Marwan
26-06-06, 03:48 AM
bismillâh, as-salâmû `alaykum,
This is an excerpt from something I had written on this topic on another message board...
The issue of at-tawassul is a fiqh issue which is categorized with the declaration of oaths by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam). On the matter of declaring an oath (termed hilf or yamîn) by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) the scholars are divided into two groups:
One says that it is not permissible to take an oath by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) or any other than Allâh, therefore, it is not permissible to make at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) or anyone else.
The others say it is permissible to take an oath by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) and, therefore, it is permissible to make at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam). In this group are Imâm al-Mubajjal Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (radî Allâhû `anhûm wa rahimahum) himself, though the Hanbalîs themselves are also split into these two groups with the majority saying it is permissible. Amongst this majority are Shaykh al-Islâm Muwffaq ad-Dîn ibn Qudâmah al-Maqdisî (rahimahumullâh). Amongst those from the Hanâbilah who say it is not permissible is Shaykh al-Islâm Taqî ad-Dîn Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahumullâh).
Though Ibn Taymiyyah opined that it was not permissible, his declaration of it's impermissibility is nothing near the firebrand condemnations we see today. He never declared those who perform it committers of shirk, but as committing innovation (bid`ah) based on an incorrect opinion.
The main reason why this can not be termed as shirk is because there are ahadîth which suggest the permissibility of at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam). Ibn Taymiyyah believed all of these narrations are weak, but some of them are not severe in their da`f (weakness). [This is another subject that really needs clarification in our times due to much similar misinformation: the status of da`îf ahâdîth (weak narrations), but that is another matter].
Thus, those who act upon a weak hadîth that does not have liars in it's isnâd, believing in its authenticity, can not be labeled as mushrikîn. Declaring disbelief in such a matter as this is extreme and utterly absurd but, sadly, many scholars of a particular group have done this without reservation in our age. Though they ascribe themselves to Ibn Taymiyyah, he had nothing to do with this position of theirs. He says about those who claim that at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) is kufr in Majmû` Fatâwa ibn Taymiyyah:
ولم يقل أحد: إن من قال بالقول الأول فقد كفر، ولا وجه لتكفيره، فإن هذه مسألة خفية، ليست أدلتها جلية ظاهرة، والكفر إنما يكون بإنكار ما علم من الدين ضرورة، أو بإنكار الأحكام المتواترة والمجمع عليها، ونحو ذلك. واختلاف الناس فيما يشرع من الدعاء وما لا يشرع،
"And no one says, 'He who says by this first statement [1] has committed kufr'. This is not a reason for takfîr upon such a one. For this matter is one of obscurity. It is not evidently clear. Kufr is rejection of knowledge which is necessary in religion, or rejection of the widely transmitted (mutawâtir) laws, or the joining of both, and the like. The people have differed regarding what is legislated in du`â' and what has not been legislated."
Finally, let us look at what Ibn Taymiyyah said on this matter from another work entitled al-Fatâwa al-Kubrâ:
وأما قول القائل : اللهم إني أتوسل إليك به فللعلماء فيه قولان كما لهم في الحلف به قولان وجمهور الأئمة : كمالك والشافعي وأبي حنيفة على أنه لا يسوغ الحلف به كما لا يسوغ الحلف بغيره من الأنبياء والملائكة ولا تنعقد اليمين بذلك باتفاق العلماء وهذا إحدى الروايتين عن أحمد والرواية الأخرى تنعقد اليمين به خاصة دون غيره ولذلك قال أحمد في < منسكه > الذي كتبه للمروزي صاحبه : إنه يتوسل بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في دعائه ولكن غير أحمد قال : إن هذا إقسام على الله به ولا يقسم على الله بمخلوق وأحمد في إحدى الروايتين قد جوز القسم به فلذلك جوز التوسل به ولكن الرواية الأخرى عنه هي قول جمهور العلماء
“And regarding those who say, ‘O Allâh, I seek nearness to you by his (the Prophet’s, sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) means,’ the scholars are upon two positions as they are upon two positions regarding taking oaths by him. The majority of Imâms such as Mâlik, ash-Shâfi`î, and Abû Hanîfah are upon the position that it is not permissible to take an oath by him, nor it is permissible to take an oath by other than him from the Prophets and Angels, and they did not approve of the oath in that manner by the concesus of the scholars. This conforms to the first of two narrations from (Imâm) Ahmad (bin Hanbal), and the second narration approves of taking an oath by him only as opposed to anyone else. For this reason Ahmad said in his Mansak which he wrote to his companion al-Marwazi that he used to make at-Tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) in his du`â’ (supplications). However, others besides Ahmad have said such a vow upon Allâh is through Him, and not upon Allâh through His creation, but Ahmad was upon the first narration so he permitted vows through him (the Prophet, sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) and, thereby, permitted at-Tawassul through him. However, the other narration from him (never mentioned verbatim by Ibn Taymîyyah) is what the scholars concur upon..”
So as you can see, you might be interested in tossing all those little pamphlets on the "shirk of tawassul" or the "kufr of tawassul" in the trash and acquaint yourself with what the Imâms of Ahl as-Sunnah did say: A) It is forbidden and to act upon it is an error but not shirk or kufr, OR B) It is permissible.
w-Allâhû wa rasûlahû a`lam, was-salâm
Footnotes:
(1) Hadîth in at-Tirmithî's and Nasâ'î's Sunans which has the du`â':
اللّهم أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد، يا محمد، إني أتَشَفَّع بك في ردّ بَصَرى. اللّهم شَفِّع نبيك في
"O Allâh, I ask of you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession in returning my sight. O Allâh, may your Prophet intercede for me."
This is an excerpt from something I had written on this topic on another message board...
The issue of at-tawassul is a fiqh issue which is categorized with the declaration of oaths by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam). On the matter of declaring an oath (termed hilf or yamîn) by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) the scholars are divided into two groups:
One says that it is not permissible to take an oath by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) or any other than Allâh, therefore, it is not permissible to make at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) or anyone else.
The others say it is permissible to take an oath by the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) and, therefore, it is permissible to make at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam). In this group are Imâm al-Mubajjal Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (radî Allâhû `anhûm wa rahimahum) himself, though the Hanbalîs themselves are also split into these two groups with the majority saying it is permissible. Amongst this majority are Shaykh al-Islâm Muwffaq ad-Dîn ibn Qudâmah al-Maqdisî (rahimahumullâh). Amongst those from the Hanâbilah who say it is not permissible is Shaykh al-Islâm Taqî ad-Dîn Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahumullâh).
Though Ibn Taymiyyah opined that it was not permissible, his declaration of it's impermissibility is nothing near the firebrand condemnations we see today. He never declared those who perform it committers of shirk, but as committing innovation (bid`ah) based on an incorrect opinion.
The main reason why this can not be termed as shirk is because there are ahadîth which suggest the permissibility of at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam). Ibn Taymiyyah believed all of these narrations are weak, but some of them are not severe in their da`f (weakness). [This is another subject that really needs clarification in our times due to much similar misinformation: the status of da`îf ahâdîth (weak narrations), but that is another matter].
Thus, those who act upon a weak hadîth that does not have liars in it's isnâd, believing in its authenticity, can not be labeled as mushrikîn. Declaring disbelief in such a matter as this is extreme and utterly absurd but, sadly, many scholars of a particular group have done this without reservation in our age. Though they ascribe themselves to Ibn Taymiyyah, he had nothing to do with this position of theirs. He says about those who claim that at-tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) is kufr in Majmû` Fatâwa ibn Taymiyyah:
ولم يقل أحد: إن من قال بالقول الأول فقد كفر، ولا وجه لتكفيره، فإن هذه مسألة خفية، ليست أدلتها جلية ظاهرة، والكفر إنما يكون بإنكار ما علم من الدين ضرورة، أو بإنكار الأحكام المتواترة والمجمع عليها، ونحو ذلك. واختلاف الناس فيما يشرع من الدعاء وما لا يشرع،
"And no one says, 'He who says by this first statement [1] has committed kufr'. This is not a reason for takfîr upon such a one. For this matter is one of obscurity. It is not evidently clear. Kufr is rejection of knowledge which is necessary in religion, or rejection of the widely transmitted (mutawâtir) laws, or the joining of both, and the like. The people have differed regarding what is legislated in du`â' and what has not been legislated."
Finally, let us look at what Ibn Taymiyyah said on this matter from another work entitled al-Fatâwa al-Kubrâ:
وأما قول القائل : اللهم إني أتوسل إليك به فللعلماء فيه قولان كما لهم في الحلف به قولان وجمهور الأئمة : كمالك والشافعي وأبي حنيفة على أنه لا يسوغ الحلف به كما لا يسوغ الحلف بغيره من الأنبياء والملائكة ولا تنعقد اليمين بذلك باتفاق العلماء وهذا إحدى الروايتين عن أحمد والرواية الأخرى تنعقد اليمين به خاصة دون غيره ولذلك قال أحمد في < منسكه > الذي كتبه للمروزي صاحبه : إنه يتوسل بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في دعائه ولكن غير أحمد قال : إن هذا إقسام على الله به ولا يقسم على الله بمخلوق وأحمد في إحدى الروايتين قد جوز القسم به فلذلك جوز التوسل به ولكن الرواية الأخرى عنه هي قول جمهور العلماء
“And regarding those who say, ‘O Allâh, I seek nearness to you by his (the Prophet’s, sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) means,’ the scholars are upon two positions as they are upon two positions regarding taking oaths by him. The majority of Imâms such as Mâlik, ash-Shâfi`î, and Abû Hanîfah are upon the position that it is not permissible to take an oath by him, nor it is permissible to take an oath by other than him from the Prophets and Angels, and they did not approve of the oath in that manner by the concesus of the scholars. This conforms to the first of two narrations from (Imâm) Ahmad (bin Hanbal), and the second narration approves of taking an oath by him only as opposed to anyone else. For this reason Ahmad said in his Mansak which he wrote to his companion al-Marwazi that he used to make at-Tawassul through the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) in his du`â’ (supplications). However, others besides Ahmad have said such a vow upon Allâh is through Him, and not upon Allâh through His creation, but Ahmad was upon the first narration so he permitted vows through him (the Prophet, sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) and, thereby, permitted at-Tawassul through him. However, the other narration from him (never mentioned verbatim by Ibn Taymîyyah) is what the scholars concur upon..”
So as you can see, you might be interested in tossing all those little pamphlets on the "shirk of tawassul" or the "kufr of tawassul" in the trash and acquaint yourself with what the Imâms of Ahl as-Sunnah did say: A) It is forbidden and to act upon it is an error but not shirk or kufr, OR B) It is permissible.
w-Allâhû wa rasûlahû a`lam, was-salâm
Footnotes:
(1) Hadîth in at-Tirmithî's and Nasâ'î's Sunans which has the du`â':
اللّهم أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد، يا محمد، إني أتَشَفَّع بك في ردّ بَصَرى. اللّهم شَفِّع نبيك في
"O Allâh, I ask of you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession in returning my sight. O Allâh, may your Prophet intercede for me."