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 Fais View Post

    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.
    You described the actions of the sahabi, not what is apparent from the hadeeth.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

      You described the actions of the sahabi, not what is apparent from the hadeeth.
      Yes, the apparent of his (RA) actions.


      Oh, you want me to interpret the hadith? No way man! Who do you think I am, an idiot? I don't have the tools in my toolkit to ever partake in interpreting hadith.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fais View Post

        Yes, the apparent of his (RA) actions.


        Oh, you want me to interpret the hadith? No way man! Who do you think I am, an idiot? I don't have the tools in my toolkit to ever partake in interpreting hadith.
        Right, so you are following an opinion and shouldn't be involved in this discussion.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

          Right, so you are following an opinion and shouldn't be involved in this discussion.
          I haven't been involved in this discussion. I've just asked you questions that you only answered up to a certain point.


          You seem upset. And for that I am sorry that I'm not as much of an expert as you in Hadith interpretation.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fais View Post

            I haven't been involved in this discussion. I've just asked you questions that you only answered up to a certain point.


            You seem upset. And for that I am sorry that I'm not as much of an expert as you in Hadith interpretation.
            You asked questions that you don't have the capacity to understand. Your involvement was to act a fool... well you succeeded in that!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

              You asked questions that you don't have the capacity to understand. Your involvement was to act a fool... well you succeeded in that!
              So, you are upset.

              Are you feeling unsatisfied?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                So, you are upset.

                Are you feeling unsatisfied?
                How To Win An Argument

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                  This was never an argument. I just questioned your claims.

                  Why you upset?


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fais View Post

                    This was never an argument. I just questioned your claims.

                    Why you upset?

                    Stop embarrassing the mods. You're making us look bad.

                    -_-

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                      Stop embarrassing the mods. You're making us look bad.

                      -_-
                      Why you crying?

                      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.
                        Like I said- Ibn Taymiyyah responded very directly and clearly to the concerns raised in this thread about the Hadith of the Blind Man and Izz ad-Deen's response to it.

                        If AS was honest he would stop throwing dust everywhere and just bring that quote and stop accusing everyone of either misunderstanding or distorting the issue.

                        It's strange that only AS is allowed to claim no one understood Izz ad-Deen's position, even though many scholars have cited it, and yet he gets to also claim that Ibn Taymiyyah's famous positions are also retracted, without showing proof.

                        This guy moves the goal posts more than a field manager for a kids field hockey team!

                        Comment


                        • I would like to point out that we are only dealing with ONE of the alleged proofs that AS brought forward to claim that ONE scholar supported his claim.

                          That claim is: Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS from everywhere and anytime after his SAWS death is not Shirk and is recommended by the majority of scholars starting with the Companions RA.

                          He has not been able to prove that. On the contrary, arbitrarily taking ONE alleged proof and scrutinizing it has proven that whenever AS is challenged on his "proofs" he turns to insults and claims of misunderstanding on the part of scholars or the forum members' misunderstanding of the quotes of scholars.

                          AS says Ibn Qudamah "recommends" the Du'a in the Hadith of the Blind Man for fulfilling a need from anywhere and anytime after the death of the Prophet SAWS.

                          He points to a book called Wasiyyat ul-Imam Ibn Qudamah. This is a 70-page treatise for which I have yet to see its attribution proven to Ibn Qudamah or its chain of transmission to him. Still, I assume it is authentically attributed to Ibn Qudamah for the purpose of this discussion.

                          In this book, Ibn Qudamah has a Fasl or section called "Talab ul-Hajah" or "Seeking of [the Fulfillment of] Needs".

                          He mentions 3 Du'a in this section, the first of which is transmitted by at-Tirmidhi, however it is a weak narration with no wording indicating Tawassul.

                          The second of which is introduced by "two words in red not visible in the transcript", as noted by the editors of at least two different editions of this book- and this one contains a partial mention of the Du'a found in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf.

                          The third is introduced as what was transmitted from the Salaf and its Du'a does not contain any form of Tawassul.

                          Still, we have the magnum opus of Ibn Qudamah in his book of Fiqh called al-Mughni and it too has a section dedicated to Salat al-Hajah. Ibn Qudamah does not mention the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf but rather the Hadith of Abd ar-Rahman bin Abi Awfa and guess what- no Du'a containing a form of Tawassul.

                          The only place in al-Mughni where the Du'a in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf is found- a section dealing with visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS.

                          Based on the above:

                          1) the clearest PROOF is that Ibn Qudamah mentions the Du'a found in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf as part of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS and NO WHERE ELSE;

                          2) the partial mention of the Du'a found in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf in the treatise Wasiyyah under the section "Talab al-Hajah" is not proof of a recommendation by Ibn Qudamah for applying the Du'a everywhere and anytime since the words introducing the Du'a are illegible in the original manuscript and we have his clear opinion on the matter in al-Mughni.

                          3) Despite the existence of this Du'a in the writings of Ibn Qudamah, there is no proof in it that he supported the understanding of this Du'a as directly addressing the Prophet SAWS or Istighaathah through him. On the contrary, in Ibn Qudamah's other writings, it is clear that he does not support that understanding of the Hadith.

                          4) In the Fasl in al-Mughni, Ibn Qudamah actually mentions the possible reasons why the Du'a of Uthman bin Hunayf would only be valid at the grave of the Prophet SAWS:

                          "مَنْ حَجَّ، فَزَارَ قَبْرِى بَعْدَ وَفَاتِى، فَكَأنَّما زَارَنِى فى حَيَاتِى". وفى رِوايَةٍ: "مَنْ زَارَ قَبْرِى وَجَبَتْ له شَفَاعَتِى"

                          "Whoever performs Hajj, then visits my grave after my death, then it would be as if he visited me during my life" and "Whoever visits my grave, my intercession is obligatory for him."

                          These two statements attributed to the Prophet SAWS tell us the context in which the Du'a of the Blind Man and the Bedouin are mentioned according to Ibn Qudamah.

                          1) They indicate the requirement of saying these Du'a at the grave of the Prophet SAWS due to the Hadith mentioning that and the obligation of his intercession for whoever fulfills that stipulation.

                          2) The context of the Du'a in the original Hadith themselves mentioning their execution in the presence of the Prophet SAWS or at his SAWS grave.

                          3) Ibn Qudamah does not mention making these Du'a anywhere else in his book al-Mughni and the partial mention of the Du'a of the Blind Man in his book Wasiyyah is not clear due to the illegible text before it.

                          4) These Du'a are about supplicating to Allah using the Prophet's SAWS intercession [Tawassul] and not seeking relief from the person of the Prophet SAWS [Istighaathah].

                          5) Even if Ibn Qudamah recommended these Du'a at the grave of the Prophet SAWS, that does not negate the many scholars who viewed these Hadith as weak and the actions in them as prohibited.

                          The above is clear evidence of the false conclusions of Abu Sulayman about Ibn Qudamah's position on the Hadith of the Blind Man and the report of the Bedouin making Du'a at the grave of the Prophet SAWS.

                          What would happen if we analyzed carefully all of the "proofs" of Abu Sulayman? I'm sure they would follow this same fate of being proven NOT TO SUPPORT his conclusions.

                          Comment


                          • AN as usual thinks that he has proven something. You say it yourself: It's a supplication to Allah ta'ala using the Wasila of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in it! This alone makes it allowed to be said from everywhere and only atheist-minded people will have a problem understanding this.

                            Your claim that the blind man said the supplication in presence of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is from your own pocket! Rather there are indications that he said it in his absence! And as for the Hadith of the man in need, then were does it even mention going to the blessed grave?
                            All of this are additions from your imagination! And then you're arguing with people with these imaginations acting boldly!

                            That which Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) recommended saying during the visitation is the seeking of intercession and he used a similar wording as in the Athar of al-'Utbi and not the Hadith of the blind man (even though both can be used).

                            Now this very asking for intercession was the major issue for which your beloved Najdis killed Muslims as they themselves affirmed!

                            If the scholars were in agreement with you, then why is it that your IAW hated them and wanted to kill them? Why did he mention the major Hanabila of the region and made Takfir upon them openly?
                            Why did he accuse them of praising Shirk? He even did this with those scholars, who agreed with Imam Ibn Taymiyya with regarding to Istighatha, so imagine!

                            So at the end your understanding of the whole issue is wrong. The reality PROVES that Najdis killed people over these type of issues and it also PROVES them even making chain-Takfir because of it.
                            How do you think your IAW (d. 1206 AH) justified his Takfir upon a whole township (who were even in agreement with the view of Ibn Taymiyya regarding Istighatha!) in his Mufid al-Mustafid?
                            ​​​​

                            To repeat:

                            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


                            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                              AN as usual thinks that he has proven something. You say it yourself: It's a supplication to Allah ta'ala using the Wasila of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - in it! This alone makes it allowed to be said from everywhere and only atheist-minded people will have a problem understanding this.

                              Your claim that the blind man said the supplication in presence of our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is from your own pocket! Rather there are indications that he said it in his absence! And as for the Hadith of the man in need, then were does it even mention going to the blessed grave?
                              All of this are additions from your imagination! And then you're arguing with people with these imaginations acting boldly!
                              'Uthman bin Hunayf (radhiallahu 'anhu) said "I swear by Allāh, we hadn’t gone away, nor had we remained a long time in talk when the man returned as if he had never suffered any affliction."

                              ​​​​​​Subhanallah, so here it is! The man went and acted on the advice and when he came back to the Majlis of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) he was already healed, so the supplication was in his absence!

                              Add to this: I've yet to see a single classical scholar saying that Tawassul with our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is only allowed in front of his grave!? Why would anyone even say such a thing and this while you're supplicating to Allah ta'ala using the Wasila of our noble Prophet (sallallahu b'alayhi wa sallam)!?

                              I "congratulate" AN for coming up with non-existant views. All this happens because AN tries to superimpose his views on classical scholars in one way or form even if they do not agree with his whole view on Tawhid and Shirk in the very first place.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                AN as usual thinks that he has proven something.
                                So this person tries to argue that Imam Ibn Qudama (d. 620 AH) disallowed Tawassul when not being in front of the grave of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and this while we don't have a SINGLE statement from Imam Ibn Qudama stating that it's disallowed to use the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as a Wasila in one's supplication when not in front of his blessed grave!

                                How for God's sake are you claiming TAHRIM while you haven't any statement from him stating so! Is this how Fiqh works in your mind?
                                This with the knowledge that the Hanabila beginning with Imam Ahmad (d. 241 AH) himself regarded it correct to use the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as a means in one's supplication and they did not state that this is specific to the visitation anywhere!

                                As for the statement in his al-Mughni, then he did NOT mention the Hadith of the blind man in the context of the visitation, but rather the Athar of al-'Utbi and he himself recommended using a wording similar to it.
                                The wording he mentioned is "So I've come to you, asking [my Lord] for forgiveness for my sin and seeking intercession through you unto my Lord." and this is asking for intercession (Tashaffu'), o AN!!
                                Other scholars have used similar wordings like "... Intercession, o Messenger of Allah" or "... asking you to intercede for me to my Lord" and so on.

                                This, o AN, is literally "Shirk akbar" according to your MiAW (d. 1206 AH) and I dare you to claim otherwise! His son AiMiAW (d. 1244 AH) mentioned the wording "O Messenger of Allah, I ask for your intercession" and regarded it as "polytheism that allows the blood to be spilled" and explicitly affirmed that this is the major reason for fighting the people (Muslims!) and this all while ADMITTING that classical scholars regarded this as allowed!

                                Now as for his statement in his Wasiyya, then it's general when one has a need and NOT in context of the visitation, so stop mixing things up!
                                He states that one should do Wudhu`, pray two Rak'at and then supplicate for one's need.
                                As for the wording found in the Hadith of the blind man (which contains Tawassul), then it's mentioned and it's found in the eldest of three copies available and this doesn't get changed just because two words before it are not good visible!
                                And after this it is mentioned that "It is related that the early Muslims (Salaf) used to seek to have their needs fulfilled by praying two rak’ahs and then saying: ‘O Allah, I seek opening by You and success by You. I turn to You by Your Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)..."
                                This is again Tawassul!

                                Now we know that most of you Najdi minded people don't necessarily regard the above as "Shirk akbar", (even though one of your brothers in Najdism accused Imam Ibn 'Aqil (d. 513 AH) of "Shirk" because of it and this even though it was in the context of the visitation!).


                                So let's get back to the statement in al-Mughni (which contains Tashaffu') again and that one is indeed in the context of visitation: That which Imam Ibn Qudama recommended there is a reason to be slaughtered according to your IAW!
                                Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 11-03-21, 05:36 PM.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X