Sunni Path Fatwa allowing Shirk [Archive]

Salahadeen

4th July 2008, 11:24 PM

I only changed ONE word in the entire fatwa. Now read it:

Question:

I see on some internet forums, people writing such things as "Ya Uzza, I invoke thee" - I wanted to know is it allowed to say such things? Does this not smack of shirk?

Answer:

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Wa`alaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatuhu,

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful & Compassionate

There are a few issues:

a) It is a fundamental belief of Muslims that only Allah benefits or harms; that only Allah gives and takes;

b) It is also a fundamental belief of Muslims that Allah has created means for humans to take;

c) However, the relationship between these created means and their effects is only normative: it is Allah who creates the means, and Allah who creates the results.

This is why Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Shaghouri (Allah have mercy on him), the great spiritual guide and master of the sciences of faith (aqida) from Damascus, explained,

�Taking means is necessary, and denying that they are effective is necessary. Whoever negates means is denying the Wisdom of Allah, and whoever relies upon means is associating others with Allah.�

This is the understanding upon which Muslims �call upon other than Allah.� It is no different from taking medicine when sick, or going to a mechanic when your car is giving trouble: if you think that the medicine itself creates the healing, or that the mechanic is the one himself creates the fixing, then you have serious innovation in belief. The sound understanding is that Allah creates the healing when you use the medicine, and He creates the fixing when the mechanic does their job: we affirm these means, but also affirm that it is Allah who created both the means and the resultant effect.

This is pure affirmation of Divine Oneness. How can it �smack of shirk.�

See answer(s) mentioned below.

Wassalam,

Faraz Rabbani

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=3752&CATE=24

Salahadeen

4th July 2008, 11:28 PM

This is the EXACT belief of the pagan mushriks during the time of the Prophet [s]. They too used to believe that Allah [swt] is the source of all power, and their idols were just intermediaries.

Question for Abu Z: is it safe to say that Faraz Rabbani is a mushrik?

ibn 'abd al-jabbaar

4th July 2008, 11:40 PM

That's pure shirk. But what else can you expect from pseudo-Sunni Path?

Abuz Zubair

4th July 2008, 11:56 PM

Madarijas-Salikeen

5th July 2008, 12:12 AM

as salaamu alaykum

thats why shaykh muhammad ibn abdul wahab rahimahullah said the mushrikeen of today are worse than the mushrikun of the past.

abdul muntaqim

5th July 2008, 12:14 AM

Well, if it is safe to say that the early pagans who didn't have the Quran were all pagans, then surely it should be safer to say that those who have the Quran and still pray to other than God also pagans of the same category if not worse.
You see bro Abu Zubair you strongly view that there is no excuse of ignorance in shirk. Yet, you dont make takfeer of sufies who make major shirk in your eyes. These type of fatwas and opnions are supported by people such as Nuh Ha Meem keller, and other sufies. So why dont you openly make takfeer of them?

Salahadeen

5th July 2008, 01:11 AM

You see bro Abu Zubair you strongly view that there is no excuse of ignorance in shirk. Yet, you dont make takfeer of sufies who make major shirk in your eyes. These type of fatwas and opnions are supported by people such as Nuh Ha Meem keller, and other sufies. So why dont you openly make takfeer of them?

*hands microphone over to abu zubayr*

The brother brought up a legitimate point. Is there a particular reason you don't say it outright that so-and-so is a kaafir, including the likes of Faraz Rabbani, Nuh Keller, Gibril Hadad, etc.? (I'm not challenging you, just trying to understand since I look up to you as a peer sahab and stuff.)

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 01:11 AM

You see bro Abu Zubair you strongly view that there is no excuse of ignorance in shirk. Yet, you dont make takfeer of sufies who make major shirk in your eyes. These type of fatwas and opnions are supported by people such as Nuh Ha Meem keller, and other sufies. So why dont you openly make takfeer of them?
And how did you guess I don't make Takfeer on Sufis who pray to other than Allah?!

I didn't know about Faraz's words before but now I do. I don't know enough about Nuh Keller to give a judgement.

Brother_Mujahid

5th July 2008, 02:10 AM

AZ, now that you know the words of Faraz Rabbani, would you say that he is a mushrik?

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 02:25 AM

AZ, now that you know the words of Faraz Rabbani, would you say that he is a mushrik?
Yes, anyone who prays to other than God is a Mushrik by default, be it Faraz or even Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

ومنهم من يطلب من الميت ما يطلب من الله فيقول: اغفر لي وارزقني وانصرني، ونحو ذلك، كما يقول المصلي في صلاته لله تعالى، إلى أمثال هذه الأمور التي لا يشك من عرف دين الإسلام أنها مخالفة لدين المرسلين أجمعين، فإنها من الشرك الذي حرمه الله ورسوله، بل من الشرك الذي قاتل عليه الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم المشركين، وأن أصاحبها إن كانوا معذورين بالجهل، وأن الحجة لم تقم عليهم، كما يعذر من لم يبعث إليه رسول، كما قال الله تعالى: {وما كنا معذبين حتى نبعث رسولا}، وإلا كانوا مستحقين من عقوبة الدنيا ما يستحقه أمثالهم من المشركين، قال تعالى: {{فلا تجعلوا لله أنداداً وأنتم تعلمون}، وفي الحديث: "إن الشرك في هذه الأمة أخفى من دبيب النمل"، والذين يؤمنون بالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم؛ إذا تبين لأحدهم حقيقة ما جاء به الرسول، وتبين أنه مشرك، فإنه يتوب إلى الله ويجدد إسلامه، فيسلم إسلاماً يتوب فيه من هذا الشرك .
Amongst them are those who ask from the dead what is sought from Allah; thus he says: Forgive me, grant me provision, aid me, and so on, just as a person praying would say in his prayer to Allah, and the like of these matters which no one who knows the religion of Islam would doubt that this goes against the religion of all of the messengers. This is from the Shirk which Allah and His Messenger has forbidden. Rather, this is the very Shirk over which the Messenger of Allah SAW fought against the pagans. Although, those who commit this Shirk may be excused for ignorance such that the proofs of God haven't yet reached them, just as those to whom the messengers haven't been sent are excused, in light of Allah's words: We do not punish until we send a messenger; otherwise, they would be deserving of punishment in this world which other pagans like them deserve. Allah has said: Do not make rivals unto Allah while you have full knowledge. It says in a hadeeth: The Shirk in this Ummah is more obscure than the crawling of an ant. As for those who believe in the Messenger - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him - if it becomes clear to one of them the reality of what the Messenger has come with, and it becomes evident to him that he was a Mushrik, he should repent to Allah and renew his Islam; that is to accept Islam by repenting from this Shirk. - End of quote.

Notice that he says about the ignorant 'Muslim' layman that when he discovers that he was upon Shirk and that he was a Mushrik, he should renew his Islam. What about a knowledgeable person who is well versed in the Quran - a book which is filled with condemnation of those who call upon other than God? And if Quran isn't proof enough against such a person then there is no proof in the Quran - which we would all agree is absurd.

I mean, even Catholics embracing Islam and Tawheed for the first time would know what exactly they are repenting from and what they are embracing. Imagine the absurdity in telling a Catholic, 'The difference between Christianity and Islam is that in Christianity you pray to Jesus and the saints and in Islam you pray to Muhammad and the Muslim saints'!

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 02:29 AM

Abuz Zubair, are you aware that anyone who considers a disbeliever to be a Muslim is himself a disbeliever? So since I consider Faraz Rabbani to be a Muslim, I'm a disbeliever. And everyone who considers me a Muslim then becomes a disbeliever. And it goes on and on until everyone but you is a kafir. ;)

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 02:53 AM

This is regarding those whose kufr is agreed upon and known from the deen by necessity. You should read up on these issues since they are very important.

justabro

5th July 2008, 03:04 AM

Just for the record, I called him mushrik first! Here you go:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=13800&page=6

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Abu wakee http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=122400#post122400)
As for the list you mentioned I'm not sure what makes you say Faraz Rabbani is a zindiq, the most I can say about him is that he's a mubtadi'.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He's a mushrik

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=122442&postcount=63

Wa alaykum assalam

No problem, here you go:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">This is the understanding upon which Muslims �call upon other than Allah.�

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=3752&CATE=24 (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=3752&CATE=24)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
By Muslims, he means mushriks like himself

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/misc/progress.gif
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=122460&postcount=68

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Magoo http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=122451#post122451)
i just read that fatwa from faraz rabbani, im in shock!!!

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
There's a similar one from Adam al-Kawthari:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">If by seeking help from the Prophets and pious means making them an intermediary between the seeker and Allah, then there is nothing wrong in seeking their help. Tawassul (using intermediaries in supplication to Allah) through the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace), Awliya and righteous believers is permitted, rather recommended according to the four schools of Sunni Islam.
It is quite perfectly permissible for one to seek the help of a Prophet or a righteous person by asking him to pray to Allah on one’s behalf, or to use him as an intermediary when praying directly to Allah. Explicit narrations and implicit indications of the Qur’an fully justify this practice, and it would be wrong to condemn it as being forbidden or to include it among the various forms of polytheism (shirk). (See below for details and evidences; and http://www.daruliftaa.org/tawassul1.htm)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=1925&CATE=24 (http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=1925&CATE=24)

Here's Nuh Keller:

http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Art...R00000010.aspx (http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Articles/AR00000010.aspx)

leo

5th July 2008, 03:13 AM

This guy Faraz is amongst those, if you ask fatwa on 12ers, they will say, not all shia are kaafir, if you ask them again specifically, you will find the same answer. How can you expect truth from someone, who can't give one sentence fatwa based on reality.

Allah Diya

5th July 2008, 03:17 AM

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 03:21 AM

Shirk is the greatest problem facing the ummah. People have such a bad understanding of tawassul and istighatha. Until this pathetic state of affairs is resolved, how can we expect Allah Azza wa Jal to come to our rescue. Rather, we should consider our suffering as a result of this open indulgence in shirk of people who testify with their tongues to La ilaha ila Allah.
You in particular have a case to argue for. When you were a Qadiyani, you were considered an outright Kafir by everyone. It is your right to ask why those guilty of such an open and clear cut Shirk are given a different treatment by still being considered Muslims!

Allah Diya

5th July 2008, 03:30 AM

You in particular have a case to argue for. When you were a Qadiyani, you were considered an outright Kafir by everyone. It is your right to ask why those guilty of such an open and clear cut Shirk are given a different treatment by still being considered Muslims!

Its a question of practicality. The nature of the Qadiani religion is altogether different. Qadianism is a cult, you will be expelled if you do not toe the line formulated by the Nizam of the Jamaat. Therefore, in order to remain a Qadiani, you must hold clear-cut kufr beliefs, whether you are an ordinary person or a scholar. Therefore it is much easier to pronounce wholesale takfir against all Qadianis.

However, Brelwis, for example, have no such central institution, and the common people are ignorant. They may be unaware that their scholars are guilty of kufr.

leo

5th July 2008, 03:33 AM

Fatwa by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani

Question

What is the status of shias, are they considered muslims, is their status below disbelievers, will they be awarded heaven or not?

Answer

Notwithstanding the known disagreements between Sunnis and Shia, traditional Sunni scholarship has considered the Shia to be Muslim, and ultimately of the people of Heaven.

Faraz Rabbani

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=9787&CATE=24

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 03:37 AM

Its a question of practicality. The nature of the Qadiani religion is altogether different. Qadianism is a cult, you will be expelled if you do not toe the line formulated by the Nizam of the Jamaat. Therefore, in order to remain a Qadiani, you must hold clear-cut kufr beliefs, whether you are an ordinary person or a scholar. Therefore it is much easier to pronounce wholesale takfir against all Qadianis.

However, Brelwis, for example, have no such central institution, and the common people are ignorant. They may be unaware that their scholars are guilty of kufr.
By that kind of logic, the Salafi cult you belong to are all kuffar, and hence, I respectfully disagree.

People do not become Kuffar merely by following a sect. They are considered kuffar by holding beliefs which expel them beyond Islam and make them of a different religion. Qadiyanism is a religion other than Islam, even though all Qadiyanis say La ilaha illallah. Idol worshipping is likewise other than Islam, even if they say the kalima.

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 03:39 AM

leo

5th July 2008, 03:43 AM

When this fatwa was posted on shiachat, Rafida were happy with this shaykh and even prayed for him to be guided towards "real and true Islam" :D

Allah Diya

5th July 2008, 03:52 AM

People do not become Kuffar merely by following a sect. They are considered kuffar by holding beliefs which expel them beyond Islam and make them of a different religion. Qadiyanism is a religion other than Islam, even though all Qadiyanis say La ilaha illallah. Idol worshipping is likewise other than Islam, even if they say the kalima.

Yes this is my point exactly. With the exception of children, because Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alaihi wa salam) said the children of the mushrikeen are the people of jannah, all adult Qadianis without exception are guilty of kufr. However, can you say with absolute confidence that all Brelwi adults without exception are guilty of shirk? If Brelwi is defined by the aqeeda of Ahmad Riza Khan Brailwi, than yes, all Brailwis are kafir. However, most Brelwis are unaware and ignorant. You can make takfir of their scholars.

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 03:59 AM

There is no hadeeth about the children of the mushrikin and hence the difference amongst the Sunni scholars over this issue. Bareliwism is worse than Qadiyanism. All Qadiyanis, adults and children are considered kuffar, just like the Jews and the Christians, and I don't see why Barelwis should be given a different treatment.

aboo ahmad

5th July 2008, 04:02 AM

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 04:11 AM

as-salaamu'alaikum wa'rahmatullaah,
I would love to see brothers (or sisters) from this forum with knowledge on such an issue sending an email to Sunni Path and warning them of their mistakes in the understanding of Allaah and praying to other than Him (the almighty).

Jazaakumullaahu khayran

was-salaamu'alaikum wa'rahmatullaah
Aboo Ahmad Austraalee
No need. They know very well the Quranic arguments, our arguments and their counter refutations. It is all about 'we saw our forefathers upon this...'

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 05:07 AM

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 05:13 AM

Abuz Zubair: There is one thing which I still haven't gotten a clear answer for. Suppose you want to find out whether photographs are halal or haram. You read up on it and find out some scholars allowed it while others didn't. Now what's so different about say, tawassul? If you read fiqh books, you'll see many top scholars have indeed allowed it. So how come in the first case, the khilaf is accepted, whilst for the second, you go as far as to say that people who perform the act are committing kufr.

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 05:20 AM

Can someone please paste a link for the thread we did on tawassul? It should answer the brother's question, iA.

Salahadeen

5th July 2008, 08:10 AM

This the problem with the word 'Shia' as he could be referring to the nearly non-existent and non-relevant the non-Rafidi Shi'as.

Yes, but he is making use of deception. He *KNOWS* that the people are asking him about TWELVER SHIAS in Iran, and he also *KNOWS* that people will assume that he is talking about TWELVER SHIAS. Deception is dishonesty. His fatwa is a lie.

Salahadeen

5th July 2008, 08:14 AM

Can you imagine what the Prophet [s] would've said if the Arab pagans promised to follow Islamic fiqh, on the condition that they still be allowed to invoke their intermediaries to God? In reality, that is what these Sufis are doing. They just follow the laws of Islam (somewhat), without following the basis of Islam (i.e. Tawheed).

leo

5th July 2008, 08:22 AM

Yes, but he is making use of deception. He *KNOWS* that the people are asking him about TWELVER SHIAS in Iran, and he also *KNOWS* that people will assume that he is talking about TWELVER SHIAS. Deception is dishonesty. His fatwa is a lie.

Exactly.

This is professional and religious dishonesty. Why should someone be interested to get a fatwa about shias living 1400 years back :confused:

He is not only guilty of hiding the truth, but also responsible for showing disregard to all the scholars, who didn't blink their eyes declaring 12ers as disblievers.

He is amongst those lost souls, who keep dreaming about shia-sunni unity :mad:

aboo ahmad

5th July 2008, 08:24 AM

May Allaah guide us and make us of the most sincere!

abu imaan an-nepalee

5th July 2008, 08:33 AM

man I didn't know the guy said stuff like this, I thought he was ok

Abu wakee

5th July 2008, 08:35 AM

Well I guess I don't have an excuse for him.

5th July 2008, 10:16 AM

Madarijas-Salikeen

5th July 2008, 10:30 AM

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3306 All about istighatha, tawassul, saint worship etc.

Salah ad-Din

5th July 2008, 10:55 AM

"Amongst them are those who ask from the dead what is sought from Allah"

But a person who asks for help (e.g.) from `Abdul-Qadir may be asking for something that creation is asked for, not just Allah. So it would be shirk for a person to say, `Jeelani, fix my car for me' even though this is not something that only Allah is asked for...does that make sense? In other words, this passage of IT isn't comprehensive enough.

For example, a lot of people go to graves and ask the occupant to heal their children etc- but asking one to heal a person is something not limited to Allah...does that make sense?

no,...
When someone asks Abdulqadir Jilani to fix a car, he does not expect himto come out of the grave ant grasp the tools, then to fix the car. He expects him to do it in an extraordinary way, i.e. miraculously..so, it's in itself is a pure shirk! If you believe that someone can fix your car from distance, even if he is alive, such belief is kufr! Because you give him some divine attributes...

abdul muntaqim

5th July 2008, 03:11 PM

Just for the record, I called him mushrik first! Here you go:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=13800&page=6

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=122442&postcount=63


http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/misc/progress.gif
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=122460&postcount=68



Justabro, do you see adam al kawthari as a mushrik?

Brother_Mujahid

5th July 2008, 04:17 PM

Justabro, do you see adam al kawthari as a mushrik?

I sent the links to these "fatawa" to a knowledgeable brother I know and asked him if Faraz Rabbani, Adam al-Kawthari, etc. are pagans, his response:

Yes, they are all pagans. If they aren't pagans then there were never pagans walking the Earth.

He also added:

Note: They try to restrict the definition of Shirk to Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah.

Note: They try to give Shirki Tawassul various nice titles (supplicating the righteous by Allah's granting).

Note: They are evil and more twisted than a fox. For this reason they quote Ibn Taymiyyahs authentication of the Hadeeth of the blind man knowing 100% fully that his conclusion on what the Hadeeth indicates does not agree with their conclusions at all. They think that quoting him in authenticating the Hadeeth they have shut up the "Wahhabis" knowing fully that he (Shaykhul-Islaam) refuted their conclusions from the Hadeeth in a number of his works. Because there is a difference between declaring a narration authentic and then understanding what the narration means. So he says it is evidence for the permissible form of Tawassul (seeking supplication of a person both present and living) whereas they say it is evidence for the permissibility of seeking supplication from a dead/absent person.

intheheartofgreenbirds

5th July 2008, 04:35 PM

look no further than this forum for promotion of kufr and shirk

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 06:25 PM

Can someone please paste a link for the thread we did on tawassul? It should answer the brother's question, iA.

Sidi, it doesn't answer my answer. For EVERY issue EXCEPT "Sufi stuff" Salafis turn to fiqh books, but when it comes to 'Sufi things' they turn a blind eye to it. My concern is not about tawassul in specific.

If you think tawassul is haram, that is fine. But how can you declare people fasiqs or kafirs for engaging in it when so many scholars have allowed it?

I mean there are literally THOUSANDS of SCHOLARS that permit this stuff, are they all just idiots or something?

abdul muntaqim

5th July 2008, 06:26 PM

It makes you wonder how much truth there really is in the calls of salafies being khawarij. According to this understanding then Deobandies and bralwies, and sufies to a large scale are kuffar. For there ulema far as I know certainly defend this.

Salah ad-Din

5th July 2008, 06:33 PM

Sidi, it doesn't answer my answer. For EVERY issue EXCEPT "Sufi stuff" Salafis turn to fiqh books, but when it comes to 'Sufi things' they turn a blind eye to it. My concern is not about tawassul in specific.

If you think tawassul is haram, that is fine. But how can you declare people fasiqs or kafirs for engaging in it when so many scholars have allowed it?

I mean there are literally THOUSANDS of SCHOLARS that permit this stuff, are they all just idiots or something?

you have mixed up "tawassul" with "istighasa"... tawassul is when you ask Allah for someones sake...it's tawassul, like saying: "O Allah, give me good health for Muhammads (sallallahu aleihi wa sallam) sake."
But istighasa is when you ask directly from a creature something that he can not do, like asking him to cure his illness or arranging a woman for him...stuff like this and this is no doubt genuine shirk!

waziri

5th July 2008, 06:40 PM

If you think tawassul is haram, that is fine. But how can you declare people fasiqs or kafirs for engaging in it when so many scholars have allowed it?

You are confused, the type of shirk that Faraz Rabani has legitimised has not been allowed by many scholars as yoy say.What many scholars allowed was tawassul(the type which is permitted).

Search the forums to find out which type of tawassul has been allowed by many ulema.

I mean there are literally THOUSANDS of SCHOLARS that permit this stuff, are they all just idiots or something?

can you bring us the fatawa of some classical scholars that allow this?

Remember we are not talking about tawassul like Imam Shawkani and others said was permissible, what Rabani is saying is something totaly different

waziri

5th July 2008, 06:42 PM

. According to this understanding then Deobandies and bralwies, and sufies to a large scale are kuffar. For there ulema far as I know certainly defend this.

Wrong about deobandis allowing this no deobandi Ive ever met allows this

abu_ibrahim

5th July 2008, 06:44 PM

If you think tawassul is haram, that is fine. But how can you declare people fasiqs or kafirs for engaging in it when so many scholars have allowed it?

You are mixing things up. Istighatha bil amwat which is seeking help from the dead and this is Shirk. This act expels the doer from Islam. There is no difference of opinion amongst Ahlus Sunnah on this issue.

abu_ibrahim

5th July 2008, 06:48 PM

It makes you wonder how much truth there really is in the calls of salafies being khawarij.

Are you not the same Abdul Muntaqim who is a follower of Abu Eesa? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Let me refresh your memory:
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=2231&postcount=8

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 06:58 PM

Sidi, it doesn't answer my answer. For EVERY issue EXCEPT "Sufi stuff" Salafis turn to fiqh books, but when it comes to 'Sufi things' they turn a blind eye to it. My concern is not about tawassul in specific.

If you think tawassul is haram, that is fine. But how can you declare people fasiqs or kafirs for engaging in it when so many scholars have allowed it?

I mean there are literally THOUSANDS of SCHOLARS that permit this stuff, are they all just idiots or something?
Can someone plz post the link to the Istighatha thread? He needs to read that first before entering into a discussion.

Tawassul where a person prays to Allah directly through righteous person is a matter of fiqhi difference.

Tawassul where a person prays to others besides Allah is also a matter of difference of opinion - between Muslims on the one hand and pagans on the other.

If a person doesn't know that in Islam we only pray to one God, he isn't a Muslim.

Skillganon

5th July 2008, 07:05 PM

Yeah.

Here is the thread on " All about Istighatha, Istishfa', and Tawassul, etc..."

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3306

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 07:06 PM

But what makes you so sure that SunniPath and all its scholars do not count as a valid difference of opinion?

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 07:12 PM

Tawassul where a person prays to others besides Allah is also a matter of difference of opinion - between Muslims on the one hand and pagans on the other.

Some scholars have permitted it, such as:
http://www.marifah.net/articles/istighatha-shamsuddinramli.pdf
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132639&postcount=1

leo

5th July 2008, 07:20 PM

But what makes you so sure that SunniPath and all its scholars do not count as a valid difference of opinion?

Because Muslims have been commanded, not to create gods other than Allah Almighty. Its high time we should be out of Laat, Munat and Uzza mentality :)

justabro

5th July 2008, 08:01 PM

Justabro, do you see adam al kawthari as a mushrik?

Yes, he is, wa'l-iyyadhu billah

Know the truth, and you will know its men

justabro

5th July 2008, 08:04 PM

Sidi, it doesn't answer my answer. For EVERY issue EXCEPT "Sufi stuff" Salafis turn to fiqh books, but when it comes to 'Sufi things' they turn a blind eye to it. My concern is not about tawassul in specific.

This is not the form of tawassul discussed in the classical fiqh books. As for the ruling on this in the Hanbali madhhab, I recall Abuz-Zubair has made some exhaustive posts on the matter. Refer to them

Magoo

5th July 2008, 08:12 PM

Salahadeen

5th July 2008, 09:33 PM

Tawassul Where A Person Prays To Others Besides Allah Is Also A Matter Of Difference Of Opinion - Between Muslims On The One Hand And Pagans On The Other.

Hahahahhahahaha!

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 10:05 PM

do you think istighatha is allowed? and which major classical scholars according to you allowed istighatha?

Have you read this:
I have spoken to a number of `ulema on this issue, regarding statements such as “Ya RasulAllah Idrikini” or “Ya RasulAllah madad” and most, if not all, the shuyukh from the lands of Shaam said it was ja’iz and no different then tawassul. Rather, they said it was a far` of tawassul and permitted with the same rules and conditions of tawassul.

Rather, when I checked some of the works of fatawa I noticed that some of the `ulema did allow istigatha explicitly. For example, Shaykh al Islam Taqi al Din Subki stated in his Shifa’ al Siqaam Radd `ala Ibn Taymiyya:

الاستشفاع والتوسل والتوجه والاستغاثة والاستعانة بمعنى واحدٍ

Imam Zahid al Kawthari, who Mufti Taqi `Uthmani referred to as “Shaykh al Islam” in his Dars(e) Tirmidhi, stated in his treatise in defense of tawassul:

ولا بأس أن نزيد هنا كلمة في الاستغاثة والاستعانة ،والكل من واد واحد ففي حديث الشفاعة عند البخاري " بآدم ثم بموسى ثم بمحمد صلى الله عليه و سلم" وهذا يدل على جواز إستعمال الإستغاثة في صدد التوسل .
وأما حديث " لا يستغاث بي " عند الطبراني ، ففي سنده لهيعة وقد شرحنا حاله في ( الاشفاق ) فلا يناهض الحديث الصحيح

Imam Ramili – the Imam of the later Shafi`I school stated in his Fatawa:

( سئل ) عما يقع من العامة من قولهم عند الشدائد يا شيخ فلان يا رسول الله ونحو ذلك من الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والمرسلين والأولياء والعلماء والصالحين فهل ذلك جائز أم لا وهل للرسل والأنبياء والأولياء والصالحين والمشايخ إغاثة بعد موتهم وماذا يرجح ذلك ؟ ( فأجاب ) بأن الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والمرسلين والأولياء والعلماء والصالحين جائزة وللرسل والأنبياء والأولياء والصالحين إغاثة بعد موتهم ؛ لأن معجزة الأنبياء وكرامات الأولياء لا تنقطع بموتهم . أما الأنبياء فلأنهم أحياء في قبورهم يصلون ويحجون كما وردت به الأخبار وتكون الإغاثة منهم معجزة لهم . والشهداء أيضا أحياء شوهدوا نهارا جهارا يقاتلون الكفار . وأما الأولياء فهي كرامة لهم فإن أهل الحق على أنه يقع من الأولياء بقصد وبغير قصد أمور خارقة للعادة يجريها الله تعالى بسببهم والدليل على جوازها أنها أمور ممكنة لا يلزم من جواز وقوعها محال وكل ما هذا شأنه فهو جائز الوقوع وعلى الوقوع قصة مريم ورزقها الآتي من عند الله على ما نطق به التنزيل وقصة أبي بكر ، وأضيافه كما في الصحيح وجريان النيل بكتاب عمر ورؤيته وهو على المنبر بالمدينة جيشه بنهاوند حتى قال لأمير الجيش يا سارية الجبل محذرا له من وراء الجبل لكمين العدو هناك ، وسماع سارية كلامه وبينهما مسافة شهرين ، وشرب خالد السم من غير تضرر به . وقد جرت خوارق على أيدي الصحابة والتابعين ومن بعدهم لا يمكن إنكارها لتواتر مجموعها ، وبالجملة ما جاز أن يكون معجزة لنبي جاز أن يكون كرامة لولي لا فارق بينهما إلا التحدي

Rather, the books of the sufi’s are full of such nida’.

وفي هذا دليل على ان الاستعانة بغير الله جائزة لكن مع اعتقاد انه لا ضار ولا نافع على الحقيقة الا الله!!

The great Ibn `Abidin Shaami also has a famous istighatha,

اللهم صلّ على سيدنا محمد وآله
قد ضاقت حيلتي أدرِكني يا رسول الله

If a person looks through the works of `Allama Yusuf al-Nabahani, he will find countless examples of istighatha from the a’imma of ahly sunnah.
Imam Bajuri, who was Shaykh Al Azhar, does Istigatha at the end of many of his works. He was an Ash’ari and his Sharh `Ala Jawharat al Tawhid is taught widely in the Arab lands.

However, again, my point is that is this not a valid ikhtilaf when we have numerous great scholars such as Imam Zahid, Imam Subki, Imam Ramili, Imam Bajuri and also many modern day `ulema of shaam such as Shaykh Adib Kallas, Shaykh Hasaan al Hindi, Shaykh Faraz, Shaykh Nuh Keller, Shaykh Ramadhan al Bouti etc etc.?

So how can it be ok to refer to it as shirk?

ammardiwan

5th July 2008, 10:10 PM

Hahahahhahahaha!

Wait, aren't you the one who DENIES offensive Jihad. I wonder how many Classical ulema did this. Can't be an INNOVATION (BIDA'H), can it? ;)

abu_ibrahim

5th July 2008, 10:19 PM

Are you having a laugh? Yusuf al-Nabahani? Zahid al-Kawthari?

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 10:28 PM

Some scholars have permitted it, such as:
http://www.marifah.net/articles/istighatha-shamsuddinramli.pdf
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132639&postcount=1
Again, read the thread that the brother gave you the link for. You are mixing up tawassul which is of fiqhi type with tawassul which is shirki.

Let me ask you this straight. Do you believe that it is ok to pray to Jesus? Or that this is a matter subject to difference amongst the Muslims?

Abuz Zubair

5th July 2008, 10:36 PM

Ammardiwan,

This is really getting ridiculous and the fact you keep bringing this up which has been dealt with in the link the brother has posted to you shows that you are either being deliberately negligent, or you are not interested in the truth.

If you read that link you would find that the type of tawassul and istighatha al-Subki refers in his works refers ONLY to praying to Allah alone, i.e. addressing Allah directly. Anything other than that, al-Subki implies, IS SHIRK. Read the post and you won't have to keep repeating this over and over.

This applies to everyone except al-Ramli whose statement is outright Shirk. God knows what he died upon. But it isn't the scholars who define what tawheed and shirk, or iman and kufr is. We already have a precedent set by Ibn Taymiyya and al-Dhahabi who declared apostasy on Fakhr al-Razi for writing works on magic. Fakhr al-Razi was more superior to al-Ramli.

Most of these Ash'ari jurists have contradictory statements on the issue of Shirk al-Du'a, which is why it is difficult to discern what they died upon.

One thing we know for sure is that Muslims do not pray to Jesus. The pagans you are referring to not only allow one to pray to Jesus but to everyone. In that sense, Christianity is much better than the religion you are speaking of. If a person leaves his version of 'Islam' which endorses praying to 100s of people besides Allah, and embraces Christianity where he prays to God and Jesus alone, he might lighten his punishment in the hereafter, although, all Mushriks are the fuel of the fire of hell.

Abu Obaida

5th July 2008, 11:37 PM

Subhanalah!

The original Link defies belief! Is it me or there is nothing really wrong with the initial question or answer when you look at them individually. However to try and use the answer provided for the question at hand is beyond me.

Mr Faraz Rabbani is clearly misguided. The thing that is so special about Islam and ONLY Islam can offer one the knowledge on how to attain is that of TAWHEED. People who associate partners with Allah swt will never understand until Allah swt guides them so.

So whoever you may be, if you really want peace submit and ask Allah, and Allah swt alone to grant you Iman, and a taste of Tawheed.

Brother_Mujahid

5th July 2008, 11:56 PM

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 12:16 AM

Here is what I have always wondered, why would anyone want to pray or supplicate to someone other than Allah? Is not Allah alone sufficent? Clearly one must be a diseased and twisted person if they claim to be among those with knowledge of the religion, yet wish to defend acts which any clear-minded, rational intellect can realize as blatent paganism.
All I can say, brother... al-Hamdulillah for tawheed... the mere fact that he blessed us with the religion of Abraham, we owe Allah many - MANY - acts of worship. We are greatly indebted.

abu_ibrahim

6th July 2008, 12:22 AM

Here is what I have always wondered, why would anyone want to pray or supplicate to someone other than Allah? Is not Allah alone sufficent? Clearly one must be a diseased and twisted person if they claim to be among those with knowledge of the religion, yet wish to defend acts which any clear-minded, rational intellect can realize as blatent paganism.

I remember a Pakistani couple who had been on something like 15 Umrah's and a few Hajj, yet they still believed they were too sinful to ask Allah directly. They believed that it is more likely for the supplication to be accepted if a buried saint did it on their behalf as he was more pious. All that money spent going to Makkah, what a waste.

anam

6th July 2008, 12:36 AM

Nuh Keller doesn't need to be known

All there is to know about him is that he allows du'a to the dead

sad because when you point these things out to others then they label you Khawarij extreme and terrorist wahabi

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 12:38 AM

All there is to know about him is that he allows du'a to the dead

Does he? I have still yet to come across something form him that confirms this.

anam

6th July 2008, 12:39 AM

Wait, aren't you the one who DENIES offensive Jihad. I wonder how many Classical ulema did this. Can't be an INNOVATION (BIDA'H), can it? ;)

And Slavery

anam

6th July 2008, 01:03 AM

Does he? I have still yet to come across something form him that confirms this.

Well i thought this was known ..i saw some stuff a while back on a few web pages

not unless some sufi have used his name and he is upon Tawheed

Allahu Allaam

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 01:07 AM

Allahu Alam what he is upon and I won't be surprised if he is on the same stuff. But I just want to be sure if this is what he believes.

Brother_Mujahid

6th July 2008, 04:16 AM

All I can say, brother... al-Hamdulillah for tawheed... the mere fact that he blessed us with the religion of Abraham, we owe Allah many - MANY - acts of worship. We are greatly indebted.

Yes, indeed. All one can say is al-Hamdu lillah, wal-Hamdu lillah. We should never be ungrateful for the blessed guidance of Allah (swt). It is a mercy from our Lord that we can see these disgusting pagans exposed so we can truly appreciate the significance of at-Tawhid and the incredible gift of divine guidance.

Salahadeen

6th July 2008, 06:31 AM

And Slavery

Don't lie against me you bloody fool. All I said was that under Islam, "slaves" are allowed to earn money and they get their freedom after fulfilling their contract, and therefore it would really be indentured servitude and not slavery.

justabro

6th July 2008, 06:58 AM

Allahu Alam what he is upon and I won't be surprised if he is on the same stuff. But I just want to be sure if this is what he believes.

The whole of this fatwa speaks of non-shirk tawassul and is actually not so bad till he throws in this monkey wrench towards the end:

CALLING UPON THE RIGHTEOUS
The Hanafi scholar, Muhammad Hamid says: As for calling upon (nida') the righteous (when they are physically absent, as in the words "O Muhammad" in the above hadiths), tawassul to Allah Most High through them is permissible, the supplication (du'a) being to Allah Most Glorious, and there is much evidence for its permissibility.

Those who call on them intending "tawassul" cannot be blamed. As for someone who believes that those called upon can cause effects, benefit, or harm, which they create or cause to exist as Allah does, such a person is an idolator who has left Islam - Allah be our refuge!

http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Articles/AR00000010.aspx

ahmedjbh

6th July 2008, 02:20 PM

so is it shirk in your opinion if i say

"Ya Allah, I ask you by Prophet Muahmmad / Imam Ali / etc to forgive my sins"

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 02:47 PM

so is it shirk in your opinion if i say

"Ya Allah, I ask you by Prophet Muahmmad / Imam Ali / etc to forgive my sins"
How could it be? Who is he praying to? Allah or someone else?

ammardiwan

6th July 2008, 04:38 PM

How could it be? Who is he praying to? Allah or someone else?

How about:
"O Allah, I am turning to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad for the fulfillment of my need. O Muhammad, I am turning by means of you to my Lord. O Allah, pair me with him."

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 04:54 PM

How about:
"O Allah, I am turning to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad for the fulfillment of my need. O Muhammad, I am turning by means of you to my Lord. O Allah, pair me with him."
Again, how could it be if he is praying and requesting only of Allah? Even Catholics would know the difference between praying to God and praying to Christ.

ammardiwan

6th July 2008, 04:58 PM

Again, how could it be if he is praying and requesting only of Allah? Even Catholics would know the difference between praying to God and praying to Christ.

The second part has "O Muhammad..." Is that not considered shirk by you?

Abu Ikrimah

6th July 2008, 05:00 PM

Don't lie against me you bloody fool.

Look brother, It's always nice to see your contribution and may Allah reward you for benefiting us, but there really is no need for this tone...

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 05:18 PM

The second part has "O Muhammad..." Is that not considered shirk by you?
No, because he is not asking anything of the Prophet SAW. He is simply saying, 'I am seeking intercession through you, O Muhammad...' and then he turns to Allah and asks Him alone. He doesn't ask the Prophet.

ammardiwan

6th July 2008, 05:20 PM

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 05:54 PM

There is nothing wrong with calling out, if one isn't actually calling out for help or request. This isn't called a prayer by any stretch of the word. If a man says, 'Oh my mother, I miss you!' he isn't praying to his mother.

But if he says, 'O my mother, grant me provision...' while she is a thousand miles away then yes this would be praying to other than God.

asharee_salafi

6th July 2008, 06:04 PM

Can someone plz post the link to the Istighatha thread? He needs to read that first before entering into a discussion.

Tawassul where a person prays to Allah directly through righteous person is a matter of fiqhi difference.

Tawassul where a person prays to others besides Allah is also a matter of difference of opinion - between Muslims on the one hand and pagans on the other.

If a person doesn't know that in Islam we only pray to one God, he isn't a Muslim.

Just so you dont get it mixed up. I think there was a typo on Abuz Zubair's behalf, but it must be corrected!

When he says :'Tawassul where a person prays to Allah directly through righteous person is a matter of fiqhi difference'.

He is refering to those who say ' Oh Allah by the status of Muhammad SAW give me this'. He does NOT mean that you can say ' Oh Muhammad ask Allah on my behalf...' that is shirk al akbar and the one who does that is NOT Muslim.

asharee_salafi

6th July 2008, 06:11 PM

No, because he is not asking anything of the Prophet SAW. He is simply saying, 'I am seeking intercession through you, O Muhammad...' and then he turns to Allah and asks Him alone. He doesn't ask the Prophet.

Sorry Abuz ZUbair, i find that a little confusing. About the hadeeth of the blind man, Muhammad's status is only being called up right? Not Muhammad SAW himself? Also the man said this in front of Muhammad SAW while he was alive...but how can we say it now when he SAW has passed away. May Allah give him more mercy.

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 06:20 PM

Sorry Abuz ZUbair, i find that a little confusing. About the hadeeth of the blind man, Muhammad's status is only being called up right? Not Muhammad SAW himself? Also the man said this in front of Muhammad SAW while he was alive...but how can we say it now when he SAW has passed away. May Allah give him more mercy.
There is a difference between saying, 'I touch you, O black stone, so Allah can forgive my sins' and saying, 'O black stone, forgive my sins!'

Similarly, there is a difference between saying, 'O Muhammad, I come to you to seek Allah's forgiveness' and saying, 'O Muhammad, forgive my sins.'

The words the brother is referring to only suggest that the person is merely stating a fact and not asking for something from the Prophet SAW.

asharee_salafi

6th July 2008, 06:36 PM

There is a difference between saying, 'I touch you, O black stone, so Allah can forgive my sins' and saying, 'O black stone, forgive my sins!'

Similarly, there is a difference between saying, 'O Muhammad, I come to you to seek Allah's forgiveness' and saying, 'O Muhammad, forgive my sins.'

The words the brother is referring to only suggest that the person is merely stating a fact and not asking for something from the Prophet SAW.

as wr wb

but the hadeeth also says 'Oh Muhammad...' Muhammad has passed away, how can he hear this, and if he dos hear it then why not ask him to convey your du'a ( the mushriks say). So what is the purpose of saying 'Oh Muhammad...'?

Madarijas-Salikeen

6th July 2008, 06:37 PM

as salaamu alaykum,

very clear now alhamdulilah

ammardiwan

6th July 2008, 07:49 PM

There is a difference between saying, 'I touch you, O black stone, so Allah can forgive my sins' and saying, 'O black stone, forgive my sins!'

Similarly, there is a difference between saying, 'O Muhammad, I come to you to seek Allah's forgiveness' and saying, 'O Muhammad, forgive my sins.'

The words the brother is referring to only suggest that the person is merely stating a fact and not asking for something from the Prophet SAW.

So why would saying "Ya Muhammad" in of itself be shirk? Because it implies that when you say that, you are asking for help from the Prophet?

Abuz Zubair

6th July 2008, 09:30 PM

as wr wb

but the hadeeth also says 'Oh Muhammad...' Muhammad has passed away, how can he hear this, and if he dos hear it then why not ask him to convey your du'a ( the mushriks say). So what is the purpose of saying 'Oh Muhammad...'?

The purpose of saying 'Oh Muhammad' is similar to a person going to his father's grave and saying, 'I miss you dear father.' I.e. it is a factual statement. It doesn't imply requesting anything of the dead.

So why would saying "Ya Muhammad" in of itself be shirk? Because it implies that when you say that, you are asking for help from the Prophet?

No, saying Ya Muhammad in and of itself would not be Shirk. We say this in our prayers all the time. Shirk is to pray to other than God.

If a person says, 'Jesus Christ! You are great!' This isn't a prayer and it wouldn't be Shirk. But if a person says, 'Christ, help!' This would be a prayer to other than God and therefore Shirk.

Saifur Rahman Al Afghani

6th July 2008, 09:42 PM

Bismillaah Ar Rahmaan Ar Raheem,

Nowadays, we see on so many masaajid and on shops in the UK: "Ya Allaah" and "Ya Rasulullaah" written. What is the Shar'ee ruling on this? I don’t really know why they write it, but it may be that they ask for Allaah and the Prophet's blessings … ?

Wa Allaahu Aalim,

ammardiwan

6th July 2008, 09:53 PM

The purpose of saying 'Oh Muhammad' is similar to a person going to his father's grave and saying, 'I miss you dear father.' I.e. it is a factual statement. It doesn't imply requesting anything of the dead.

No, saying Ya Muhammad in and of itself would not be Shirk. We say this in our prayers all the time. Shirk is to pray to other than God.

If a person says, 'Jesus Christ! You are great!' This isn't a prayer and it wouldn't be Shirk. But if a person says, 'Christ, help!' This would be a prayer to other than God and therefore Shirk.

But if the person thinks that Jesus or the Prophet can hear these statements, would it not be shirk then?

Abuz Zubair

7th July 2008, 06:10 AM

But if the person thinks that Jesus or the Prophet can hear these statements, would it not be shirk then?
If a hindu thinks that Ganesh can hear, can he also pray to him?

For a person to believe that Jesus or Muhammad - peace be upon them both - have supernatural powers of hearing everything, then he is not only a Mushrik in Allah's worship but also His Lordship, i.e. he is more of a Mushrik.

As for praying to the Prophet at his graveside then I have dealt with it here (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=19586&postcount=5). Again, please read this thread in its entirety because everything you are asking is answered in that thread (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=19586&postcount=5).

Islam in its entirety is about praying to one God. Even people of other faiths know this much!

ahmedjbh

7th July 2008, 06:17 PM

how would you reply to those that claim the dead can hear, and that Allah has said that do not think of those who die in the way of Allah as dead?

Abuz Zubair

7th July 2008, 06:22 PM

how would you reply to those that claim the dead can hear, and that Allah has said that do not think of those who die in the way of Allah as dead?
This is more applicable to Jesus than any martyr of Islam. What do you say to the Catholics who want to call upon Jesus using the same argument?

abu imaan an-nepalee

7th July 2008, 06:38 PM

abu imaan an-nepalee

7th July 2008, 06:55 PM

No, saying Ya Muhammad in and of itself would not be Shirk. We say this in our prayers all the time. Shirk is to pray to other than God.

you mean when we say: "'as-salama 'alayka ayyuhan-Nabi"?

If that is what you mean, why is it some of the salafi-esque editors/translators have a problem with this and have changed it to based upon evidence: as-salaamu 'ala-n-nabiyyi.." as we see in the trans of za'd al-ma'ad by jalal abualrub?

Abuz Zubair

7th July 2008, 07:05 PM

you mean when we say: "'as-salama 'alayka ayyuhan-Nabi"?

If that is what you mean, why is it some of the salafi-esque editors/translators have a problem with this and have changed it to based upon evidence: as-salaamu 'ala-n-nabiyyi.." as we see in the trans of za'd al-ma'ad by jalal abualrub?
Both are allowed to be said and people shouldn't feel uptight about something that the Salaf themselves differed over.

Salahadeen

7th July 2008, 09:19 PM

you mean when we say: "'as-salama 'alayka ayyuhan-Nabi"?

If that is what you mean, why is it some of the salafi-esque editors/translators have a problem with this and have changed it to based upon evidence: as-salaamu 'ala-n-nabiyyi.." as we see in the trans of za'd al-ma'ad by jalal abualrub?

A Sahabi himself was of this view, if I do remember correctly.

Brother_Mujahid

8th July 2008, 02:50 AM

We already have a precedent set by Ibn Taymiyya and al-Dhahabi who declared apostasy on Fakhr al-Razi for writing works on magic. Fakhr al-Razi was more superior to al-Ramli.

Are you sure about Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi? Are you not mixing him up with the heretic Abu Bakr al-Razi?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Razi

8th July 2008, 08:30 AM

No, it is Fakhr ad-Din.

AZ, I read that many doubted the ascription of those works to Razi. What do you think?

Abuz Zubair

8th July 2008, 11:07 AM

al-Fakhr al-Razi it was, indeed. Some do say the works were not penned by him but others concluded that they certainly were, including al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar.

8th July 2008, 11:17 AM

justabro

8th July 2008, 11:22 AM

Well, if there is even the slightest tiniest weeniest doubt surely it's better not to spread what are effectively rumours? I mean, someone once told me the story about al-'Amidi 'not praying', I don't believe that's very fair at all to say about him, interesting though it may be.

both are confirmed

Abuz Zubair

8th July 2008, 11:37 AM

Yasir

8th July 2008, 11:42 AM

Not at all... for those who mentioned this in history works had no doubt about it. After all, this is the obvious outcome of 'ilm al-kalam.What is the reason behind others not taking this on board, and why his works are still referred to today?

If he repented/changed his views prior to death, wouldn't that still invalidate his previous works?

8th July 2008, 01:26 PM

What is attributed to him? Is it just astrology or is it more than that? How can the asha'ira take half their books on creed from a pagan?

Yasir

8th July 2008, 02:02 PM

What is attributed to him? Is it just astrology or is it more than that? How can the asha'ira take half their books on creed from a pagan?It was mentioned here (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=44760&postcount=2).

Well, everyone reads his tafsir… and it’s a little unfair to say that it contains everything save tafsir!

justabro

8th July 2008, 02:05 PM

It was mentioned here (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=44760&postcount=2).

Well, everyone reads his tafsir… and it’s a little unfair to say that it contains everything save tafsir!

His tafsir is an amazing work, even if it is filled with errors

Abuz Zubair

8th July 2008, 03:03 PM

What is the reason behind others not taking this on board, and why his works are still referred to today?

If he repented/changed his views prior to death, wouldn't that still invalidate his previous works?
I get the impression that people generally took that on board but excused him due to his repentance. Some of them actually admit that his works are the most misleading in the sense that often he mentions problems with theological issues but often also fails to debunk them. Others who are just muta'assib like Ibn al-Subki would defend him at all costs.

abdul muntaqim

8th July 2008, 03:14 PM

Are you not the same Abdul Muntaqim who is a follower of Abu Eesa? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Let me refresh your memory:
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=2231&postcount=8

Akhi I long left the bayah. So there is no pot calling anyone black. And if anything I should know what khawarij thinking is like.

Yasir

8th July 2008, 03:26 PM

Akhi I long left the bayah. So there is no pot calling anyone black. And if anything I should know what khawarij thinking is like.What were the reasons for you leaving, if you don’t mind me asking? (Other than the blessings of Allah upon you and guidance).

abdul muntaqim

9th July 2008, 02:01 AM

(Other than the blessings of Allah upon you and guidance).
Bro there is no other reason.

Brother Abu Zubair do you think Mufti Adam fatwa also has shirk in it?

If by seeking help from the Prophets and pious means making them an intermediary between the seeker and Allah, then there is nothing wrong in seeking their help. Tawassul (using intermediaries in supplication to Allah) through the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace), Awliya and righteous believers is permitted, rather recommended according to the four schools of Sunni Islam.
It is quite perfectly permissible for one to seek the help of a Prophet or a righteous person by asking him to pray to Allah on one’s behalf, or to use him as an intermediary when praying directly to Allah. Explicit narrations and implicit indications of the Qur’an fully justify this practice, and it would be wrong to condemn it as being forbidden or to include it among the various forms of polytheism (shirk). (See below for details and evidences; and http://www.daruliftaa.org/tawassul1.htm)

from what I understood; you believe shirk takes place if one directs his calling to other then Allah. But if he turns to some one, but his calling and expectence of answering is from Allah, then this is not shirk. Right?

leo

9th July 2008, 04:50 AM

If by seeking help from the Prophets and pious means making them an intermediary between the seeker and Allah, then there is nothing wrong in seeking their help. Tawassul (using intermediaries in supplication to Allah) through the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace), Awliya and righteous believers is permitted, rather recommended according to the four schools of Sunni Islam.

The best option is asking Allah directly, however, if someone believes in such kind of tawassul, must address Allah Almighty only. This is such a delicate aspect, where I have always feared chances of indulging in some kind of shirk.

Abuz Zubair

9th July 2008, 07:13 AM

If by seeking help from the Prophets and pious means making them an intermediary between the seeker and Allah, then there is nothing wrong in seeking their help

This is Shirk.

However, if he means this:
It is quite perfectly permissible for one to seek the help of a Prophet or a righteous person by asking him to pray to Allah on one’s behalf, or to use him as an intermediary when praying directly to Allah.

Then he has a chance since asking the Prophet to pray for you is Shirk according to correct opinion but bida according to others. Meaning, it isn't as clear cut as praying to other than Allah directly, something which I do not see him promoting.

y-mughal

12th July 2008, 12:31 AM

Then he has a chance since asking the Prophet to pray for you is Shirk according to correct opinion but bida according to others. Meaning, it isn't as clear cut as praying to other than Allah directly, something which I do not see him promoting.

Dear Brother you know when you say '....he has a chance...' I've probably misunderstood you but your not saying that person X who takes the Prophet (saw) as an intermediary between him/herself and Allah (swt) calling upon him to pray for you could possibly not be Shirk? Do you mean it in reference to when at the Prophets grave only and not anywhere else or for anybody else? Do you think it is a valid difference of opinion or clear cut non-excusable Shirk even if the person called upon the Prophet (saw) to call upon Allah (swt) next to his grave and also held the opinion the dead could hear? The reason I ask is that from your last post it seems to me - and forgive me if I'm wrong that as because others (non-mushriks such as Ibn Uthaymin and Salah al-Sawi as far as I remember) hold the view that it isn't necessarily Shirk then it's something possbily validly differed over.

Salahadeen

12th July 2008, 01:05 AM

Salsabil

12th July 2008, 02:49 PM

Abuz Zubair,

When we say in tashahud: "Peace be upon you o Prophet, and mercy...", is it ok to think, that this is passed to him by angels, isnt there a hadith about it?

abdul muntaqim

12th July 2008, 05:04 PM

The issue is bro; if imam Ramal's fatwa contains shirk. Which classic alim spoke against it? Also did Imam Haythami also promote things similar?

ahmedjbh

12th July 2008, 06:06 PM

This is more applicable to Jesus than any martyr of Islam. What do you say to the Catholics who want to call upon Jesus using the same argument?

Do they call on him to ask Allah? or do they beleive that he actually gives the help?

In islam we dont beleive that the object actually has power independant of Allah, therefore it can not be shirk.

As long as the target of the intercession is Allah and the object is asking Allah, then it is impossible to be shirk.

If you are arguing that merely by asking someone to do something is shirk, then everybody is a mushrik. If you are arguing that asking someone to ask Allah is shirk, then you will have to deny verses of the quran that are clear, and also hadith that is in everybodys books.

Abuz Zubair

12th July 2008, 11:55 PM

Dear Brother you know when you sayI've probably misunderstood you but your not saying that person X who takes the Prophet (saw) as an intermediary between him/herself and Allah (swt) calling upon him to pray for you could possibly not be Shirk? Do you mean it in reference to when at the Prophets grave only and not anywhere else or for anybody else? Do you think it is a valid difference of opinion or clear cut non-excusable Shirk even if the person called upon the Prophet (saw) to call upon Allah (swt) next to his grave and also held the opinion the dead could hear? The reason I ask is that from your last post it seems to me - and forgive me if I'm wrong that as because others (non-mushriks such as Ibn Uthaymin and Salah al-Sawi as far as I remember) hold the view that it isn't necessarily Shirk then it's something possbily validly differed over.
I am convinced that it is Shirk, however, some scholars consider it a heinous innovation but not Shirk, on grounds of which it could perhaps be argued that it isn't as clear cut of a matter as praying to the Prophet directly. This being the case, one may understandably desist from Takfeer on this particular issue.

Abuz Zubair

13th July 2008, 12:03 AM

Abuz Zubair,

When we say in tashahud: "Peace be upon you o Prophet, and mercy...", is it ok to think, that this is passed to him by angels, isnt there a hadith about it?

There is a hadeeth about the angels conveying Salams to the Messenger SAW.

The issue is bro; if imam Ramal's fatwa contains shirk. Which classic alim spoke against it? Also did Imam Haythami also promote things similar?

I don't know who in particular spoke out against his fatwa, but from time to time people have been speaking out against shirk al-du'a by writings general articles.

Do they call on him to ask Allah? or do they beleive that he actually gives the help?

In islam we dont beleive that the object actually has power independant of Allah, therefore it can not be shirk.

As long as the target of the intercession is Allah and the object is asking Allah, then it is impossible to be shirk.

If you are arguing that merely by asking someone to do something is shirk, then everybody is a mushrik. If you are arguing that asking someone to ask Allah is shirk, then you will have to deny verses of the quran that are clear, and also hadith that is in everybodys books.

The pagans also believed that the cause and effect comes only from Allah, yet they still prayed to the idols. In this case there is absolutely no difference between the early pagans and the modern ones. There is still one difference, though. The early pagans would call upon Allah alone during a calamity. The modern pagans don't do that which makes them worse than the early pagans. Another thing that makes the modern pagans worse and inexcusable is that they have the Quran to guide them to Tawheed, whereas the early pagans didn't even have a revealed book.

By merely asking one to do something he/she/it cannot do is Shirk; because if he/she/it cannot do that thing, then the request becomes of those things that only Allah can do.

For example, you can ask a human being to give you a glass of water because it is within his means to do so. This would not be Shirk.

But, if you see that a person is tied up and is unable to move, and then you ask him for a glass of water knowing he cannot since he is tied up, then this is shirk. Usually, a person wouldn't do this unless he believes the man has supernatural powers of cause and effect to bring about water out of nowhere.

Likewise, if you ask a stone for water, this would be Shirk, because stones are unable to give you water.

Salahadeen

13th July 2008, 06:58 AM

There is a hadeeth about the angels conveying Salams to the Messenger SAW.

I don't know who in particular spoke out against his fatwa, but from time to time people have been speaking out against shirk al-du'a by writings general articles.

The pagans also believed that the cause and effect comes only from Allah, yet they still prayed to the idols. In this case there is absolutely no difference between the early pagans and the modern ones. There is still one difference, though. The early pagans would call upon Allah alone during a calamity. The modern pagans don't do that which makes them worse than the early pagans. Another thing that makes the modern pagans worse and inexcusable is that they have the Quran to guide them to Tawheed, whereas the early pagans didn't even have a revealed book.

By merely asking one to do something he/she/it cannot do is Shirk; because if he/she/it cannot do that thing, then the request becomes of those things that only Allah can do.

For example, you can ask a human being to give you a glass of water because it is within his means to do so. This would not be Shirk.

But, if you see that a person is tied up and is unable to move, and then you ask him for a glass of water knowing he cannot since he is tied up, then this is shirk. Usually, a person wouldn't do this unless he believes the man has supernatural powers of cause and effect to bring about water out of nowhere.

Likewise, if you ask a stone for water, this would be Shirk, because stones are unable to give you water.

Great post.

Abu wakee

13th July 2008, 08:13 AM

I am convinced that it is Shirk, however, some scholars consider it a heinous innovation but not Shirk, on grounds of which it could perhaps be argued that it isn't as clear cut of a matter as praying to the Prophet directly. This being the case, one may understandably desist from Takfeer on this particular issue.

Bro would I be right in thinking that this was the opinion of Ibn Tayimiyah, that it's an ostensible bid'ah but not shirk. Or that's what I understood from Kitab ul-waseelah. Am I wrong?

Abuz Zubair

13th July 2008, 08:33 AM

Bro would I be right in thinking that this was the opinion of Ibn Tayimiyah, that it's an ostensible bid'ah but not shirk. Or that's what I understood from Kitab ul-waseelah. Am I wrong?
He, too, considered it Shirk. There is a whole thread on IT's position on the issue on Multaqa.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16527

ahmedjbh

13th July 2008, 08:50 PM

The pagans also believed that the cause and effect comes only from Allah, yet they still prayed to the idols. In this case there is absolutely no difference between the early pagans and the modern ones.

Pagans created idols and said they would intercede with Allah, that is shirk, as they have no right to intercede with Allah, as Allah says in the quran intercession is only given to those whom He permits.

Not only do they have no right to intercede, they have no ability to ask Allah.

"On that Day, no intercession shall avail, except the one from whom Allah the Most Gracious has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him." Qur'an 20:109

"Intercession with Him profits not except for he whom He permits." Qur'an 34:23

Here we have Allah suggesting that we seek a way to find forgiveness, here Allah states if the people had only asked the Prophet SAW to ask forgiveness for them, then Allah would be merciful

004.064
YUSUFALI: We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

By merely asking one to do something he/she/it cannot do is Shirk; because if he/she/it cannot do that thing, then the request becomes of those things that only Allah can do.

Can the Prophet SAW forgive our sins? no, he cant. He can however ask Allah for people to Allah for forgiveness etc. That is what intercession is, the target is Allah, but instead of asking directly, one asks via a favourable path.

Your argument implies that intercession is asking someone eg the Prophet to forgive sins, this is not the case. Therefore the statement that if something can not do it, then it is shirk to ask them is invalid.

But, if you see that a person is tied up and is unable to move, and then you ask him for a glass of water knowing he cannot since he is tied up, then this is shirk.

That is not shirk, thats being unrealistic. Shirk is when you beleive there is a power independant of Allah. How many times have you been driving and said "come on, or hurry up" , knowing that they can not hear you, by your logic that is shirk, another example would be when watching sport on tv, and you say something like come on or hit the ball etc, then that is shirk following your logic.

I find it also confusing that you say the arguement above, then previously say that its quite acceptable to say salam alaikum to the Prophet SAW at his grave, when you beleive he cant hear you, is that not shirk by your own definition?

Madarijas-Salikeen

13th July 2008, 10:23 PM

Bismillah

Pagans created idols and said they would intercede with Allah, that is shirk, as they have no right to intercede with Allah, as Allah says in the quran intercession is only given to those whom He permits.

You cant be serious. So, because a stone, or saint that has been carved cannot be called upon , but a Imam or wali can be called upon as long as its not associated with what the pagans worshipped. A spade is a spade man. Some of those idols that the arabs worshipped were actually representing righteous men during the time of Nuh's alayhi salam people. This is evident from the hadith of ibn abbas radiallahu anhu.

Allah says: "Mankind were one community, then Allah sent the Prophets (alayhum salam) as bearers of good tidings and as warners." (Soorah al-Baqarah 2:213)

Ibn abbas radiallahu anhu said: "There was a period of 10 centures between Adam and Nuh (alayhum salam) during which people were muslim.

Ibn Abbas (radiallahuanhu) relates: “Indeed these are five names of righteous men from the people of Nooh. When they died Shaytaan whispered to their people to make statues of them and to place these statues in their places of gathering as a reminder of them, so they did this. However, none from amongst them worshipped these statues, until when they died and the purpose of the statues was forgotten. Then (the next generation) began to worship them.” [Saheeh al-Bukhaaree (11/418) and Saheeh Muslim (18/52)]

Many times if you ask a catholic about the saints they pray to and the stone structures they devote themselves to, they say they are not praying to the STONE they are praying to what the stone represents (meaning the saint and not some stone structure).

I come from the shirki background of christianity. When I came into Islam early on from reading the Quran I automatically knew that calling upon a saint was absolutely forbidden!

YUSUFALI: We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

Astaghfirallah, you use this ayah and distort it to mean that we can do to the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alayhi wa salam what the christians did to Jesus alayhi salam.

Requesting the supplication from the dead is not permissible: Because the dead cannot supplicate as he used to when he was alive. Neither requesting the dead to intercede is permissible, because Umar bin al Khattab and Mu'awiah bin Sufyan and the rest of the Companions, and Tab'ieeii when they suffered drought, they requested a Companion who was alive to supplicate Allah for rain. They never requested the Prophet after his death to supplicate for them, nor did they supplicate Allah by his grave, nor by a grave of anyone else. Rather, they went to a substitute i.e., AI Abbas, and Yazid b. al Aswad. Umar supplicated once, supplicated once, saying: "O Allah! We used to seek nearness to You through our Prophet, and You used to give us rain, and now we seek nearness to You by the supplication of the uncle of our Prophet. So give us rain. They set Al-Abbas as a substitute for the Prophet . When it became difficult for them to seek nearness to Allah through a legitimate manner as they used to do before (i.e. during the lifetime of the Prophet, it was possible for them to go to the grave of the Prophet seeking nearness to Allah by him; that is, if it were legitimate to do so. Refraining from doing so is in itself a proof that it is not permissible to seek Tawassul by dead people, nor their supplication, nor their intercession. Were it to be legitimate to seek nearness to Allah by the Prophet during his life and after his death they would not have turned to a substitute, or someone else below him after his death.

Can the Prophet SAW forgive our sins? no, he cant. He can however ask Allah for people to Allah for forgiveness etc. That is what intercession is, the target is Allah, but instead of asking directly, one asks via a favourable path.

The Prophet salalahu alayhi wa salam will indeed be given intercession on the day of judgement and pray for our forgiveness, however did he teach us to pray to him or call out to him after his death? No instead he taught us the Sunnah Dua to say after the adhan. There is nothing whatsoever recorded that he said to call out to him after his death.

The worst affairs are newly invented matters in the deen.

That is not shirk, thats being unrealistic. Shirk is when you beleive there is a power independant of Allah. How many times have you been driving and said "come on, or hurry up" , knowing that they can not hear you, by your logic that is shirk, another example would be when watching sport on tv, and you say something like come on or hit the ball etc, then that is shirk following your logic.

If you ponder and reflect you will find that there are many sects and religions that believe in one SUPREME DEITY that created everything, yet people have used others as a means of closeness to Allaah. They call upon such and such because they believe they need an intercessor to Allaah.

You are calling us to the same shirk as the pagans.

Think real hard before posting anything like this. You have to make a decision. On the day of judgement you better have the right beliefs or you can be in big trouble. This is not a small matter. Let us fear Allaah in this regard.

ahmedjbh

13th July 2008, 10:33 PM

you have not explained why you think im wrong, only said that you disagree with me.

waziri

13th July 2008, 11:08 PM

"On that Day, no intercession shall avail, except the one from whom Allah the Most Gracious has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him." Qur'an 20:109

Look at what Allah subhana wa ta ala has said

"On that day", on which day? The day of judgement.Not before

Here we have Allah suggesting that we seek a way to find forgiveness, here Allah states if the people had only asked the Prophet SAW to ask forgiveness for them, then Allah would be merciful

Can the Prophet SAW forgive our sins? no, he cant. He can however ask Allah for people to Allah for forgiveness etc. That is what intercession is, the target is Allah, but instead of asking directly, one asks via a favourable path.

If the Prophet salalahu alayhi wasalam was amongst us there would be no problem in asking him to ask Allah for us.

Your argument implies that intercession is asking someone eg the Prophet to forgive sins, this is not the case.

What I understand from what AZ said is that to ask the Prophet salalahu alayhi wasalam to ask Allah for something is shirk (as the Prophet salalahu alayhi wasalam is not amongst us)

Therefore the statement that if something can not do it, then it is shirk to ask them is invalid.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Shirk is when you beleive there is a power independant of Allah.

So according to this the pagan Arabs were not mushrikeen as they believed their idols were only intercessor's with Allah and that Allah was the one who had ultimate power.

How many times have you been driving and said "come on, or hurry up" , knowing that they can not hear you,

Yes they cant here you, but they can hurry up cant they?

by your logic that is shirk,

Your twisting Logic now are'nt you?

another example would be when watching sport on tv, and you say something like come on or hit the ball etc, then that is shirk following your logic.

Again Im sure you can now see how this example of yours (like the one above) is not the same as asking the one who is not capable of doing something.

I find it also confusing that you say the arguement above, then previously say that its quite acceptable to say salam alaikum to the Prophet SAW at his grave, when you beleive he cant hear you, is that not shirk by your own definition?

Saying salams is not the same as making a request,and their are ahadith which state that the Angels convey the salams, so how can that be shirk?

Madarijas-Salikeen

14th July 2008, 12:22 AM

as salaamu alaykum,

He wants us to believe that the Prophet muhammad salalahu alayhi wa salam came to replace the idols (naudhubillah!)

Brother_Mujahid

14th July 2008, 12:35 AM

I cannot fathom why any self-professed Muslim would want to seek intercession through another than Allah. I will cut right to the chase, but for those seeking to make their imams or saints as divine intercessors, is not Allah sufficent?

Nu7

14th July 2008, 02:11 AM

It is more or less like those who do not understand that by doing some innovated forms of dhikr instead of that which the Prophet (pbuh) taught us it is as if they are saying that they have found something better, they are replacing that which is good and perfect with something which is tainted and imperfect (at best).

I will never for the life of me understand why someone who calls himself a muslim would prefer calling on a "Wali" instead of Allah, 'Azza wa Jal.

One of my childhood friends shocked me not too long ago by justifying istighatha and many other bida' and shirki beliefs. He was obviously brainwashed by the socalled "traditional muslims" over at sufipath. It is very saddening to find out that someone who you thought was a pious muslim might be a mushrik. I cut off all contact with him after it became clear to me that he would not give up his beliefs and that he would even spread them, also his immense hate for Ahl Al-Sunnah and our Da'wah really got me to give up all hope. But recently I have sort of established contact with and insha'Allah I will be more able to influence him this time around since he seems to have become more receptive to Da'wah.

Another person who I thought was on the correct 'Aqeedah shocked me even more when that person tried to reason that since the angels have special powers, and since the Prophet has a higher status than the angels, then that means the Prophet (Sallalahu 'Alayhi wa Sallam) has powers which are superior to those of the angels. By this, he was trying to justify why it would be possible for the Prophet to be many times at one place (if I remember correctly). The scary thing is that this person even seems like a pious Allah fearing muslim!!!

There is no punishment greater in this dunya than having your iman stripped away from you. It's the worst calamity that can ever befall a person or a nation.

You know, these things serve as a reminder for us that we should never feel safe in our deen and that we could lose iman easily. We should always pray that Allah, 'Azza wa Jal, lets us die as muslims. Allah can cause hearts to change and He truly Guides whom He wills, and Leaves to go astray whom He wills.

Allahumma ya muqallib al-quloob thabit quloobina `ala deenika, AMEEN!!

Abuz Zubair

14th July 2008, 05:35 AM

Pagans created idols and said they would intercede with Allah, that is shirk, as they have no right to intercede with Allah, as Allah says in the quran intercession is only given to those whom He permits.

But the pagans believed that they DO have the right to intercede because they were righteous people and Allah is pleased with them. The Hindus believe the same.

Not only do they have no right to intercede, they have no ability to ask Allah. But they believed that they DID have the ability to ask Allah, just as you believe that the Prophets and other righteous figures have the ability to ask Allah.

Here we have Allah suggesting that we seek a way to find forgiveness, here Allah states if the people had only asked the Prophet SAW to ask forgiveness for them, then Allah would be merciful

Yes, and this is when they were clearly able to request the Prophet to forgive them and seek their forgiveness from Allah. Such isn't possible anymore. Likewise, if the early pagans were to approach their righteous men and ask them to seek Allah's forgiveness for them, this wouldn't have been Shirk. But after their death, they began to take them as intercessors with Allah, thinking that Allah is pleased with them, and assuming that Allah will surely grant them the permission of intercession.

Can the Prophet SAW forgive our sins? no, he cant. He can however ask Allah for people to Allah for forgiveness etc. That is what intercession is, the target is Allah, but instead of asking directly, one asks via a favourable path.

But the Prophet cannot respond to your call, for if he could, the early generations would also be asking the Prophet for forgiveness at his graveside and it would have become an undisputed part of hajj and Umra, yet this never happened, and you have no proof whatsoever that a) Prophet, whilst he is in his grave can hear what is outside the grave and b) even if he can hear, he has the power to make dua to Allah on your behalf.

The bottomline is that the Prophet SAW is dead in the worldly sense, but alive in a sense that we cannot understand. Hence, in the realm that we DO understand, he takes the ruling of dead people, and this is precisely why he is buried. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in a grave!

That is not shirk, thats being unrealistic.And this is the irony. Every Shirk is absurd and unrealistic except to those who love to commit Shirk.

justabro

14th July 2008, 09:28 AM

as salaamu alaykum,

He wants us to believe that the Prophet muhammad salalahu alayhi wa salam came to replace the idols (naudhubillah!)

These mushriks need their heads examined

leo

14th July 2008, 10:13 AM

"On that Day, no intercession shall avail, except the one from whom Allah the Most Gracious has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him." Qur'an 20:109

"Intercession with Him profits not except for he whom He permits." Qur'an 34:23

So what do you think about this kind of intercession:-

http://inlinethumb03.webshots.com/13506/2190625270103316000S425x425Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2190625270103316000BfwAaa)

leo

14th July 2008, 10:40 AM

Every Shirk is absurd and unrealistic except to those who love to commit Shirk.

True.

Chapter 86
Worship of God without the recognition of Imams

471. 2. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (p): Those who worship God without (following) an Imam (p), are placing themselves in a situation in which their efforts remain unaccepted. They are misguided and confused. Thus, by God, if someone who is unaware of the manifest and just Imam (p) from God, he goes astray and wanders about (in confusion). If he dies in this state, he dies the death of an unbeliever and a hypocrite.

(Usul al-Kafi Book 4: The Book of Divine Proof)

They can't worship Allah directly. Their religion doesn't permit ;)

ahmedjbh

15th July 2008, 02:50 PM

to ease confusion, lets break this down into two sections. The concept of intercession, and then can the intercessor intercede if dead.

Qur'an 10:3
"No intercessor can plead with Him except after His permission."

Now, it seems that on this forum it is agreed that intercession is valid, and asking someone to ask Allah for forgiveness for you is accepted. As we have all seen the verse that i put up about asking the Prophet SAW to ask forgiveness to them.

I cannot fathom why any self-professed Muslim would want to seek intercession through another than Allah. I will cut right to the chase, but for those seeking to make their imams or saints as divine intercessors, is not Allah sufficent?

On the surface this seems like a valid argument, why not take the "direct route"?

However we can see that in the quran, Allah told the people, to ask the Prophet SAW to ask Allah for them , and in other verses Allah asks us to find ways of nearness to Him. In the verses Allah said if the people had only done that, they would have found Allah all merciful and forgiving, from this you can conclude that taking the intercession route is a good deed in itself.

Yes, and this is when they were clearly able to request the Prophet to forgive them and seek their forgiveness from Allah. Such isn't possible anymore. Likewise, if the early pagans were to approach their righteous men and ask them to seek Allah's forgiveness for them, this wouldn't have been Shirk. But after their death, they began to take them as intercessors with Allah, thinking that Allah is pleased with them, and assuming that Allah will surely grant them the permission of intercession.

What you are saying here is that intercession is valid, but only if the person is alive. When you give salams to the Prophet SAW you beleive an angel conveys the message, as Allah says, do not think of them as dead, but when its other matters, the angels are unable to convey the message to the Prophet SAW?

But the Prophet cannot respond to your call,

How do you know this? we are surely more than flesh and blood, Allah has said that those that die for Allah are not dead, but Alive receiving sustanance. What happened to taking the apparent meaning ? now its all taweel taweel when it suits you.

And this is the irony. Every Shirk is absurd and unrealistic except to those who love to commit Shirk.

I think you are on a witch hunt, by your own definition of shirk, it appears we are all mushriks.

You have accepted intercession when the Prophet SAW was alive, and you would love to have even denied that , but Allah has encouraged it in the quran. The difference you have is not if intercession is valid, but rather can those that die in the way of Allah hear and act.

leo

15th July 2008, 03:11 PM

to ease confusion, we are all mushriks.

Yes dear, Rafida and Brelvis being cousins are mushriks, so when are you becoming Muslim :)

Abuz Zubair

15th July 2008, 04:26 PM

What you are saying here is that intercession is valid, but only if the person is alive. When you give salams to the Prophet SAW you beleive an angel conveys the message, as Allah says, do not think of them as dead, but when its other matters, the angels are unable to convey the message to the Prophet SAW?

The question is, how do you know a) the angels are able to convey our requests to them, and b) the dead in the grave are actually able to make requests on our behalf? You don't know any of this but you have simply assumed, just as the mushriks before you assumed, that their intercessors are able to hear - somehow - and can therefore intercede for them with Allah. There is absolutely no difference then between you and them.

Also remember that not only the Prophets are alive in their graves but all righteous believers such as the martyrs. In fact, the text in the Quran is about the martyrs and not the Prophets. Prophets are only included in that category due to Qiyas of priority.

Remember also that the Salams are given to all the Muslims in the graveyard and they all return our Salams, too.

How do you know this? we are surely more than flesh and blood, Allah has said that those that die for Allah are not dead, but Alive receiving sustanance. What happened to taking the apparent meaning ? now its all taweel taweel when it suits you.

We take the apparent meaning which says... 'Do not think of those killed in the way of Allah as dead...' So the apparent meaning of the verse confirms that they have been killed. The apparent meaning does not at all mean that they are alive in worldly sense for if they were, the Ummah wouldn't have split up into so many groups since we all would have been able to refer to the Prophet to solve our disputes. He wouldn't be in a grave to begin with. We believe the Prophet SAW is literally alive, but the life of Barzakh isn't like the life of this world.

The question isn't 'how do you know the Prophet cannot pray on our behalf'. The question is, 'how do you know he can?' Otherwise, all the Mushriks would justify their Shirk saying, 'How do you know this particular stone cannot pray to Allah on our behalf? After all, the stones used to say Salam to the Prophet, too.' Would you now ask the stones to intercede for you? Or would you still insists that asking stone's intercession is not Shirk until they are carved into idols and statues?!

I think you are on a witch hunt, by your own definition of shirk, it appears we are all mushriks.
Even Catholics will tell you you are as Mushrik as they are. The Quran is very clear:

"You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help"
"Indeed, the mosques belong to Allah so do not make dua to anyone alongside Allah"
"Do not make rivals unto Allah when you know it"
"And they worship beside Allah what can neither harm them nor profit them, and they say: These are our intercessors with Allah. Say: Do you (presume to) inform Allah of what He knows not in the heavens and the earth? Glory be to Him, and supremely exalted is He above what they set up (with Him)"

leo

15th July 2008, 05:19 PM

Even Catholics will tell you you are as Mushrik as they are. The Quran is very clear:

Brother AZ, you have explained tawheed and shirk in detail to ahemjbh, even brothers from TJ wouldn't waste so much time. You merit due recognition by all of us. JZK

ahemjbh, please don't waste time over Bible, Torah and Al-Kafi. Become Muslim and you will see sun-light immediately :)

y-mughal

15th July 2008, 05:46 PM

By merely asking one to do something he/she/it cannot do is Shirk; because if he/she/it cannot do that thing, then the request becomes of those things that only Allah can do.

For example, you can ask a human being to give you a glass of water because it is within his means to do so. This would not be Shirk.

But, if you see that a person is tied up and is unable to move, and then you ask him for a glass of water knowing he cannot since he is tied up, then this is shirk. Usually, a person wouldn't do this unless he believes the man has supernatural powers of cause and effect to bring about water out of nowhere.

Likewise, if you ask a stone for water, this would be Shirk, because stones are unable to give you water.

Brother what about when people do these kind of things jokingly - when they talk to inanimate objects asking questions etc. jokingly but obviously not expecting a reply or believe it has the capability to reply, would it still be considered Shirk? Brother also we know that the angels carry salaam to the Prophet (saw) is that only specific to the method the Prophet (saw) taught us i.e. as in prayer and what about when the Mushrik Barelvies say 'As salaatu wasalaam u alaika ya Rasool'Allah' - obviously they being the Mushriks they are believe the Prophet (saw) has supernatural powers in hearing them (not just the angels relaying the salaam etc.) but what about if a person said the above outside the prayer without believing the Prophet (saw) could hear him/her etc. and that the angels relay the salaam would it be considered Shirk/Bid'ah in anyway (obviously better to send salaam the Sunnah way)?

aboo ayaat al hindee

15th July 2008, 06:00 PM

read the initial fatwa carefully, he didn't say anything wrong. the only problem is he leaves the questioner to assume that calling upon the dead or those who are not in your presence is permissable as well.

hearandobey

15th July 2008, 06:04 PM

and what about when the Mushrik Barelvies say 'As salaatu wasalaam u alaika ya Rasool'Allah' - obviously they being the Mushriks they are believe the Prophet (saw) has supernatural powers in hearing them (not just the angels relaying the salaam etc.) but what about if a person said the above outside the prayer without believing the Prophet (saw) could hear him/her etc. and that the angels relay the salaam would it be considered Shirk/Bid'ah in anyway (obviously better to send salaam the Sunnah way)?

i would like to know this too... the barelwi belief is the "haazir wa naazir"^

aboo ayaat al hindee

15th July 2008, 06:12 PM

Dear Brother you know when you sayI've probably misunderstood you but your not saying that person X who takes the Prophet (saw) as an intermediary between him/herself and Allah (swt) calling upon him to pray for you could possibly not be Shirk? Do you mean it in reference to when at the Prophets grave only and not anywhere else or for anybody else? Do you think it is a valid difference of opinion or clear cut non-excusable Shirk even if the person called upon the Prophet (saw) to call upon Allah (swt) next to his grave and also held the opinion the dead could hear? The reason I ask is that from your last post it seems to me - and forgive me if I'm wrong that as because others (non-mushriks such as Ibn Uthaymin and Salah al-Sawi as far as I remember) hold the view that it isn't necessarily Shirk then it's something possbily validly differed over.

the act itself is shirk from what is apparent, which is calling upon other than Allaah but because the person has a specific belief behind this act due to his own weak interpretation of the text, he must be excused.

y-mughal maybe this will help regarding your last question

Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia: 'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you."

similarly sometimes 'ya rasool' and 'ya nabi' are said in lines of poetry, even 'ya quds' and the like. so it is not shirk.

Abuz Zubair

15th July 2008, 07:17 PM

Brother what about when people do these kind of things jokingly - when they talk to inanimate objects asking questions etc. jokingly but obviously not expecting a reply or believe it has the capability to reply, would it still be considered Shirk? Brother also we know that the angels carry salaam to the Prophet (saw) is that only specific to the method the Prophet (saw) taught us i.e. as in prayer and what about when the Mushrik Barelvies say 'As salaatu wasalaam u alaika ya Rasool'Allah' - obviously they being the Mushriks they are believe the Prophet (saw) has supernatural powers in hearing them (not just the angels relaying the salaam etc.) but what about if a person said the above outside the prayer without believing the Prophet (saw) could hear him/her etc. and that the angels relay the salaam would it be considered Shirk/Bid'ah in anyway (obviously better to send salaam the Sunnah way)?
If a person jokingly says to his car, 'O please, start!' everyone knows he is not requesting anything of the car, but only expressing his frustration. But if he says so seriously, then no doubt this would be Shirk.

Shirk is to request something of someone which he cannot deliver at all. When a person sends Salam upon the Prophet he isn't requesting anything. He is only sending peace and blessings of Allah upon him. So whether he does this in his prayer or outside, it is the same thing, and hence, saying, 'al-Salamu 'alayka Ya RasulAllah! Ya KhalilAllah! Ya HabibAllah!' etc is not Shirk. The mere nida' or calling is not Shirk, but calling for help, i.e. requesting of someone something one cannot deliver is Shirk.