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

[Abu Sulayman]

I am in 100% agreement with the above, In Sha' Allah. And I accept that I may have misunderstood some points you were making.

However, I disagree that the above were the only "major points" you were making. I also don't agree that Ibn Taymiyyah and/or IAW made Takfeer over the above points [if that is a point you are insisting on].

Also, I believe there are details in the forms of Tawassul mentioned wherein we do disagree, for example- the report of Uthman bin Hunayf contains both Tawassul [the kind over which there is Khilaaf- "by the Prophet SAWS"] and potential Istighaathah ["Yaa Muhammad"]. If understood improperly, these forms of Tawassul and the perceived Istighaathah can become matters of Shirk. It is somewhere in there that things get muddled and laypeople lose their way, turning Tawassul into Istighaathah.

I welcome a return to civility on these matters because it's important that readers understand the different acceptable points of view over which no Takfeer should take place EVEN IF it does between those who are ignorant on both "sides", i.e. Sufis and "Salafis".

Okay, very good. May Allah ta'ala guide us both to that which He is pleased with.

Before going on I want just to reiterate that I don't believe in this "Salafi vs Sufi"-dichotomy, because it's a modern innovation.
Rather on one side there is classical Islam represented by the 4 Madhahib in jurisprudence, the Asha'ris and Maturdis and Hanabila in creed and real Tasawwuf (as teached by Imam al-Junayd) in the purification of the soul.
On the other side there are those who have deviated from the correct way like the modernists, fake "Sufis", modern "Salafis", Shi'a and so on.

I would say that this view is much more in line with the thinking of the classical scholars, then this innovated modern dichotomy.


Now let's get to the position of the two persons mentioned by you regarding the issues mentioned in this thread:

As for Imam Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 AH):
- He regarding supplicating to Allah ta'ala while using our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as a means to him (meaning: Tawassul) as disallowed, but he acknowledged that other scholars regarded it as allowed.
- As for asking the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession or praying for you (which is the same) during the visitation of his blessed grave, then this is an innovation according to him and something that leads to polytheism.
- He also disallowed intending the visitation of the blessed grave.

His Hanbali colleagues (other than his direct followers) disagreed with him on all three points mentioned, which is why I stated that these are abnormal positions.
But at least two of his leading students have reported an incident with other scholars where he retracted his position on Tawassul and Tashaffu' and only remained on his position regarding Istighatha and he has even a statement stating exactly this found in Majmu' al-Fatawa, which is why I stated that he seems to have returned to the truth on this.

Now as for his position on Istighatha, then he indeed called it as Shirk and was harsh on it, but he regarded it mostly as lesser polytheism and only regarded some rare cases as real and greater polytheism, which then indeed justifies Takfir.
Note that here he had an acceptable point, but since he had combined this with his rejection of the visitation and the rejection of Tawassul and Tashaffu' and also the claim that "the Prophet's aid is not sought", the scholars criticized him.

As for taking away assistance from the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then this is unacceptable and one should not even make such statements out of respect and also because it goes against the reality!
Remember that on the day of judgement the people will ask our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) for intercession and this is the greatest type of help that any creation can be asked! And also during the visitation the asking for intercession regarding the forgiveness of one's sins is again a very great type of aid!

And I have already quoted some classical scholars, who clarified this to him and directly responded to him:

- 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
- 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
- Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni [al-Shafi'i] (d. 829 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet ﷺ
- Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami [al-Shafi'i] (d. 974 AH) regarding Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighatha with the Prophet ﷺ

But if one calls upon a creation in the manner one calls upon one's Lord jalla jalaluhu, then this is indeed abominable and prohibited (this is something that was mentioned in the very opening post) and it is also acceptable to call this as [lesser] Shirk.
So here Imam Ibn Taymiyya's position is correct.
As for Takfir, then the beliefs and the intention is taken into consideration, which is why is why only in very rare cases Takfir is done.
This is also the position of Imam Ibn Taymiyya, so he was in no way a Takfiri and the Najdis misunderstood him heavily!
The Hanabila in the time of the Najdis explained this very issue to them (with someone like the 'Allama Sulayman bin 'Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali (d. 1208 AH) explicitly agreeing on Istighatha with Imam Ibn Taymiyya), but the Najdis didn't want to understand this and even justified chain-Takfir based upon this issue.


As for Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH) (or to make it short MiAW or shorter IAW):

- He regarded supplicating to Allah ta'ala while using our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as a means to him (meaning: Tawassul) as disallowed, but not as greater polytheism. But he would regard some wordings as "Shirk", even if Tawassul was intended.
- But as for the issue of seeking intercession (Tashaffu') during the visitation, then he regarded it as "greater polytheism" no matter what!
- As for the issue of Istighatha, then he regarded it again as "greater polytheism" without making any of the differentiations mentioned above.

He added to this then chain-Takfir as is proven from his Mufid al-Mustafid.
So he basically argued that anyone doubting the "Shirk" (greater one!) of the aforementioned has disbelieved and it was through this wrong reasoning that he made chain-Takfir upon major scholars and even whole regions.

Among those whom he made Takfir of was the 'Allama Ibn Fayruz (d. 1216 AH), who was the major scholar of the Hanabila of the whole region and who gave special importance to the words of Imam Ibn Taymiyya! So if an admirer of Imam Ibn Taymiyya is not safe from his Takfir, then imagine who would be safe from it!?
This great scholar, then had to flee from Ahsa` to Basra, because IAW's followers were trying to slaughter him based on the Takfir of IAW upon him.
The reaon why I'm mentioning you all of this, is that you realize that IAW was more something like a warlord than a scholar. If you go through the Islamic history, you won't find a single scholar acting in this manner.

Imam Ibn Taymiyya wrote a book on Istighatha against a person and in this book he doesn't make Takfir upon the person at all! He even helped the very person in real life in a very difficult situation! So there is a huge difference between Imam Ibn Taymiyya and IAW!

And here the great surprise: In real life Imam Ibn Taymiyya would sit in gatherings were poetry was said regarding the Best of Creation (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and would even cry. His foremost student reported one of these instances and that when it reached a passage which contained seeking aid (these type of poetry almost always contains such passages), he started to cry even more, which shows that he actually loved the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu' alayhi wa sallam) and longed for his meeting!
Imagine what IAW would have done to him, if he would have been present!

So what do you say?
Take into consideration that none of the major Hanabila (and the major scholars of the other 3 Madhahib) agreed with IAW's Takfir and you can't accuse them all of following their desires, right? Especially when these people were all his seniors when it comes to knowledge of the Islamic sciences.
There are also no examples of any scholar throughout our history to make so much Takfir as IAW did. This is simply something unheard of.

[Fais]

I don't believe for a second that you've asked this of me out of respect or genuine interest in what I have to say, given your sarcasm and offensive comments towards me in this very thread [a la "Saint Abu Najm"].

However, I will respond for the benefit of readers who, at the very least, may be genuinely interested in the answer:

If the Du'a is directed TO the person of the Prophet SAWS, for example, "Yaa Muhammad", then that is Istighaathah [even if the wording resembles Tawassul] and none of the books of Fiqh recommend this or declare it permissible in any circumstances.

Here is what Ibn Taymiyyah says about Du'a to the Prophet SAWS or anyone else:

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله في كتاب الاستغاثة (2/731) : "فإنا بعد معرفة ما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، نعلم بالضرورة أنه لم يشرع لأمته أن تدعو أحداً من الأموات، لا الأنبياء ولا الصالحين ولا غيرهم، لا بلفظ الاستغاثة ولا بغيرها، ولا بلفظ الاستعاذة ولا بغيرها، كما أنه لم يشرع لأمته السجود لميت ولا لغير ميت ونحو ذلك بل نعلم أنه نهى عن كل هذه الأمور
وأن ذلك من الشرك الذي حرمه الله ورسوله، لكن لغلبة الجهل، وقلّة العلم بآثار الرسالة في كثير من المتأخرين، لم يكن تكفيرهم بذلك حتى يتبين لهم ما جاء به الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم، مما يخالفه

"Thus, after knowledge of what the Messenger SAWS came with, we know by necessity that he did not legislate for his Ummah to supplicate to anyone from among the deceased- not Prophets, nor the righteous or anyone else- not with terms of seeking relief/aid [Istighaathah], or other than that; not with terms of seeking refuge [Isti'adhah], or other than that; just as he did not legislate for his Ummah prostration to the deceased or other than the deceased and similar to that. Rather, we know that he prohibited all of these matters; and [we know] that that is from the Shirk which Allah and His Messenger prohibited. However, due to the predominance of ignorance and the paucity of knowledge in the traces of the Message among the majority of later people, there is no Takfeer of them for that until what the Messenger SAWS came with is made clear to them from what contradicts it..."

Al-Istighaathah 2/731

There is no doubt that there exists a difference of opinion about Tawassul in the form of asking Allah "by the honor/love/obedience of the Prophet SAWS" and asking for his SAWS intercession in the Dunya. There is a proper way to understand the asking through the Prophet SAWS [Tawassul] and asking for his intercession. Again, all the scholars who have recommended asking for his SAWS intercession have mentioned it in the context of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS. I have yet to see any proof of an explicit recommendation of asking the Prophet's intercession using the formula mentioned in the report of al-Utbi outside the context of visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS.

It is that difference of opinion over which there should be no Takfeer- and I do not believe it exists- not among Ibn Taymiyyah or IAW.

As for asking Allah "by XYZ of the Prophet SAWS", then that formula does not appear restricted to visiting the grave of the Prophet SAWS, however, the report from Uthma bin Hunayf does contain, along with a wording that indicates Tawassul, the wording "Yaa Muhammad". And that needs to be understood correctly so that Shirk does not enter into the equation.

When Tawassul is turned into Istighaathah and the wording of "Yaa Muhammad" is turned into an address directly to the person of the Prophet SAWS or a deceased/absent righteous person, then we are discussing Shirk and no difference of opinion is possible.

Also note:

The Du'a which includes the words "by Your Prophet" is see by some as a form of swearing by the creation, which is Haraam according to the Malikis and Hanbalis, and Makruh according to the Shafi'ees and Hanafis. Depending on the circumstances, it could also be Kufr, as some scholars have explained [not just Ibn Taymiyyah and IAW], due to the Hadith reported by al-Hakim "Whoever swears by other than Allah has disbelieved" and in other transmission "has committed Shirk" [see Tuhfat al-Muhtaj by al-Haytami 10/4]. Note: Just because I quoted al-Haytami here, that doesn't mean the Du'a of Tawassul is equated with Kufr/Shirk according to him.

So, there are several nuances on this subject and several different views among the scholars. It seems Abu Sulayman is taking advantage of this confusion in order to push a simplistic view of the entire issue as if there was consensus and a few outliers who differed with that, namely in the persons of Ibn Taymiyyah and IAW. That is far from the truth.

Well, you better rescind that belief as it was 100% genuine question. My mocking of you and anyone of else will be obvious [al la "Saint Abu Najm"]. I try to avoid the too subtle, as it mostly gets missed.

I asked it in wanting to understand your post from earlier as there seems to be a discrepancy.


You've explained your view which I appreciate, and have kind of touched on it, but I don't feel like you've answered my question specifically.

If someone was to use the same wording in the Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf (RA), but not at the grave, what would be the ruling on the act?

Not on the person as that obviously would come down to their knowledge, intention etc.

[Simply_Logical]

thing i dont understand about some peeps who use these 'intermediaries' whilst making dua or any time of worship, is why?

i mean islam has freed us of the shackles of having to use any sort of 'intermediarie' when we can have a direct connection to Allah swt via mans of dua etc

i dont know if its me maybe ive got the rong end of the stick, if someone could explain to me the reasoning as to why i'd appreciate it...

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

thing i dont understand about some peeps who use these 'intermediaries' whilst making dua or any time of worship, is why?

i mean islam has freed us of the shackles of having to use any sort of 'intermediarie' when we can have a direct connection to Allah swt via mans of dua etc

i dont know if its me maybe ive got the rong end of the stick, if someone could explain to me the reasoning as to why i'd appreciate it...

I think you should ask Darul Ilm to babysit you for a while.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

thing i dont understand about some peeps who use these 'intermediaries' whilst making dua or any time of worship, is why?
i mean islam has freed us of the shackles of having to use any sort of 'intermediarie' when we can have a direct connection to Allah swt via mans of dua etc
i dont know if its me maybe ive got the rong end of the stick, if someone could explain to me the reasoning as to why i'd appreciate it...

I think you should ask Darul Ilm to babysit you for a while.

[Simply_Logical]

thing i dont understand about some peeps who use these 'intermediaries' whilst making dua or any time of worship, is why?
i mean islam has freed us of the shackles of having to use any sort of 'intermediarie' when we can have a direct connection to Allah swt via mans of dua etc
i dont know if its me maybe ive got the rong end of the stick, if someone could explain to me the reasoning as to why i'd appreciate it...

I think you should ask Darul Ilm to babysit you for a while.

So asking questions to scholars means needing babysitting by them? 🤦🤦🤦🍼🍼🍼

[Fais]

thing i dont understand about some peeps who use these 'intermediaries' whilst making dua or any time of worship, is why?

i mean islam has freed us of the shackles of having to use any sort of 'intermediarie' when we can have a direct connection to Allah swt via mans of dua etc

i dont know if its me maybe ive got the rong end of the stick, if someone could explain to me the reasoning as to why i'd appreciate it...

That's not necessarily true. We do ask by intermediaries all time. But it's the same reason people make duas in different ways. Simply put, because the Sharia allows it, and we know that these methods are tried and tested in dua being accepted.

There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to dua, and we've been given permission to ask in multiple different ways (that everyone agrees upon), like asking Allah (SWT) by His name and attributes for example .. It's one of many permissible ways to ask. Asking by your own accepted good deeds. Asking another person to make dua for you etc ..

If there was one permissible method of making dua and that was accepted every time, then use that method. Why change it?

[Simply_Logical]

That's not necessarily true. We do ask by intermediaries all time. But it's the same reason people make duas in different ways. Simply put, because the Sharia allows it, and we know that these methods are tried and tested in dua being accepted.

There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to dua, and we've been given permission to ask in multiple different ways (that everyone agrees upon), like asking Allah (SWT) by His name and attributes for example .. It's one of many permissible ways to ask. Asking by your own accepted good deeds. Asking another person to make dua for you etc ..

If there was one permissible method of making dua and that was accepted every time, then use that method. Why change it?

so brother Fais can you give me an example of this? like is it something in the lines of when making dua say something like 'ohhh Allah for the sake of your prophet sallahu alayhi a salaam please help me with this that or the other?'

i have no problem ith reciting durood shariff before and after dua as youl have a better chance of dua being accepted, is this what you mean?

like i said in my last post brother maybe its due to my ignorance im getting the wrong end of the stick...

[Abu Sulayman]

so brother Fais can you give me an example of this? like is it something in the lines of when making dua say something like 'ohhh Allah for the sake of your prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam please help me with this that or the other?'

Even though you asked another brother: Yes, what you mentioned is a prime example.
I personally use it especially when asking Allah ta'ala for forgiveness and for protection for myself, my family and all of the Umma of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

What does "ohhh Allah for the sake of your prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam please help me" actually mean? It doesn't make sense.

-_-

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

Even though you asked another brother: Yes, what you mentioned is a prime example.
I personally use it especially when asking Allah ta'ala for forgiveness and for protection for myself, my family and all of the Umma of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

What does "ohhh Allah for the sake of your prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam please help me" actually mean? It doesn't make sense.

[Fais]

What does "ohhh Allah for the sake of your prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam please help me" actually mean? It doesn't make sense.

To you. It doesn't make sense to you.

And I do mean this genuinely and honestly. You may never understand it, but just have to accept it. Some Scholars, even the ones you look up to used this method, and considered it acceptable.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

To you. It doesn't make sense to you.

And I do mean this genuinely and honestly. You may never understand it, but just have to accept it. Some Scholars, even the ones you look up to used this method, and considered it acceptable.

I will wait for AS to explain since you don't have the tools despite claiming to understand what it means.

[Fais]

so brother Fais can you give me an example of this? like is it something in the lines of when making dua say something like 'ohhh Allah for the sake of your prophet sallahu alayhi a salaam please help me with this that or the other?'

i have no problem ith reciting durood shariff before and after dua as youl have a better chance of dua being accepted, is this what you mean?

like i said in my last post brother maybe its due to my ignorance im getting the wrong end of the stick...

That would be an example of a type of dua. And this method is something that is used by many major scholars as quoted in this thread. Abu Najm would argue that such usage isn't sanctioned by Sharia and that the scholars that did it or advocated it were wrong.

But many major scholars said this method is fine. So if you use such a method, you're going with those scholars.

What they are arguing over isn't this method and is more nuanced than this.

[Fais]

I will wait for AS to explain since you don't have the tools despite claiming to understand what it means.

You still hurt? It's been a whole day.

It pains me to keep correcting you, but not having the "tools" comment was regarding interpreting Hadith, not whether I understand this topic.

I clearly understand this topic better than you, since I ain't the one confused.

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

You still hurt? It's been a whole day.

It pains me to keep correcting you, but not having the "tools" comment was regarding interpreting Hadith, not whether I understand this topic.

I clearly understand this topic better than you, since I ain't the one confused.

If you understand it then explain the text of the quoted dua in your next post without making an excuse, if you are truthful.