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

[Abu Sulayman]

Proving that Najdi minded people (like AbuNajm) are lacking in knowledge and basic comprehension skills

Why did you leave out the part where 'Ibn Qudaamah says:

وَإِذَا حَجَّ الَّذِي لَمْ يَحُجَّ قَطُّ - يَعْنِي مِنْ غَيْرِ طَرِيقِ الشَّامِ - لَا يَأْخُذُ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْمَدِينَةِ، لِأَنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَحْدُثَ بِهِ حَدَثٌ، فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَقْصِدَ مَكَّةَ مِنْ أَقْصَرِ الطُّرُقِ، وَلَا يَتَشَاغَلَ بِغَيْرِهِ.

"And when the one who performs Hajj has not done so before, in other words, aside from the road from ash-Shaam, he should not take preoccupy himself with the road to al-Madinah because I fear that through it will take place an innovation [Hadath]. So, one ought to set out for Makkah from the shortest of routes and not preoccupy himself with anything else..."

The above proves two things:
- That you're lacking in your comprehension skills
- That you've not mastered the Hanbali Fiqh as you claimed elsewhere


As for your comprehension skills:
It's beyond me how you could understand Hadath as innovation and this with the above context given! Rather what is meant is incident and this is obvious.
A person may die on his way or loose his route or what is similar to this and thereby not be able to complete his Hajj.

As for mastering Hanbali Fiqh:
Someone who has studied the Hanbali Fiqh with a proper teacher could not fall into such an obvious mistake, which even a layman like me could easily detect. If you found the above passage difficult to understand - even though I don't see why it should be difficult! -, then you could have simply checked the chapter on the visitation of the grave of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in other Hanbali works.
The statement is actually that of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself and it's in the context of whether one should start with visiting Madina or Makka first, so if it's one's first Hajj then one should take the shortest route to Makka al-mukarrama [in order to be able to complete the duty of Hajj] and otherwise one can also start with Madina al-munawwara according to the Imam.

Here for example from the Hanbali Fiqh work Kashaf al-Qina' 2/515 mentioning that one could die on the way and therefore take the shortest route to Makka al-mukarrama (for the one who dies on his way to Hajj is a Shahid):

قَالَ) الْإِمَامُ (أَحْمَدُ إذَا حَجَّ الَّذِي لَمْ يَحُجَّ قَطُّ يَعْنِي مِنْ غَيْرِ طَرِيقِ الشَّامِ لَا يَأْخُذُ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْمَدِينَةِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ إنْ حَدَثَ بِهِ حَدَثُ الْمَوْتِ كَانَ فِي سَبِيلِ الْحَجِّ) وَهُوَ مِنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَكُونُ شَهِيدًا، عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ بَحْثُهُ عَنْ صَاحِبِ الْفُرُوعِ وَعِبَارَةُ الشَّرْحِ وَشَرْحِ الْمُنْتَهَى: لَا يَأْخُذُ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْمَدِينَةِ لِأَنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَحْدُثَ بِهِ حَدَثٌ فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَقْصِدَ مَكَّةَ مِنْ أَقْصَرِ الطَّرِيقِ وَلَا يَتَشَاغَلَ بِغَيْرِهِ (وَإِنْ كَانَ) الْحَجُّ (تَطَوُّعًا بَدَأَ بِالْمَدِينَةِ) قَالَ ابْنُ نَصْرِ اللَّهِ فِي هَذَا: إنَّ الزِّيَارَةَ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ حَجِّ التَّطَوُّعِ وَإِنَّ حَجَّ الْفَرْضِ أَفْضَلُ مِنْهَا انْتَهَى قُلْتُ: قَدْ يَتَوَقَّفُ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادَ الْإِمَامُ أَنْ يَنْضَمَّ إلَى قَصْدِ الْحَجِّ قَصْدُ الزِّيَارَةِ، فَيُثَابُ عَلَيْهِمَا بِخِلَافِ حَجِّ الْفَرْضِ فَيُمَحِّضُ النِّيَّةَ لَهُ
- end of quote -

Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki [al-Shafi'i] (d. 756 AH) also mentioned in his Shifa` al-Siqam (see p. 192 - 194) that the Imam Ahmad mentioned the difference of opinion on this issue among the Salaf al-salih and brought several quotes from him including the above one mentioned by Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) and stated that the Hajj has a specified time (if one has intended performing it), so one should take the shortest route to in order not to miss its time and thereafter one can go to Madina al-Munawwara (and if it's a 'Umra, then one can also start with Madina al-munawwara).

Of course this Tawassul mentioned by 'Ibn Qudaamah is remarkably different from the type promoted by the others in your list like ar-Ramli, the Subkis, and others among the Asha'irah and Sufiyyah, who were extreme in their Tawassul and it rose to the level of Shirk.

Again, it's a shame that the ignorant people on this forum can't see your propaganda for what it is- shameless up-selling of the extremist Sufi and Ash'ari agenda.

The ironic thing here is that Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) is a direct student of Imam 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (d. 561 AH) and has taken Tasawwuf from him! So he was literally a Sufi - obviously not one of these fake ones! - and the majority of the major scholars of the Hanabila were Sufiyya and this should be a known issue.

Then: This issue is not one of 'Aqida in the very first place, nor have the Hanabila and the Asha'ira differed on this greatly or criticized each other on this. Rather only the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) - a Qadiri Sufi himself! - made a big issue out of it and even he was in no way as extreme as the Najdis on this.
So the Najdis are the elephant in the room with no predecessors for their ugly Takfir in this issue!

By the way: Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) believes that one can say the following in one's supplication "O Allah, I ask You and turn to You by Your Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet of mercy. O Muhammad, I turn by you to My Lord and your Lord, mighty and majestic is He, for Him to settle my need for me." and this while being thousand miles away from the blessed grave!
What a "Quburi" and "caller to polytheism", right?!

'Ibn Qudaamah said visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS, without setting out for it or making the journey longer for it, is "recommended".

No, this is just the result of you completely misunderstanding everything as already shown above (in reality the issue was simply about whether one should first go to Madina or to Makka).
He started the chapter by literally stating that it's recommended / desirable to visit the grave of our Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)! It's really frightening how you could misunderstand such clear passages!

Guess you should start realizing that the classical scholars had no "visiting the Prophetic grave leads to Shirk akbar"-hallucinations like the wretched Najdis and their heretic leader and false prophet Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH).

He did not also recommend acting upon the report of al-'Utbi which contains the incident of the Bedouin and the Du'a. It is dishonest to leave this impression for ignorant readers on this forum.

Seriously? I mean really? Did you even read the passage?

Let's see what Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) actually said:

وَيُرْوَى عَنْ الْعُتْبِيِّ، قَالَ: كُنْت جَالِسًا عِنْدَ قَبْرِ النَّبِيِّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فَجَاءَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ، فَقَالَ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْك يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، سَمِعْت اللَّهَ يَقُولُ: {وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا} [النساء: 64] .وَقَدْ جِئْتُك مُسْتَغْفِرًا لِذَنْبِي، مُسْتَشْفِعًا بِك إلَى رَبِّي، ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ يَقُولُ:يَا خَيْرَ مَنْ دُفِنَتْ بِالْقَاعِ أَعْظُمُهُ ... فَطَابَ مِنْ طِيبِهِنَّ الْقَاعُ وَالْأَكَمُنَفْسِي الْفِدَاءُ لِقَبْرِ أَنْتَ سَاكِنُهُ ... فِيهِ الْعَفَافُ وَفِيهِ الْجُودُ وَالْكَرَمُثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ الْأَعْرَابِيُّ، فَحَمَلَتْنِي عَيْنِي، فَنِمْت، فَرَأَيْت النَّبِيَّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فِي النَّوْمِ، فَقَالَ: يَا عُتْبِيُّ، الْحَقْ الْأَعْرَابِيَّ، فَبَشِّرْهُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ غَفَرَ لَهُ.وَيُسْتَحَبُّ لِمَنْ دَخَلَ الْمَسْجِدَ أَنْ يُقَدِّمَ رِجْلَهُ الْيُمْنَى، ثُمَّ يَقُولَ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ، وَالصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ، اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، وَاغْفِرْ لِي، وَافْتَحْ لِي أَبْوَابَ رَحْمَتِك. وَإِذَا خَرَجَ، قَالَ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ. وَقَالَ: وَافْتَحْ لِي أَبْوَابَ فَضْلِكَ»لِمَا رُوِيَ عَنْ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَرَضِي اللَّهُ عَنْهَا أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - عَلَّمَهَا أَنْ تَقُولَ ذَلِكَ، إذَا دَخَلَتْ الْمَسْجِدَ. ثُمَّ تَأْتِي الْقَبْرَ فَتُوَلِّي ظَهْرَكَ الْقِبْلَةَ، وَتَسْتَقْبِلُ وَسَطَهُ، وَتَقُولُ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْك أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ، السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ، وَخِيرَتَهُ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ وَعِبَادِهِ، أَشْهَدُ أَنْ لَا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ، وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ، أَشْهَدُ أَنَّك قَدْ بَلَّغْت رِسَالَاتِ رَبِّك، وَنَصَحْت لِأُمَّتِك، وَدَعَوْت إلَى سَبِيلِ رَبِّك بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ، وَعَبَدْت اللَّهَ حَتَّى أَتَاك الْيَقِينُ، فَصَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْك كَثِيرًا، كَمَا يُحِبُّ رَبُّنَا وَيَرْضَى، اللَّهُمَّ اجْزِ عَنَّا نَبِيَّنَا أَفْضَلَ مَا جَزَيْت أَحَدًا مِنْ النَّبِيِّينَ وَالْمُرْسَلِينَ، وَابْعَثْهُ الْمَقَامَ الْمَحْمُودَ الَّذِي وَعَدْته، يَغْبِطُهُ بِهِ الْأَوَّلُونَ وَالْآخَرُونَ، اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا صَلَّيْت عَلَى إبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلِ إبْرَاهِيمَ، إنَّك حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، وَبَارِكْ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ، كَمَا بَارَكْت عَلَى إبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلِ إبْرَاهِيمَ، إنَّك حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، اللَّهُمَّ إنَّك قُلْت وَقَوْلُك الْحَقُّ: {وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا} [النساء: 64] . وَقَدْ أَتَيْتُك مُسْتَغْفِرًا مِنْ ذُنُوبِي، مُسْتَشْفِعًا بِك إلَى رَبِّي، فَأَسْأَلُك يَا رَبِّ أَنْ تُوجِبَ لِي الْمَغْفِرَةَ، كَمَا أَوْجَبْتهَا لِمَنْ أَتَاهُ فِي حَيَاتِهِ، اللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْهُ أَوَّلَ الشَّافِعِينَ، وَأَنْجَحَ السَّائِلِينَ، وَأَكْرَمَ الْآخَرِينَ وَالْأَوَّلِينَ، بِرَحْمَتِك يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِينَ

So here we see that Imam Ibn Qudama first mentions the story of al-'Utbi - which contains the wording "wa qad ji`tuka mustaghfiran li dhanbi, mustashfi'an bika ila rabbi" - and then later he himself says that one should use the following wording "wa qad ataytuka mustaghfiran min dhunubi, mustashif'an bika ila rabbi" (which is almost the very same wording and the part with seeking intercession (!) is the same word for word!), but somehow to you he did not recommend to act upon it?!?!

I'm speechless at this epic fail of yours! And then it's me who's dishonest, right?

Opposition to a "recommendation" NOT based on explicit Sunnah of the Prophet SAWS, but rather actions arrived at by 'Ijtihaad among the later generations, does not constitute "Kufr" by any principle of Ahl as-Sunnah.

So your lack of comprehension skills applies to the English language also? Did I even say that disagreeing with the Jumhur view is disbelief? NO!
Rather I stated that to regard someone who acts upon something legislated in the Shari'a (like acting upon the Hadith of the blind man or acting upon the Aya 4:64, because it's general) as "a polytheist" for this, is disbelief in itself.

This is, yet again, another example of the extremist Sufi/Ash'ari position in regards to the matter of Tawassul. You have done nothing but distort the "permission" by some scholars with specific criteria and the "recommendation" by others, again within very specific boundaries, and turn it into a wash with the extremism in Tawassul promoted by other scholars who were CLEARLY MISGUIDED in the subject of Tawassul.

Before you DARE to accuse the major and leading scholars of this Umma of Shirk (!), go and improve your comprehension skills!

In the very first post of this thread I quoted a scholarly statement in summary of this issue and in it it's acknowledged that calling the creation in the issues in the manner one calls one's Lord alone is abominable (and therefore forbidden; and this is something that the Rafidha are guilty of for example) and may even reach the level of disbelief if one believes that the creation has real influence (Ta`thir) instead or alongside Allah ta'ala.

I even acknowledged elsewhere that the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) did have actually a point, but since he attacked the correct forms of Tawassul / Tashaffu' / Istighatha - to the degree of disallowing what is legislated in the Shari'a - alongside what was mentioned before (from the exaggeration that happens from some ignorant people) the scholars criticized him.
(I would advice one to read what the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab - who agrees with the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya on the issue of Istighatha - stated :"'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW")

As for the Najdis: Then they were regarding people as polytheists for the simple asking for intercession from the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (the very thing that Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) and the rest of the classical scholars supported!) and I've already quoted them on this HERE. They have literally no Salaf for this ugly Takfir!

[Abu Sulayman]

Note that AbuNajm was unable to respond to an easy question that I had asked him on another thread (HERE) and that was what the ruling upon the belief of the one is, who believes his Creator to be a 3-dimensional being - or say a being with the a height, width and depth (or say with a size) - and I repeated the question again and again without getting an answer and this while there is an agreement that this is disbelief!
He was also unable to declare the Creator transcendent from being a 3-dimensional (or n-dimensional) being, rather left it open as if it's some sort of possibility!

So AbuNajm is unable to call disbelief as disbelief and it seems he himself doesn't know exactly what he's worshiping, but at the same time we see him here accusing major scholars of justifying "polytheism".

(Additionally he showed here that he lacks basic comprehension skills. I guess that the brother who attacked him elsewhere regarding his qualifications had a point.)

...and then later he himself says that one should use the following wording "wa qad ataytuka mustaghfiran min dhunubi, mustashif'an bika ila rabbi" (which is almost the very same wording and the part with seeking intercession (!) is the same word for word!), but somehow to you he did not recommend to act upon it?!?!

There is a typo in the above: I meant mustashfi'an.

[Abu Sulayman]

May Allah reward your efforts Abu Sulayman. You should consider compiling these posts on a blog somewhere also as many of the quotes are not available elsewhere in English.

Hope you're doing well, dear brother.

You can put whatever post you like on the "wahhabisrefuted"-website :-)

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...Whatever you say! I'm glad that you've finally acknowledged that you're a troll mod by writing it under your name. And trolls need to be ignored!

[AbuNajm]

The statement is actually that of Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself and it's in the context of whether one should start with visiting Madina or Makka first, so if it's one's first Hajj then one should take the shortest route to Makka al-mukarrama [in order to be able to complete the duty of Hajj] and otherwise one can also start with Madina al-munawwara according to the Imam.

Here for example from the Hanbali Fiqh work Kashaf al-Qina' 2/515 mentioning that one could die on the way and therefore take the shortest route to Makka al-mukarrama (for the one who dies on his way to Hajj is a Shahid):

قَالَ) الْإِمَامُ (أَحْمَدُ إذَا حَجَّ الَّذِي لَمْ يَحُجَّ قَطُّ يَعْنِي مِنْ غَيْرِ طَرِيقِ الشَّامِ لَا يَأْخُذُ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْمَدِينَةِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ إنْ حَدَثَ بِهِ حَدَثُ الْمَوْتِ كَانَ فِي سَبِيلِ الْحَجِّ) وَهُوَ مِنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَيَكُونُ شَهِيدًا، عَلَى مَا تَقَدَّمَ بَحْثُهُ عَنْ صَاحِبِ الْفُرُوعِ وَعِبَارَةُ الشَّرْحِ وَشَرْحِ الْمُنْتَهَى: لَا يَأْخُذُ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْمَدِينَةِ لِأَنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَحْدُثَ بِهِ حَدَثٌ فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَقْصِدَ مَكَّةَ مِنْ أَقْصَرِ الطَّرِيقِ وَلَا يَتَشَاغَلَ بِغَيْرِهِ (وَإِنْ كَانَ) الْحَجُّ (تَطَوُّعًا بَدَأَ بِالْمَدِينَةِ) قَالَ ابْنُ نَصْرِ اللَّهِ فِي هَذَا: إنَّ الزِّيَارَةَ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ حَجِّ التَّطَوُّعِ وَإِنَّ حَجَّ الْفَرْضِ أَفْضَلُ مِنْهَا انْتَهَى قُلْتُ: قَدْ يَتَوَقَّفُ فِي ذَلِكَ، وَإِنَّمَا أَرَادَ الْإِمَامُ أَنْ يَنْضَمَّ إلَى قَصْدِ الْحَجِّ قَصْدُ الزِّيَارَةِ، فَيُثَابُ عَلَيْهِمَا بِخِلَافِ حَجِّ الْفَرْضِ فَيُمَحِّضُ النِّيَّةَ لَهُ
- end of quote -

"Innovation" is a valid translation for "Hadath". That meaning is only discounted by a longer, different version of the same statement in the one other Hanbali text that mentions it.

As the statement stands, without the other longer version of the same statement as found in Kashshaf al-Qina', "Hadath" can mean "innovation".

Why deny this and pretend it's not a possible meaning except to make readers who don't know Arabic think it is a bigger mistake than it really is?

And by the way, you made a mistake in the title of the book- there is a Shaddah on the Sheen: كَشَّاف الفِنَاع.

So, for you to pretend as if I have "comprehension" issues simply for selecting the wrong meaning out of several valid ones is dishonest and disingenuous.

Why didn't you address the fact that the "recommendation" stated by 'Ibn Qudaamah was not for the Du'a of the Bedouin but rather for visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS?

Giving the impression that 'Ibn Qudaamah "recommended" Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS in that passage of al-Mughni is a far greater mistake than translating "Hadath" as "innovation".

I am happy that you cleared up the mistake. May Allah AWJ reward you with guidance away from the "Hadath" that you are upon in terms of extreme Sufism and Kullabi/Asharism.

[maturidee]

Supplicating to Allaah direct while mentioning the status of the Prophet saw = not shirk

Asking at graveside the Prophet for duaa this is not shirk, but nowadays this is impossible since the grave with the prophet in it is incapsulated by walls and the audiance is probably at a distance that the prophet would not hear.

Asking this at from distance for example asking from Iraq the prophet for a supplication than this is shirk as this is giving the prophet the status of all hearing.

The prophet said send salawaat upon me wherever you are the angels will convey it to me, and he did not say i will hear it.

Anybody dead, absent asked from distance = shirk

Prophets asked for a duaa to Allaah at graveside in a distance that one can be heard = not shirk.

Anyone asking something that only Allaah can do, such as forgiving sins = shirk

[faqir]

Abu Najam please please stop embarrassing yourself - I see your translations remain as awfully bad as they were all those years ago.

Allah's refuge is sought.

[maturidee]

It wasn't simply the state! The scholars (!) supported his imprisonment!
In fact his own Hanbali colleagues disallowed him from giving abnormal Fatawa and this is specifically famous regarding his Fatwa on triple Talaq! Imam Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) - who respected him a lot - even called these very Hanbalis who stopped him from giving such Fatawa as upright judges!

Now if you want to prove that you're not trying to fill the thread with meaningless comments and are really interested in what the classical scholars said on the issue of Tawassul, then please do the following:
Quote us 5 scholars who lived BEFORE the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) and who clearly and openly disallowed Tawassul! I've already brought more than 5 in support of Tawassul! (I can EASILY bring you even more!)

There is Abu Hanifa and his students who objected making tawassul by the right of the Prophet saw, as mentioned by al-Quduri and others!

Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

لَا يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إلَّا بِهِ

No one should call upon Allaah except by Him.

Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 6/396

And Ibn Abi al-‘Izz commented on al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, writing:

وَإِنْ كَانَ يعنى الْحَلِف بِغَيْر اللَّهِ مُرَادُهُ الْإِقْسَامَ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَذَلِكَ مَحْذُورٌ أَيْضًا لِأَنَّ الْإِقْسَامَ بِالْمَخْلُوقِ عَلَى الْمَخْلُوقِ لَا يَجُوزُ فَكَيْفَ عَلَى الْخَالِقِ … وَلِهَذَا قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَصَاحِبَاهُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ يُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَقُولَ الدَّاعِي أَسْأَلُكَ بِحَقِّ فُلَانٍ أَوْ بِحَقِّ أَنْبِيَائِكَ وَرُسُلِكَ وَبِحَقِّ الْبَيْتِ الْحَرَامِ

If one’s swearing by other than Allaah is intended to adjure Allaah, that is also forbidden, as stating an oath by a created being for a created being is not permissible, so how can it be for the Creator? … For this reason, Abu Hanifa and his companions, may Allaah be pleased with him, disapproved of a supplicant saying: I ask You by the right of so-and-so, or by the right of Your prophets and messengers, or by the right of the sacred house.

Source: Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwịyah 1/297

And Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

وَهَذَا هُوَ الَّذِي قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَأَصْحَابُهُ إنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ وَنَهَوْا عَنْهُ حَيْثُ قَالُوا لَا يُسْأَلُ بِمَخْلُوقِ وَلَا يَقُولُ أَحَدٌ أَسْأَلُك بِحَقِّ أَنْبِيَائِك

This is what was said by Abu Hanifa and his companions. It is not permissible and they prohibited it, such that they said Allah is not asked by created beings, nor does one say: I ask You by the right of Your prophets.

Source: Majmū’ al-Fatāwá 1/202

And Ibn Mawdud writes:

وَيُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا بِهِ فَلَا يَقُولُ أَسْأَلُكَ بِفُلَانٍ أَوْ بِمَلَائِكَتِكَ أَوْ بِأَنْبِيَائِكَ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ لَا حَقَّ لِلْمَخْلُوقِ عَلَى الْخَالِقِ

It is disapproved to call upon Allaah unless by Him. Thus, one does not say: I ask You by such person, or by Your angels, or by Your prophets, and so on, as created beings have no such right over the Creator.

Source: al-Ikhtiyār li-Ta’līl al-Mukhtār 4/164

[Abu Sulayman]

"Innovation" is a valid translation for "Hadath". That meaning is only discounted by a longer, different version of the same statement in the one other Hanbali text that mentions it.

As the statement stands, without the other longer version of the same statement as found in Kashshaf al-Qina', "Hadath" can mean "innovation".

Why deny this and pretend it's not a possible meaning except to make readers who don't know Arabic think it is a bigger mistake than it really is?

It's not a valid translation considering the context. Why do you think one's first Hajj is mentioned and why is taking the shortest route mentioned? What has this to do with innovations? Exactly, nothing.

Let met tell you why you fell into this mistake: You falsely think that the classical scholars have these "the danger of Shirk when visiting the Prophetic grave"-hallucinations like the Najdis and that's why you could misunderstood the above statement.

Add to this: These type of obvious mistakes are even committed by so called "Salafi scholars" and if this shows anything, then that they have not mastered [Hanbali] Fiqh or are knowingly distorting quotes (and both is catastrophic).

Note that right in the next section Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) mentions the issue of touching and kissing the wall of the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and says simply that it's not desirable (and nothing with "Shirk"!) and thereafter he states that this is unlike the Minbar (meaning that touching it is correct and good!).
Imagine what a Najdi would have said instead here and how he would have made this into a matter of Tawhid and Shirk!

And by the way, you made a mistake in the title of the book- there is a Shaddah on the Sheen: كَشَّاف الفِنَاع.

It's not a mistake and I even thought that you may mention this :-)
I don't like writing a double "sh", because it looks weird to write "Kashshaf".

Why didn't you address the fact that the "recommendation" stated by 'Ibn Qudaamah was not for the Du'a of the Bedouin but rather for visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS?

Giving the impression that 'Ibn Qudaamah "recommended" Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS in that passage of al-Mughni is a far greater mistake than translating "Hadath" as "innovation".

He recommended the visitation of the grave of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and thereafter mentioned what one should do during the visitation and mentioned the seeking of intercession in this context and even used an Aya in support of it.
How this is not a recommendation is beyond me.

By the way: You people really love to isolate things from each other (and even do this with the book of Allah ta'ala) in order to distort what is intended. The very same Imam Ibn Qudama said in his Wasiyya (p. 46-48) that when one one has a need, one should do Wudhu and perform two Rak'at of prayer and then make a supplication which contains the following wording ""O Allah, I ask You and turn to You by Your Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), the Prophet of mercy. O Muhammad, I turn by you to My Lord and your Lord, mighty and majestic is He, for Him to settle my need for me.".
I guess this was also not a recommendation?!

I am happy that you cleared up the mistake. May Allah AWJ reward you with guidance away from the "Hadath" that you are upon in terms of extreme Sufism and Kullabi/Asharism.

If I were to ask you for a single example of me being an "extreme Sufi", you would not be able to name it. I mean if I were to regard Wahdat al-Wujud - with its wrong meaning - as correct or what is similar to this, then I would understand your accusation, but how is it justified without any of this?

As for Ash'arism / Kullabism: I think by now everyone knows that I respect both approaches - the Ash'ari and the [traditional] Hanbali one - while being more inclined towards the Asha'ira. The major and leading scholars of this Umma were upon this, so what harm can there be to be upon this?

Anyways, may Allah ta'ala guide me and you to the truth.

I would like to recommend you to listen to the Shaykh Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahid al-Hanbali here (yes again!) regarding the issue of Tawassul and Istighatha (and he does not support Istighatha, but rather Tawassul and Tashaffu'!) in order to understand the issues correctly. He has in-depth and detailed talks on this, where he quotes a lot of classical texts (usually Hanbali ones).
Listen to them. You won't loose anything if you listen to my advice for once. It's not like I'm your enemy, nor do I wish anything bad for you.

[Abu Sulayman]

There is Abu Hanifa and his students who objected making tawassul by the right of the Prophet saw, as mentioned by al-Quduri and others!

Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

لَا يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إلَّا بِهِ

No one should call upon Allaah except by Him.

Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 6/396

And Ibn Abi al-‘Izz commented on al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, writing:

وَإِنْ كَانَ يعنى الْحَلِف بِغَيْر اللَّهِ مُرَادُهُ الْإِقْسَامَ عَلَى اللَّهِ فَذَلِكَ مَحْذُورٌ أَيْضًا لِأَنَّ الْإِقْسَامَ بِالْمَخْلُوقِ عَلَى الْمَخْلُوقِ لَا يَجُوزُ فَكَيْفَ عَلَى الْخَالِقِ … وَلِهَذَا قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَصَاحِبَاهُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ يُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَقُولَ الدَّاعِي أَسْأَلُكَ بِحَقِّ فُلَانٍ أَوْ بِحَقِّ أَنْبِيَائِكَ وَرُسُلِكَ وَبِحَقِّ الْبَيْتِ الْحَرَامِ

If one’s swearing by other than Allaah is intended to adjure Allaah, that is also forbidden, as stating an oath by a created being for a created being is not permissible, so how can it be for the Creator? … For this reason, Abu Hanifa and his companions, may Allaah be pleased with him, disapproved of a supplicant saying: I ask You by the right of so-and-so, or by the right of Your prophets and messengers, or by the right of the sacred house.

Source: Sharḥ al-‘Aqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwịyah 1/297

And Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

وَهَذَا هُوَ الَّذِي قَالَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ وَأَصْحَابُهُ إنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ وَنَهَوْا عَنْهُ حَيْثُ قَالُوا لَا يُسْأَلُ بِمَخْلُوقِ وَلَا يَقُولُ أَحَدٌ أَسْأَلُك بِحَقِّ أَنْبِيَائِك

This is what was said by Abu Hanifa and his companions. It is not permissible and they prohibited it, such that they said Allah is not asked by created beings, nor does one say: I ask You by the right of Your prophets.

Source: Majmū’ al-Fatāwá 1/202

And Ibn Mawdud writes:

وَيُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا بِهِ فَلَا يَقُولُ أَسْأَلُكَ بِفُلَانٍ أَوْ بِمَلَائِكَتِكَ أَوْ بِأَنْبِيَائِكَ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ لَا حَقَّ لِلْمَخْلُوقِ عَلَى الْخَالِقِ

It is disapproved to call upon Allaah unless by Him. Thus, one does not say: I ask You by such person, or by Your angels, or by Your prophets, and so on, as created beings have no such right over the Creator.

Source: al-Ikhtiyār li-Ta’līl al-Mukhtār 4/164

The above is a distortion of the reality. Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) did not deny seeking intercession, but rather had only a problem with specific wordings.


These are some relevant quotes from the very thread that you're commenting in:

It was narrated that he disliked the wording of asking Allah ta'ala "by the right of so and so upon you", because a creation has no binding right upon Allah ta'ala. At the very same time he did not say a word against Tawassul in itself and did not deny it.

This is clarified in the famous Hanafi Fiqh work Radd al-Muhtar 6/397 (translation taken from HERE):

قَوْلُهُ لِأَنَّهُ لَا حَقَّ لِلْخَلْقِ عَلَى الْخَالِقِ) قَدْ يُقَالُ إنَّهُ لَا حَقَّ لَهُمْ وُجُوبًا عَلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى، لَكِنَّ اللَّهَ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى جَعَلَ لَهُمْ حَقًّا مِنْ فَضْلِهِ أَوْ يُرَادُ بِالْحَقِّ الْحُرْمَةُ وَالْعَظَمَةُ

(And his saying that there is no right of the creation on the Creator) He said that there is no right on Allah that He is compelled (wujuban) to fulfill. But Allah alloted to them rights from His grace or willingness with the right of sanctity and greatness.
- end of quote -

The author then gives an example for what Allah ta'ala alloted to his slaves as rights from His grace (which therefore is allowed and does not fall under being disliked):
"So this then becomes from the Wasila (means) as [Allah] ta'ala stated { and seek the means towards Him } [5:35]'" ("فَيَكُونُ مِنْ بَابِ الْوَسِيلَةِ وَقَدْ قَالَ تَعَالَى: - {وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ").

This means that this was not understood as a rejection of Tawassul by the Hanafi Fuqaha` and this should be enough.

(See the rest of the explantion in the Arabic link.)

Refer also to this post:

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

He stated in his al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar 1/176 (= major accepted Fiqh book of the Ahnaf / Hanafiyya!) that one should say the following during the visitation (Ziyara) of the grave of our beloved Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam:

وَقَدْ قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى: {وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا} [النساء: 64] وَقَدْ جِئْنَاكَ ظَالِمِينَ لِأَنْفُسِنَا، مُسْتَغْفِرِينَ لِذُنُوبِنَا، فَاشْفَعْ لَنَا إِلَى رَبِّكَ، وَأَسْأَلْهُ أَنْ يُمِيتَنَا عَلَى سُنَّتِكَ، وَأَنْ يَحْشُرَنَا فِي زُمْرَتِكَ، وَأَنْ يُورِدَنَا حَوْضَكَ، وَأَنْ يَسْقِيَنَا كَأْسَكَ غَيْرَ خَزَايَا وَلَا نَادِمِينَ، الشَّفَاعَةَ الشَّفَاعَةَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، يَقُولُهَا ثَلَاثًا: {رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلإِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِينَ سَبَقُونَا بِالإِيمَانِ} [الحشر: 10] الْآيَةَ. وَيُبَلِّغُهُ سَلَامَ مَنْ أَوْصَاهُ فَيَقُولُ: السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مِنْ فُلَانِ بْنِ فُلَانٍ، يَسْتَشْفِعُ بِكَ إِلَى رَبِّكِ فَاشْفَعْ لَهُ وَلِجَمِيعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

"Allah ta'ala says: { If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful } [4:64].
So we've come to you, having wronged ourselves and asking [Allah] for forgiveness regarding our sins, so intercede for us to your Lord and ask Him that He lets us die upon your Sunna, and that He gathers us [on the day of reckoning] among your group, and allows us to get to your pond and drink from your cup without disgrace or regret.
Intercession intercession, o Messenger of Allah (al-Shafa'a al-Shafa'a, ya Rasulallah) - he (the visitor) should say this thrice -, { “Our Lord, forgive us and those of our brothers who preceded us in faith” } [59:10] [till the end of] the Aya.
[Then] he should deliver the greeting of those who have told him to do so by saying: 'Peace be upon you, o Messenger of Allah, from Fulan bin Fulan, he seeks intercession through you unto your Lord, so intercede for him and for all believers'."
- end of quote -


It should be noted that the above is supported by the Ahnaf in general (go and read any major Hanafi Fiqh book!) such that it can be found in their important works like Fath al-Qadir 3/181 (by Imam Ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi (d. 861 AH)), al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/266 (by a number of Hanafi authors) and other than it.



It should be also noted that some ignorant and / or dishonest people in our time will quote some of the Hanafi scholars, who stated that one should not ask Allah ta'ala "by the right of so and so upon you", and then these people claim that this means that these Ahnaf disallowed Tawassul. The reality is that some of their scholars only disliked this wording (!), because they stated that no one has an absolute right upon the Creator (and NOT in order to disallow Tawassul).
And among those who have mentioned this very reasoning for disliking it - while clearly supporting seeking intercession with the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is Imam Ibn Mawdud al-Mawsili himself in the very same book quoted above (see al-Ikhtiyar li Ta'lil al-Mukhtar 4/164: "قَالَ: (وَيُكْرَهُ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا بِهِ) ؛ فَلَا يَقُولُ أَسْأَلُكَ بِفُلَانٍ أَوْ بِمَلَائِكَتِكَ أَوْ بِأَنْبِيَائِكَ وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ لَا حَقَّ لِلْمَخْلُوقِ عَلَى الْخَالِقِ").

This shows to you how one can not trust any of the claims of these people against Tawassul, because they're either based upon ignorance or dishonesty or both!
Wallahu a'lam.

Let us not forget: Imam Abu Hanifa (A.R) said, ‘When a hadith is found to be authentic, then that is my adopted position’. (Hashiya of Ibn Abidin vol.1 pg. 63)

How Salafis forget these quotes when hadiths are used against them.

There is no evidence that Abu Hanifa opposed Tasawwul. However there is authentic evidence indicating it's permissibility. Thus it is Abu Hanifa position.



Abu Hanifa & Tawassul

by Shaykh Gibril Haddad

Imam Abu Hanifa: His Supposed Objection to Tawassul (Using Intermediaries)

Imàm Abu Hanïfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only – as narrated from Abu Yosuf in Kitàb al-Àthàr–to the use of a specific wording in supplication, namely, “by the right You owe to So-and-so” (bi-haqqi fulàni ‘alayk), or “by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” (bima ‘àqidal-‘izzmin‘arshik).[1] The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allàh owes no-one any right whatsoever except what He Himself condescends to state on His part as in the verse [To help believers is incumbent upon Us (haqqun ‘alaynà)](30:47). On the other hand, “by the right owed so-and-so” is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allàh Himself on pains of shirk. Imàm Abu Hanïfa said: “Let one not swear any oath except by Allàh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawhïd and sincerity.”[2] A third reason is that the expression “the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” is a lone-narrator (àhàd) report and is therefore not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.

Those that claim [3] that the Imàm objected to tawassul altogether are unable to adduce anything to support such a claim other than the above caveat, which is not against tawassul but against a specific, prohibitive wording in tawassul. A proof of this is that it is permissible in the Hanafï School to say “by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence” (bi-hurmati/bi-jàhi fulàn). This is stated in the Fatàwà Bazzàziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatàwà Hindiyya) and is also the position of Abþ al-Layth al-Samarqandï among the major Hanafï Jurists, not to mention that of Imàm Ibn ‘Àbidïn among the later ones.

Even so there is authentic evidence in [1] the hadïth of Fàtima bint Asad, [2] the hadïth of “the right of those who ask You,”[3] the hadïth: “O Allàh, I ask you by the joints of power in the Throne,” and [4] the hadïth: “Do you know the right owed to Allàh by His slaves and the right owed by Allàh to his slaves?”[4] to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from Abu Hanïfa then either he did not deem these hadïths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abu Yusuf permitted the formula “By the joints of power…”. [5] Further, the opposite is also reported from him, namely, that he permitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn ‘Àbidïn said: “In the Tatàrkhàniyya: The Àthàr also report what shows permissibility.” Then he cites–from al-Qàrï’s Sharh al-Niqàya, al-Munàwï quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Salàm (cf. the very first of his Fatàwà in the printed Risàla edition), and al-Subkï – further explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amïr al-Hajj in the thirteenth chapter of Sharh al-Munya that such permissibility is not limited to tawassul through the Prophet e. i.e. it extends to the Sàlihïn.

[1] Cf. al-Zabïdï, It hàf (2:285) and Ibn Abï al-‘Izz, Sharhal-‘Aqïda al-Tahàwiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237).

[2]Cf. al-Kasànï, Badà’i‘ al-Sanà’i‘ (3:8).

[3]Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, Majmþ‘ al-Fatàwà (1:202-203) and his imitators.

[4]The first hadïth is narrated from Anas by al-Tabarànï in al-Kabïr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and Abu Nu‘aym in his Hilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain containing Rawh ibn Salàh concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-Jawzï in al-‘Ilal al-Mutanàhiya (1:260-270), Ibn ‘Adï in al-Kàmil (3:146 #667), and al-Dàraqutnï in al-Mu’talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn Màkþlà in al-Ikmàl (5:15) declared him weak while al-Hàkim asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa ma’mun) – as mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Lisàn al-Mïzàn (2:465 #1876), Ibn Hibbàn included him in al-Thiqàt (8:244), and al-Fasawï considered him trustworthy (cf. Mamdoh, Raf‘ [p. 148]). Al-Haythamï (9:257) said: “Al-Tabarànï narrated it in al-Kabïr and al-Awsat and its chain contains Rawh ibn Salàh whom Ibn Hibbàn and al-Hàkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound hadïth.” I was unable to find Abu Hàtim’s declaration of Rawh as trustworthy reported by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawï in his Mafàhïm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Shaykh Mahmod Mamdohin his discussion of this hadïth in Raf‘ al-Minàra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of Abu Hàtim although he considers Rawh “truthful” (sadaq) and not “weak” (da‘ïf), according to the rules of hadïth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrator’s purported discreditation (jarhmubham ghayr mufassar). Mamdoh(p. 149-150) noted that although Albànï in his Silsila Da‘ïfa (1:32-33) claims it is a case of explicated discreditation (jarh mufassar) yet he himself declares identically-formulated discreditation cases as unexplicated and therefore unacceptable in two different contexts! Ibn ‘Alawï adds that the hadïth is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbàs by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr – without specifying where – and from Jàbir by Ibn Abï Shayba, but without the du‘à. Imàm al-Kawtharï said of this hadïth in his Maqàlàt (p. 410): “It provides textual evidence whereby there is no difference between the living and the dead in the context of using a means (tawassul), and this is explicit tawassul through the Prophets, while the hadïth of the Prophet from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï ‘O Allàh, I ask You by the right of [the promise made to] those who ask You (bihaqqi al-sà’ilïna ‘alayk)’* constitutes tawassul through the generality of Muslims, both the living and the dead.”

*A hasan hadïth of the Prophet according to Shaykh Mahmod Mamdoh who showed in his monograph Mubàhathat al-Sà’irïn bi Hadïth Allàhumma Innï As’aluka bi-Haqqi al-Sà’ilïn, narrated from Abu Sa‘ïd al-Khudrï by Ahmad in his Musnad with a fair chain according to Hamza al-Zayn (10:68 #11099) – a weak chain according to al-Arna’þt(17:247-248 #11156) who considers it, like Abu Hàtim in al-‘Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawquf saying of Abu Sa‘ïd himself; Ibn Màjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-Sunni in ‘Amal al-Yawm wa al-Layla (p. 40 #83-84), al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (p. 47= 1:47 #65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawhïd (p. 17-18) [and his Sahïh (2:458?) as indicated by al-Busïrï in his Zawà’id (1:98-99)], al-Tabarànï in al-Du‘a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja‘d in his Musnad (p. 299), al-Baghawï in al-Ja‘diyyat (#2118-2119) and – mawquf – by Ibn Abï Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn Abï Hàtim in ‘Ilal al-Hadïth (2:184). Al-‘Iràqï in Takhrïj Ahàdïth al- Ihyà’ (1:291) graded it hasan as a marfu‘ Prophetic hadïth, as did the hadïth Masters al-Dimyàtï in al-Muttajir al-Ràbihfï Thawàb al-‘Amal al-Sàlih (p. 471-472), Ibn Hajar in Amàlï al-Adhkàr (1:272) and al-Mundhirï’s shaykh the hadïth Master Abu al-Hasan al-Maqdisï in al-Targhïb (1994 ed. 2:367 #2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudàma in al-Mughnï (1985 Dàr al-Fikr ed. 1:271). Shaykh Mamdohin his monograph refuted the reasoning of Nàsir Albànï and Hammàd al-Ansàrï in declaring this hadïth weak. The third hadïth is narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-Tabarànï in al-Kabïr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-Haythamï (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas‘ud by al-Bayhaqï in al-Da‘awàt al-Kabïr (2:157 #392) – Ibn al-Jawzï in al-Mawdu‘àt (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla‘ï in Nasb al-Ràya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-Suyutï in al-La’àli’ (2:68); [3] maqtþ‘ from Wuhayb by Abu Nu‘aym in the Hilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] Abþ Hurayra by Ibn ‘Asàkir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn ‘Arràq, Tanzïh al-Sharï‘a (1:228); and [5] Abþ Bakr in al-Tadwïn and al-Firdaws. The fourth is narrated from Mu‘àdh in the Six Books and Ahmad except for al-Nasà’ï.

[5]Cf. al-Kàsànï, Badà’i‘ al-Sanà’i‘ (5:126).

[6]Ibn ‘Àbidïn, Hàshiya (6:396-397).

[TheHaqq]

No, there are different forms of Tawassul- some of which 'Ibn Taymiyyah clearly identified as constituting Shirk, some which he identified as constituting Bid'ah leading to Shirk, some which he identified as obligatory, and some which he identified as prohibited, some of which he identified as permissible. In summary- there are several different forms of Tawassul. There is not a single ruling dealing with the entire subject.

The Ash'aris and Sufis love to conflate all these different forms of Tawassul in order to confuse laypeople into thinking that certain scholars weren't as opposed to specific forms of it.

But that's exactly my point, even that which IT considered minor shirk, or major shirk but the person is excused, MiaW made chain takfeer on it and eventually killed upon it

[AbuNajm]

But that's exactly my point, even that which IT considered minor shirk, or major shirk but the person is excused, MiaW made chain takfeer on it and eventually killed upon it

That's just not true. I don't know what references you've been reading on the matter, but it's not true.

Also, it is not necessary to make Takfeer on a Muslim in order to fight him. All it takes is for a Muslim to refuse to comply with an obligation in order to fight him to make him return to it. So, a person may be excused from minor Shirk due to ignorance, but once they choose to remain firm upon it and fight over it, then that makes fighting them permissible or even an obligation.

[AbuMubarak]

When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way.
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #186)

[Abu Sulayman]

That's just not true. I don't know what references you've been reading on the matter, but it's not true.

Also, it is not necessary to make Takfeer on a Muslim in order to fight him. All it takes is for a Muslim to refuse to comply with an obligation in order to fight him to make him return to it. So, a person may be excused from minor Shirk due to ignorance, but once they choose to remain firm upon it and fight over it, then that makes fighting them permissible or even an obligation.

I really don't understand what is wrong with you so called "Salafi students of knowledge". I mean we already know that you people don't study classical works properly and even if then only those works which your Mashayikh recommend you and then without the proper basics to understand these works correctly (as you've proven), but it seems that you people don't even study the literature of your own group properly?! Is this what you call "studying"?!
Al-Durar al-Saniyya, Tarikh Najd, 'Unwan al-Majd, Mufid al-Mustafid, etc. ... does that ring a bell in your mind? You either have not read these satanic [Najdi] works (which are literally filled with Takfir and calling to the bloodshed of all other Muslims) or are INTENTIONALLY LYING to other Muslims in order to hide the reality of the satanic call of that wretched heretic Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)!


Anyways, I have a thread regarding him and his call to hellfire:

Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!


Here you can find the most relevant posts from the above thread (until now):

Table of contents (25-2-2021):

- OP (includes examples of IAW's shocking level of ignorance): Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d.1206 AH) lack of qualifications and the disasters that resulted from it!
- The results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a theoretical level (includes Takfir against scholars, cities, whole regions and basically the whole Umma!):
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
- The results of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's ignorance and extreme ideas on a practical level (includes terrorizing, robbing, burning down fields, cutting trees and mass-killing the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula and surrounding regions; Part 12 is specifically regarding what they did to the people of the Haramayn al-Sharifayn and their stopping of the Hajj!):
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13
- Different examples of stealing, killing and destruction caused by Wahhabis according to 'Unwan al-Majd
- Translations of some of the examples given on the theoretical and practical results of MIAW's extremism and ignorance


- Proving that the scholars were truthful regarding Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) and that IAW himself was the liar!
- Proving that "islamqa(.)info" are liars like their leader MIAW!
- Proving that the "Salafi" Mashayikh are liars just like their leader MIAW!


- The knowledge of the people of Washm regarding their Creator and the ignorance of IAW's followers regarding Him!
- MIAW usage of fabricated narrations in his so called Kitab al-Tawhid
- MIAW's ignorance regarding al-Iqna' (one of the most widespread Fiqh books in Najd!)

- 'Allama Ibn Suhaym al-Hanbali (d. 1181 AH) regarding the extremism of IAW
- 'Allama al-Saffarini al-Hanbali (d. 1188 AH) regarding IAW being a Mujtahid in destroying the divine law!
- 'Allama Muhammad bin Sulayman al-Kurdi al-Shafi'i (d. 1194 AH) advising his student IAW to stop his Takfir against the Umma of Islam
- 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH): Some of his statements in response to the ignorance of his brother IAW
- 'Allama 'Abdullah bin Dawud al-Hanbali (d. 1225 AH) regarded IAW a FALSE PROPHET in his "Lightnings and Thunders in Response to the Wretched Ibn Sa'ud"
- 'Allama Ibn Humayd al-Hanbali (d. 1295 AH): Praising the father and brother of IAW and criticizing IAW as "the founder of the mission whose evil had spread across the horizon" and mentioning his attempt to assassinate his brother
- Shaykh Mustafa bin Ahmad al-Shatti al-Hanbali (d. 1348 AH): Idolatry and its forms (contains criticism of MIAW by the 'Allama Hassan al-Shatti (d. 1274 AH))


- Regarding the Hadith of Najd and the tribulations that will appear from the East and its connection to MIAW's "Najdi call":
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
- Al-Lajna al-Da`ima admitting that Najd is included in the narrations regarding the tribulations and the horn of satan that would appear and emerge from the east!!!
- Ibn Bishr (d. 1288 AH) - the Najdi Khariji! - AFFIRMS that Najd has always been a place for tribulations!


- The Prophet ﷺ was not afraid that his nation will fall into [greater] polytheism and swore by Allah regarding this!
- The only polytheism that can be found in his nation is the lesser one!
- The Prophet ﷺ informed his nation that satan has despaired to be EVER worshiped on the Arabian peninsula again!
- When will idols be worshiped again in the lands of the Arabs?: When ALL believers die (just before the end of times)!


To be continued insha`Allah...

When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way.
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #186)

Off-topic, because the issue here is Tashaffu'.

See:

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


Relevant posts:

Table of contents (16-11-2020):


- 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 issues


To be continued insha`Allah...

[AbuNajm]

I really don't understand what is wrong with you so called "Salafi students of knowledge". I mean we already know that you people don't study classical works properly and even if then only those works which your Mashayikh recommend you and then without the proper basics to understand these works correctly (as you've proven), but it seems that you people don't even study the literature of your own group properly?! Is this what you call "studying"?!
Al-Durar al-Saniyya, Tarikh Najd, 'Unwan al-Majd, Mufid al-Mustafid, etc. ... does that ring a bell in your mind? You either have not read these satanic [Najdi] works (which are literally filled with Takfir and calling to the bloodshed of all other Muslims) or are INTENTIONALLY LYING to other Muslims in order to hide the reality of the satanic call of that wretched heretic Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH)!

Are there 2 Abu Sulayman's? Sometimes you seem somewhat reasonable and coherent and other times you seem like you missed your meds.

I have never been nor ever will be a "salafi". I have never studied any of 'Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's works or any "Najdi" works.

You lose all credibility on the subject of 'Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab or "salafis", despite any valid criticisms you might have, when you refer to either as "satanic". That's aside from your egregious error of throwing me in that group.

I have read enough on the history of IAW and the Najdi Da'wah to know it is not as you claim regarding "chain Takfir" and "calling to bloodshed".