A Critique of Husam al-Haramayn: How a fatwa split the Ummah

[Abu Sulayman]

What's wrong with making takfeer of polytheists and grave worshippers (if true)?

Makkah is controlled by the Saudis now. Forget about the Wahhabism for a second and concentrate on the direction in which the country id going i.e. liberalism. Do you consider them to be 'people of Makkah who are on tawheed' or do you see them as heretics? They openly ally with kufaar against Muslims but they are the people of the two masajid so they are beyond criticism, right?

Your reaction clearly indicates extremism and lack of understanding.

First: Makka al-Mukarrama is a city that lies in the Hijaz region and its inhabitants are the people of Makka. They have converted to Islam since the time of our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and have been upon Islam since then and have not apostated from it. And them being Muslims does not change with their government. So during the time of the 'Uthmani Khilafa they were Muslims and now during the Saudi leadership they're also Muslims no matter how evil the Saudi leadership is.
Claiming them to be disbelievers or polytheists is PURE extremism and from the way of the Khawarij!

Why can't you differentiate between the people and the government?

Then: Just because ONE person [and his followers] makes a claim how for God's sake does that put the Iman of a whole city or a whole region into question? What kind of idiocy is that?

Then: Making Takfir upon the Ottoman Khilafa and upon those who do not make Takfir upon them is clear-cut extremism! Why don't we see a single scholar of their time to make Takfir upon them?

Then: What is grave worship? This issue is purely a Najdi invention!
The things that you people call as "grave worship" is either forbidden, disliked, allowed or in some cases even recommended, but not real Shirk.
These issues usually can only be found in classical Fiqh books and are not issues of Iman and Kufr!
If anyone wants to claim otherwise, then let him present us some classical texts of beliefs where these issues are discussed in the manner of the Najdis!

Please concentrate on the last point, because this thread is actually connected to this issue. It was claimed that the Fatwa of Husam al-Haramayn caused the division in the subcontinent, while the reality is that the division started AFTER Taqwiyatul Iman was published.
Taqwiyatul Iman contains the issue of "grave worship", while we do not see this in classical books regarding beliefs.

I'll give an example: The issue of seeking intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto ones Lord:
According to Najdis it's clear Shirk for which one deserves to be killed!
According to classical scholars it's something allowed and during the visitation of his blessed grave it's even recommended! According to the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) it's not allowed, but he does not regard it as real Shirk and does not Takfir because of this issue.

So the question is: How is allowed for you people to make Takfir upon Muslims based upon an issue for which not a single classical scholars made Takfir?

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

If AQ or the "Salafi Jihadis" in general are such a fringe group among "Salafis", could you explain to us why you're indirectly trying to defend them and act as if they're innocent from the attacks mentioned above?...

Let's discuss one issue at a time because your method of leading a simple conversation in a million different directions just makes it garbled and difficult to follow - something you seem to favour.

So, to start off, explain what it is you think I'm defending. Use the quote function. Be specific.

[Abu Sulayman]

Let's discuss one issue at a time because your method of leading a simple conversation in a million different directions just makes it garbled and difficult to follow - something you seem to favour.

So, to start off, explain what it is you think I'm defending. Use the quote function. Be specific.

I‘ve a better idea (which is more on-topic):
In the first post in this thread it is claimed that the Fatwa of Husam al-Haramayn caused division, while I stated that the actual division in the subcontinent was caused earlier by Taqwiyatul Iman, which contains the accusation of "grave worship" against other Muslims and statements, which are very problematic.

The question now is:
What is "grave worship"?
Can we find any classical books of beliefs which discussed this issue in the manner of Taqwiyatul Iman or that of the Najdis?
Do the classical scholars even mention these issues in their 'Aqida books or do they mention it only in their Fiqh books in the context of what is allowed and what is forbidden?

These issues are far more important than what I think of you or what you think of me.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

I‘ve a better idea (which is more on-topic):
In the first post in this thread it is claimed that the Fatwa of Husam al-Haramayn caused division, while I stated that the actual division in the subcontinent was caused earlier by Taqwiyatul Iman, which contains the accusation of "grave worship" against other Muslims and statements, which are very problematic.

The question now is:
What is "grave worship"?
Can we find any classical books of beliefs which discussed this issue in the manner of Taqwiyatul Iman or that of the Najdis?
Do the classical scholars even mention these issues in their 'Aqida books or do they mention it only in their Fiqh books in the context of what is allowed and what is forbidden?

These issues are far more important than what I think of you or what you think of me.

OK, fair enough.

I can give examples of things I have witnessed in Pakistan.

- Prostrating towards graves
- Seeking cures from graves by going there and offering some kind of charity or touching the shrine
- Calling on people in graves to fulfill a dua (not 'intercession' but asking for a blessing from the occupant of the grave)

This is all either direct or indirect worship of graves and doesn't include other stuff such as venerating graves and building elaborate shrines - I actually mistook one mausoleum for a masjid.

[AmantuBillahi]

Question: Did the Ulama of Deoband make Takfir of those who asked from the dead or did they give them Udher? I've always heard that Deobandis sympathize with Salafis on Istighatha and aspects of Ulowhiyya, but I don't recall hearing anyone label them Takfiri or Khawarij.

[eesa the kiwi]

OK, fair enough.

I can give examples of things I have witnessed in Pakistan.

- Prostrating towards graves
- Seeking cures from graves by going there and offering some kind of charity or touching the shrine
- Calling on people in graves to fulfill a dua (not 'intercession' but asking for a blessing from the occupant of the grave)

This is all either direct or indirect worship of graves and doesn't include other stuff such as venerating graves and building elaborate shrines - I actually mistook one mausoleum for a masjid.

Its interesting that those on ummah forum who rant the loudest about wahabis usually then go on to promote some form of deviance in subsequent posts like saying there is no such thing as grave worship

Interesting thing I've noticed as a convert coming into Islam that with some muslims who commit shirk at graves if you were to replace the name of the dead guy they are calling upon and making tawaf around with lat or uzza you would have a religion similar to that of pre Islam Arabia especially the similar concept of intercession

Note this post is for abu Abdullah not the angry ashari as I've no intention of wasting my time with a circular argument

[Abu Sulayman]

OK, fair enough.

I can give examples of things I have witnessed in Pakistan.

- Prostrating towards graves
- Seeking cures from graves by going there and offering some kind of charity or touching the shrine
- Calling on people in graves to fulfill a dua (not 'intercession' but asking for a blessing from the occupant of the grave)

This is all either direct or indirect worship of graves and doesn't include other stuff such as venerating graves and building elaborate shrines - I actually mistook one mausoleum for a masjid.

Okay, from what I understand is that you regard these actions as worship and polytheism regardless of the intention and beliefs of the one who performed these actions. Based upon this you regard their Takfir to be justified. Do you also agree with the Najdis to make Takfir upon the one who does not make Takfir upon these type of people, even if he does not support these actions?

The problem here is that these issues have actually been discussed by scholars, but not in 'Aqida books, but rather in Fiqh books.
Their mindset is that these types of actions can NOT be Shirk in and of themselves, but they can become Shirk if there is a clear Shirki intention or belief behind these actions. Some of these actions can also become Kufr regardless of the intention (like prostrating to an idol or the sun).

The scholars explained this to the Najdis, but the response of the Najdis was to perform Takfir upon these scholars.

Let's first speak regarding the first issue that you mentioned, which is that of Sujud (prostration):

Prostration is one of those actions clearly connected with worship, yet it is not always worship.
We know that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam - peace be upon him - and we also know that the prostration of the parents and the brothers of Yusuf - peace be upon him - was mentioned in the Qur`an al-karim and that doing this was allowed in the laws before us. So the action in of itself can not be Shirk, because Shirk is disallowed in all heavenly laws.

When we look into the books of classical scholars we see that they have mentioned that prostrating before idols or the sun is definitely Kufr (disbelief), while they did not say the same for making Sujud in front of ones parents, scholars, the righteous and their graves. They differentiated and said that this it is big sin and becomes disbelief if the intention is that of worship.

I can quote classical scholars, if it is wanted.

So the question here is:
If I tell you that prostrating in front of the graves of the scholars or the righteous is a major sin, but does not necessarily turn this person into a polytheist, do I remain a Muslim for you?
(According to the Najdis I would deserve to be killed for the above statement.)

Question: Did the Ulama of Deoband make Takfir of those who asked from the dead or did they give them Udher? I've always heard that Deobandis sympathize with Salafis on Istighatha and aspects of Ulowhiyya, but I don't recall hearing anyone label them Takfiri or Khawarij.

They also differentiate and look at the intention and the beliefs and do not perform Takfir just like that. The problem with the Najdis is that they rush towards Takfir and then make chain-Takfir after that.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Okay, from what I understand is that you regard these actions as worship and polytheism regardless of the intention and beliefs of the one who performed these actions. Based upon this you regard their Takfir to be justified. Do you also agree with the Najdis to make Takfir upon the one who does not make Takfir upon these type of people, even if he does not support these actions?

The problem here is that these issues have actually been discussed by scholars, but not in 'Aqida books, but rather in Fiqh books.
Their mindset is that these types of actions can NOT be Shirk in and of themselves, but they can become Shirk if there is a clear Shirki intention or belief behind these actions. Some of these actions can also become Kufr regardless of the intention (like prostrating to an idol or the sun).

The scholars explained this to the Najdis, but the response of the Najdis was to perform Takfir upon these scholars.

Let's first speak regarding the first issue that you mentioned, which is that of Sujud (prostration):

Prostration is one of those actions clearly connected with worship, yet it is not always worship.
We know that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam - peace be upon him - and we also know that the prostration of the parents and the brothers of Yusuf - peace be upon him - was mentioned in the Qur`an al-karim and that doing this was allowed in the laws before us. So the action in of itself can not be Shirk, because Shirk is disallowed in all heavenly laws.

When we look into the books of classical scholars we see that they have mentioned that prostrating before idols or the sun is definitely Kufr (disbelief), while they did not say the same for making Sujud in front of ones parents, scholars, the righteous and their graves. They differentiated and said that this it is big sin and becomes disbelief if the intention is that of worship.

I can quote classical scholars, if it is wanted.

So the question here is:
If I tell you that prostrating in front of the graves of the scholars or the righteous is a major sin, but does not necessarily turn this person into a polytheist, do I remain a Muslim for you?
(According to the Najdis I would deserve to be killed for the above statement.)...

Who was the first to say it's not an act of worship? Do you have any examples of non-worship prostrations being performed by the early Muslims?

[Abu Sulayman]

Who was the first to say it's not an act of worship? Do you have any examples of non-worship prostrations being performed by the early Muslims?

As for your first question:

As already mentioned: It's stated in the Qur`an al-karim - which is the revelation of Allah and His speech - that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to prostrate in front of Adam - peace be upon him - and it's also stated how the parents of Yusuf - peace be upon them - and his brothers fell down in prostration before him. The father of Yusuf is the Prophet Ya'qub, peace be upon both of them.

Know that this type of prostration (i.e. that of showing respect and not that of worship) was allowed from the Shari'a of Adam - peace be upon him - on until the Shari'a of 'Isa - peace be upon him - and then became forbidden in our Shari'a as mentioned by Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) in his Tafsir.

As for your second question:

The following was narrated in Sunan Ibn Majah:

عَنْ عَبْدÙ� اللَّهÙ� بْنÙ� أَبÙ�ÙŠ أَوْÙ�َى، قَالَ لَمَّا قَدÙ�Ù…ÙŽ Ù…Ù�عَاذٌ Ù…Ù�Ù†ÙŽ الشَّامÙ� سَجَدَ Ù„Ù�لنَّبÙ�يّÙ� Ù€ صلى الله عليه وسلم Ù€ قَالَ â€�"â€� مَا هَذَا يَا Ù…Ù�عَاذÙ� â€�"â€� â€�.â€� قَالَ أَتَيْتÙ� الشَّامَ Ù�َوَاÙ�َقْتÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ يَسْجÙ�دÙ�ونَ لأَسَاقÙ�Ù�َتÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ وَبَطَارÙ�قَتÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ Ù�َوَدÙ�دْتÙ� Ù�Ù�ÙŠ Ù†ÙŽÙ�ْسÙ�ÙŠ أَنْ Ù†ÙŽÙ�ْعَلَ Ø°ÙŽÙ„Ù�ÙƒÙŽ بÙ�ÙƒÙŽ â€�.â€� Ù�َقَالَ رَسÙ�ولÙ� اللَّهÙ� Ù€ صلى الله عليه وسلم Ù€ â€�"â€� Ù�َلاَ تَÙ�ْعَلÙ�وا Ù�ÙŽØ¥Ù�نّÙ�ÙŠ لَوْ ÙƒÙ�نْتÙ� آمÙ�رًا Ø£ÙŽØَدًا أَنْ يَسْجÙ�دَ Ù„Ù�غَيْرÙ� اللَّهÙ� لأَمَرْتÙ� الْمَرْأَةَ أَنْ تَسْجÙ�دَ Ù„Ù�زَوْجÙ�هَا
...

Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said “When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: 'What is this, O Muadh?' He said: 'I went to Sham and saw them prostrating to their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.' The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands.
...
- end of qoute -

Know that Mu'adh bin Jabbal - radhiallahu 'anhu - was from among the scholars of the companions and he obviously knew the difference between Tawhid and Shirk. The only thing here was that he assumed that the prostration to show respect is still allowed - as it was in the laws before us -, but the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - prohibited him doing this again, so it became understood that it's not allowed anymore in our Shari'a.

Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) stated in his book Mu'jam al-Shuyukh:

ألا ترى الصØابة من Ù�رط Øبهم للنبي –صلى الله عليه وسلم- قالوا: ألا نسجد لك؟ Ù�قال: لا، Ù�لو أذن لهم لسجدوا سجود إجلال وتوقير لا سجود عبادة كما سجد إخوة يوسÙ� عليه السلام ليوسÙ�ØŒ وكذلك القول Ù�ÙŠ سجود المسلم لقبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على سبيل التعظيم والتبجيل لا يكÙ�ر به أصلا بل يكون عاصيا. Ù�ليعرÙ� أن هذا منهي عنه وكذلك الصلاة إلى القبر

Do you not see that the companions in their excessive love for the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - said: "Should we not prostrate for you?". So he said: "No".
If he had allowed them to prostrate, they would have prostrated with the prostration of respect and awe and not the prostration of worship just like the brothers of Yusuf - peace be upon him - prostrated for Yusuf.
Likewise is the statement regarding the prostration of a Muslim for the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in order to show veneration and respect (for the Prophet): He does not become a disbeliever because of this in any way, rather he becomes sinful. It should be known that this has been forbidden, likewise is [the ruling for] the prayer to the grave.
- end of quote -

Note that the classical scholars have mentioned that to prostrate to other than Allah ta'ala is a major sin in our law and in some of its forms it becomes disbelief. If it's wished I can post their differentiation regarding this issue. (This issue has been discussed in classical Fiqh books.)

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

As for your first question:

As already mentioned: It's stated in the Qur`an al-karim - which is the revelation of Allah and His speech - that Allah ta'ala commanded the angels to prostrate in front of Adam - peace be upon him - and it's also stated how the parents of Yusuf - peace be upon them - and his brothers fell down in prostration before him. The father of Yusuf is the Prophet Ya'qub, peace be upon both of them.

Know that this type of prostration (i.e. that of showing respect and not that of worship) was allowed from the Shari'a of Adam - peace be upon him - on until the Shari'a of 'Isa - peace be upon him - and then became forbidden in our Shari'a as mentioned by Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) in his Tafsir.

As for your second question:

The following was narrated in Sunan Ibn Majah:

عَنْ عَبْدÙ� اللَّهÙ� بْنÙ� أَبÙ�ÙŠ أَوْÙ�َى، قَالَ لَمَّا قَدÙ�Ù…ÙŽ Ù…Ù�عَاذٌ Ù…Ù�Ù†ÙŽ الشَّامÙ� سَجَدَ Ù„Ù�لنَّبÙ�يّÙ� Ù€ صلى الله عليه وسلم Ù€ قَالَ â€�"â€� مَا هَذَا يَا Ù…Ù�عَاذÙ� â€�"â€� â€�.â€� قَالَ أَتَيْتÙ� الشَّامَ Ù�َوَاÙ�َقْتÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ يَسْجÙ�دÙ�ونَ لأَسَاقÙ�Ù�َتÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ وَبَطَارÙ�قَتÙ�Ù‡Ù�مْ Ù�َوَدÙ�دْتÙ� Ù�Ù�ÙŠ Ù†ÙŽÙ�ْسÙ�ÙŠ أَنْ Ù†ÙŽÙ�ْعَلَ Ø°ÙŽÙ„Ù�ÙƒÙŽ بÙ�ÙƒÙŽ â€�.â€� Ù�َقَالَ رَسÙ�ولÙ� اللَّهÙ� Ù€ صلى الله عليه وسلم Ù€ â€�"â€� Ù�َلاَ تَÙ�ْعَلÙ�وا Ù�ÙŽØ¥Ù�نّÙ�ÙŠ لَوْ ÙƒÙ�نْتÙ� آمÙ�رًا Ø£ÙŽØَدًا أَنْ يَسْجÙ�دَ Ù„Ù�غَيْرÙ� اللَّهÙ� لأَمَرْتÙ� الْمَرْأَةَ أَنْ تَسْجÙ�دَ Ù„Ù�زَوْجÙ�هَا
...

Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said “When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: 'What is this, O Muadh?' He said: 'I went to Sham and saw them prostrating to their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.' The messenger of Allah said: 'Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands.
...
- end of qoute -

Know that Mu'adh bin Jabbal - radhiallahu 'anhu - was from among the scholars of the companions and he obviously knew the difference between Tawhid and Shirk. The only thing here was that he assumed that the prostration to show respect is still allowed - as it was in the laws before us -, but the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - prohibited him doing this again, so it became understood that it's not allowed anymore in our Shari'a.

Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) stated in his book Mu'jam al-Shuyukh:

ألا ترى الصØابة من Ù�رط Øبهم للنبي –صلى الله عليه وسلم- قالوا: ألا نسجد لك؟ Ù�قال: لا، Ù�لو أذن لهم لسجدوا سجود إجلال وتوقير لا سجود عبادة كما سجد إخوة يوسÙ� عليه السلام ليوسÙ�ØŒ وكذلك القول Ù�ÙŠ سجود المسلم لقبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على سبيل التعظيم والتبجيل لا يكÙ�ر به أصلا بل يكون عاصيا. Ù�ليعرÙ� أن هذا منهي عنه وكذلك الصلاة إلى القبر

Do you not see that the companions in their excessive love for the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - said: "Should we not prostrate for you?". So he said: "No".
If he had allowed them to prostrate, they would have prostrated with the prostration of respect and awe and not the prostration of worship just like the brothers of Yusuf - peace be upon him - prostrated for Yusuf.
Likewise is the statement regarding the prostration of a Muslim for the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in order to show veneration and respect (for the Prophet): He does not become a disbeliever because of this in any way, rather he becomes sinful. It should be known that this has been forbidden, likewise is [the ruling for] the prayer to the grave.
- end of quote -

Note that the classical scholars have mentioned that to prostrate to other than Allah ta'ala is a major sin in our law and in some of its forms it becomes disbelief. If it's wished I can post their differentiation regarding this issue. (This issue has been discussed in classical Fiqh books.)

I don't make the distinction between intentions because you can claim anything. In all cases it has been forbidden. To say that if a Muslim was to prostrate to other than Allah, they would only do it out of respect is speculation - probably to make excuses for them - but if they have had it explained to them and still insist on doing it, and claiming it is legitimate and only Wahhabis are against it then they obviously have a problem with their Islam.

[Abu Sulayman]

I don't make the distinction between intentions because you can claim anything. In all cases it has been forbidden. To say that if a Muslim was to prostrate to other than Allah, they would only do it out of respect is speculation - probably to make excuses for them -

If someone is a Muslim, then it's not speculation to assume that he's not intending to worship other than Allah ta'ala, but rather doing this out of ignorance (in this case: that this has been forbidden in the Islamic Shari'a). What happened to assuming the best of other Muslims and finding excuses for them and not rushing towards Takfir?

Yes if someone were to prostrate in front of an idol or make fun of Islam or insult the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, then this is obvious disbelief. But you can't equate these issues with something that was even allowed in prior divine laws.

There is another thing here: The reason why I concentrated on prostration is because it's quite an extreme case and clearly connected - as an action - to worship in our minds, yet the classical scholars did not simply rush towards making Takfir upon the Muslim who does this out of ignorance.
This should be enough to show how much their mindset differed with that of the Najdis, who would not just rush towards calling things as disbelief and polytheism and follow it by Takfir, but even went on to do chain-Takfir of people who had never committed these actions!
(Note: In Taqwiyatul Iman rushing towards calling things as polytheism is also done. As for chain-Takfir, then I don't know the position of the author.)



Some quotes from classical sources regarding the issue of prostration to other than Allah ta'ala:


From the Hanafi Fiqh book al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar [by Imam al-Mawsilli (d. 683 AH)]:

وتقبيل الأرض بين يدي السلطان أو بعض أصØابه ليس بكÙ�ر لأنه تØية وليس بعبادة ØŒ ومن أكره على أن يسجد للملك الأÙ�ضل أن لا يسجد لأنه ÙƒÙ�ر ØŒ ولو سجد عند السلطان على وجه التØية لا يصير كاÙ�را

Kissing the ground before the Sultan or some of his companions is not disbelief, because it's [a form of] greeting and not worship. As for the one who gets forced to prostrate for the king, [then] it's better for him not to prostrate, because it is disbelief, but if he prostrates in front of the Sultan as a form of greeting then he does not become a disbeliever.
- end of quote -

From the Shafi'i Fiqh book Rawdhat al-Talibin [by Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH)]:

وليس من هذا ما ÙŠÙ�عله كثيرون من الجهلة الضالين من السجود بين يدي المشايخ Ù�إن ذلك Øرام قطعًا بكل Øال سواء كان إلى القبلة أو غيرها وسواء قصد السجود لله تعالى أو غÙ�Ù„ , ÙˆÙ�ÙŠ بعض صوره ما يقتضي الكÙ�ر عاÙ�انا الله تعالى والله أعلم

That which does not belong to it is which is done by many of the ignorant deviants from the prostration in front of the Mashayikh, because this is definitely forbidden (haram qat'an) in every case no matter whether this is done in the direction of the Qibla or other than it and no matter if the intention of the prostration is for Allah ta'ala or if it was [done] thoughtlessly; and in some of its forms it implies disbelief. We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and Allah knows best.
- end of quote -

From the Maliki Fiqh book al-Furuq [by Imam al-Qarafi (d. 684 AH)]:

اتÙ�Ù‚ الناس على أن السجود للصنم على وجه التذلل والتعظيم له ÙƒÙ�ر ولو وقع مثل ذلك Ù�ÙŠ ØÙ‚ الولد مع والده تعظيما له وتذللا أو Ù�ÙŠ ØÙ‚ الأولياء والعلماء لم يكن ÙƒÙ�را

The people are agreed upon that prostration for an idol with submission and veneration for it is disbelief, but if the like of it would happen from the son for his father with submission and veneration or for the Awliya or the scholars then this would not constitute disbelief.
- end of quote -

From the commentary of Imam Ibn al-Shatt [al-Maliki] (d. 723 AH) regarding the above statement:

سجود من سجد للأصنام لم يسجد لها لمجرد التذلل والتعظيم بل لذلك مع اعتقاد أنها آلهة وأنها شركاء لله تعالى ولو وقع مثل ذلك مع الوالد أو العالم أو الولي لكان ذلك ك�را لا شك �يه وأما إذا وقع ذلك أو ما �ي معناه مع الوالد لمجرد التذلل والتعظيم لا لاعتقاد أنه إله وشريك لله عز وجل �لا يكون ك�را وإن كان ممنوعا سدا للذريعة

The prostration of the one who prostrates for the idols is not just because of submission and veneration [for it], rather also with the belief that they are gods (Aliha) and partners of Allah ta'ala and if the like (i.e. with this belief) would happen for ones father or a scholar or a Wali, then it would be disbelief without any doubt.
But if this [prostration] or what is similar in meaning happens for ones father with submission and veneration only and not with the belief that he's a god or a partner of Allah - 'azza wa jall -, then it does not constitute disbelief even if it's forbidden in order to block the means (to disbelief).
- end of quote -

From the Hanbali Fiqh book Matalib Uli al-Nuha [by Imam al-Ruhaybani (d. 1243 AH)] which is the explantion of Ghayat al-Muntaha [by Imam al-Karmi (d. 1033)]:

أو سجد لصنم أو كوكب ) كشمس أو قمر Ø› ÙƒÙ�ر Ø› لأنه أشرك به سبØانه وتعالى .( ويتجه السجود للØكام والموتى بقصد العبادة ÙƒÙ�ر ) قولا واØدا باتÙ�اق المسلمين ( والتØية ) لمخلوق بالسجود له ( كبيرة ) من الكبائر العظام ØŒ والسجود لمخلوق ØÙŠ أو ميت

"Or if one prostrates for an idol or a star" like the sun or the moon [then this is] disbelief, because he has associated [partners] with [Allah] subhanahu wa ta'ala. "What differs is the prostration for the ruler or the dead: [If it is] with the intention of worship [it] is disbelief" by agreement of the Muslims "and [if the intention is] greeting" a created being by prostration for it "[then it is a] major sin" from among the very great sins.
- end of quote -


And since we were talking about the subcontinent, let's also quote the famous al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya [which is authored by a number of Hanafi scholars]:

من سجد للسلطان على وجه التØية أو قبل الأرض بين يديه لا يكÙ�ر ولكن يأثم لارتكابه الكبيرة هو المختار

The one who prostrates for the Sultan in order to greet him or kisses the ground in front of him: He does not become a disbeliever, rather he becomes sinful, because he has committed a major sin; and this the preferred [position].
- end of quote -

but if they have had it explained to them and still insist on doing it, and claiming it is legitimate and only Wahhabis are against it then they obviously have a problem with their Islam.

I agree.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

If someone is a Muslim, then it's not speculation to assume that he's not intending to worship other than Allah ta'ala, but rather doing this out of ignorance (in this case: that this has been forbidden in the Islamic Shari'a). What happened to assuming the best of other Muslims and finding excuses for them and not rushing towards Takfir?...

There is no 'rush' to takfeer. As stated, people who commit sins out of ignorance can be excused but we're not talking about random people living in the mountains with no contact with regular Muslims. Where I'm from it's a done thing and accepted in the community... even though people from within the community speak out against the practice. They also speak out against going to magicians and using amulets but people still do it - everybody knows the rulings but nobody makes takfeer on the magicians. Why is that? These are all self-proclaimed Sunni Hanafi Maturidis.

[Abu Sulayman]

There is another thing here: The reason why I concentrated on prostration is because it's quite an extreme case and clearly connected - as an action - to worship in our minds, yet the classical scholars did not simply rush towards making Takfir upon the Muslim who does this out of ignorance.
This should be enough to show how much their mindset differed with that of the Najdis, who would not just rush towards calling things as disbelief and polytheism and follow it by Takfir, but even went on to do chain-Takfir of people who had never committed these actions!
(Note: In Taqwiyatul Iman rushing towards calling things as polytheism is also done. As for chain-Takfir, then I don't know the position of the author.)

As already mentioned: The issue of prostration is an extreme one and is only done by the ignorants from among the Muslims.
But the absolute majority of the people that the Najdis were calling as polytheists and disbelievers had never prostrated for other than Allah ta'ala nor have they regarded this as permissible.
The scholars who explained to the Najdis that they were committing a grave mistake by all this Takfir and bloodshed all believed that prostration to other than Allah ta'ala is from among the major sins, yet this did not save them from the Najdi Takfir against them.
And the people of Makka were also not known to prostrate to other than Allah ta'ala, so what was the reason to call them as grave worshippers and to make Takfir upon the one who does not make Takfir upon them?


The explanation:
The major issue upon which the accusation of polytheism and grave worship bases is the issue of Tawassul / Tashaffu' / Istighatha. Thereafter Takfir is done upon whosoever does not make Takfir upon these so called "grave worshippers".


As for Tawassul: It is to ask Allah ta'ala by the high rank or status of a creation beloved to Him or to turn to him by using someone as an intermediary mean:
- According to almost all classical scholars it is allowed with the Anbiya` and Awliya`. If it's done with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then there is not doubt regarding it being permissible or even recommended according to them.
- The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and his followers disagreed and regarded it as disallowed.
- The Najdis also regarded as disallowed only, but in their ignorance they would sometimes even call some of its forms as polytheism.

As for Tashaffu': It is to ask intercession from someone beloved to Allah ta'ala, which means to ask for the supplication of that person to Allah ta'ala:
- This again has been regarded as allowed by most scholars. If this is done during the visitation of the grave of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then it's even recommended as mentioned in major Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib.
- The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya regards this as an innovation and something that may lead to polytheism.
- As for the Najdis, then they regarded it as outright polytheism and as a reason to perform Takfir and kill anyone doing this. And thereafter making Takfir upon anyone who doubts the polytheism of this person. And this is what they applied to the scholars and the people of Makka!

As for Istighatha: It is to ask aid from a creation, while the intention goes back to that of Tashaffu' and Tawassul and the real help is expected from Allah ta'ala:
- This has been also allowed by many scholars, but there were also scholars who disallowed it - especially for laymen - in order to to block the means to wrong beliefs.
- The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya was very harsh against this and even called it as Shirk, but he did differentiate regarding this and did not perform Takfir upon the one who did not have real Shirki beliefs as explained by the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab in his al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya (which was originally most likely a letter and had not a specific name) and he agrees with him, yet this did not stop his brother Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab - the spiritual leader of the Najdis! - from performing Takfir upon his likes in his Mufid al-Mustafid. The interesting thing here to know is that the judge of the people of Huraymila - whom MIAW accused of apostasy because they did not agree with his Takfir and stopped aiding him - was the Shaykh Sulayman himself!
- The Najdis regarded the issue of Istighatha as a reason to kill not just the one who performs it, but rather also the one who abstains from the Takfir of the one who performs it. They applied this to the people of Makka also.

As for asking from the creation in the manner one asks Allah ta'ala (which the Najdis regard as Istighatha also):
Then this disallowed according to all, yet rushing towards Takfir is still wrong.
The ruling upon the person is still is bound to his intention and beliefs and he should be corrected and one should explain to him not to use statements which imply wrong beliefs.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

As already mentioned: The issue of prostration is an extreme one and is only done by the ignorants from among the Muslims.
But the absolute majority of the people that the Najdis were calling as polytheists and disbelievers had never prostrated for other than Allah ta'ala nor have they regarded this as permissible.
The scholars who explained to the Najdis that they were committing a grave mistake by all this Takfir and bloodshed all believed that prostration to other than Allah ta'ala is from among the major sins, yet this did not save them from the Najdi Takfir against them.
And the people of Makka were also not known to prostrate to other than Allah ta'ala, so what was the reason to call them as grave worshippers and to make Takfir upon the one who does not make Takfir upon them?


The explanation:
The major issue upon which the accusation of polytheism and grave worship bases is the issue of Tawassul / Tashaffu' / Istighatha. Thereafter Takfir is done upon whosoever does not make Takfir upon these so called "grave worshippers".


As for Tawassul: It is to ask Allah ta'ala by the high rank or status of a creation beloved to Him or to turn to him by using someone as an intermediary mean:
- According to almost all classical scholars it is allowed with the Anbiya` and Awliya`. If it's done with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then there is not doubt regarding it being permissible or even recommended according to them.
- The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and his followers disagreed and regarded it as disallowed.
- The Najdis also regarded as disallowed only, but in their ignorance they would sometimes even call some of its forms as polytheism.

As for Tashaffu': It is to ask intercession from someone beloved to Allah ta'ala, which means to ask for the supplication of that person to Allah ta'ala:
- This again has been regarded as allowed by most scholars. If this is done during the visitation of the grave of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then it's even recommended as mentioned in major Fiqh books of the 4 Madhahib.
- The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya regards this as an innovation and something that may lead to polytheism.
- As for the Najdis, then they regarded it as outright polytheism and as a reason to perform Takfir and kill anyone doing this. And thereafter making Takfir upon anyone who doubts the polytheism of this person. And this is what they applied to the scholars and the people of Makka!

As for Istighatha: It is to ask aid from a creation, while the intention goes back to that of Tashaffu' and Tawassul and the real help is expected from Allah ta'ala:
- This has been also allowed by many scholars, but there were also scholars who disallowed it - especially for laymen - in order to to block the means to wrong beliefs.
- The Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya was very harsh against this and even called it as Shirk, but he did differentiate regarding this and did not perform Takfir upon the one who did not have real Shirki beliefs as explained by the Shaykh Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab in his al-Sawa'iq al-Ilahiyya (which was originally most likely a letter and had not a specific name) and he agrees with him, yet this did not stop his brother Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab - the spiritual leader of the Najdis! - from performing Takfir upon his likes in his Mufid al-Mustafid. The interesting thing here to know is that the judge of the people of Huraymila - whom MIAW accused of apostasy because they did not agree with his Takfir and stopped aiding him - was the Shaykh Sulayman himself!
- The Najdis regarded the issue of Istighatha as a reason to kill not just the one who performs it, but rather also the one who abstains from the Takfir of the one who performs it. They applied this to the people of Makka also.

As for asking from the creation in the manner one asks Allah ta'ala (which the Najdis regard as Istighatha also):
Then this disallowed according to all, yet rushing towards Takfir is still wrong.
The ruling upon the person is still is bound to his intention and beliefs and he should be corrected and one should explain to him not to use statements which imply wrong beliefs.

I believe that calling on someone who has passed away to make dua for you is shirk. Where does that fit in?

[Abu Sulayman]

There is no 'rush' to takfeer. As stated, people who commit sins out of ignorance can be excused but we're not talking about random people living in the mountains with no contact with regular Muslims. Where I'm from it's a done thing and accepted in the community... even though people from within the community speak out against the practice. They also speak out against going to magicians and using amulets but people still do it - everybody knows the rulings but nobody makes takfeer on the magicians. Why is that? These are all self-proclaimed Sunni Hanafi Maturidis.

The people who ascribe themselves to the Hanafi Maturidi way in the Subcontinent are usually either Barelvis (which are the majority as far as I know) or Deobandis and the scholars of both groups disallow prostration to other than Allah ta'ala and also magic. So what's the point here?

- It has been already mentioned that prostration to other than Allah ta'ala is a major is a sin and in some of its forms it's disbelief and the statement of the classical scholars to support this stance has also been quoted.
So the one who does this is either doing it out of ignorance or he's belonging to some weird cultist group, which is not the fault of the Hanafi Maturidi scholars.

- As for magic: Not all forms of magic constitute disbelief and the Fuqaha` have mentioned a Tafsil in its ruling: The magic that contain disbelief in wording (by cursing the Messengers or Prophets for example) or in beliefs (by attributing real influence to the stars or attributing them any other quality of lordship) or in actions (by disrespecting the book of Allah for example) is what constitutes disbelief, otherwise it's not disbelief. (Refer to al-Furuq by Imam al-Qarafi (d. 684 AH) and other Fiqh books for more informations.)
As for the people who knowingly go to magicians: They exist everywhere and they are simply evil.
But again: How is that the fault of Hanafi Maturidi scholars?

- As for amulets: I really hope for you that you're not intending those who contain Ayat from the Qur`an al-karim or supplications with correct wordings only, because in this case the problem is with you and not the one wearing it with the correct intention.
If it however contains Kufri statements or magic or what is similar to it, then the ruling obviously differs and likewise is the case if one has wrong beliefs.

- Seeking cures from graves by going there and offering some kind of charity or touching the shrine

- Going to the graves of the righteous to supplicate to Allah ta'ala [and using them in Tawassul] is something done by the scholars of this Umma, so what will you say regarding them?
- As for offering some kind of charity: It depends on the intention and the beliefs and this differentiation is even done by the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), so why are you hellbent on rushing towards Takfir and finding the worst possible interpretation for every action done by a Muslim? Believe me if one does the same with your actions, statements or beliefs, one could also easily reach to the degree of [performing] Takfir [upon you].
- Touching a grave or kissing it goes against the etiquette of visitation and is disliked (as mentioned by the Fuqaha`!), but to call it as polytheism is nothing but pure extremism.

The problem is that you're relying upon what you've heard from modern-day "Salafi" Mashayikh without referring to any classical scholars. But this religion existed before our times, so one should al least see what the rulings mentioned by the classical scholars were, right?
Otherwise the modernists have also the right to claim whatever they want, if you're saying that you have such a right?!