Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It may be worth considering posting these comments on a Telegram channel instead insha'Allah. You're able to choose whether people can respond and like posts. So many channels are only one sided for reading purposes only. It's also easier for the readers to search old posts (easy search function) without having to skim through unnecessary back and forth. Even if one does decide to allow comments, it's not displayed the same as here so they don't clog up the 'thread'.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fais View Post

      Do you know them all? If you don't then how do you know that it's all of them?
      Let me explain how a discussion works in the mind of AA:
      The other side posts Ayat, Ahadith and scholarly explanations of them and their statements regarding the issue being dicussed.
      AA posts literally NOTHING other than his questions and demands (sometimes really weird ones) and sometimes repeats them even after they have been all answered and then starts his derailing and trolling tactics and that's it.
      (I had enough discussions with him to know that, which is why I can't take him serious anymore.)

      AA's presence is enough as a "refutation" of whatever source you bring.

      Now let's get back to reality: I've brought the proofs for my position and also scholarly statements. So it has been already established that the position presented is that of the Juhmur of the scholars. So what is the justification for showing so much enmity towards a classical position?


      ​​
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 03-03-21, 10:52 PM.

      Comment




      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        Al-Salamu 'alakum wa rahmatullah,

        I opened this thread with the intention to post the statements of the classical scholars of Islam regarding the issue of making our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - a mean for oneself (Tawassul) and seeking his intercession unto His Lord (Tashaffu') and this because in our time this issue is being attacked and falsely regarded as "polytheism" even though it is clearly supported by shar'i texts.

        As for mentioning something that one needs to the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - (which is the third type of Tawassul according to Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH)) or seeking his aid (Istighatha), then if the person has a correct creed and does not ask in the manner one asks Allah ta'ala, then our Shafi'i scholars in general do not see a problem in doing this. But some of the later scholars disallowed this to the laymen and this due to the risk of misunderstandings and also because of the excesses that happened in this issue.
        But these same scholars did not deny the permissibility of asking Allah ta'ala by his Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa salalm - nor that of asking for his supplication or intercession!

        It should be noted that some of the quotes that will be brought may also contain the issue of seeking of aid (Istighatha), but my main aim is to prove that the general position of the CLASSICAL scholars of Islam regarding asking Allah ta'ala by his Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - or his rank and seeking his supplication and intercession unto one's Lord is allowed according to them.

        I want to highlight here that I DO NOT CARE what some of today's wannabe "scholars" claim or do not claim on these issues! The classical scholars are those who have transmitted us the religion and not these modern atheist minded people, who are trying to establish a new religion and are unable to distinguish between the polytheist concept of intercession and the intercession established by the divine law!
        They also do not distinguish between the creed of the polytheists in general and that of the Muslims and ignore the fact that polytheists ascribe children to God or claim that he has many forms or that he indwells in things or is united with them or mixed with them or that there are many Gods needed for the preservation of the world and so on!

        ....
        I am (very) late to the party but I just read your opening post and I am wondering if anyone asked you the following before:

        Why would you bring in a scholarly discussion to a platform where majority, if not all, are laymen. Very few among us are actual students of knowledge, so I don't understand who exactly is your thread aimed at..?

        You, unequivocally, declared classical scholars to be absolutely legit because they- per you - are pro-tawassul and then you proceeded to attack "wannabe scholars" - because they're 'anti-tawassul', calling them "atheist minded" like what on earth does that even mean? you do realize you slandered these Muslims by calling them disbelievers, do you not? I caught one of your posts earlier today in another thread where you called MIAW a "disbelieving heretic" - so anybody whose opinion does not agree with yours is a disbeliever, irrespective if they rank above you in terms of knowledge, is that it?

        Which brings me to my last question- what qualifies you to start and dictate terms of such a discussion?
        Last edited by .Hajar.; 04-03-21, 01:30 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

          Let me explain...


          ​​
          boohoo diverting the topic boohoo derailing boohoo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post
            It may be worth considering posting these comments on a Telegram channel instead insha'Allah. You're able to choose whether people can respond and like posts. So many channels are only one sided for reading purposes only. It's also easier for the readers to search old posts (easy search function) without having to skim through unnecessary back and forth. Even if one does decide to allow comments, it's not displayed the same as here so they don't clog up the 'thread'.
            Are you saying there isn't already a 'Wahhabis Refuted' Telegram channel?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

              Are you saying there isn't already a 'Wahhabis Refuted' Telegram channel?
              I just checked after reading your comment and couldn't find one under that name. I did check that blog out some time ago so don't know whether I remember well, but it only contained snippets of what's posted on here. In any way, I was only suggesting it since it would prevent some fitan like the one we have seen on this thread. And Allah knows best.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by .Hajar. View Post



                I am (very) late to the party but I just read your opening post and I am wondering if anyone asked you the following before:

                Why would you bring in a scholarly discussion to a platform where majority, if not all, are laymen. Very few among us are actual students of knowledge, so I don't understand who exactly is your thread aimed at..?

                You, unequivocally, declared classical scholars to be absolutely legit because they- per you - are pro-tawassul and then you proceeded to attack "wannabe scholars" - because they're 'anti-tawassul', calling them "atheist minded" like what on earth does that even mean? you do realize you slandered these Muslims by calling them disbelievers, do you not? I caught one of your posts earlier today in another thread where you called MIAW a "disbelieving heretic" - so anybody whose opinion does not agree with yours is a disbeliever, irrespective if they rank above you in terms of knowledge, is that it?

                Which brings me to my last question- what qualifies you to start and dictate terms of such a discussion?
                Wa 'alaykum al-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

                you've misunderstood my points here.

                As for my aim with this thread: My aim here is that people realize that the Jumhur of the classical scholars regarded Tawassul and Tashaffu' as correct and good and that therefore this whole attack on it in our time and turning it into a "Tawhid or Shirk"-issue is absolutely wrong.
                (As for some prohibited forms of Istighatha, then it's problematic, but it still does not warrant Takfir without considering intention and beliefs as clarified in the opening post.)

                As for wannabe scholars: In our day and age a lot of people have not properly studied or mastered any of the Islamic sciences and yet you'll see them appearing on channels and giving Fatawa regarding everything. These are the people that I intend with this statement.

                As for atheist minded people: Anyone who has a difficulty in accepting that the miracles of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) can go on after his death and that he can supplicate for his Umma, is atheist minded because he's doubting the Qudra of Allah ta'ala in reality.

                As for Takfir upon MiAW: I did not make Takfir upon him for rejecting Tawassul, nor because of disagreeing with me. In fact I called the Hafidh Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) an Imam and this while he disagreed on the very issue in question.

                Rather him (MiAW) acting like a prophet and obliging obedience towards his ideas and killing anyone not accepting them and disrespecting our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) (the last point is stated by scholars in his time regarding his daily life) are among the reasons for not regarding him a Muslim.

                I also wrote stated the following before:

                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                Just to clarify:

                Takfir upon Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) is not obligatory, but the classic scholars in his time agreed upon regarding him an innovator and a Khariji. Some scholars also made Takfir, especially due to the evidences that were available to them regarding the reality of this man and also after they had already established the proof upon him with very great amount of proofs.

                Based upon my reading of his works and some other sources I personally can not regard such a person a Muslim even if I would not criticize someone who only regards him an innovator.

                As for spreading any ideas that are special to him, then this is to be vehemently rejected and criticized.

                Wallahu a'lam.

                ​​​​​
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 04-03-21, 08:50 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by .Hajar. View Post



                  I am (very) late to the party but I just read your opening post and I am wondering if anyone asked you the following before:

                  Why would you bring in a scholarly discussion to a platform where majority, if not all, are laymen. Very few among us are actual students of knowledge, so I don't understand who exactly is your thread aimed at..?

                  You, unequivocally, declared classical scholars to be absolutely legit because they- per you - are pro-tawassul and then you proceeded to attack "wannabe scholars" - because they're 'anti-tawassul', calling them "atheist minded" like what on earth does that even mean? you do realize you slandered these Muslims by calling them disbelievers, do you not? I caught one of your posts earlier today in another thread where you called MIAW a "disbelieving heretic" - so anybody whose opinion does not agree with yours is a disbeliever, irrespective if they rank above you in terms of knowledge, is that it?

                  Which brings me to my last question- what qualifies you to start and dictate terms of such a discussion?
                  As-Salamu-Alaykum Sister, I hope you are well.

                  Now sister you are part of the problem.

                  He is having these discussions because there is not meant to be any Taqlid in Aqeedah, and you people believe it or not, are not meant to blindly follow the Ulama/students of knowledge in issues of belief. However for people like you who (might) firmly believe in Taqlid in Aqeedah, his points are basically lost. If you don't like what he posts, don't read it.

                  As for calling Ibn Abdul Wahhab a disbelieving heretic - even though I respectfully disagree with Abu Sulayman and think Ibn Abdul Wahhab is a Muslim innovator and one of the Khawarij - nevertheless, he is not making takfir without any reasons or just because (e.g.) his view on Tawassul is slightly different. In fact if we identify him with the man in a certain prophecy (and Allahu Alam if he is), then RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam made takfir of that man himself... I mean there is so much ignorance surrounding this person, what he did and what he taught, the practical effects of that. There is some irony that it isn't based off of biased third party reports either - you can go and read what his own followers say, as they brag about the bloodshed.

                  To be clear, whether you make takfir of someone is done irrespective of knowledge - I am not sure where you got this notion from sister that the one who is knowledgeable is always a Muslim... Imam al-Zamakhshari taught the Kufr doctrine of Khalq al-Qur'an, despite this his tafsir is widely used by Sunni scholars, and his knowledge of the Qur'an and of the Arabic language e.g. word roots is second to none.

                  Insha'Allah, I will give you a practical example that we can both agree upon: Mohammad-Baqir al-Majlesi. He is a Kafir, Dajjal and Shaytan. There I've said it. For those who know who he is and what he taught, they will have no problem with me saying that. But for others like you, they will point out that this the major scholars of Twelver Shi'ism who wrote one of the largerst collections of Akhbar/Hadith - Bihar al-Anwar. So will you ignore his doctrines, his actions and how he assisted the Safavid purge, and will you become offended that I called him a Kafir, Dajjal and Shaytan?

                  Now for the traditional Sunnis on here, we do not look at the Wahhabi/ps.Salafi/Najdi etc. sect as part of Sunni Islam. We have explained why on numerous occasions - Abu Sulayman himself has done this many times before. So if you and I agree that Mohammad-Baqir al-Majlesi is this major scholar of innovation of the Twelver Shia who we agree aren't Sunnis, and then I go further than that because of specific knowledge I have of him, why do you oppose Abu Sulayman who does the exact same thing, except with a heresy that you personally don't recognise? Do you speak out against those who make Takfir of Ibn 'Arabi? I mean I could be wrong, but I assume you don't.

                  You are a mod on this forum and a much better mod it seems than a certain troll, nevertheless, you are not a police woman on thought and what is said on here. If you are, you have been doing a terrible job, as members have mentioned that in the past certain "sufi" scholars were declared disbelievers etc. So you should not intrude on this. Yes sure, you can disagree with him etc. and argue with evidences against him, but please do not make this into a forum moderation issue. This forum must not take sides on theological/sectarian matters. It must allow discussion.

                  Insha'Allah, I hope we can agree to disagree on these sorts of issues.
                  Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                  "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                  Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                  Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                  1/116

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                    As for atheist minded people: Anyone who has a difficulty in accepting that the miracles of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) can go on after his death and that he can supplicate for his Umma, is atheist minded because he's doubting the Qudra of Allah ta'ala in reality.

                    ​​​​​
                    An interesting discussion is how much this mindset in our era today is influenced by the likes of those Modernist Azhari scholars like Abduh and Rashid Rida who formed the original Salafiyyah movement - I understand these people had particular issues with miracles occuring. It seems the undercurrent of all of this is a belief in naturalism including natural causation, which is supposed to be Kufr (I think this is one of the things that Imam Ibn Abidin who urged against takfir would make takfir on).

                    Saying that the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is alive in his grave praying for his Ummah (and that other Prophets Alayhim Salam are also alive, praying), is problematic for those people as it opposes scientifically what they expect to happen. They then further issues, as they think, "But this is some extreme doctrine that exaggerates on the Nabi Alayhis Salam who is just a man" - there is an emphasis on naturalism with this doctrine. Ignoring that the Hadith etc. are against them and this is historically a Sunni belief, one can understand how in this modern current of ps.Salafis who especially focus on e.g. scientific miracles in the Qur'an, would feel irked by what they feel is an "unscientific" doctrine. They wish thereby to reject this due to that, but when they come to us they cover it with the "you are exaggerating on the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam" line.

                    In fact this makes sense on other issues as well - most of these people do not believe in Awliyah and minor miracles (Karamat) despite this being in authentic Hadith. Some of them have a conception that "miracles were only in the era of prophets" and others emphasise early Makkan verses addressed to RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam before Allah had willed to show the disbelievers prophetic miracles (Mu'jizat) - they emphasise the miracle of the Qur'an instead (which yes is also a miracle).

                    I mean this goes against the core of Islamic doctrine and the Qur'an - belief in the unseen. Belief in the unseen and 'super'natural is integral to Islam and is mentioned as a defining characteristic of the believers in the beginning of Surah Baqarah. It is clear these people fundamentally have issues with these things in the philosophical realm, and that is why they believe drawn to these things. It is a fear and tacit acception of the modern western scientism that drives them to this in my view ultimately. So you were correct in saying "atheist-minded" - they are appealing to the same naturalism and scientism of the atheists even though they do not realise this. I don't think they would change even if they understood this goes against prophetic Hadith. The Christian west also had this issue - when people discover a scientific explanation to one superstition (sometimes not even part of the truth), they simplistically think this does away with all traditional/religious explanations - applying a leap of reasoning.

                    I am not saying that they fully believe this - it is clear they don't as most of them accept Sihr etc. But this is in their minds and hearts, and is ultimately what is pulling them towards a mocking rejection of traditional Sunni beliefs. Other aspects of Modernism e.g. Hadith rejection is accepted in a very light and mild form by them - some of them believe (however much they don't wish to admit this), that if it is not in Sahihayn or is from a later compiled book esp. not one of Kutub al-Sittah, then it can be rejected as some kind of fabrication (sometimes under the guise of ps.Hadith authentication) - their skepticism towards Hadith also drive the rejection of these beliefs, albeit this skepticism is much milder than the Abu Layth's and Quranists of our time.

                    In summary I think Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri and Shaykh Muhammad al-Kawthari hit the nail on the head by attacking those Azhari modernist intellectuals. I think those modernist ideas in our times as well as scientism and an emphasis on scientific miracles in the Qur'an is in particular driving adoption and mindset of Wahhabi theology.
                    Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                    "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                    Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                    Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                    1/116

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                      ...
                      And subhanallah, this point on Hadith is verifiably linked with the Modernists - wasn't Al-Albani an avid reader of Rashid Rida's Al-Manar magazine? You can see from the lineage of their thought, where certain views come from, it is very interesting.

                      Source: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/albintro.htm
                      Last edited by Muhammad Hasan; 04-03-21, 09:10 AM.
                      Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                      "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                      Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                      Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                      1/116

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post
                        ...
                        *largest - I think that is one of the worst spelling mistakes I've made...
                        Amir ul-Muminin Sayyiduna Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah said,
                        "Mahma tasawwarta bi-balik, fallahu bi-khilaf dhalik,"
                        Whatever comes into your mind, Allah is other than that,

                        Al-Aqeedah Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Riwayah Abu Bakr al-Khallal),
                        1/116

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Muhammad Hasan View Post

                          An interesting discussion is how much this mindset in our era today is influenced by the likes of those Modernist Azhari scholars like Abduh and Rashid Rida who formed the original Salafiyyah movement - I understand these people had particular issues with miracles occuring. It seems the undercurrent of all of this is a belief in naturalism including natural causation, which is supposed to be Kufr (I think this is one of the things that Imam Ibn Abidin who urged against takfir would make takfir on).

                          Saying that the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam is alive in his grave praying for his Ummah (and that other Prophets Alayhim Salam are also alive, praying), is problematic for those people as it opposes scientifically what they expect to happen. They then further issues, as they think, "But this is some extreme doctrine that exaggerates on the Nabi Alayhis Salam who is just a man" - there is an emphasis on naturalism with this doctrine. Ignoring that the Hadith etc. are against them and this is historically a Sunni belief, one can understand how in this modern current of ps.Salafis who especially focus on e.g. scientific miracles in the Qur'an, would feel irked by what they feel is an "unscientific" doctrine. They wish thereby to reject this due to that, but when they come to us they cover it with the "you are exaggerating on the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam" line.

                          In fact this makes sense on other issues as well - most of these people do not believe in Awliyah and minor miracles (Karamat) despite this being in authentic Hadith. Some of them have a conception that "miracles were only in the era of prophets" and others emphasise early Makkan verses addressed to RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam before Allah had willed to show the disbelievers prophetic miracles (Mu'jizat) - they emphasise the miracle of the Qur'an instead (which yes is also a miracle).

                          I mean this goes against the core of Islamic doctrine and the Qur'an - belief in the unseen. Belief in the unseen and 'super'natural is integral to Islam and is mentioned as a defining characteristic of the believers in the beginning of Surah Baqarah. It is clear these people fundamentally have issues with these things in the philosophical realm, and that is why they believe drawn to these things. It is a fear and tacit acception of the modern western scientism that drives them to this in my view ultimately. So you were correct in saying "atheist-minded" - they are appealing to the same naturalism and scientism of the atheists even though they do not realise this. I don't think they would change even if they understood this goes against prophetic Hadith. The Christian west also had this issue - when people discover a scientific explanation to one superstition (sometimes not even part of the truth), they simplistically think this does away with all traditional/religious explanations - applying a leap of reasoning.

                          I am not saying that they fully believe this - it is clear they don't as most of them accept Sihr etc. But this is in their minds and hearts, and is ultimately what is pulling them towards a mocking rejection of traditional Sunni beliefs. Other aspects of Modernism e.g. Hadith rejection is accepted in a very light and mild form by them - some of them believe (however much they don't wish to admit this), that if it is not in Sahihayn or is from a later compiled book esp. not one of Kutub al-Sittah, then it can be rejected as some kind of fabrication (sometimes under the guise of ps.Hadith authentication) - their skepticism towards Hadith also drive the rejection of these beliefs, albeit this skepticism is much milder than the Abu Layth's and Quranists of our time.

                          In summary I think Shaykh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri and Shaykh Muhammad al-Kawthari hit the nail on the head by attacking those Azhari modernist intellectuals. I think those modernist ideas in our times as well as scientism and an emphasis on scientific miracles in the Qur'an is in particular driving adoption and mindset of Wahhabi theology.
                          You raise some really interesting points.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BintFulaan View Post

                            You raise some really interesting points.
                            Interesting as in entertaining and amusing?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                              Let me explain how a discussion works in the mind of AA:
                              The other side posts Ayat, Ahadith and scholarly explanations of them and their statements regarding the issue being dicussed.
                              AA posts literally NOTHING other than his questions and demands (sometimes really weird ones) and sometimes repeats them even after they have been all answered and then starts his derailing and trolling tactics and that's it.
                              (I had enough discussions with him to know that, which is why I can't take him serious anymore.)

                              AA's presence is enough as a "refutation" of whatever source you bring.

                              Now let's get back to reality: I've brought the proofs for my position and also scholarly statements. So it has been already established that the position presented is that of the Juhmur of the scholars. So what is the justification for showing so much enmity towards a classical position?


                              ​​
                              I've known AA for a long time. I'm very familiar with his style. And I'd agree with your assessment.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                So it has been already established that the position presented is that of the Juhmur of the scholars. So what is the justification for showing so much enmity towards a classical position?


                                ​​
                                AA, what's your answer to this question?

                                How do you view the classical position?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X