Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans

[Abu Sulayman]

Our scholars have divided Tawheed into categories for exactly this reason: In order to be able to say: "I am a Muslim"... you must believe (and practise) in all categories of TAWHEED... for example you cannot say that Allah SWT Alone is the Khaaliq and Razzaaq (Creator and Provider), and then go and worship the dead (prophets, Awliyaa', or anybody else) in their graves, ask them to provide you with anything, or do Tawassul or Istighaatha to them beside Allah SWT.

The brother AdoonkaAlle has already answered most of your objections, but I would like to add some points:

Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) came up with a fake Tawhid and fake Shirk in order to be able to call the Muslims of his time as polytheists, so that his beloved Al Sa'ud can slaughter Muslims and take over their lands. Unfortunately brothers like you have been fooled and brainwashed by the servants of Al Sa'ud and do not realize that these Najdis were simply a bunch of ignorant criminals.

I told you that we should make the revelation of Allah ta'ala a judge between us, but you're keeping on making the Khurafat of IAW a judge upon us.

The issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha is an inner-Islamic difference of opinion (with Tawassul and Tashaffu' being allowed by almost everyone, while Istighatha is differed upon based upon what one intends by it) and to make this issue an issue of Iman and Kufr based upon which blood is spilled is nothing but evil.
Do you even know what the scholars of the 4 Madhahib said regarding these issues before rushing to these rulings? Do you know that the majority of the Muslims of the past - including the leading scholars! - regarded it as good to ask the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession (meaning: to ask him to supplicate to Allah ta'ala regarding the forgiveness of one's sins) during the visitation of his blessed grave? Go and read any major Fiqh book and see what is stated there!


Then:

Our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) stated that Surat al-Ikhlas is equal to one-third of the Qur`an al-karim. There are clear proofs that Tawhid is what is stated in this blessed Sura! Now this is true Tawhid, but according to the ideas of that IAW this Aya would not be enough Tawhid!

So tell us! The one who believes in Surat al-Ikhlas, is it enough for him to be regarded a monotheist or do you require from him more than that?

[Abu Sulayman]

[B]The issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha is an inner-Islamic difference of opinion (with Tawassul and Tashaffu' being allowed by almost everyone, while Istighatha is differed upon based upon what one intends by it) and to make this issue an issue of Iman and Kufr based upon which blood is spilled is nothing but evil.

Some relevant posts from this thread regarding Tawassul / Tashaffu' / Istighatha:

I don't know the Shaykh you mentioned and what he mentioned lacks precision regarding the issue of Istighatha, because it's not like one can apply the same ruling to everything that is called "Istighatha" and this due to the fact that different people may have a different understanding of what Istighatha even is.

There is one form of Istighatha which basically everyone from the 4 Madhahib forbids, while there is another one where one will find more classical scholars either allowing it or even performing it themselves than those who disallow it.

I would therefore first mention the different forms of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) (let's for now put aside the ruling for others) and thereafter mention the ruling that the classical scholars have mentioned:

The first type of Tawassul: That is to ask Allah ta'ala by the virtue of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) or his rank or his blessings such that one says "O my Lord, I ask you to forgive me for the sake of your noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)" or what is similar to that.

The second type of Tawassul: That is to ask our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to supplicate to Allah ta'ala for one's need such that one says "O Messenger of Allah, pray for for the forgiveness of my sins" or what is similar to that.

The third type of Tawassul: That is to mention the wanted the thing to our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) while intending him to pray for you (so it's the same as the second type in meaning, but the wording differs) such that one says "O Messenger of Allah, your Umma needs help" or what is similar to that.

As for Tashaffu': That is to ask our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession, which is the same as asking him to pray for you and this means it's identical to the second type of Tawassul in reality such that one says "O Messenger of Allah, I've come to you seeking intercession through you unto my Lord" or "Intercession, O Messenger of Allah" or what is similar to that.

As for Istighatha: That is to ask for aid from our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) intending him to pray to one's Lord and it's the the same as the third type of Tawassul such that one says "O Messenger of Allah[, help]" or what is similar to that.

There is another type of Istighatha (which is the one who is disallowed by agreement), which shall be mentioned later on.


Now the ruling mentioned by the classical scholars:

The first type of Tawassul, which is to ask Allah ta'ala by the virtue of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), is allowed according to classical scholars in general (meaning: all 4 schools!). Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) explicitly allowed this and even someone like Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH), who was one of the first to deny its permissibility (while it seems that he later on retracted this position), acknowledged that this was indeed allowed by Imam Ahmad.
Note that in this type of Tawassul one is not asking the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for something just like if one were to say in Ramadan "O my Lord, forgive me for the sake of this blessed month" it would not be regarded as asking for something from the month of Ramadan.

The second type of Tawassul (which is the same as Tashaffu' as already clarified), which is to ask for supplication / intercession from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), is something that the classical scholars in general (meaning: all 4 schools) regarded as good and allowed during the visitation of the blessed grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). This type is also explicitly supported by the Hanabila in general with the exception of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) (who seems to have retracted from this later on also) and his supporters.

The third type of Tawassul (which is the same as Istighatha as already clarified), which is to mention the wanted thing to the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) or to simply call him for aid while intending him to supplicate for one's need, is where disagreement happened. One will find more classical scholars allowing this or even themselves performing it than those disallowing it.
Imam Ibn Taymiyya famously disallowed this also - based upon blocking the means to misunderstandings and excessive practices - and was harshly attacked by many other scholars for this during his lifetime.

The reason for this attack upon him is from several sides:
- He didn't just disallow Istighatha (together with the third type of Tawassul), but also Tawassul (the first type and second type) and Tashaffu' (same as second type of Tawassul) and this with the knowledge that these things are established by shar'i proofs and by the actions of the early Muslims and the generations after them. Regarding the first type of Tawassul he claimed that it's disallowed no matter whether during his lifetime or after it and this due to a wrong comparison and saying that it is like swearing by him. And as for the second type of Tawassul (or say Tashaffu'), then he allowed it only during his lifetime and not after it.
- He didn't simply disallow Istighatha with other than our Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), but included its prohibition with him also and this was unacceptable to the rest of the scholars. This is due to fact that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the Best of Creation and the one with the highest rank among the creation and the one whom the greatest of miracles have been given and this even after his lifetime. It's established that he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is a witness upon us and he is informed regarding our deeds and that he prays for us and is connected to his nation even after death and is therefore able to help his Umma even now. His intercession for his Umma is also established by clear cut proofs. It should be noted here that Imam Ibn Taymiyya did not deny any of this - quite unlike the Najdis, who do not know the the high rank and status of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and view him as a "dead man" and a "simple postman" with no real connection to his nation anymore - and based his prohibition on the blocking of means and not upon denying anything mentioned before.
- He tried to put into question things established in other Madhahib from their trustworthy and major scholars - like him trying to put the incident with Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) recommending seeking intercession with our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) during the visitation into question and this despite the Malikiyya transmitting it from there their major scholars - and this resulted with the scholars of the other Madhahib heavily attacking him.
- He spoke regarding the visitation itself in a problematic way, which some scholars took as a sign for him having a problem in his very faith.

Note that the mentioned type of Istighatha was practiced by major scholars from among the Hanabila and other than them:
- Imam Ahmad himself used to say "O slaves of Allāh! Guide us towards the (correct) route" when he lost his way on the way to Hajj and this is established from him and from other scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf.
- Imam al-Sarsari (d. 656 AH) was a Hanbali scholar and famous for his poetry in praise of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and it was filled with Istighatha. Yet we see that the Hanabila in general do not just praise him heavily, but also these very poems containing clear Istighatha and not a single one of them criticizes him even with one word (rather the opposite: Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) explicitly calls him as "staunch upon the Sunna" and praises these very poetry!) with the exception of Ibn Taymiyya. And even Ibn Taymiyya only criticized him very lightly while clearly having a very positive opinion of him and in real life he would even go to gatherings where his poems would be said and even cry when listening to them as his foremost student reported.
In one line he says for example while addressing the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) "So help me and be the refuge of my weakness".
- The 'Allama al-Saffarini (d. 1188 AH) stated in Ghida` al-Albab "O my master, O messenger of Allah, take my hand..." and he stated also other than this.

There are also other examples, but the above should be enough for now, so that no one claims any "agreement of the Hanabila on the prohibition of Istighatha" out of nowhere, while their major scholars would perform Istighatha themselves!


Now the question remains: Then what is the type of Istighatha that all disallowed?:

In order to answer this let us refer to Imam al-Tufi's (d. 716 AH) response against Imam Ibn Taymiyya regarding the issue of Istighatha (and this with the knowledge that Imam al-Tufi was not just a major Hanbali scholar, but also someone who respected Ibn Taymiyya a lot):

He brought the statement of Ibn Taymiyya, where he states "Yet we only contend with the seeking assistance of a created being in matters that are specific to God, the Exalted and Majestic, such as divine mercy, forgiveness, sustenance, giving life and so on. So one must not say, “Oh Muhammad forgive me or have mercy upon me or sustain me or answer me (and in another manuscript of the same text ‘give me life’ was mentioned) or give me money and a child” as all of that is associating a partner to God by consensus.".

Note that what Imam Ibn Taymiyya describes here is NOT the Istighatha mentioned before (and not what the scholars where defending against him!) and this is the type of Istighatha that he regards as Shirk in reality, so let us not mix it up with the aforementioned type.

So what did Imam al-Tufi respond (and this in the context of defending Istighatha!)?: He stated by saying "what you have mentioned is an agreed upon matter known to the youngest of Muslim let alone the eldest, i.e. that with regards to Divine Omnipotence another created being is not to be sought under any circumstance and that neither should be attributed to it. We have seen rabbles of people and their common-folk and the furthest of them from knowledge and divine certainty (gnosis) seeking refuge at the room of the Prophet (i.e. his resting place), may God send his peace and blessings upon him, and they do not go beyond asking for intercession and his being a medium, “Oh Prophet, intercede on behalf of us. Oh God, by the blessing of your Prophet, forgive us.”"

(See the whole response here: "Imam al-Jazari [al-Shafi'i] (d. 711 AH) and Imam al-Tufi [al-Hanbali] (d. 716 AH): On seeking aid with the Best of Creation ﷺ and responding to Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) objections")


I say: So this is the type of Istighatha where there is agreement on it's prohibition and that is to ask for things which are known to be specific to Allah ta'ala like forgiveness, sustenance and so on. Note that the one who asks these type of things from the creation while believing that they are able to give them these things themselves has disbelieved by agreement, but if he intends that the creation prays for him, then his act is not allowed and abominable even if it does not put him out of the religion.
.
So when major scholars stated that Istighatha is allowed they were not intending what Imam Ibn Taymiyya was regarding as Shirk in the very first place.

Hope this differentiation is clear enough.

Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) wrote Qa'ida Jalila fil Tawassul wal Wasila, where he criticized Tawassul and Tashaffu' as one of the first in Islamic history, which resulted with a huge backlash against him by the rest of the scholars.

Scholars discussed with him because of his position on this issue. Imam Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH) (and also others from Ibn Taymiyya's students and their students) reported such an incident in al-Bidaya wal Nihaya. In clarification of his position Ibn Taymiyya stated "Aid is not sought except from Allah, and aid is not sought from the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - with the meaning of worship, rather one performs Tawassul and Tashaffu' with him unto Allah ta'ala."

Note that some of the scholars present did not find anything wrong in what he stated, while others still thought that it lacks the proper decorum with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

He also has a Fatwa (which can be found in Majmu' al-Fatawa), where he states "That which is legislated is to perform Tawwasul through him (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) in one's supplication just like it's found in the Hadith reported and authenticated by al-Tirmidhi that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - taught to a person to say 'O Allah, I ask You and approach You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, o Messenger of Allah, I approach my Lord through you in this need of mine, that it be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me.' This Tawassul through him is good (and therefore allowed), but as for calling him and seeking aid through him, then this is forbidden (Haram)...".

Note that the incident mentioned and the Fatwa are both after writing Qa'ida Jalila and that is why I stated that it seems that he actually retracted his view on Tawassul and Tashaffu' and only disallowed Istighatha. And even when it comes to Istighatha, then the type that was allowed by other scholars is not what he regarded as Shirk (rather he disallowed that type only based upon blocking the means), but rather to ask for that which is specific to Allah ta'ala from the creation.

Note that the Shaykh Mustafa al-Shatti al-Hanabli (d. 1348 AH) clarified this issue of Istighatha and what Ibn Taymiyya was actually regarding as a form of Shirk and also hinted towards Ibn Taymiyya's retraction regarding Tawassul and even quoted the Fatwa above.

What the Najdis however did - and this due to their ignorance and extremism - was to take Ibn Taymiyya's views out of their context and mix everything up with their own false ideas and act as if the resulting [mis]understanding in their heads was revelation and then start killing everyone and everything based upon it and even stated that Takfir upon the people of Makka is obligatory in order for one to be Muslim. How they reached such a level of extremism is really beyond me.


Now regarding the ruling of the type of Istighatha that Imam Ibn Taymiyya was actually regarding as Shirk (and as already mentioned: that type is disallowed by everyone), then the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH) actually clarified that it can be Shirk asghar or Shirk akbar based upon the intention (but it's usually Shirk asghar when done by some Muslims out of ignorance and therefore does not through one out of the religion).

Reread this here please:
"'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW"

I haven't watched YQ's videos to be honest.

Regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH): He regards the mere asking for intercession as greater polytheism (and this while this is regarded as something good by all 4 Madhahib during the visitation of the blessed grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!) and he also regards asking that which is NOT specific to Allah ta'ala as greater polytheism. Thereafter he claimed that anyone whom his call (yes his own!) has reached and who does not agree with what he stated is a disbeliever, whose blood is allowed to be spilled.
Imam Ibn Taymiyya did not claim any of this, nor even one tenth of this!


Now let's go back to classical scholars instead of the views of IAW (who is far away from thinking like a scholar anyways):

Take the 'Allama 'Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad al-Mashhur [al-Shafi'i] (d. 1320 AH) - the Faqih of Hadhramawt - and his support for Tawassul and Istighatha in his book Bughyat al-Mustarshidin 4/483-484, where he states "Performing Tawassul (taking means to ones Lord) with the Prophets (Anbiya`) and the Righteous (Awliya`) in their life and after they have passed away is allowed according to the divine law,...The statement of the believer 'O so and so' (Ya Fulan) when in hardship is included in Tawassul with the one called [from the creation] unto Allah ta'ala, and turning the call to [the creation] is done metaphorically and not in reality." and then keeps on how it's intended and that it's allowed.

At the end he quotes the 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi (d. 1194 AH) - the Mufti of the Shafi'iyya in al-Madina al-munawwara - (who was upon the very same view) stating "As for taking the Prophets and the Righteous as means (Tawassul) [to one's Lord], then it's a recommended issue, established by authentic narrations and it has been agreed upon performing it. Rather Tawassul has been established with good deeds even though they're accidents (A'radh), so with selves [or persons] (Dhawat) it's even more [established]!
As for making intermediaries between the slave and his Lord: If he calls them as he calls Allah ta'ala in the issues and he believes that they have [real] influence (Ta`thir) in any issue instead of Allah ta'ala, then this is disbelief (Kufr), but if he intends [performing] Tawassul with them to Allah ta'ala in the fulfillment of his needs while believing that Allah is the one who benefits and harms [in reality] and has [real] influence [alone], then the apparent is that he has not disbelieved, even if that which he's doing is abominable."

Note that his statement "if he calls them as he calls Allah ta'ala in the issues" is very same form of Istighatha, that all agree on disallowing (as already mentioned).

Look at the Tafsil now:
- If the person believes that they (the creation) have [real] influence (Ta`thir) in any issue instead (or even alongside) of Allah ta'ala, then this is disbelief (Kufr)
- But if this person intends [performing] Tawassul with them to Allah ta'ala in the fulfillment of his needs while believing that Allah is the one who benefits and harms [in reality] and has [real] influence [alone], then the apparent is that he has not disbelieved, even if that which he's doing is abominable

(The whole quote can be read here: "OP: Summary of its ruling by 'Allama 'Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad al-Mashhur (d. 1320 AH) and 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi (d. 1194 AH)")


The issue here is not whether the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has the ability to help or not, but rather that some wordings are not befitting of a believer and should not be said, especially when one can use more clear wordings that don't have any wrong implications.
As for the ability of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to help his Umma, then there should be no doubt regarding this and it's established. If Musa (peace be upon him) could help this Umma after having left this life several thousand years ago and if the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) met him in more than one place in the incident of al-Isra` wal Mi'raj, then what about the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?!
This whole imagination as if the Prophets and Messengers of Allah (peace be upon them) are somehow imprisoned to a specific place (meaning: their graves) after their death is nothing but a Najdi imagination. Do you know that neither Imam Ibn Taymiyya nor his foremost student has such a wrong imagination?
In fact different classical scholars (including Ibn Taymiyya's foremost student, if I remember correctly!) mentioned that the martyrs have been seen fighting the disbelievers even after their death! So what about the Prophets and the Messengers of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them), who are alive in their graves even after their death?!

[Abu Sulayman]

More regarding the above issue from another thread:


Seeking intercession with the Prophet (s): Its ruling according to classical scholars

Table of contents (30-04-2021):


- OP: Summary of its ruling by 'Allama 'Abd al-Rahman bin Muhammad al-Mashhur (d. 1320 AH) and 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi (d. 1194 AH)

- Some proofs from the Qur`an al-karim and the Sunna regarding the permissibility of seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ

- MIAW's son admitting that the main reason why they killed Muslims was the issue of seeking intercession, which the classical scholars allowed!
- Is the simple asking for intercession condemned in the Qur`an as polytheism? (part 1)
- Is the simple asking for intercession condemned in the Qur`an as polytheism? (part 2)

- Imam Malik's (d. 179 AH) response to al-Mansur (d. 158 AH): Rather face him and seek his intercession!

- Imam 'Abdullah bin al-Mubarak (d. 181 AH), Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) and other scholars from the Salaf and Khalaf ACTED UPON the Hadith "O slaves of Allah! Help me!"
- One of the supporting routes of the narration "O slaves of Allah! Help me!"

- Imam Ibn Abi Dunya (d. 281 AH): The Salaf acted upon the Hadith of the blind man and performed Tawassul!

- Imam al-Mawardi [al-Shafi'i] (d. 450 AH) recommends visitation of the blessed grave and seeking intercession through the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam al-Ghazali [al-Shafi'i] (d. 505 AH) recommends seeking intercession through the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam Ibn al-Salah [al-Shafi'i] (d. 643 AH) regards the fullfillment of one’s needs when one performs Tawassul with the Prophet ﷺ among the miracles (Mu'jizat) that Allah granted to our Prophet ﷺ
- Imam al-Nawawi [al-Shafi'i] (d. 676 AH) recommends seeking intercession through the Prophet ﷺ and mentions that this is the position of his Shafi'i colleagues in general!
- Imam Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Zamlakani [al-Shafi'i] (d. 727 AH) seeks intercession with the Prophet ﷺ in poetry
- Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki [al-Shafi'i] (d. 756 AH): The permissibility and goodness of performing Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu' with the best of creation ﷺ
- Scholarly support for the work Shifa` al-Siqam of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH)
- Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani [al-Shafi'i] (d. 852 AH) asking the Prophet ﷺ for intercession in his poetry (+ his comment on the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them)
- Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni [al-Shafi'i] (d. 829 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam al-Samhudi [al-Shafi'i] (d. 911 AH) on Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha
- Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari [al-Shafi'i] (d. 926 AH) recommends seeking intercession through the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam al-Qastallani [al-Shafi'i] (d. 923 AH) on Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha (+ his own experience)
- Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami [al-Shafi'i] (d. 974 AH) regarding Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha with the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli [al-Shafi'i] (d. 957 AH) and his son Imam Shams al-Din al-Ramli [al-Shafi'i] (d. 1004 AH) regarding the seeking of aid with the Prophet ﷺ by saying "Ya Rasulullah!"

- Imam Ibn 'Aqil [al-Hanbali] (d. 513 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani [al-Hanbali] (d. 561 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi [al-Hanbali] (d. 620 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ (+ recommendation to act on the Hadith of bling man when in need)
- Imam Yahya bin Yusuf al-Sarsari [al-Hanbali] (d. 656 AH) seeks intercession with the Prophet ﷺ in his poetry

- Imam 'Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili [al-Hanafi] (d. 683 AH) recommends seeking intercession with the Prophet ﷺ

- Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) ADMITTING that the Hadith of the blind man was acted upon by the Salaf al-salih and that Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) permitted Tawassul!
- Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) exact position on Tawassul and Tashaffu'
- Who was the [leader of] state and who were the scholars who stood against Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) abnormal Fatawa?
- Imam al-Jazari [al-Shafi'i] (d. 711 AH) and Imam al-Tufi [al-Hanbali] (d. 716 AH): On seeking aid with the Best of Creation ﷺ and responding to Ibn Taymiyya's (d. 728 AH) objections

- Famous incident that proves silent consensus (Ijma' sukuti) among the Sahabat al-kiram - radhiallahu 'anhum ajma'in - on the issue of Tawassul bil Dhat
(+ supporting evidences) (+ correction of mistranslation)

- A good series of short lectures / videos regarding Tawassul and connected issue



- Supplication through the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (al-tawassul) (by Dar al-Ifta al-Misriyya)

- Some short videos by Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali clarifying the Hanbali position on Tawassul and the position of Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) on Istighatha



(There maybe some other beneficial posts, but the above are the most relevant ones.
In classical works one will find hundreds of statements regarding this issue and all in support of what has already been stated and that is the permissibility of Tawassul and Tashaffu' with the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).)

[Abu Sulayman]

Then:

Our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) stated that Surat al-Ikhlas is equal to one-third of the Qur`an al-karim. There are clear proofs that Tawhid is what is stated in this blessed Sura! Now this is true Tawhid, but according to the ideas of that IAW this Aya would not be enough Tawhid!

So tell us! The one who believes in Surat al-Ikhlas, is it enough for him to be regarded a monotheist or do you require from him more than that?

Just to add one point here:

That which differentiates between a monotheist (Muwahhid) and a polytheist (Mushrik) is the belief [or disbelief] in Surat al-Ikhlas and that's why our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) highlighted its importance on many occasions and that's also why every Muslim will know Surat al-Ikhlas by heart.

Surat al-Ikhlas basically summarizes Tawhid in a short and beautiful manner.
Whosoever believes in what is stated in this Sura and believes in the Prophethood of our Master Muhammad al-Mustafa (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) is a Muslim (except if he thereafter denies what is necessarily known to be from the religion or curses the religion or what is similar to that) and it's NOT allowed to accuse such a person of polytheism! This is something clearly established from the Sunna!

So let the one whose so called "Tawhid" is not in accordance to this blessed Sura cry over himself, for he will not gain anything other than loss and humiliation!

No polytheist - be it the ancient Greek, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient North Europeans, the Arab pagans, the Hindus or even the Christians - will accept Surat al-Ikhlas and this because it does not just establish the Oneness of the Creator jalla jalaluhu and Him being completely independent and free of need (while everything is dependent and in need of Him), but also that He is free from being born or having offspring or having any likeness or similarity or equal whatsoever!

This means that any division of God is refuted through this Sura, such that believing in offspring or in trinity or that God has many forms or any of the typical polytheist ideas is rejected by it.




Now the question is: How is it possible to regard the one who BELIEVES in the above Sura wholeheartedly to be WORSE than the one who DISBELIEVES in it?

The above question is in the context of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) regarding the majority of the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula of his time to be WORSE than pagans! So how is the one who believes WORSE than the one who disbelieves?

[Passer_By]

Response to Post 13:

Brothers and sisters,

Reading the first 8 posts of this thread (posts 1-8), you would wonder what Abu Sulayman is getting at!... However it is only when you get to Post 13 that you realise that all that was merely leading (ignorant laymen and blind followers) to a 'sinister' goal... Please allow me to explain...

Consider these verses:

[43:87] And if you asked them who created them, they would surely say, "Allah." So how are they deluded?
[43:9] And if you should ask them, "Who has created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, "They were created by the Exalted in Might, the Knowing."
[39:38] And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and the earth?" they would surely say, "Allah." Say, "Then have you considered what you invoke besides Allah? If Allah intended me harm, are they removers of His harm; or if He intended me mercy, are they withholders of His mercy?" Say, "Sufficient for me is Allah; upon Him [alone] rely the [wise] reliers."
[10:31] Say, "Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth? Or who controls hearing and sight and who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living and who arranges [every] matter?" They will say, "Allah," so say, "Then will you not fear Him?"
[31:25] And if you asked them, "Who created the heavens and earth?" they would surely say, "Allah." Say, "[All] praise is [due] to Allah "; but most of them do not know.

Allah SWT is telling His Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam (and us) that if you were to ask the Polytheists of Makkah these questions, then they would give you an immediate answer with CERTAINTY: "Allah"... in fact the above translation uses the term 'surely'... however other well known translators use the term 'certainly'... you can verify this in this website:

https://corpus.quran.com/translation...er=43&verse=87

...And more importantly, None of the well known, leading Mufassireen said that the polytheists were doubtful in their answer (Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Al-Qurtubi, Al-Saadi, Al-Baghawi...etc)... you can verify this by checking Tafaseer online.

So Abu Sulayman (and his likes) had a problem to solve... they had to prove (by hook or by crook!) that the polytheists were doubtful in this particular answer... And for that, they had to play with the verses (and any unsuspecting layman's brain)... photoshop the verses, twist the meanings, hide parts of verses and import parts from other verses... as you can see below:

...

Imam al-Naysaburi (d. 728 AH) said:

قال { بل لا يوقنون } وذلك أنه حكى عنهم{ ولئن سألتهم من خلق السموات والأرض ليقولن الله } [لقمان: 25] فتبين أنهم في هذا الاعتراف شاكون إذ لو عرفوه حق معرفته لم يثبتوا له نداً ولم يحسدوا من اختاره للرسالة كما وبخهم عليه بقوله { أم عندهم خزائن ربك } حتى يختاروا للنبوة من أرادوه

[Allah ta'ala] says { rather they are not certain. } and He has narrated about them { and if you ask them, “Who created the heavens and the earth?” - they will surely answer, “Allah” } [31:25], so it has become clear that they're in doubt regarding what they admitted, because if they had known Him in reality they would have not attested a rival to Him and would have not envied the one whom He has chosen for messengership as He has scolded them for this with His statement { or do they have the treasures of your Lord? } [52:37] so that they can choose for prophethood whom they want.
- end of quote -

Imam Abu Hayyan (d. 754 AH) said:

بل لا يوقنون }: أي إذا سئلوا: من خلقكم وخلق السموات والأرض؟ قالوا: الله، وهم شاكون فيما يقولون لا يوقنون

{ rather they are not certain. } meaning: If they would be asked: Who created them and who created the heavens and earth? They would say: "Allah"; while they are in doubt regarding what they said and not certain regarding it.
- end of quote -

Imam Abul Su'ud (d. 951 AH) said:

أَمْ خَلَقُواْ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَاتِ وَٱلأَرْضَ بَل لاَّ يُوقِنُونَ } أي إذا سئلوا منْ خلقكم وخلق السمواتِ والأرضَ قالوا الله وهم غيرُ موقنينَ بما قالُوا وإلا لما أعرضُوا عن عبادتِه

{ Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather they are not certain. } meaning: If they would be asked who created them and the heavens and the earth, they would respond "Allah", but they were not certain regarding what they said otherwise they would have not turned away from His worship.
- end of quote -

If you look carefully... where he says: Imam al-Naysaburi (d. 728 AH) said:

قال { بل لا يوقنون } وذلك أنه حكى عنهم{ ولئن سألتهم من خلق السموات والأرض ليقولن الله } [لقمان: 25] فتبين أنهم في هذا الاعتراف شاكون

Verse 25 from Surah Luqman says: وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ ۚ قُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ ۚ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

However he has hidden this part (لَا يَعْلَمُونَ)... and put بل لا يوقنون on the same line (imported from other, different verses above)... in order to be able to cast doubt on the polytheists answer, which is clearly shown in his mufassir's comments... presumably taken from:

Ghara'ib al-Qur'an wa Ragha'ib al-Furqan ... a classical Sunni^[3][4][5]-Sufi tafsir of the Qur'an,^[6] authored by the Shafi'i-Ash'ari scholar Nizam al-Din al-Nisaburi (d. ca. 730/1329-30), who closely follows al-Fakhr al-Razi's tafsir in many places.


Sorry, I have to go (because I have a LIFE... unlike some)... but I'll continue later

[AdoonkaAlle]

Now the question is: How is it possible to regard the one who BELIEVES in the above Sura wholeheartedly to be WORSE than the one who DISBELIEVES in it?

The above question is in the context of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) regarding the majority of the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula of his time to be WORSE than pagans! So how is the one who believes WORSE than the one who disbelieves?

The espousal of such beliefs is what justified the actions of the najdi dawah and without it miaw would've never been able to convince his followers to carry atrocities against fellow muslims. They still use the same arguments and make the analogy that "mushrikeen" of our time are worse than those whom the Prophet fought.

This is why we should focus our attention more on the topic of tawheed & it's classification to show the deviation of miaw, all the other issues are dependent on this.

[AdoonkaAlle]

Before we go any further... STOP using these satanic, ridiculous tactics of:

- Making me say what I did not say
- Asking ridiculous questions... then answering them for me... then passing judgements based on these (YOUR) answers... then carrying out sentences based on these judgements

You have been using these tactics for the past 11 centuries... and that's why our innocent scholars, imams (of AhlusSunnah WalJamaah) have been tortured and jailed or even worse... only to be proven to be upon the truth later.

You are trying to make believe that I am saying: "The Polytheists of Makkah were not Polytheists!"... which is absolutely preposterous and frankly childish...

The polytheists of Makkah WERE POLYTHEISTS (Mushrikeen)... although they had Tawheed in matters described in the Qur'an (e.g: Who created the Heavens and the Earth? Who controls hearing and sight? Who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living? Who arranges [every] matter?)... if you ask them these questions, they will say Allah... not Allah AND Fulaan, or Allah AND Fultaan... and yes, they denied Resurrection and Afterlife (again, as in many verses in the Qur'an) because this is not something that they could see, witness or testify to (that's why Imam Ibn AbdilWahhab said يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله testifiedlordship completely... obviously 'completely' from their own point of view and strictly in line with the above questions from the Qur'an, not ours! our scholars, including Imam Ibn AbdilWahhab have spoken about this...


ولكن هذا الإيمان بالربوبية لم يكن كاملًا؛ بل كان عندهم شك في قدرة الله تعالى، ولذا أنكروا البعث، وكانوا يئدون البنات، وينسبون الأمطار لبعض الأنواء.
وهذا الأمر كان معروفاً عند ابن كثير والشيخ محمد عبد الوهاب؛ ولذا تكلم في كتاب التوحيد عليه.

For all your claims that it's us who's doing the manipulation, distortions, twists etc those bolded parts above that i've highlighted show otherwise. You're ashamed to admit that miaw made a mistake despite you acknowledging it instead what do you do ? you go ahead and distort the statements of miaw so as to remove any blame from him.

You state the reason why miaw claims that the polytheists testified lordship completely is because this was the view of the polytheist themselves & this is in line with the quran. Immediately after that you then state that the polytheist belief in Allah's lordship wasn't complete and that this was known to miaw. Now there's an obvious contradiction regarding those 2 views that you subscribe to miaw

1. It's a logical impossibility for anyone to claim that the polytheist testified lordship to Allah was both complete and incomplete at the same time. This is like claiming one can be a muslim and a kafir at the same time. Those 2 claims contradict each other, it's either one or the other.

2. We've evidence from miaw in his books claiming that the polytheist affirmed lordship to Allah completely in explicit wording. Reinforcing this claim even further is that miaw compares the polytheists belief regarding Allah's Lordship to that of muslims and says there are the same. This similarity in belief about Allah's Lordship that miaw establishes between the muslims and polytheists disproves beyond doubt that the claim that miaw believed the polytheists belief regarding Allah's Lordship was incomplete. Look at what miaw says in his book kashf shububhaat

“And that which I have mentioned to you – that Allaah the Most High has mentioned that the mushriks affirm ruboobeeyah, and that their kufr was due to their devoting themselves to the angels and the prophets and the awliyaa (beloved servants of Allaah) with their statement: «These are our intercessors with Allaah!»26 - then this is a muhkam clear matter, whose meaning no one can change!


From them is their statement: “We do not associate any partners with Allaah – rather we bear witness that none creates nor provides sustenance nor brings benefit or harm except Allaah alone, having no partner – and that Muhammad sall Allaahu ‘alaiyhi wa sallam does not possess the ability to bring benefit to himself nor harm – let alone ‘Abdul Qaadir or other than him! However... I am a sinner, and the righteous people have a lofty status with Allaah, so it is through them that I ask of Allaah.”

So answer them with what preceded and it is: “That those against whom the Messenger of Allaah sall Allaahu ‘alaiyhi wa sallam fought were people who affirmed what you have just mentioned, and they affirmed that their idols did not have the ability to control anything – and that they (the mushriks) only wanted (to use) their lofty position and their intercession.”

So if he says: “These aayaat were revealed with regards to those who worship al asnaam (the idols) – so how can you equate the righteous people with idols? Or how can you equate the prophets with idols?” Then answer him with what has preceded. And if he affirms that the kuffaar (disbelievers) used to testify that all the ruboobeeyah (Lordship) is for Allaah, and that they sought only shafaa’ah (intercession) from the ones that they turned to – but he wishes to distinguish between their action and his action, with what he has mentioned, then mention to him that from the kuffaar were some who would call upon the idols, and some who would call upon the awliyaa

So if he says: “The kuffaar (disbelievers) sought from them - whereas I bear witness that Allaah is the One who brings benefit, and the One who brings harm and the One who controls all the affairs, and I do not seek anything from anyone other than Him, and (that) the righteous people do not have any part in this matter. However, I turn to them and I hope from Allaah for their intercession.” Then the answer is: “That this is exactly the same as the statement of the kuffaar!”

3. To have tawheed in Rububiyyah means to single out Allah in all of His actions ie all the qualities of Lordship: It can't be established on the basis of some actions/qualities of Lordship alone it has to encompass all the qualities of Lordship but most importantly it has to be free from shirk & kufr. As i stated before the polytheist belief doesn't meet this requirement which is why it can never be affirmed to them at all. Chrisitians affirm many more qualities of Lordship to Allah but because they ascribe Nabi Isa as a partner to Allah in His Rububiyyah we can never affirm tawheed rububiyyah to them as a result. If we would ask the same questions from the Quran to the christians their answer will be the same as that of polytheists now can we affirm tawheed rububiyyah to them ?


That quote in arabic that you cited is an attempt by modern salafi scholars to redact the actual views of miaw and free him from any mistakes or criticism in his aqeedah. What's even more shocking is that even though you acknowledge that the polytheist didn't have a complete tawheed rubububiyyah you still continue to claim otherwise why is this ? why say their issue was just about worship & not rububiyyah ? why bother share statements that disprove your actual belief that polytheist had tawheed rububiyyah ?


You need to take a step back and reflect on what you're arguing for

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...eM91Ipytk3fxGD

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

Some reasons for idol worship according to those who indulge in it

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...eM91Ipytk3fxGD

[Passer_By]

Continuing from Post 230:

Response to Post 13:


...Sorry, I have to go... but I'll continue later

Here's something that Abu Sulayman and his 'side-kick' will find hard to understand... let alone accept!

Why does the Qur'an tell us that the Polytheists of Makkah affirmed (WITH CERTAINTY) that Allah is the One who created, and that it is He who provides...etc??

Answer: The reason is NOT so that we think that they were Muwahhideen (Believers in Tawheed)... it is rather the opposite... it is to show us that they were (still) Polytheists (Mushrikeen)!...

How is that??

Allah SWT is teaching us (in those verses) that 'if you achieve PARTIAL Tawheed... this will not save you!'... You have to achieve Full Tawheed (in All its categories, angles, types, parts...etc).

For example: You cannot believe that Allah SWT is THE ONE AND ONLY Creator, Provider and Sustainer... and then go to a grave and ask a dead person to provide you with this and that (job, house, husband, wife, children, success...etc, or give divine attributes to the Prophet ﷺ...etc)... These (and other) practices and beliefs are unfortunately very widespread in our Islamic world... and have been for many, many centuries.

I am very grateful to the 'Ulama (scholars) of Ahlus Sunnah WalJamaah (Whom you've insulted and called heretics)... for simplifying and preserving Tawheed for us in its Pure form.

I hope that I have not insulted any scholar (no matter what their beliefs or inclinations were...)... nor called anyone a heretic!

I think I'm done here...

[AdoonkaAlle]

Continuing from Post 230:



Here's something that Abu Sulayman and his 'side-kick' will find hard to understand... let alone accept!

Why does the Qur'an tell us that the Polytheists of Makkah affirmed (WITH CERTAINTY) that Allah is the One who created, and that it is He who provides...etc??

Answer: The reason is NOT so that we think that they were Muwahhideen (Believers in Tawheed)... it is rather the opposite... it is to show us that they were (still) Polytheists (Mushrikeen)!...

How is that??

Allah SWT is teaching us (in those verses) that 'if you achieve PARTIAL Tawheed... this will not save you!'... You have to achieve Full Tawheed (in All its categories, angles, types, parts...etc).

For example: You cannot believe that Allah SWT is THE ONE AND ONLY Creator, Provider and Sustainer... and then go to a grave and ask a dead person to provide you with this and that (job, house, husband, wife, children, success...etc, or give divine attributes to the Prophet ﷺ...etc)... These (and other) practices and beliefs are unfortunately very widespread in our Islamic world... and have been for many, many centuries.

I am very grateful to the 'Ulama (scholars) of Ahlus Sunnah WalJamaah (Whom you've insulted and called heretics)... for simplifying and preserving Tawheed for us in its Pure form.

I hope that I have not insulted any scholar (no matter what their beliefs or inclinations were...)... nor called anyone a heretic!

I think I'm done here...

Again you're super imposing your own understanding to these ayat that you cite as evidence. Where are you getting that tawheed in rububiyyah is ONLY established on the basis of SOME of the attributes of Lordship and not ALL of the attributes of Lordship ? This here is your main problem

Polytheists affirmation of some attributes of Lordship to Allah does not negate the fact that they affirmed other attributes of Lordship to their gods. To have tawheed in Rububiyyah means to have a belief that is FREE from SHIRK and KUFR in Allah's Lordship, the polytheistic belief doesn't meet this condition. They believed that their gods had the power to benefit & harm, knowledge of the unseen, prevent them Allah's punishment, grant victories, helped Allah to manage his Mulk etc All of this is in the Quran yet you ignore it why is this ?


The issue of contention isn't about if they were mushriks or not but why they're considered to be mushriks. Your claim was they were labelled as mushriks because of shirk in uluhiyyah but ours claim is they were labelled as such because they were guilty of shirk in all the 3 categories . Shirk in worship can never take place without Shirk in Rububiyyah, as worship is but a result of Rububiyyah.

“And that which I have mentioned to you – that Allaah the Most High has mentioned that the mushriks affirm ruboobeeyah, and that their kufr was due to their devoting themselves to the angels and the prophets and the awliyaa (beloved servants of Allaah) with their statement: «These are our intercessors with Allaah!» - then this is a muhkam clear matter, whose meaning no one can change!

Miaw claims that the mushriks committed kufr in worship but not in Rububiyyah and this claims is a false one as Allah tells explicitly in 13:5 that they committed kufr when they denied resurrection


And if you are astonished, [O Muḥammad] - then astonishing is their saying, "When we are dust, will we indeed be [brought] into a new creation?" Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.


I asked you before what effect does the kufr of rejecting resurrection have on tawheed Rububiyyah but until now i've yet to get an answer from you for this simple question why ?

[cloud9]

the prophet muhammad pbuh is alive in heaven because when he went on the miraj, he met all the prophets in their respective heavens. the prophet muhammad pbuh met the prophet moses i.e musa in heaven who guided him to have the number of prayers reduced by Allah.

[cloud9]

peace be upon all the prophets of Allah.

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

From their own words..
what idolatory means?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...MIhwIhG-JxPmyr

[TheHaqq]

yh i heard your arguments before your waiting for me to say intention

but hadith says duaa is ibaadah

I guess it just depends how you understand it then