاع وضعوها لأنفسهم فسهلت عليهم إذ لم يدخلوا بها تحت أمر غيرهم قال وهم كفار عندي بهذه الأوضاع مثل تعظيم القبور وإكرامها بما نهى الشرع عنه من إيقاد النيران وتقبيلها وتحليقها وخطاب الموتى بالألواح [بالحوائج] وكتب الرقاع فيها يا مولاي أفعل بي كذا وكذا وأخذ التراب تبركا وإفاضة الطيب على القبور وشد الرحال اليها وإلقاء الخرق على الشجر أقتداء بمن عبد اللات والعزى ولا تجد في هؤلاء من يحقق مسألة في زكاة فيسأل عن حكم يلزمه والويل عندهم لمن لم يقبل مشهد الكهف ولم يتمسح بآجرة مسجد المأمونية يوم الأربعاء ولم يعقد على قبر أبيه أزجا بالجص والآجر ولم يشق ثوبه إلى ذيله ولم يرق ماء الورد على القبر ويدفن معه ثيابه


"Ibn Aqil said: “When these obligations were hard on the ignorant and rabble ones, they diverted themselves from the positions of Shari'ah to revere positions which they laid down for themselves, so it felt easy to them as they will not be regulated by the order of anyone except themselves.” He added: “To me, they are kafir (infidels) due to these positions; like revering the graves and paying respect to them with things which are forbidden by Shari'a like burning fire, kissing the graves, roaming around them, addressing the dead with sheets (of requests) and notes on patches which say like this: O my lord! Do me so and so, and taking the soil for getting blessing, pouring perfume on the graves, undertaking journey to visit them, hanging shreds with trees, as imitation to those who worship Lat and 'Uzza. You will find none among them who enquires a matter about Zakat and asks its ruling which he should fulfill. According to them, woe is to one who did not kiss the Mashhad al-Kahaf and did not touch the wall of the Al-Mamuniyah mosque on Wednesday, who did not erect building on the grave of his father with brick and plaster, who did not tear off his clothe to tail, did not spray rose water on the grave of his father and did not bury his clothes with him."



While some isthighasa done are in situations where they expect some help from their karamat that Allah has gifted them with,.

The Reality of Miracles (http://www.deoband.org/2011/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/the-reality-of-miracles/)

[faqir]

:salam:
Khayr al-Din al-Ramli also said in his Fatawa

http://ia600404.us.archive.org/2/items/FATAWIKAIR01/FATAWIKAIR01.pdf


وأما النذر الذي ينذرونه أكثر العوام كأن يقول يا سيدي فلان يعني به وليا من الأولياء أو نبيا من الأنبياء إن رد غائبي أو عوفي مريضي أو قضيت حاجتي فلك من الذهب أو الفضة أو الطعام أو الشراب أو الزيت كذا فهذا باطل بالإجماع لأنه نذر لمخلوق وهو لا يجوز لأنه أي النذر عبادة فلا تكون لمخلوق والمنذور له ميت والميت لا يملك وإنه إن ظن أن الميت يتصرف فى الأمور كفر إلا أن قال يا الله إني نذرت لك إن فعلت معي...ا


“As for the vow which most of the commoners undertake, like saying ‘O my master so-and-so,’ intending thereby a saint from the saints or a prophet from the prophets, ‘if my lost property is returned to me or my patient is cured or my need is fulfilled, you will have of gold or silver or food or drink or oil such-and-such [amount],’ this is baseless by consensus, because he made a vow to creation which is impermissible because it, i.e. the vow, is worship, so is not [permissible] for creation, and the one to whom the vow is made is dead having no ownership, and if [the person making the vow] thinks that the deceased freely disposes in the matters, he has disbelieved...” (Fatawa Khayriyyah, vol 1 p 20)


:jazak:
This is aqida 101 for the sunnis. In reality this disposal and power is Allah's - and not from the deceased saint. Who would disagree with this?



Clearly, the commoners who perform istighathah of the dead are far more likely than those who perform nadhr to them to believe the dead freely dispose in the matters in which they are asked for help. Based on the same reasoning therefore, that such istighathah leads to the belief that the dead freely dispose in these matters, it should be ruled impermissible.


Again we do not believe this is the belief of the commoner sunni muslim - and obviously this was not what Imam Khayr al-Din al-Ramli considered to be the case otherwise he would not have given a fatwa of permissibility as opposed to your fatwa that 'it should be ruled impermissible'. It is disingenous of you to quote another statement of the Imam's as support for your position which completely contradicts his own view.

[faqir]

:salam:

You managed to only gather a handful of names from the khalaf, not more than what you would find for other disastrous anomalous opinions that are being propagated today by pseudo-traditionalists and pseudo-salafis.

Since istagathah can have many forms, varying from those that are permissible to those that are shirk, it's important to define the exact words of istagathah that is being justified.

Which of the above names have unambiguously permitted words similar to: "Oh Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani, guide me along the straight path" ?

And from the names you have left, how many are accepted as Mujtahids, or even as a scholar from the first seven centuries AH?

:ws:

:salam:

I do not doubt there are 'many forms' of istighatha but can I suggest you read the articles in question where you will find your answers insha'Allah. As for who these scholars are, whether they are mujtahids or not - ask your shuyukh who they are and failing that try shaykh google. I can assure you that the earlier scholars quoted are all major scholars in their respective madhhabs.
:ws:

[Saad]

:salam:

:jazak:
This is aqida 101 for the sunnis. In reality this disposal and power is Allah's - and not from the deceased saint. Who would disagree with this?
.

Actually it is 'aqidah 101 for the Ahl al-Bid'ah that saints have disrection (tasarruf) in the cosmos. Hiding behind personal (zaati) and gifted ('ata'i) doesn't make a difference.

[faqir]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Istighathah/istimdad is a mushtarik (common) word. The istighathah in the statement of 'Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki (etc.) is a reference to the correct form of tawassul. Also, his student 'Allamah Tahir Patni Shahid has claimed consensus of the Muslim scholars on its prohibition. And there were scholars before Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah who refuted seeking aid from the dead.

'Allamah Ibn Jawzi (d.597 AH) has brought forward a fatwa from 'Allamah Abul-Wafa ‘Ali ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali (d. 488 AH) on the prohibition of asking the dead for help in his Tablis al-Iblis.

G.F Haddad writes in reply to a question, “Are Hanbali and Athari aqida the same?”

“…This is the strain that a few Hanbalis embraced in their own positively Ash'ari creeds such as Ibn `Aqil, Ibn al-Jawzi, and al-Saffarini…”

Ibn Jawzi writes on page 136:


قال ابن عقيل: لما صعبت التكاليف على الجهال والطغام عدلوا عن أوضاع الشرع إلى تعظيم أوضاع وضعوها لأنفسهم فسهلت عليهم إذ لم يدخلوا بها تحت أمر غيرهم قال وهم كفار عندي بهذه الأوضاع مثل تعظيم القبور وإكرامها بما نهى الشرع عنه من إيقاد النيران وتقبيلها وتحليقها وخطاب الموتى بالألواح [بالحوائج] وكتب الرقاع فيها يا مولاي أفعل بي كذا وكذا وأخذ التراب تبركا وإفاضة الطيب على القبور وشد الرحال اليها وإلقاء الخرق على الشجر أقتداء بمن عبد اللات والعزى ولا تجد في هؤلاء من يحقق مسألة في زكاة فيسأل عن حكم يلزمه والويل عندهم لمن لم يقبل مشهد الكهف ولم يتمسح بآجرة مسجد المأمونية يوم الأربعاء ولم يعقد على قبر أبيه أزجا بالجص والآجر ولم يشق ثوبه إلى ذيله ولم يرق ماء الورد على القبر ويدفن معه ثيابه


"Ibn Aqil said: “When these obligations were hard on the ignorant and rabble ones, they diverted themselves from the positions of Shari'ah to revere positions which they laid down for themselves, so it felt easy to them as they will not be regulated by the order of anyone except themselves.” He added: “To me, they are kafir (infidels) due to these positions; like revering the graves and paying respect to them with things which are forbidden by Shari'a like burning fire, kissing the graves, roaming around them, addressing the dead with sheets (of requests) and notes on patches which say like this: O my lord! Do me so and so, and taking the soil for getting blessing, pouring perfume on the graves, undertaking journey to visit them, hanging shreds with trees, as imitation to those who worship Lat and 'Uzza. You will find none among them who enquires a matter about Zakat and asks its ruling which he should fulfill. According to them, woe is to one who did not kiss the Mashhad al-Kahaf and did not touch the wall of the Al-Mamuniyah mosque on Wednesday, who did not erect building on the grave of his father with brick and plaster, who did not tear off his clothe to tail, did not spray rose water on the grave of his father and did not bury his clothes with him."

The Reality of Miracles (http://www.deoband.org/2011/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/the-reality-of-miracles/)

:salam: brother Saad,

The quote is talking about a whole mish mash of prohibited things.
Anyhow, as you mentioned Dr. GF Haddad, he has discussed this statement of Ibn Aqil in this link (http://eshaykh.com/doctrine/did-ibn-aqil-prohibit-tawassul/).

[Saad]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

The quote clearly states وخطاب الموتى بالألواح بالحوائج. It is seperate from writing on sheets.

And it doesn't change the ruling regardless if such practices are done at mashadhs or other graves. Shi'ah and Ahl al-Bid'ah are united when it comes to istighathah. Both groups seek aid from Sayyiduna 'Ali, Hasan, Husayn, etc. in times of distress.

He goes on to defend tawassul but that is not the issue here.

[faqir]

:salam:

The reason Ibn Aqil's view on Tawassul was discussed by Dr. Haddad is the quote from Ibn Aqil posted HERE (http://www.wahhabis.com/articles/yuitd-ibn-aqeel-al-hanbali-d-531h-on-making-tawassul-to-allaah-through-the-dead-by-addressing-the-dead-with-invocation.cfm[/url) where Ibn Aqil also prohibits Tawassul through the inhabitants of the grave to Allah - something which I doubt you agree with. Anyhow I am not familiar with writing sheets of paper near graves and things like that nor do I think it has any bearing on the fatwas of permissible istighatha posted in the first entry in this thread.

[Saad]

Its important that correct understanding of the word istiqlal is presented here. Many of the fatwas posted have istiqlal translated as 'independence'.

"The meaning of “mustaqill,” Mawlana Chandpuri explains, is a continuous ability in which one has volition and free choice, just as healthy animals have the continuous ability to see, hear, eat, drink and touch. This ability can either be believed to be intrinsic – i.e. not granted by Allah – or extrinsic – i.e. granted by Allah. Since even the mushrikun did not believe their idols to be intrinsically mustaqill, but mustaqill by the granting of Allah, the intent here is granted istiqlal, just as living human beings have been granted volition in for example, choosing to see what they want to see and avoid seeing what they do not want to see.

Thus, here, the intent is the belief that these souls that are asked for help were granted continuous powers of discretion to grant what is asked or withhold from granting in just the same way healthy animals have been granted continuous powers of discretion to see what they want and avoid seeing what they want."

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?88489-The-Impermissibility-of-Istighathah-from-the-Dead&p=768893&viewfull=1#post768893

http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/

[SeekerOfGuidance]

:salam:

I do not doubt there are 'many forms' of istighatha but can I suggest you read the articles in question where you will find your answers insha'Allah. As for who these scholars are, whether they are mujtahids or not - ask your shuyukh who they are and failing that try shaykh google. I can assure you that the earlier scholars quoted are all major scholars in their respective madhhabs.
:ws:

:salam:

I've had a quick read of the links, and there appears to be only around five quotes which unambiguously permit istagathah with words similar to "O Abdul Qadir Gilani, Help me....", and only one from before the 10th century AH (Ibn al-Hajj from 8th century AH). That is worse than many of the Shadh (anomalous) positions that the pseudo-salafis propagate today.

I would like to ask you two questions:

1. Do you not feel that there is the slightest risk involved in your incessant campaign to propagate a rare (and non-existent pre 8th century AH) position which, according to numerous authorities from all ages, opens the doors for shirk and kufr for the laypeople?

2. In an attempt to better understand the limits of what your scholars are permitting for the laypeople, I would like to know whether its acceptable to propagate the use of the following words amongst the laypeople, using the respected Shaykh only as an intermediary:

"Ya Shaykh Abdal Qadir Gilani, Ihdinas Siratal Mustaqeem"
(O Abdul Qadir Gilani, guide me along the straight path)?

:jazak: for the answers

[faqir]

:salam:

I've had a quick read of the links, and there appears to be only around five quotes which unambiguously permit istagathah with words similar to "O Abdul Qadir Gilani, Help me....", and only one from before the 10th century AH (Ibn al-Hajj from 8th century AH). That is worse than many of the Shadh (anomalous) positions that the pseudo-salafis propagate today.



'alaikum salam

I am not sure what the 8th century or 10th century has to do with anything here. I haven't seen you producing anything from any early scholars to the contrary either but for some reason you seem to hold this against me! Regardless, do you have anything against following the verdicts of scholars from the khalaf?!


I would like to ask you two questions:


Why ask me when you can send an enquiry to one of the many Dar al-Iftas (http://www.dar-alifta.org/) for a qualified scholar's opinion?!



1. Do you not feel that there is the slightest risk involved in your incessant campaign to propagate a rare (and non-existent pre 8th century AH) position which, according to numerous authorities from all ages, opens the doors for shirk and kufr for the laypeople?


I will answer this because you make a number of incorrect claims and false accusations against myself. I have not been running any 'incessant campaign' nor do I believe I am 'propagating a rare position'. I dispute your unsubstantiated claim that 'numerous authorities from all ages' say that the opinions I've documented in the first post 'opens the doors for shirk and kufr'. Quite the contrary it lifts the false accusations of shirk and kufr against sunni muslims made by some ignorant laypeople and misguided individuals, insha'Allah. And finally, if you actually read a bit more carefully some of the fatwas therein you will find recommendations for the very laypeople you are concerned about.

Anyhow my intention with starting this thread was not to get into a protracted tit for tat discussion with members of this forum. I merely wished to present an 'alternate' view from major sunni scholars to the views expressed in many other threads on this forum - readers can take it or leave it - personally I am not interested in entertaining any 'debate'. may Allah forgive my mistakes.

:ws:

[abul_hussain]

Strange, few brothers in thread are saying that the prohibition of Isthighata/Istimdad/Istiana was only by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah.

How about Fakr al-Din Razi died in 606 AH who was before Ibn Taymiyyah died in 728 AH


and this has been posted @ http://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/the-impermissibility-of-istighathah-from-the-dead/

Imam al-Razi al-Shafi‘i (d. 606) said in his Tafsir under 10:18:
إنهم وضعوا هذه الأصنام والأوثان على صور أنبيائهم وأكابرهم وزعموا متى اشتغلوا بعبادة هذه التماثيل فإن أولائك الأكابر تكون شفعاء لهم عند الله تعالى ونظيره في هذا الزمان اشتغال كثير من الخلق بتعظيم قبور الأكابر على اعتقاد أنهم إذا عظموا قبورهم فإنهم يكونون شفعاء لهم عند الله تعالى

“They (i.e. the disbelieving idolaters) created these statues and idols in the forms of their prophets and elders, and they believed that whenever they engage in the worship of these forms, then certainly those elders will be intercessors for them with Allah Almighty. The equivalent of this in this age is the preoccupation of much of creation in the glorification of the graves of the elders based on the belief that when they glorify their graves then certainly they will be intercessors for them with Allah Almighty.”

In regards to the hadith which tells believing men who have lost their animal in the desert to call out “O slaves of Allah, help me!” this apparently goes against the abovementioned rule of Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. This narration is categorised under the set of narrations known as “khilaf al-qiyas” (against analogical deduction), as it apparently goes against the rule of restricting isti‘anah (in that which will give rise to the doubt of istiqlal) to Allah. In such cases, as established in usul, the ruling will be restricted to the mawrid al-nass (the context of the text) and this will be allowed only in the particular situation described in the hadith, and no general deduction can be derived from this hadith. For a lengthier explanation of the correct understanding of this narration, see Chandpuri’s treatise, pp. 67-9. He goes on to discuss other relevant narrations.


You may also want to read it at Between Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi (d. 606H), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H) and Ibn Abdul-Wahhaab (d. 1175H) @ http://www.tawhidfirst.com/monotheism/?qhxzs


There is a clear cut hadith of Ibn Abbas and also many from the salaf have prohibited istiana ( seeking help ) from creation.


عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ كُنْتُ خَلْفَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمًا فَقَالَ يَا غُلَامُ إِنِّي أُعَلِّمُكَ كَلِمَاتٍ احْفَظْ اللَّهَ يَحْفَظْكَ احْفَظْ اللَّهَ تَجِدْهُ تُجَاهَكَ إِذَا سَأَلْتَ فَاسْأَلْ اللَّهَ وَإِذَا اسْتَعَنْتَ فَاسْتَعِنْ بِاللَّهِ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الْأُمَّةَ لَوْ اجْتَمَعَتْ عَلَى أَنْ يَنْفَعُوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَنْفَعُوكَ إِلَّا بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ لَكَ وَلَوْ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَى أَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَضُرُّوكَ إِلَّا بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ رُفِعَتْ الْأَقْلَامُ وَجَفَّتْ الصُّحُفُ قَالَ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ

سنن الترمذي – كِتَاب صِفَةِ الْقِيَامَةِ وَالرَّقَائِقِ وَالْوَرَعِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – لا يؤمن أحدكم حتى يحب لأخيه ما يحب لنفسه

Ibn Abbas reported: I was behind the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم one day when he said to me, “O boy! I will teach you some words. Be mindful of Allah and He will protect you. Be mindful of Allah and you will find Him before you. When you ask, ask from Allah; and when you seek help, seek help from Allah. Know that if the entire creation were to gather together to benefit you, then would not benefit you except if Allah willed. And if the entire creation gathered together to harm you, they would not harm you except if Allah willed. The pens have been raised and the pages dried.”

(Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Book 35, Number 2516, Grade: Hasan Sahih)

Book: Description of the Day of Judgement

[SeekerOfGuidance]

'alaikum salam

I will answer this because you make a number of incorrect claims and false accusations against myself. I have not been running any 'incessant campaign' nor do I believe I am 'propagating a rare position'. I dispute your unsubstantiated claim that 'numerous authorities from all ages' say that the opinions I've documented in the first post 'opens the doors for shirk and kufr'. Quite the contrary it lifts the false accusations of shirk and kufr against sunni muslims made by some ignorant laypeople and misguided individuals, insha'Allah. And finally, if you actually read a bit more carefully some of the fatwas therein you will find recommendations for the very laypeople you are concerned about.

:ws:

:salam:

I assumed that you would've known that the dispute is only regarding specific forms of tawassul/istagathah such as the use of words, "Ya Abdal Qadir Gilani, Help me with....". You've misconstrued my statement to make it appear that I was referring to all the opinions in your first post, when I clearly used the singular word 'position', intending only the disputed form of istagathah. Some of the quotes in the your first post can be easily interpreted to be a description of the correct form of tawassul/istagathah.

Only a few of the quotes in your first post unambiguously permit the disputed forms of istagathah, whilst the articles posted by Brothers Saad and Muzammil contain statements from numerous authorities condemning such forms as akin to Shirk and Kufr.

If such a condemned practice, for which justification may be scavenged from a handful of quotes from the khalaf, is not rare/anomalous, then there is no such thing as rare, and there should be no problems in propagating the other rare opinions that are being recklessly sanctioned today, such as permissibility of music, three talaqs being equivalent to one talaq, 8 rakats taraweeh, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) possessing knowledge of the hour etc.

Just so that we do not misunderstand each other again, I'd like to re-iterate that the tawassul/istagathah I'm referring to is specifically the one that involves wording such as "Ya Abdal Qadir Gilani, Help me, fulfil my needs, guide me etc."

As per your advice, I've submitted the other question to the Dar-al-ifta site.

:ws:

[AimeSi]

:salam:

'alaikum salam

I am not sure what the 8th century or 10th century has to do with anything here. I haven't seen you producing anything from any early scholars to the contrary either but for some reason you seem to hold this against me! Regardless, do you have anything against following the verdicts of scholars from the khalaf?!


In my humble opinion, what it was intended is : since neither the prophet (saw) nor the sahabas (r) nor the salafs (rh) did istighatha, and neither did the first generations amonst the khalaf did it, we should abstain from it, since du'ah is an 'ibadah and not a 'adah.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

:salam:


In my humble opinion, what it was intended is : since neither the prophet (saw) nor the sahabas (r) nor the salafs (rh) did istighatha, and neither did the first generations amonst the khalaf did it, we should abstain from it, since du'ah is an 'ibadah and not a 'adah.

:salam:

An obvious point expressed very succintly.

:jazak:

[Abu Jahid]

:salam:

When speaking about this matter it's very very important to make it clear about what exactly one is talking about, because if that is done the Zanadiqah will find no way to justify their evil crimes.

So let's make it clear: If one is speaking about statements like "Ya Shaykh Fulan I ask you for health/rizq/children/protection/help/etc." (i.e. calling upon other than Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala for the fulfillment of one's needs) then this is a matter of tawhid and shirk!

As for the list that was posted on the first site:
The list contains 'Ulama`, who did not regard it permissable to call upon other than Allah ta'ala for the fulfillment of one's needs.

For example al-Hafidh Taqi ad-Din as-Subki (rahimahullah) is on the list because he uses the word "Istighathath" (together with Tawassul and Tashaffu') and says that it's permissable, but he does not mean "calling upon other than Allah ta'ala for one's needs" by that (and therefore he should not be on the list!). And that becomes very clear if one reads his words. The brother "godilali" posted something very beneficial in another thread regarding this matter:


An explanation of what al-Hafiz al-Subki meant when he used the terms istighathah:

يقول السبكي في كتابه شفاء السقام (13) ونص عبارته
" اعلم أنه يجوز ويحسن التوسل والاستعانة والتشفع بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى ربه سبحانه وتعالى ، وجواز ذلك وحسنه من الأمور المعلومة لكل ذي دين المعروفة من فعل الأنبياء والمرسلين وسير السلف الصالحين والعلماء والعوام من المسلمين ، ولم ينكر أحد ذلك من أهل الأديان ولا سمع به في زمن من الأزمان حتى جاء ابن تيمية فتكلم في ذلك بكلام يلبس فيه على الضعفاء الأغمار، وابتدع ما لم يسبق إليه في سائر الأعصار. . . ".اهـ.

أن تعلقهم بالسبكي على أن " التوسل والاستغاثة بمعنى واحد"
مع تجاهل القرآن { فَلَا تَدْعُوا مَعَ اللَّهِ أَحَدًا } والحديث "إذا سألت فاسأل الله " ليس من صفات المسلم.
ولقد كان السبكي يقصد بـ ( الاستغاثة بالنبي ) : الاستغاثة إلى الله بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
ولذلك قال " اعلم أنه يجوز التوسل والاستغاثة والتشفع بالنبي إلى ربه " .
ثم استدل على ذلك بحديث "يا رب أسألك بحق محمد"
انظر - شفاء السقام في زيارة خير الأنام 160 - 161 دار الآفاق . والحديث موضوع كما في تعقيب الذهبي على مستدرك الحاكم 2 / 615 .

ثم قال السبكي:
" ولسنا في ذلك سائلين غير الله تعالى ولا داعين إلا إياه ، فالمسئول في هذه الدعوات كلها هو الله وحده لا شريك له ، والمسئول به مختلف ، ولم يوجب ذلك إشراكاً ولا سؤال غير الله ، كذلك السؤال بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس سؤالاً للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بل سؤال لله به ".

وضرب لذلك مثلا أن تقول
" استغثت الله بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كما يقول : سألت الله بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم" (انظر شفاء السقام 174-176-)

وهذا يفيد : أن سؤال غير الله شرك عند السبكي .
وأن الاستغاثة بالنبي معناها عنده : الاستغاثة بالله بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
ولكنه عادة يختصر العبارة ويقول : ( الاستغاثة بالنبي ) . ولذلك قال
" وقد يحذف المفعول به ( أي الله المستغاث ) ويقال : استغثت بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم "

يعني مختصر مفيد.
يقول السبكي فيما معناه.. لما الواحد بيقول لك ( انا بستغيث بالنبي ) يعني قصده أنه يستغيث بالله .. بالنبي ...
ولكن ليس معناه أنه يقول ( يارسول الله اشفني وارزقني وانقذني من الغرق ) كما يحاول جهلة المتصوفة أن يقرروه.. بأن هذا هو مقصود السبكي.

لذلك يقول السبكي (فتاوىيه 1/13) تعليقا على هذه الآية ( أدعوني أستجب لكم)
بأن هذه الآية تفيد أنه لا يستعان غير الله.
وأكد أن تقديم المعمول يفيد الاختصاص
وتجد هذا أيضا في طبقات السبكي.

وهذا السبكي الابن ينقل عن القماح شعراً يقول فيه
فاضرع إلى الله الكريم ولا تسل بشراً فليس سواه كاشـف الضر
انظر (طبقات السبكي 9 / 92 محققة)

So can anyone claim that Taqi ad-Din as-Subki (rahimahullah) supported statements like "Ya Fulan I ask you for rizq" after reading the above?? No!

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) says the following (after mentioning that if someone goes to a grave of a Salih (righteous person) or Nabi (Prophet) or to a grave which is regarded to be the grave of a Salih or Nabi - but it's not - and he ask the person in the grave and resorts to him, then the matter has three levels):

إحداها : أن يسأله حاجته مثل أن يسأله أن يزيل مرضه أو مرض دوابه أو يقضي دينه أو ينتقم له من عدوه أو يعافي نفسه وأهله ودوابه ونحو ذلك مما لا يقدر عليه إلا الله عز وجل : فهذا شرك صريح يجب أن يستتاب صاحبه فإن تاب وإلا قتل .

The first: If he asks [for the fulfillment of] his need, like asking [the Wali/Nabi/Salih] to eliminate his ailment, or that of his beast, or to take care of his debt, or revenge some enemy, or to heal him, his people, or his beast; and anything like that whereof no one is capable of it except Allah 'azza wa jal, then this is clear shirk (polytheism), which requires that he is asked to repent. Either he repents, otherwise he is killed.

Source: Majmu' al-Fatawa 27/72: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?ID=2188&start=0&idfrom=3496&idto=3497&bookid=22&Hashiya=3

So accoring to Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) the one who calls upon other than Allah ta'ala for the fulfillment of his need is an apostate (because he committed clear cut shirk) and he has to be asked to repent (otherwise the hadd of riddah is applied to him [in an islamic state]).

Imam Ibn Muflih (d. 763 H, rahimahullah) said in his "al-Furu'" in the "Bab: Hukm al-Murtad" ("Chapter: Ruling of Apostate"):

قال : أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم

He (he mentiones before that "our Shaykh" and he means Imam Ibn Taymiyyah) said: Or he made between him and Allah intermediaries on whom he places his trust, to whom he supplicates (yad'uhum) and whom he asks (yas`aluhum) [for his needs].

Source: Al-Furu' 6/165: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=4963&idto=4985&bk_no=28&ID=953

Imam al-Mardawi (d. 885 H, rahimahullah) said in his "al-Insaf" also in the "Bab: Hukm al-Murtad" (Chapter: Ruling of Apostate):

قال الشيخ تقي الدين رحمه الله : وكذا الحكم لو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا

The Shaykh Taqi ad-Din [ibn Taymiyyah] - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: And such is the ruling if he made between him and Allah intermediaries on whom he places his trust, to whom he supplicates (yad'uhum) and whom he asks (yas`aluhum) [for his needs]. This is agreed upon (Ijma'an).

Source: Al-Insaf 10/327: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=26&ID=5317

Imam al-Hajjawi (d. 968 H, rahimahullah) said:

قال الشيخ: أو كان مبغضا لرسوله أو لما جاء به اتفاقا. وقال: أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا. انتهى. أو سجد لصنم أو شمس أو قمر

The Shaykh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) said: Or he is resentful towards his messenger or towards that which he came with. This is agreed upon. And he said: Or he made intermediaries betwenn him and Allah on whom he places his trust and to whom he supplicates (yad'uhum) and whom he asks (yas`aluhum) [for his needs]. This is agreed upon - End. Or he prostrates before an idol or the sun or the moon.

Source: al-Iqna' 4/285; also in "Bab: Hukm al-Murtad"

Imam Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033 H, rahimahullah) said:

أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم كفر إجماعا قاله الشيخ

Or he made intermediaries betwenn him and Allah on whom he places his trust and to whom he supplicates (yad'uhum) and whom he asks (yas`aluhum) [for his needs]. This is kufr (disbelief) by consensus. This is what the Shaykh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) said.

Source: Ghayat al-Muntaha 3/355

Imam al-Buhuti (d. 1051 H, rahimahullah) said:

قال الشيخ أو كان مبغضا لرسوله أو لما جاء به ) الرسول ( اتفاقا ، وقال أو جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا انتهى ) أي كفر لأن ذلك كفعل عابدي الأصنام قائلين : { ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى

(The Shaykh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyyah) said: Or he is resentful towards his messenger or towards that which he came with), [meaning towards that which] the messenger [came with], (This is agreed upon. And he said: Or he made intermediaries betwenn him and Allah on whom he places his trust and to whom he supplicates (yad'uhum) and whom he asks (yas`aluhum) [for his needs]. This agreed upon. - End), i.e. this is kufr (disbelief), since it resembles the acts of the idolaters who say: {We worship them for no other reason but because they would bring us near to Allah closely.} [39:3].

Source: Kashaf al-Qina' 6/168-169: http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=16&ID=8568

So as you see all major Hanabilah after Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) agreed with him and regarded it as an act of apostasy. (By the way: Isn't it nice to see how they all call him "The Shaykh" or "Our Shaykh"? ;))

And to make it even clearer, so that no Zindiq can play around with their words:

The quote of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah), which I posted at first is also quoted by Imam Mar'i bin Yusuf al-Karmi (rahimahullah) in his book "Shifa` as-Sudur fi Ziyarat al-Mashahid wal Qubur" on page 379 (if one takes the pages of the book it's on 212/٢١٢) and of course he agrees with him!!

Here is a link to download the book (pdf): http://www.mediafire.com/?0ydmkzyqky2

Conclusion: According to major Hanbali scholars calling upon other than Allah ta'ala is shirk and apostasy! The one who does it has to be asked to repent, otherwise the hadd of riddah is applied upon him!

I would like to mention three important points, so that these three things are not mixed with eachother:

- Saying "Oh Allah ta'ala help me for the sake of the Prophet" and similar sayings: There are two cases:
If the intention is to use ones love for Rasulallah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in the Tawassul, then this is allowed.
But if the intention is to use the Dhat of Rasulallah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in the Tawassul, then this is not allowed according to Shaykh al-Islam and others. But other scholars have regarded it as permissable and no one among the scholars have ever called this as shirk.

- Going to the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and asking him (sallalahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to make Du'a` to Allah ta'ala (and not going further than that).
Shaykh al-Islam said that going to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and asking him (sallalallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to make Du'a` to Allah ta'ala was allowed during his lifetime without any doubt, but after he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) left the Dunya, it's not legislated anymore. He also mentioned that it's a Bid'ah and a "dhari'ah ila ash-shirk" (a mean to shirk, i.e. something that can lead to shirk). Some scholars have even allowed that (but no one among the early scholars near the Salaf as-salih!), but their opinion is to be rejected, because it can lead to shirk (but it's not shirk by itself).

- Calling upon other than Allah ta'ala for the fulfillment of one's needs like saying "Ya Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir I ask you for rizq/children/protection during my journey/help/etc.".
This is clear shirk (polytheism) and whoever regards it as allowed is an apostate. One should ask such a person to repent and if he refuses then in an islamic state the hadd of riddah is to be applied upon such a person.
As for those "scholars" in our time who endorse calling upon other than Allah ta'ala: They're Zanadiqah and one shouldn't take one's Din from them.

I will end my post with the following Ayah:

{ وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ ٱلدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُواْ لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُواْ بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ }

{ When My servants ask you about Me, then (tell them that) I am near. I respond to the call of one when he prays to Me; so they should respond to Me, and have faith in Me, so that they may be on the right path. }

[2:186]

Subhanallah! How can anyone call upon other than Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala after knowing this beautiful Ayah?!?

[faqir]

al-salam 'alaikum

This is just flawed reasoning. The shaykh says we only ask Allah and none other than Allah can benefit or harm. This, of course, doesn't contradict the permissibility of istighatha unless you think he considers it forbidden to ask anything of a living person as well. This was all explained in the articles above (see, for example 'Allamah al-Dijwi's explanation (http://tinyurl.com/7obpoh2)). Those who permit istighatha say that istighatha is eventually asking Allah, because He is in reality the creator of all things. Again this is also explained in numerous articles linked in post 1 such as this fatwa of Imam al-Haytami (http://tinyurl.com/67t97am). All your quotes of Ibn Taymiyya, etc are irrelevant and his rush to declare others polytheists and apostates and calling for their blood is certainly not accepted by the major scholars that were quoted above. This eagerness to call for killing of muslims was refuted decisively by the Hanbali Mustafa b. Ahmad al-Shatti in response to the Wahhabis which I urge you to read carefully here (http://tinyurl.com/62cqd8n). You can also see the correct approach to interpreting the statements of Muslims with the meaning that befits his affiliation to Islam and the creed of Allah’s Oneness in this article (http://tinyurl.com/c37a4oq). Anyhow the articles linked in post 1 are sufficient for those who wish to understand the position of those who permitted istighatha and I don't really need to add anything further.

was-salam

[abul_hussain]

al-salam 'alaikum

This is just flawed reasoning. ........... Those who permit istighatha say that istighatha is eventually asking Allah, because He is in reality the creator of all things.


I think your reasoning is flawed as well. Then why should anyone ask Allah at all. They should seek everything from the creation since you say that in reality Allah is creator of all things. Using your logic and analogy, Prophets are alive just like any other living human being, so asking them for Jannah Paradise / Job / Car etc.. shouldn't make any difference because you are in reality asking Allah. in short what you are saying is that Ya Ali madad or Ya Abdul Qadir Jilani Madad or Ya Ahmed_raza_Khan_barelwi madad is something recommended and every muslim should do it.

[Jadeed]

@Faqir

Don't you support taqleed? Do you really want Hanbalis to leave the luminaries of the school like al-Mardawi, al-Buhuti, al-Hajjawi, al-Karmi, and Ibn Muflih for some obscure twelfth-century nobody?

[AimeSi]

:salam:

I think your reasoning is flawed as well. Then why should anyone ask Allah at all. They should seek everything from the creation since you say that in reality Allah is creator of all things. Using your logic and analogy, Prophets are alive just like any other living human being, so asking them for Jannah Paradise / Job / Car etc.. shouldn't make any difference because you are in reality asking Allah. in short what you are saying is that Ya Ali madad or Ya Abdul Qadir Jilani Madad or Ya Ahmed_raza_Khan_barelwi madad is something recommended and every muslim should do it.

:subh: I was thinking the same after reading his reply.


Before goind further, faqir, you said : "Those who permit istighatha say that istighatha is eventually asking Allah, because He is in reality the creator of all things."
So, if a Christian ask to 'Isa (as) or Maryam (as) to help him or guide him can we say that in fact he is asking to Allah since 'Isa(as) and Maryam (as) was created by Allah ?

Furthermore, let's do some "reverse thinking"; for you faqir, which form of du'a is NOT permissible according to you (or the scholars you may quote) ?

If someone say "Ya Ghauth A'tham" and then ask him something, as far as I've understand you, it is permissible if he thinks that only Allah can help him in fine and that Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani (ra) was created by Allah. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
So if only Allah has the ability to answer to his needs, why don't ask Him directly ?
What make those du'a preferable over du'a (by their forms or their words)... on which the 'ulamas have never differed and which come from hadith ?

And my finals questions are :
For you does the risk of committing shirk exist with those kinds of du'a (itighâtha) ?
Does all the layman who are attached to this practice really think that in fact they are asking to Allah and by himself the pious people they call can't help them ?

[Ansari]

Those who permit istighatha say that istighatha is eventually asking Allah

So if one asks; grant me money, cure my eyesight, help me I am drowning, help me building this wall (the reasoning of GF Haddad; what is asked during life, can be asked after death) you are "asking" Allah.

Christianity has come back to life amongst the so-called Muslims.

This is just too ackward. As in your words:


This is just flawed reasoning.

[warea]

@Faqir

Don't you support taqleed? Do you really want Hanbalis to leave the luminaries of the school like al-Mardawi, al-Buhuti, al-Hajjawi, al-Karmi, and Ibn Muflih for some obscure twelfth-century nobody?

Yea that one liner quote floated around as big proof which first of all speaks about intermediary and not isthighasa. And there are plenty of references to hanbali scholars recognizing intercession by those iin graves. Secondly if interpreted the way you say would make even the intercession that is agreed upon by ahlus usunnah and rejected by muatazili heretics, I.e. the intercession on day of judgment, as shirk. So hold that one liner quote to yourself. Suffice to say that the whole hanabli scholarship in Arabia, Iraq and Syria opposed wahhabism when they emerged and house of saud alliance had to finish them off just like the shias next door silenced Sunnis in Persia.

[warea]

So if one asks; grant me money, cure my eyesight, help me I am drowning, help me building this wall (the reasoning of GF Haddad; what is asked during life, can be asked after death) you are "asking" Allah.

Yep. since we acknowledge the servitude of them and their power to Allah and not indepedence. So we are in effect asking Allah through the means he has kept in creation. Humans by nature interact with the creations around them. To attribute that as shirk is never heard before. Even tabaruk of a lifeless object is taken for curing sickness, so how could someone question the dua of a Muslim or karamat through them?



Christianity has come back to life amongst the so-called Muslims.

Yea. Protestant Christianity.

[Jadeed]

Yea that one liner quote floated around as big proof which first of all speaks about intermediary and not isthighasa. And there are plenty of references to hanbali scholars recognizing intercession by those iin graves. Secondly if interpreted the way you say would make even the intercession that is agreed upon by ahlus usunnah and rejected by muatazili heretics, I.e. the intercession on day of judgment, as shirk. So hold that one liner quote to yourself. Suffice to say that the whole hanabli scholarship in Arabia, Iraq and Syria opposed wahhabism when they emerged and house of saud alliance had to finish them off just like the shias next door silenced Sunnis in Persia.

This is so idiotic. You realize they're quoting Ibn Taymiyyah as an approved authority, right? And you know what his doctrine is in regards to istighatha and intercession, so why are you trying to draw absurd conclusions from it? And al-Mardawi, al-Buhuti, al-Hajjawi - these are the pillars of the late Hanbali mad'hab. al-Iqna' and Ghayat al-Muntaha are two of the mu'tamad books that are consulted to find out 'what the mad'hab position is,' similar to Ibn Abidin's works for the Hanafis, and al-Insaf traces all the opinions in the mad'hab back to their sources. So we're not talking obscurantist characters, we're talking the pillars of the late Hanbali mad'hab taking Ibn Taymiyyah's opinions about Istighatha. You should know what they consist of by now as opposed to drawing absurd comparisons that don't make any sense and trying to do argumento ad absurdum without a solid foundation.

But by all means, continue propagating the absurd myth that Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab was opposed by the 'whole of Hanbali scholarship when he emerged.' Would you like to populate the list of names? You should take his brother off, because his brother saw the error of his ways and joined the da'wah before he died, as is recorded, so as for now all I see on the list is Mustafa ibn Ahmed ash-Shatti, who doesn't stand at all next to al-Buhuti, al-Mardawi, al-Hajjawi...

[faqir]

:salam:


So if one asks; grant me money, cure my eyesight, help me I am drowning, help me building this wall (the reasoning of GF Haddad; what is asked during life, can be asked after death) you are "asking" Allah.


Yes, it is our belief this is what is intended by the muslim who is asking. And this is why the scholars said that istighatha and tawassul are interrelated. The one asking is using the one asked as an intermediary so really what they intend is 'Allah for the sake of the one asked grant me money, etc., etc.' or 'O one asked, Ask Allah to grant me money, etc, etc.' This is discussed in many of the fatawa quoted above like that of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (http://tinyurl.com/67t97am) and Imam al-Subki (http://tinyurl.com/68edcbq).

As for the reasoning of Dr GF Haddad, here are his own words (which you've got access to via SP):

"And it is our firm belief that no one in the Umma of the Prophet knowledgeably calls other than Allah Most High even if they use expressions of direct request, as it is a concise verbal expression or ijaz lafzi even when we say: Ya Rasulallah, the meaning is ALWAYS AND INVARIABLY "Ask Allah for us, be our intercessor and our means for the fulfillment of our need" as Abu Hurayra, Jabir, Ibn `Abbas and others narrated from him salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam regarding his Praiseworthy Position in the Divine Presence and the fact that it all means intercession for his Umma. *The Holy Prophet Muhammad upon him peace was created for intercession.*

This is Aqida 101 for every Sunni and the objectors are still stuck at the level where they deliberately confuse tawassul and istighatha with `ibada when it comes to others, bombing them with verses of Tawhid such as {Do not call upon anyone besides Allah} as if they applied to Muslims, just like the Khawarij were falsely quoting Quran to try and condemn the Companions of the Prophet!; yet for themselves these objectors make istighatha of their physicians, their lawyers, their bankers, their mortgage agents and insurers, the USA, the EU, their kings and potentates at the drop of a hat. By their own criterion it is they who are full-blown polytheists, not Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamaa."


So, if a Christian ask to 'Isa (as) or Maryam (as) to help him or guide him can we say that in fact he is asking to Allah since 'Isa(as) and Maryam (as) was created by Allah ?

It seems that you did not read this article (http://tinyurl.com/c37a4oq) that I linked above. These very issues are beautifully dealt with therein by the Mufti of Egypt.


I think your reasoning is flawed as well. Then why should anyone ask Allah at all. They should seek everything from the creation since you say that in reality Allah is creator of all things. Using your logic and analogy, Prophets are alive just like any other living human being, so asking them for Jannah Paradise / Job / Car etc.. shouldn't make any difference because you are in reality asking Allah. in short what you are saying is that Ya Ali madad or Ya Abdul Qadir Jilani Madad or Ya Ahmed_raza_Khan_barelwi madad is something recommended and every muslim should do it.

Well, tawassul / istighatha, or whatever are just one of the means available to Allah answering our du'a. Just like medicine is one of the means available to cure our sickness - you can take it if you like or leave it if you like but ultimately the cure is from Allah not the tablet you may choose or not choose to swallow. Some Sahaba chose not to take medical treatment relying instead on Allah alone. We already quoted above the gnostic Shaykh Abdul Ghani al-Nablusi who similarly explained that this was simply a matter of taking the means available (quoting from the legal verdict of the Shaikh Imam Allamah Abul 'Izz Ahmad ibn al-'Ajami al-Shafi'i al-Wafa'i al-Azhari):

"And the saying: Oh Sidi Ahmad al-Badawi, Oh Shaykh so and so is not from associating [partners with Allah] because the intention is that of Tawassul and Istighathah, . Allah the Exalted said: "Oh you who believe fear Allah and seek unto Him a means of approach."

As for being alive or deceased - carefully read this article (http://tinyurl.com/d37uwt4) and you will see what I was referring to.

And finally, I feel that all of the answers to your questions are found in the links above. Please read all the links before commenting any more and wasting your own and others' time.

was-salam

[abul_hussain]

:salam:



Yes, it is our belief this is what is intended by the muslim who is asking. And this is why the scholars said that istighatha and tawassul are interrelated. The one asking is using the one asked as an intermediary so really what they intend is 'Allah for the sake of the one asked grant me money, etc., etc.' or 'O one asked, Ask Allah to grant me money, etc, etc.' This is discussed in many of the fatawa quoted above like that of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (http://tinyurl.com/67t97am) and Imam al-Subki (http://tinyurl.com/68edcbq).

As for the reasoning of Dr GF Haddad, here are his own words (which you've got access to via SP):

"And it is our firm belief that no one in the Umma of the Prophet knowledgeably calls other than Allah Most High even if they use expressions of direct request, as it is a concise verbal expression or ijaz lafzi even when we say: Ya Rasulallah, the meaning is ALWAYS AND INVARIABLY "Ask Allah for us, be our intercessor and our means for the fulfillment of our need" as Abu Hurayra, Jabir, Ibn `Abbas and others narrated from him salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam regarding his Praiseworthy Position in the Divine Presence and the fact that it all means intercession for his Umma. *The Holy Prophet Muhammad upon him peace was created for intercession.*

This is Aqida 101 for every Sunni and the objectors are still stuck at the level where they deliberately confuse tawassul and istighatha with `ibada when it comes to others, bombing them with verses of Tawhid such as {Do not call upon anyone besides Allah} as if they applied to Muslims, just like the Khawarij were falsely quoting Quran to try and condemn the Companions of the Prophet!; yet for themselves these objectors make istighatha of their physicians, their lawyers, their bankers, their mortgage agents and insurers, the USA, the EU, their kings and potentates at the drop of a hat. By their own criterion it is they who are full-blown polytheists, not Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamaa."



It seems that you did not read this article (http://tinyurl.com/c37a4oq) that I linked above. These very issues are beautifully dealt with therein by the Mufti of Egypt.



Well, tawassul / istighatha, or whatever are just one of the means available to Allah answering our du'a. Just like medicine is one of the means available to cure our sickness - you can take it if you like or leave it if you like but ultimately the cure is from Allah not the tablet you may choose or not choose to swallow. Some Sahaba chose not to take medical treatment relying instead on Allah alone. We already quoted above the gnostic Shaykh Abdul Ghani al-Nablusi who similarly explained that this was simply a matter of taking the means available (quoting from the legal verdict of the Shaikh Imam Allamah Abul 'Izz Ahmad ibn al-'Ajami al-Shafi'i al-Wafa'i al-Azhari):

"And the saying: Oh Sidi Ahmad al-Badawi, Oh Shaykh so and so is not from associating [partners with Allah] because the intention is that of Tawassul and Istighathah, . Allah the Exalted said: "Oh you who believe fear Allah and seek unto Him a means of approach."

As for being alive or deceased - carefully read this article (http://tinyurl.com/d37uwt4) and you will see what I was referring to.

And finally, I feel that all of the answers to your questions are found in the links above. Please read all the links before commenting any more and wasting your own and others' time.

was-salam

I guess it should not make any difference if we replace the names for example "Ya Ahmad Raza Khan Barelwi solve all the problems of the muslim world" with "Ya ganesh or krishna solve the problems of the muslim world" since the ultimate giver is Allah swt, why should it makes any difference which medicine you opt , isn't the cure from Allah, so if the medicine is Lat, Uzzat , Manat then that should be okay going with your logic and analogy.

You could use anything as means ( ganesh or krishna ) or anything as long as you hold that the ultimate giver is Allah.

hmmm.. looks like Bidah in religion, if this was the case, then Sahaba would have been the first ones to employ such form of ibaadah to seek help from creation, but that is not the case.

Also, kindly explain the difference between your type of isthighatha/tawasul and the rafidi shiah type of tawasul/isthighatha.

[faqir]

Would you say O Allah for the sake of Ganesh solve the problems of the world?! Or would you ask Mr. Ganesh even if he were alive to make dua to Allah for you? Only a plonker like you would do so. Unfortunately it is pointless discussing anything with you. If you were sincere you would read carefully what has been posted above instead of acting like an idiot.

I am through wasting my time here. Salam.

[abul_hussain]

Would you say O Allah for the sake of Ganesh solve the problems of the world?!


Not me, but people like you promoting such stuff should have any problems saying so according to your own words, "Just like medicine is one of the means available to cure our sickness - you can take it if you like or leave it if you like but ultimately the cure is from Allah not the tablet"

so medicine for your type is the your type of sufi-sai-baba where many muslims unfortunately go and seek for paradise, children, money etc...



Or would you ask Mr. Ganesh even if he were alive to make dua to Allah for you?


ask yourself what difference does it make if it is ganesh/hanuman or krishna, according to you the ultimate giver is Allah, go ahead mr. intelligent faqir show us why your own logic/reason is not applied here ?



Only a plonker like you would do so. Unfortunately it is pointless discussing anything with you. If you were sincere you would read carefully what has been posted above instead of acting like an idiot.

I am through wasting my time here. Salam.

only when you are unable to answer you resort to abuse just like any other typical barelwi involved in such suspicious and doubtful invented new forms of Ibadaah. You the insincere one with no answers.

What is wrong if the medication is ganesh or hunamji or Krishna ( according to Ahmed Raza Khan -- krishna did many miracles ) since the ultimate giver is Allah.

[UntoldTruth]

Would you say O Allah for the sake of Ganesh solve the problems of the world?! Or would you ask Mr. Ganesh even if he were alive to make dua to Allah for you? Only a plonker like you would do so. Unfortunately it is pointless discussing anything with you. If you were sincere you would read carefully what has been posted above instead of acting like an idiot.

I am through wasting my time here. Salam.

What an awesome reply... Jazakullah khairan.....

[aMuslimForLife]

The silliness of likening the deities (gods) of Hindu religions, the deities (gods) of the jahili arabs and the deities (gods) of the Christians (Jesus is considered God, or 1/3 of God)... with the awilya of Islam is that the awilya of Islam are NOT deities (gods).

There is no deity (god) except Allah.... Shirk is when you see other deities along aside of Allah... and this is the difference between istighatha between the Muslims and the Mushirkeen... Muslims don't commit shirk..... La Ilaha illa llah...... There is no deity Except Allah....

[bugmenot]

Then why aren't 'Isa (AS) or Moses (AS) called instead of Abdul Qadir al-jilani (RA) ? Surely their level is higher?


But I know why ahlul bid'ah insist on doing so and I reveal it to you guys : it's cause the 'experiences' they get when they call for death ones. Same happens with shi'as and look where they have landed.

:hawla:

[aMuslimForLife]

Then why aren't 'Isa (AS) or Moses (AS) called instead of Abdul Qadir al-jilani (RA) ? Surely their level is higher?


But I know why ahlul bid'ah insist on doing so and I reveal it to you guys : it's cause the 'experiences' they get when they call for death ones. Same happens with shi'as and look where they have landed.

:hawla:

Istighatha isn't an essential aspect of Sufism...

and I really don't know any sufi shaykhs who engage in such practices nor teach it and neither do I engage in it. I just know it is permissible. So as to why the awilya and not the anbiya??? This question can be asked about many things in Islam... Surely the fast of dawud is the best fast... but it was not the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, sallahu alayhi wa salam... why did the Prophet, sallahu alayhi wa salam prefer his fast over the fast of dawud, the best fast??? I don't know... I am sure I can think of many other like questions as well...

But in short I don't know the answer.

I have followed the Shadhili path for over 10 years and no Shadhili shaykh I have met has told me to engage in istighatha. I just know that istighatha is permissible in the Shafi madhab... the madhab I follow... So I have only learned of its permissibility through Fiqh... and not Tasawwuf (Sufism)....

[Ansari]

The silliness of likening the deities (gods) of Hindu religions, the deities (gods) of the jahili arabs and the deities (gods) of the Christians (Jesus is considered God, or 1/3 of God)... with the awilya of Islam is that the awilya of Islam are NOT deities (gods).

There is no deity (god) except Allah.... Shirk is when you see other deities along aside of Allah... and this is the difference between istighatha between the Muslims and the Mushirkeen... Muslims don't commit shirk..... La Ilaha illa llah...... There is no deity Except Allah....

The argument is perfectly valid. Would you call that belief shirk or not, if one would call upon a deity with the belief that Allah has the ultimate power? They can do nothing on their own?

It is mentioned in the hadith that these idols were PERSONS.

The same counts for statues. If you believe that they can do nothing on their own, but Allah can give them power to perform dua for you and grant them life, would that count as shirk according to you?

Yes or no?

[aMuslimForLife]

The argument is perfectly valid. Would you call that belief shirk or not, if one would call upon a deity with the belief that Allah has the ultimate power? They can do nothing on their own?
It is mentioned in the hadith that these idols were PERSONS.
The same counts for statues. If you believe that they can do nothing on their own, but Allah can give them power to perform dua for you and grant them life, would that count as shirk according to you?
Yes or no?

What the Ulama have consider permissible isn’t shirk… what the jahili arabs did was shirk… in regards to the particulars I don’t know…

[Saad]

There is no deity (god) except Allah.... Shirk is when you see other deities along aside of Allah... and this is the difference between istighatha between the Muslims and the Mushirkeen... Muslims don't commit shirk..... La Ilaha illa llah...... There is no deity Except Allah....

http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/

It may be said that those who perform istighathah do not consider the power and ability of the saints from whom du’a is sought to be equal to Allah, but rather they believe that their ability is given to them by Allah. This claim is not sufficient to justify istighathah since the polytheists of Makkah also never held their deities as equal to Allah. They too believed that the power of their deities was bestowed to them by Allah.

Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes regarding this notion, “Know that there is no one in the whole universe who ascribes a partner with Allah who is at the same level with Allah in existence (wujud), power (qudrah), knowledge (‘ilm), or wisdom (hikmah). Not one person until today has been found [who believes that anyone is on the same level as Allah] except the Zoroastrians…” (Tafsir al-Kabir, 2:112, from Itmam al-Burhan fi Rad Tawdih al-Bayan, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar)

Imam Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz Dahlawi (d. 1239H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes, “It should be kept in mind that there is not one person in the universe who associates anyone with Allah at the same level in existence (wujud), knowledge (‘ilm), power (qudrah), and wisdom (hikmah).” (Tasfir-i-’Azizi, p.162)

Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi writes in his magnum opus Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, chapter 74 titled “The explanation of what had been the condition of the People of Jahiliyyah which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) reformed”, “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settled and decided, and this is [proven by] His saying, may He be exalted, ‘If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah’, [31:25], and His saying, ‘If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he wills, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with Him,’ [6:41-42], and His saying, ‘All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.’ [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] but it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the sprits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth, except for the major matters…”[3]

Shah Waliullah further writes about the beliefs of early polytheists in chapter 37 titled Tawhid, “[The second group] are polytheists… They also said that these beings [righteous servants of God] hear, see, intercede for their worshippers, manage their affairs, and give them help; and they carved stones in their names and made the stones a focus for directing their worship towards these beings.”[4]

Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes, “And yet, they have associated partners with Him in divinity (ilahiyyah), so they worshiped others with Him in spite of their admission that those whom they worshiped will not be able to create a thing, they do not own anything and do not domineer anything, but they believed that these idols take them closer to Him.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 5:488)

‘Allamah Muhyi al-Din Shaykh Zadah (d. 951H / Allah have mercy on him) writes, “I.e. the idols are not equal to Allah, neither in reality which is obvious, nor according to their beliefs; since they believe that these [idols] are intermediaries taking them nearer to Allah as per their belief, not that they are adversary equals [to Allah].” (Hashiyyah ‘ala al-Baydawi, 1:383)

According to Islamic theologians, the polytheists of Makkah didn’t believe that idols were gods but merely referred to them as such. Imam al-Mutakallimin ‘Allamah Sayyid Sharif Jurjani al-Hanafi (d. 816H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes, “Know that there is no opposition regarding this issue except that of the sanawiyyah (Zoroastrian dualists), not the wasniyyah (idol-worshipers). Verily they [the polytheists] do not believe that there are two necessarily-existent deities, nor do they ascribe the attributes of divinity (ilahiyyah) to the idols even though they referred to them with the word ‘aalihah‘ (deities), rather they adopted them as statues of the Prophets or the pious or the angels or the celestial objects, and adopted revering them in a manner of worship, using them as a means of reaching the One who is actually Divine [Allah].” (Sharh al-Mawaqif, p.580)

[aMuslimForLife]

http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/

It may be said that those who perform istighathah do not consider the power and ability of the saints from whom du’a is sought to be equal to Allah, but rather they believe that their ability is given to them by Allah. This claim is not sufficient to justify istighathah since the polytheists of Makkah also never held their deities as equal to Allah. They too believed that the power of their deities was bestowed to them by Allah.


*If that is what the jahili arabs truly believed, that Allah is truly greater than their idols, then why would the jahili arabs ever curse Allah???

Allah forbid us from cursing their idols, so that they would not curse Allah...

Qatada said, "The muslims used to curse and revile the idols of the disbelievers, and so the disbelievers reviled and cursed Allah, the mighty and Magnificent. So Allah revealed, "Do not curse those upon whom they call besides Allah, lest they wrongfully curse and revile Allah through ignorance. (al An'am: 108)" (Abd al Razzaq)

They never truly believed Allah was greater than their idols this is why they cursed Allah. *They were NEVER sincere in their claim that the idols were only a means to Allah... *Their actions of cursing Allah indicates that they never really believed Allah had All power..... This indicates that they relied more upon their idols than Allah.... Which means they never truly worshiped Allah.... Would you curse the one you worship??? Is that true worship???

It doesn't matter if they held them as equal or not... their idols were regarded as deities... And this is the violation of tawhid... not whether they are equal or not.... *Whether they are lesser deities or greater deities they are none the less deities... thus committed shirk... The awilya of Islam are NOT deities...

And Allah knows best....

[warea]

http://www.deoband.org/2010/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/istighatha-seeking-help-from-other-than-allah/

It may be said that those who perform istighathah do not consider the power and ability of the saints from whom du’a is sought to be equal to Allah, but rather they believe that their ability is given to them by Allah. This claim is not sufficient to justify istighathah since the polytheists of Makkah also never held their deities as equal to Allah. They too believed that the power of their deities was bestowed to them by Allah.

Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes regarding this notion, “Know that there is no one in the whole universe who ascribes a partner with Allah who is at the same level with Allah in existence (wujud), power (qudrah), knowledge (‘ilm), or wisdom (hikmah). Not one person until today has been found [who believes that anyone is on the same level as Allah] except the Zoroastrians…” (Tafsir al-Kabir, 2:112, from Itmam al-Burhan fi Rad Tawdih al-Bayan, Sarfaraz Khan Safdar)


Same level as in exactly equivalent. The mushriks instead differentiated their shirk iinto Father and son/daughters.



Imam Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz Dahlawi (d. 1239H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes, “It should be kept in mind that there is not one person in the universe who associates anyone with Allah at the same level in existence (wujud), knowledge (‘ilm), power (qudrah), and wisdom (hikmah).” (Tasfir-i-’Azizi, p.162)

Same answer. And quote the context of this statement.



Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi writes in his magnum opus Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, chapter 74 titled “The explanation of what had been the condition of the People of Jahiliyyah which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) reformed”, “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settled and decided, and this is [proven by] His saying, may He be exalted, ‘If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah’, [31:25], and His saying, ‘If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he wills, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with Him,’ [6:41-42], and His saying, ‘All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.’ [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] but it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the sprits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth, except for the major matters…”[3]

He classifies affairs into major and minor and does say that they attriubuted partners in minor affairs.
And again his definition of shirk is to ascribe the attributes of Allah onto other than Allah.



Shah Waliullah further writes about the beliefs of early polytheists in chapter 37 titled Tawhid, “[The second group] are polytheists… They also said that these beings [righteous servants of God] hear, see, intercede for their worshippers, manage their affairs, and give them help; and they carved stones in their names and made the stones a focus for directing their worship towards these beings.”[4]

Quoting in this chopped reckless manner is dishonest. So would you say believing a servant of Allah can "hear" or "see" is shirk? So he is just describing their belief. There are aspects of it which are shirk and those which are absurd and those which are general. As mentioned before,his definition of shirk is clear.



Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 774H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes, “And yet, they have associated partners with Him in divinity (ilahiyyah), so they worshiped others with Him in spite of their admission that those whom they worshiped will not be able to create a thing, they do not own anything and do not domineer anything, but they believed that these idols take them closer to Him.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 5:488)

He also said that they mushriks took the partners in the form ministers for Kings.

Also provide the verse for which he is giving tafsir.



‘Allamah Muhyi al-Din Shaykh Zadah (d. 951H / Allah have mercy on him) writes, “I.e. the idols are not equal to Allah, neither in reality which is obvious, nor according to their beliefs; since they believe that these [idols] are intermediaries taking them nearer to Allah as per their belief, not that they are adversary equals [to Allah].” (Hashiyyah ‘ala al-Baydawi, 1:383)

Not total equals but as in sons and daughters to a father.



According to Islamic theologians, the polytheists of Makkah didn’t believe that idols were gods but merely referred to them as such. Imam al-Mutakallimin ‘Allamah Sayyid Sharif Jurjani al-Hanafi (d. 816H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes, “Know that there is no opposition regarding this issue except that of the sanawiyyah (Zoroastrian dualists), not the wasniyyah (idol-worshipers). Verily they [the polytheists] do not believe that there are two necessarily-existent deities, nor do they ascribe the attributes of divinity (ilahiyyah) to the idols even though they referred to them with the word ‘aalihah‘ (deities), rather they adopted them as statues of the Prophets or the pious or the angels or the celestial objects, and adopted revering them in a manner of worship, using them as a means of reaching the One who is actually Divine [Allah].” (Sharh al-Mawaqif, p.580)

Its clear he considers "ilaah" used in Quran to carry attributes of ilaahiyya. But he instead finds opposition and hence says that they attributed partner in worship only. Even if we take this interpretation, the meaning of worship is ultimate servitude. And no Muslim gives ultimate servitude to anyone besides Allah.

Also read:
http://hornofsatan.wordpress.com/answering-the-four-principles/

^The issue of whether they attributed shirk in ruboobiyyah is discussed in the refutation of the first principle.

And finally, when you are to argue based on this premise, even intercession from near the grave, which deoband ulema recognise as valid, would be categorised as major shirk. Infact the attack would be first and more greater against intercession rather than isthighasa.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Why ask me when you can send an enquiry to one of the many Dar al-Iftas (http://www.dar-alifta.org/) for a qualified scholar's opinion?!



:salam:

I've received the answer to my question from the above site you referred to:

Question:

I know that tawassul and istagathah is permitted. However, I wish to know what the limits are and how it is precisely defined. For example, can I ask:

"O Abdul Qadir Jilani, Guide me along the straight path"

intending the respected Shaykh only as an intermediary.

Answer:

Yes, this is permissible in Islamic Law

:ws:

[Shkapar_Dorwaza]

:salam:

I would like to know if the proponents of istighatha consider what is being done at around 3:50 of this video permissible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K6GXrd8BMcc#!

:jazak:

[AYK1399]

:salam:

I've received the answer to my question from the above site you referred to:

Question:

I know that tawassul and istagathah is permitted. However, I wish to know what the limits are and how it is precisely defined. For example, can I ask:

"O Abdul Qadir Jilani, Guide me along the straight path"

intending the respected Shaykh only as an intermediary.

Answer:

Yes, this is permissible in Islamic Law

:ws:

Please provide the link to the fatwa.

[aMuslimForLife]

:salam:

I would like to know if the proponents of istighatha consider what is being done at around 3:50 of this video permissible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K6GXrd8BMcc#!

:jazak:

In short.... I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't because I am not Shia... Who cares what the Shia do.... I will only be asked about what I do... not what you do or the Shia, or the buddhist, or the christians or or the Hindus or anybody else for that matter....

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

من حُسن إسلام المرء تركه ما لا يعـنيه

Part of someone’s being a good Muslim is his leaving alone that which does not concern him.

[Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2318, Sunan Ibn Majah 3976]

What the Shia do, does not concern me.... If it concerns you then you should find a scholar who can answer that question for you...

[Shkapar_Dorwaza]

In short.... I don't know and I don't care if it is or isn't because I am not Shia... Who cares what the Shia do.... I will only be asked about what I do... not what you do or the Shia, or the buddhist, or the christians or or the Hindus or anybody else for that matter....

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said:

من حُسن إسلام المرء تركه ما لا يعـنيه

Part of someone’s being a good Muslim is his leaving alone that which does not concern him.

[Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2318, Sunan Ibn Majah 3976]

What the Shia do, does not concern me.... If it concerns you then you should find a scholar who can answer that question for you...

Ok never mind, you completely missed what I was asking about. That's why I said to just view at 3:50. It was the wording of istighatha that I was asking about; shias aren't the only ones who utter these types of phrases.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Please provide the link to the fatwa.

:salam:

http://www.dar-alifta.org/f.aspx?ID=91558

:ws:

[abul_hussain]

:salam:

http://www.dar-alifta.org/f.aspx?ID=91558

:ws:

It that reliable website ? it seems they allow naming oneself Abdul-Hosni-Mubarak and Abdul-Raza-Khan

http://www.dar-alifta.org/ViewMindFatawa.aspx?ID=91&LangID=1

[baytul-herz]

I think your reasoning is flawed as well. Then why should anyone ask Allah at all. They should seek everything from the creation since you say that in reality Allah is creator of all things. Using your logic and analogy, Prophets are alive just like any other living human being, so asking them for Jannah Paradise / Job / Car etc.. shouldn't make any difference because you are in reality asking Allah. in short what you are saying is that Ya Ali madad or Ya Abdul Qadir Jilani Madad or Ya Ahmed_raza_Khan_barelwi madad is something recommended and every muslim should do it.


So I can ask you the same question,why should we ask Allah and instead, only ask scholars to make dua for you? Surely their status is higher isn't it?


Going by your logic,you say that only asking people who are alive is ok,then I pose the same question to you.

Why not only ask scholars and sufis to make dua for us?


When you take medicine or go to the doctor,aren't you asking him directly for assistance?

By the way,those prophets/saints being asked do not have any power,nor do we believe they can benefit us in the least,likewise with the doctor,we do not believe he can benefit us.

Rather Allah SWT creates the doctors movements,advice,thoughts,actions which help you,doesn't he? Answer this question I'm not asking this question rhetorically by the way. I hope you quote this part and put an answer under it.

Likewise with the prophets 3layhum salam,Allah SWT creates in them their movements,actions,will,thoughts,doesn't he?

So what is the difference? One is in front of you,and one is far from you? Are you saying that the distance makes it shirk?

Answer this question as well. What is the difference?

Or are you saying that it becomes shirk because it isn't "normal" every day stuff?

[baytul-herz]

Also I want you to answer this question.


Sayydina Muhammad SAW did miracles which healed and helped people many times.

Are you saying that it is now shirk to ask him since he is far away from us in distance?

What attributes of this action makes it shirk?

Muhammad SAW isn't dead,he is alive in his grave seeking forgiveness for his ummah out of love for his ummah.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

It that reliable website ? it seems they allow naming oneself Abdul-Hosni-Mubarak and Abdul-Raza-Khan

http://www.dar-alifta.org/ViewMindFatawa.aspx?ID=91&LangID=1

:salam:

According to the (almost non-existent) principles of bid'ah and shirk of these pseudo-traditionalists there should be no problems with a newly instituted practice involving regular five times a day congregrations of people gathering in front of the tomb, or a picture of Ahmad Raza Khan, and reciting in chorus 99 times, with the correct intentions:

"Ya Ahmad Raza Khan, Ihdinas Siratal Mustaqeem"

I thing we should ask the pseudo-traditionalists regarding the above practice, and see what answers we get in order gain more clarity on their principles of bid'ah and shirk.

:ws:

[Jadeed]

:salam:

According to the (almost non-existent) principles of bid'ah and shirk of these pseudo-traditionalists there should be no problems with a newly instituted practice involving regular five times a day congregrations of people gathering in front of the tomb, or a picture of Ahmad Raza Khan, and reciting in chorus 99 times, with the correct intentions:

"Ya Ahmad Raza Khan, Ihdinas Siratal Mustaqeem"

I thing we should ask the pseudo-traditionalists regarding the above practice, and see what answers we get in order gain more clarity on their principles of bid'ah and shirk.

:ws:

:ws:

You would have to get in front of a picture of Ahmed Raza Khan without the eyes. They have some principles.

[abul_hussain]

:salam:

According to the (almost non-existent) principles of bid'ah and shirk of these pseudo-traditionalists there should be no problems with a newly instituted practice involving regular five times a day congregrations of people gathering in front of the tomb, or a picture of Ahmad Raza Khan, and reciting in chorus 99 times, with the correct intentions:

"Ya Ahmad Raza Khan, Ihdinas Siratal Mustaqeem"

I thing we should ask the pseudo-traditionalists regarding the above practice, and see what answers we get in order gain more clarity on their principles of bid'ah and shirk.

:ws:

Apparently that website is run by the infamous Mufti of Hosni Mubarak -- Dr. Ali Gomaaa ; Anyway, in the above fatwa they say


ومعلوم أنه لا إنكار في مسائل الخلاف، وأنه إنما يُنكَر المتفق عليه لا المختلف فيه.
So, always there will be someone somewhere amongst the scholars who will have unpopular hukm. You can always find khilaf in any issue take for example Mutah, since Ali Gomaa & fatwa company have accepted Shia Rafidi Madhhab as the valid fifth fiqhi madhhab, so I guess Mutah would be halal according to them لا إنكار في مسائل الخلاف

[warea]

:salam:

According to the (almost non-existent) principles of bid'ah and shirk of these pseudo-traditionalists there should be no problems with a newly instituted practice involving regular five times a day congregrations of people gathering in front of the tomb, or a picture of Ahmad Raza Khan, and reciting in chorus 99 times, with the correct intentions:

"Ya Ahmad Raza Khan, Ihdinas Siratal Mustaqeem"

I thing we should ask the pseudo-traditionalists regarding the above practice, and see what answers we get in order gain more clarity on their principles of bid'ah and shirk.

:ws:

Your exaggerating as a straw and such exaggeration can be done upon anything that even you permit.

Your hypothetical question simply is on whether it is allowed to ask anyone "guide me along the straight way". Now as per anti-isthighasa arguments, isthighasa is prohibited only when help is sought for a matter beyond their capability. But the prophets and pious among the Muslims can from within their capability help guide us to the straighway of Islam. All muslim dawa is a means of guiding to the straitght path, although it is conditioned that Allah has to will a persons guidance. So unless perhaps you reject the idea that servants of Allah can act as a means to guidance to Allah, you don't have a real objection, besides propping up the unwanted exaggeration and side topic of bidah. Moreover, if you notice the hadith "o slaves of Allah! Help me!" it is with respect to guidance when lost on travel. So we have guidance here again. Although at the end of the day your question is just hypothetical and not really relevent in practical reality.

The accusation of bidah doesnt really apply, for the essence is in the shariah already. The hadith of blind man and the hadith of slaves of Allah are enough proof. The supplication given to the blind man whereby Prophet is made an intermediary is to cure blindness. Curing blindness is nothing but miraculous. The shariah has thereby given already a clear enough supplication and manner for tawassul in a matter that is as miraculous as curing blindness. The dua of tawassul is dua of need and therefore any need can be approached with that method. I'm not aware of anyone saying "guide towards the straight path" in such a fashion to someone besides Allah, but if someone does it in similar way to dua of blindman such that he says "O so and so, I am turning through you towards my Lord so that Allah may guide me towards the straight path" then there is no issue to complain here and the words are clear without any possible way of being shirk. But if your concern has to do with using words of language where guidance is sought directly from the individual then one has to first ask themselves as to what hypothetical possible sense would a muslim even ask such a question ? The only way i can think of is that a person wants guidance as a teacher whether through real presence and companionship or through dreams in the case of people who passed away. Or perhaps he wants the individual to supplicate to Allah for his guidance. In what way one can say such is shirk or even bidah ?

You should clarify first in what sense you meant it and why it is shirk with the clear definition of shirk, rather than keeping your argument loaded and hidden.

[bugmenot]

Answer by a simple yes/no; allowed or not allowed?

[SeekerOfGuidance]

:salam:

Brother Warea, I will reply to you in detail when I have time. For now, could you please answer bugmenot's simple question above.

:jazak:

[aMuslimForLife]

Answer by a simple yes/no; allowed or not allowed?

The simply answer is I do not know what the scholars of Ahlus Sunnah who permit istighatha say about this particular question...

This appears to be a hypothetical question aimed at trying to undermine what the scholars have considered permissible. And I have not sought out the answer because I do not know anyone personally who engages in this particular type of istighatha... So the question is not a practical question nor realistic within the Sunni tradition... If knowing the answer is really that important to you, perhaps you should find a scholar permitted to give fatawa to answer your question...

And Allah knows best..

[bugmenot]

Then I have nothing common with "ulama" or "muslim" who don't know if the following is forbidden or not "a practice involving regular five times a day congregrations of people gathering in front of the tomb, or a picture of Ahmad Raza Khan, and reciting in chorus 99 times, with the correct intentions:
"Ya Ahmad Raza Khan, Ihdinas Siratal Mustaqeem"".

Yes it is important because shaitan always deceive people when they start invoking dead ones, when one big evil is accepted others follow.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

:salam:

Whilst everybody appears to have no problems in speculating and hypothesising on all manner of issues of the Deen, I suspect, due to fitrah, none of the pseudo-traditionalists would feel comfortable in answering the question posed above which only requires a simple yes/no answer.

:ws:

[warea]

Answering it is easy but I prefer not entertain the loaded question. The only doubtful aspect in that question is that a language that is often used in a Quranic supplication becomes used aagainst other than Allah and hence the outward impression that a supplication of worship is done to other than Allah is formed. And this doubt is based on nothing but ignorance on what exactly constitutes the meaning of worship. The outward acts devoid of any belief was equated as worship by the wahhabi movement and many have been bewitched by it with doubts. But in reality worship cannot be seperated from belief. So the language that is used becomes a secondary issue and essential issue is what belief is being carried.

Now i consider it permitted first of all because there is no reason to prohibit it unless you prove that the arabic language does not allow such usage except in worship.
Secondly, the belief that servants of Allah could act as means to guidance is quite obvious by any rational thought.
Thirdly, Quran describes the Prophet as a "light" and hence the description as a light of guidance is something that Allah Himself has attributted the Prophet :saw: with. Similarly, the name "Ahmed" itself means the praised one and one could ask by similar logic why that name is not shirk when Surat al Fatiha begins by giving praise to Allah? In this way each name of the Propeht :saw: can be brought forth as proof on how terms are used in double sense when applied to Allah and applied to the Prophet :saw:.
Fourthly,Quran describes the sirat al mustaqeem as the path of those who have been bestowed favour and hence seeking the path of those who have been bestowed with favor becomes obvious from that.

And i ccould go on and on to find the multitude of reasons that are immediately evident to explain why its allowed. And it is not really required of me to explain something that is easy to understand as above and hence refrained from answering and arguing just for the sake of arguing .

[Mujib]

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf says in a discussion on the permissibility of tawassul/istighatha:

"When I asked Murabit al-Hajj, my own teacher, about it, he said, 'Ja'iz'."

[akabirofdeoband]

Shaykh hamza
Did he say istighaatha or tawasul?

[Mujib]

Shaykh hamza
Did he say istighaatha or tawasul?

The discussion is of tawassul and discusses asking the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) for du`a and intercession specifically.

[mh16388]

Answer by a simple yes/no; allowed or not allowed?
not allowed

[abul_hussain]

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf says in a discussion on the permissibility of tawassul/istighatha:

"When I asked Murabit al-Hajj, my own teacher, about it, he said, 'Ja'iz'."

what about Buddha ? is it possible to do tawasul/isthighatha through him, since Hamza Yusuf holds Buddha in High Esteem, can we get an answer for it.



.
Now i consider it permitted first of all because there is no reason to prohibit it


There is no explicit text which prohibits praying 5 rakats for fajr,dhuhr,asr,maghrib & isha so does it mean we can pray 5 rakats because of absence of explicit text prohibiting it ?

[akabirofdeoband]

We ask.for intercession near the grave

[aMuslimForLife]

what about Buddha ? is it possible to do tawasul/isthighatha through him, since Hamza Yusuf holds Buddha in High Esteem, can we get an answer for it.


Why not do it through you??? Since you are already a great wali... I mean who is more perfect in their knowledge and religious practice than you???

You have memorized hafs and warsh variants of the Quran... You recite 4 juz of Quran daily...

You have memorized bukhari and muslim...

You have mastered both hanafi fiqh and hanbali fiqh.

You pray tahajjah every night...

You have acquired direct knowledge from Allah by Him placing a light in your heart (firasa)... Imam Malik said, "knowledge does not come about by a great deal of narration, instead it is a light that Allah implants in the heart." Ibn Rajab al Hanbali commenting on this said, "knowledge is not narrating a great deal, nor it it having an opinion on everything, rather it is a light which is implanted in the heart by which the servant comes to understand the truth, employs it to differentiate between truth and falsehood, and is able to express in brief and concise words."

And abul Hassan when I hear your words it is so refreshing... The only words more refreshing than yours is the Quran and the hadiths... Outside of these two... No one is more eloquent and more knowledge than you.....

Ya abul hassan can you pay my rent for a year.
Ya abul hassan can you tie my shoes...
Ya abul hassan can you brush my teeth...
Ya abul hassan can help me get my PHD...
Ya abul Hassan can you wash my hair...
Ya abul Hassan can you brush
My teeth...

I know what you are thinking... "me knowledgeable....ha... Me have taqwa... Ha... Surely you jest."

[SASLAMS]

what about Buddha ? is it possible to do tawasul/isthighatha through him, since Hamza Yusuf holds Buddha in High Esteem, can we get an answer for it.




There is no explicit text which prohibits praying 5 rakats for fajr,dhuhr,asr,maghrib & isha so does it mean we can pray 5 rakats because of absence of explicit text prohibiting it ?

There is actualy a text which prohibits praying 5- sallu kama ra-aytumuni usali.

[huzoor]

We should follow the scholars and not desires. Good point made by brother Salsalms about the hadith " pray as you have seen me pray "
604

Narrated Malik: We came to the Prophet and stayed with him for twenty days and nights. We were all young and of about the same age. The Prophet was very kind and merciful. When he realized our longing for our families, he asked about our homes and the people there and we told him. Then he asked us to go back to our families and stay with them and teach them (the religion) and to order them to do good things. He also mentioned some other things which I have (remembered or) forgotten. The Prophet then added, "Pray as you have seen me praying and when it is the time for the prayer one of you should pronounce the Adhan and the oldest of you should lead the prayer. http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=11&translator=1&start=28&number=604