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
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

    Glad everyone agree that the hadeeth of the blind man is specific to him and not proof for tawassul for anyone else.

    What's the next hadeeth we can discuss?
    Certainly not by your reasoning ... surely? C'mon now, behave!

    Comment


    • Regarding the claim regarding Imam al-'Izz bin 'Abd al-Salam (d. 660 AH) and that he allowed Tawassul only with the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam):
      This is a widespread claim and it's NOT correct. Even if it were true, it would be still against the Najdis!

      But let's see what the Imam actually stated himself in his al-Fatawa al-Mawsiliyya, so that this claim is not repeated again:

      أما مسألة الدعاء فقد جاء في بعض الأحاديث أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم علم بعض الناس الدعاء فقال في أوله: (قل اللهم إني أقسم عليك بنبيك محمد نبي الرحمة) وهذا الحديث إن صح فينبغي أن يكون مقصورا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم لأنه سيد ولد آدم وأن لا يقسم على الله بغيره من الأنبياء والملائكة والأولياء لأنهم ليسوا في درجته وأن يكون هذا مما خص به نبينا على علو درجته ومرتبته
      - end of quote -

      So this quote is actually regarding taking an oath and that it's specific to the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)! We have no problem with this and even affirm it!
      There is not a single word about Tawassul in this!


      As for disallowing Tawassul with our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH) is the first to have done so and he was heavily criticized for this (because it's an abnormal position).
      But there are some indications that he returned to the truth on Tawassul and Tashaffu' and only disallowed some forms of Istighatha (where he had a point anyways as already mentioned before).

      ​​​​
      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 10-03-21, 09:16 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fais View Post

        Certainly not by your reasoning ... surely? C'mon now, behave!
        How do you understand the hadeeth? Explain where I got it wrong.

        Comment


        • Remember this also:

          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          Let's get back to the seeking of intercession during the visitation: If a Muslim says "O Messenger of Allah, [I ask for your] intercession" or what is similar to this (and this is CORRECT to do according to the Jumhur of the scholars and the Ahnaf famously use this type of wording!) has he committed "Shirk" according to that creature named MiAW (d. 1206 AH)? Yes, he has!
          In fact even according to that Ibn 'Uthaymin this would be "Shirk"!
          So let AN not try to fool us! We know very well that his sect regards the classical scholars upon "Shirk"!

          According to that IAW this falls under those things that throw one out of the religion and his son explicitly affirmed that the major reason for fighting the people (meaning: Muslims!) was this issue!

          And if we were to ask them how this could be polytheism, they would not be able to give any good reasoning!

          Note that their whole mindset is based upon having the worst of opinions of other Muslims and they are hellbent on distorting their statements to mean something completely else.

          Comment


          • I would still like to know how one man and his mindless followers have the right to be the judges upon the Umma of our Master Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and decide regarding their blood and wealth and honour and this based upon secondary issues as discussed here!

            Did our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - give anyone such a right regarding HIS Umma? It is HIS Umma, o people!


            ​​​​​​

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              Let's get back to the seeking of intercession during the visitation: If a Muslim says "O Messenger of Allah, [I ask for your] intercession" or what is similar to this (and this is CORRECT to do according to the Jumhur of the scholars and the Ahnaf famously use this type of wording!) has he committed "Shirk" according to that creature named MiAW (d. 1206 AH)? Yes, he has!
              In fact even according to that Ibn 'Uthaymin this would be "Shirk"!
              So let AN not try to fool us! We know very well that his sect regards the classical scholars upon "Shirk"!

              According to that IAW this falls under those things that throw one out of the religion and his son explicitly affirmed that the major reason for fighting the people (meaning: Muslims!) was this issue!

              And if we were to ask them how this could be polytheism, they would not be able to give any good reasoning!

              Note that their whole mindset is based upon having the worst of opinions of other Muslims and they are hellbent on distorting their statements to mean something completely else.
              This is what I've always understood and has been stated to me as the standard position. Not what Abu Najm has said (that intent here matters), and if that is the case then that also opens up a whole host of other questions.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                This is what I've always understood and has been stated to me as the standard position. Not what Abu Najm has said (that intent here matters), and if that is the case then that also opens up a whole host of other questions.
                ​​​​​​They're full of contradiction and don't even know what Shirk is. Let them show us the classical creedal works, where Shirk is understood in the manner they claim.

                The son of IAW quite openly affirmed what I stated regarding them:
                ​​​​​​
                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                MIAW's son admitting that the main reason why they killed Muslims was the issue of seeking intercession, which the classical scholars allowed!

                After this quote, the classical scholars will be quoted. This quote is only that we realize that even the leaders of the Najdis ADMITTED that this was allowed by the scholars of the past and yet they killed Muslims for it!


                When Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab's (d. 1206 AH) followers invaded Makka al-Mukarrama 'Abdullah bin Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1244 AH) (i.e. son of IAW!) wrote a letter "clarifying what they demand from the people and WHY THEY ARE FIGHTING THEM" ("رسالة الشيخ عبد الله آل الشيخ عندما دخلوا مكة، وبيان ما يطلبون من الناس ويقاتلونهم عليه") (see al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/222) and in this letter he mentions one of the scholars of Makka and that "he was asking regarding the issue of intercession, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE SWORD WAS DRAWN" ("ويسأل عن مسألة الشفاعة التي جرد السيف بسببها") (1/226) and how he was answered until he says:

                فإن قال قائل منفر عن قبول الحق والإذعان له : يلزم من تقريركم، وقطعكم في أن من قال يا رسول الله، أسألك الشفاعة : أنه مشرك مهدر الدم ؛ أن يقال بكفر غالب الأمة ، ولا سيما المتأخرين، لتصريح علمائهم المعتبرين : أن ذلك مندوب، وشنوا الغارة على من خالف في ذلك ! قلت : لا يلزم، لأن لازم المذهب ليس بمذهب، كما هو مقرر، ومثل ذلك : لا يلزم أن نكون مجسمة، وإن قلنا بجهة العلو، كما ورد الحديث بذلك .ونحن نقول فيمن مات : تلك أمة قد خلت ؛ ولا نكفر إلا من بلغته دعوتنا للحق، ووضحت له المحجة، وقامت عليه الحجة، وأصر مستكبراً معانداً، كغالب من نقاتلهم اليوم، يصرون على ذلك الإشراك، ويمتنعون من فعل الواجبات، ويتظاهرون بأفعال الكبائر، المحرمات ؛ وغير الغالب : إنما نقاتله لمناصرته من هذه حاله، ورضاه به، ولتكثير سواد من ذكر، والتأليب معه، فله حينئذ حكمه في قتاله

                If someone - trying to cause [a feeling of] opposition against accepting the truth and submission to it - says:
                Your statement and certain assertion that the one who says "O Messenger of Allah, I ask for your intercession" is a polytheist whose blood is to be spilled, necessitates that one affirms the disbelief of the majority of the [Islamic] nation (Umma), especially the later ones [from among them], because their relied upon scholars have said that this is allowed and attacked the one who opposed in this [issue].
                I say: This is not necessitated, because that which a statement necessitates is not the statement itself (Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhhab) as it is established and this is just like it‘s not necessary for us to be Mujassima just because we affirm the direction of highness (for Allah ta'ala) as the narration came regarding it.
                We say regarding the one who has [already] died: { These were a nation that have passed away } [2:134] and we do not declare anyone to be a disbeliever except the one whom our call to truth has reached and the argument has become obvious to him and the proof has been established upon him and [thereafter] he [still] arrogantly and stubbornly insists [upon doing this] like the majority we fight today:
                They insist on this committing of polytheism (Ishrak)
                and stay away from fulfilling the obligations and commit major sins and [other] sins.
                As for the non-majority: We fight them for supporting the one whose state is like that and are pleased with them and make the group of those mentioned [before] larger and are allied to them, then the ruling of fighting against them applies to them also.

                - end of quote (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/234-235) -
                Note the irony in the above: Classical scholars of the past are "excused" for being upon "Shirk", "because the Najdi call had NOT reached them", but as for the people of their time (who were upon the very same "Shirk" as the classical scholars!) then they "deserve to be faught".

                A question arises here: Hadn't the call of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) reached the classic scholars? By Allah it had reached them!

                So acting as if only the Najdi call establishes the proof upon a person is an indirect claim of prophethood for IAW (d. 1206 AH) and implies therefore disbelief.
                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 10-03-21, 10:15 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                  How do you understand the hadeeth? Explain where I got it wrong.
                  You got it wrong by assuming the Sahabi (RA) got it wrong and you got it right.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                    You got it wrong by assuming the Sahabi (RA) got it wrong and you got it right.
                    Are you of the view that every single sahabi got every single thing right and never ever made a mistake?

                    If not, you have to explain the hadeeth.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                      Are you of the view that every single sahabi got every single thing right and never ever made a mistake?

                      If not, you have to explain the hadeeth.
                      No, as that would be impossible for multiple reasons.

                      And no I don't. That's also a very odd statement to make.

                      Why are you assuming he (RA) got it wrong instead of assuming that he (RA) got it right?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                        No, as that would be impossible for multiple reasons.

                        And no I don't. That's also a very odd statement to make.

                        Why are you assuming he (RA) got it wrong instead of assuming that he (RA) got it right?
                        I have explained how I understand the hadeeth.

                        You explain how you understand it.

                        If you don't understand the hadeeth and are simply following a particular opinion then you shouldn't even be involved in these discussions.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                          I have explained how I understand the hadeeth.

                          You explain how you understand it.

                          If you don't understand the hadeeth and are simply following a particular opinion then you shouldn't even be involved in these discussions.
                          I understand it on the apparent of the same way the Sahabi (RA) understood it, as well as the scholars who have stated as such.

                          Why is your automatic assumption that he (RA) got it wrong, instead of assuming he (RA) got it right, and is that a principle you act by?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                            I understand it on the apparent of the same way the Sahabi (RA) understood it, as well as the scholars who have stated as such.

                            Why is your automatic assumption that he (RA) got it wrong, instead of assuming he (RA) got it right, and is that a principle you act by?
                            Explain what is apparent from the hadeeth. To me the hadeeth seems specific to the blind man. You explain how it is apparently general and can apply to anyone.

                            Again, if you are simply following an opinion and don't understand the hadeeth then you shouldn't be involved in these discussions.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                              Explain what is apparent from the hadeeth. To me the hadeeth seems specific to the blind man. You explain how it is apparently general and can apply to anyone.

                              Again, if you are simply following an opinion and don't understand the hadeeth then you shouldn't be involved in these discussions.
                              Lol okay. Okay, here it goes.

                              What's apparent, is this incident occurred in the presence of a Sahabi (RA) during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW), and his need (the blind man) was fulfilled.


                              That same Sahabi (RA) who witnessed it, then went on and taught it to another man, many years and 3 caliphs latter. His need (the man in need) was also fulfilled.

                              The apparent is the Sahabi (RA) believed in it, taught it and did not restrict it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                Note the irony in the above: Classical scholars of the past are "excused" for being upon "Shirk", "because the Najdi call had NOT reached them", but as for the people of their time (who were upon the very same "Shirk" as the classical scholars!) then they "deserve to be faught".

                                A question arises here: Hadn't the call of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) reached the classic scholars? By Allah it had reached them!

                                So acting as if only the Najdi call establishes the proof upon a person is an indirect claim of prophethood for IAW (d. 1206 AH) and implies therefore disbelief.
                                AN should really translate for us the following letter by a great number of leading Najdis (just look at the names!) from al-Durar al-Saniyya 14/374 - 375:

                                من حسن بن حسين، وسعد بن حمد بن عتيق، وسليمان بن سحمان، وصالح بن عبد العزيز، وعبد الرحمن بن عبد اللطيف، وعمر بن عبد اللطيف، وعبد الله بن حسن، ومحمد بن إبراهيم بن عبد اللطيف، وكافة آل الشيخ: إلى كافة إخواننا من علماء نجد، وإخوانهم المنتسبين، سلمهم الله تعالى وهداهم، السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته.

                                وبعد، تفهمون ما من الله به على أهل نجد في آخر هذا الزمان، مما بين الله على يد الشيخ: محمد بن عبد الوهاب، رحمه الله، من معرفة ما بعث الله به رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من دين الإسلام، والعمل به، وإقامة الأدلة على ذلك، والرد على أهل البدع والضلالات، ممن خرج عن دين الإسلام، واستبدل به سواه من الأعمال الردية، والاعتقادات الباطلة الوبية.

                                ثم ذريته من بعده، سلكوا على منواله، وأيدهم الله تعالى بولاة الأمر من آل سعود، رحم الله أمواتهم، وأعز بإقامة دينه أحياءهم، قاموا بهذا الدين أتم القيام، حتى دخل الناس في دين الله أفواجا، ومحا الله بهم آثار الشرك والبدع والضلالات من نجد، ولله الحمد والمنة، وطريقتهم مشهورة معروفة، كالشمس في رابعة النهار، واستقام الأمر على هذا في أصول الدين وفروعه.

                                وآخر من قام بهذا الأمر، شيخنا الشيخ: عبد الله بن عبد اللطيف، رفع الله درجاته في المهديين، وخلفه في عقبه
                                وإخوانه في الغابرين، فإنه قام بهذا الأمر أتم القيام، وبذل جهده في النصيحة لله ولرسوله، ولعباده المؤمنين، ووسائله في ذلك مثبوتة منشورة.

                                ومن المتعين علينا، وعليكم لزوم الاقتداء بهم والسلوك على منهاجهم، والاجتهاد في الدعوة إلى ذلك، وبذل النصيحة للمسلمين. وقد عرفتم ما حدث من كثير من الناس، من أهل الجهل، وما انتحلوه في الدين، وخرجوا بسببه عن سبيل أهل الطريقة المثلى من أهل العلم واليقين، وعدموا البصيرة في دين الله، بعدم اقتباس العلم والهدى من مظانه.

                                ولا ينبغي لأحد من الناس العدول عن طريقتهم، رحمة الله عليهم، ومخالفة ما استمروا عليه في أصول الدين، فإنه الصراط المستقيم، الذي من حاد عنه فقد سلك طريق أصحاب الجحيم.

                                وكذلك في مسائل الأحكام والفتوى، لا ينبغي العدول عما استقاموا عليه، واستمرت عليه الفتوى منهم، فمن خالف في شيء من ذلك، واتخذ سبيلا يخالف ما كان معلوما عندهم، ومفتى به عندهم، مستقرة به الفتوى بينهم، فهو أهل للإنكار عليه والرد لقوله
                                - end of quote -

                                So here they're literally declaring it obligatory to believe in the creed that IAW and his progeny came with and even go as far as saying anyone going against their way is upon the way of the people of hellfire!

                                ​​​​​​Note that this quite obviously implies disbelief and attributing prophethood to that IAW (d. 1206 AH)!
                                And this is the book that "Salafis" like Ibn 'Uthaymin and al-Fawzan praise!

                                The above is how the early Najdis also thought, for they put IAW in the station of prophethood (one of the "Salafi" Mashayikh even affirmed this and ascribed it to Allah ta'ala putting him into this station among the people of Najd!!) without calling him prophet. So what is the ruling upon such people, o AN?

                                Translate this section, so that everyone knows whom you're defending and turning into judges upon this Umma!
                                ​​​​​​
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 10-03-21, 11:11 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X