The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

[AbuNajm]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Also

1) Sajdah for other than Allah does not always necessitate major Kufr or Shirk.

Yes, it does. The question between the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is whether it is excused or not; not whether it is Shirk Akbar or not.

A) Ya'qoub(as) did Sajdah to Yusuf(as) to fulfill the dream , in al Quran.

Sajdah may or may not have been permissible in earlier Umam; however, Islamic Shari'ah clearly forbids Sajdah to anyone and thus any previous legislation is abrogated and cannot be used as proof for permissibility or lack of prohibition.

B) Instances of people doing Sajdah to Rasulullah ( Salman al Farsi comes to mind ) , though he admonished them.

Islam at the time was still being revealed and rulings had not yet been made clear to even some Companions RA. To compare this period of Islam with the periods following, when Islamic knowledge and laws spread far and wide, is not an acceptable comparison in general.

However, scholars have argued that it is possible for this early period of Islam to be representative of isolated populations at any time and place. At this point several issues become paramount: 1) what is considered 'Iqamat al-Hujjah'; 2) who is considered Mushrik/Kaafir Asli based on a lack knowing what is 'al-Ma'lum min ad-Deen bidh-Dharurah'; 3) are the actions still defined as Shirk/Kufr Akbar however the individual granted exception due to qualified ignorance.

But I am curious as to what Shirk the Quburiyoon commit , and do you charge them correctly?

1) Tawasul as defined by Subki is not Shirk akbar , though the early Najdi's may have believed so.

As-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, is not an Imam of Aqeedah with respect to Tawassul. Rather he is an Imam of innovation in Tawassul. Also, there is no fairness in citing "Najdis" when discussing the mistakes of Imam as-Subki as they are separated by hundreds of years and there were contemporary Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah who refuted as-Subki in these matters.

2) Shaffa'a is not shirk akbar , though early najdi's may have believed so - and perhaps modern Salafi's make takfeer as well? If so , they would be opposing so many scholars who made it part of their custom at the grave-sight of Rasulullah (saws). It is probably Halal / Mustahab , but I could understand why others would oppose it , but to claim that it is Shirk Akbar , makes the Sunni tradition inconsistent. How could a movement 12 Centuries later claim that previous scholars were calling people to Shirk Akbar , but we excuse them out of ignorance. So everyone was upon baa'til until you came along? That is simply irrational.

This is one of the weakest argument that a person could make for saying a prohibited form of Shafaa'ah is "probably Halal/Mustahab".

First, define exactly what form of Shafaa'ah is being referred to for a ruling.
Second, provide a list of names of scholars who performed this exact type of Shafaa'ah or declared it permissible/recommended.
Third, stating the lack of something. i.e. not knowing of scholars who declared prohibited forms of Shafaa'ah to be Shirk Akbar before the 1800's, is not a proof in and of itself in favor of the opposite.

Not doing any of the above and still opining on the matter is "simply irrational".

Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS, whether at his SAWS grave or as a Gha'ib, is not a matter of "Najdis vs. Sunni tradition". It is a matter of Ahl as-Sunnah vs Ahl al-Bid'ah.

No type of Istishfaa', after the death of the Prophet SAWS and before the Resurrection, has been permitted by the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah, and definitely not "recommended".

As for the "customs of scholars" at the grave of the Prophet SAWS, then this is not a valid proof in the Shari'ah and not a means of amending what is legislated in Ibaadah. Again, none of the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah ever promoted any kind of Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS after his death or at his grave, neither by calling on him SAWS or appealing to Allah through his SAWS "honor" or "rank" with Allah.

It is most definitely Shirk to call upon the Prophet SAWS. Whether it takes one out of the Deen or not depends on factors. So saying it is not Shirk Akbar as a general statement is only true if we assume that the person making Istishfaa' does not call on the Prophet SAWS. If they call upon Allah and appeal to Allah through the "honor" or "rank" of the Prophet SAWS, then this is misguidance and innovation, though not Shirk Akbar.

3) Tabbarruk ( Seeking blessings ) To what extent do you allow it? Why do you even find it problematic if the people are not intending to worship the grave / individuals. Here's an article by GF HADDAD

Anyone who refers to the deviant and misguided "GF Haddad" for anything concerning Aqeedah is seriously confused and in danger of ruining their Aqeedah. He is one of the biggest promoters of deviation with regards to Tawassul and Quburiyyah today.

4) Tawaf .. I have no idea what could possibly be the intention of those who partake in this? Does it make your dua's come true or something? Does anyone know , what is the point?

The common trope that many rely on to justify their sin and deviancy is "you don't know the intention", so what is the point of asking about the intention of the millions of people who make Tawaf around graves and other structures?

Even for Tawaf though , only an extremely deviant person would intend to worship the grave. As for the act , we make tawaf around the Kaa'ba , but we don't worship the Kaa'ba. Similarly , those performing tawaf are , inshaAllah , are not intending to worship the grave .. al Nawawi says " la ya'juz " .

This sounds like a very flimsy defense of those who make Tawaf around graves and other objects.

If the Tawaf is considered to be legislated [due to ignorance] and the intention is for the sake of Allah and not someone/something else, then it is an abominable Bid'ah. If the Tawaf is for the sake of someone/something other than Allah, then it is Shirk Akbar.

https://islamqa.info/ar/112867

5) Istighatha ( As defined by Salafis ) Could possibly be shirk , but this is not done at the grave site. If it's done at the grave sight , then it is either tawasul or Shaffa'a. What separates Istighatha from the others are , the absence and abilities. So istighatha is irrelevant in this instance , if that is even what you meant.

What is your obsession with defining things in such a restricted manner, i.e. "Salafi definition" vs. "xyz"?

Istighaathah is done by people at grave sites. Many people visit graves and pay money, bring offerings, make Tawaf, make sacrifices, or swear oathes to the dead in exchange for relief from their suffering, which entails Shirk.

The difference between Istighaathah, Tawassul and Shafaa'ah has nothing to do with location, presence or absence. In fact, each one can involve a absent or present being, although Tawassul does not involve ability.

6) Slaughtering for Other than Allah - Is this an issue of Ijma from the scholars who preceded the Najdi movement?

Question : What do the people themselves intend when doing this , on average? Do they say " In the name of Abdul Qadir " upon slaughter? Or do they slaughter for Allah , but at the grave site?

The problem with people who deal with these topics is that they become obsessed with determining whether this or that act is Shirk Akbar, Shirk Asghar or "just Haraam" or "just an innovation".

Also, the people who really want to justify these sins are always looking for the gap in the armor which would be some dissent among the scholars regarding the ruling. So they ask "is there Ijmaa' on the ruling for this issue?" As if the answer to that will settle their heart regarding whether the argument in defense of the act is righteous or sinful.

"Slaughtering for other than Allah" regardless of the method, intention or any dissent on its ruling, is an abomination. With so many people who spend countless pages and threads demanding "proof" for rulings in Islam, it's strange that here we have something which is clearly prohibited and contrary to Islam itself, and yet people are wondering whether it is possible to declare this act of Shirk to be Akbar or Asghar in general.

If you don't already know that there is Tafseel in most issues of Fiqh in which the ultimate ruling on an individual depends on several factors, then it would be better for you to ask questions about Usuul and to learn that science. Otherwise you're going to have the same confusion and difficulty with every issue that has Tafseel in it.

7) Venerating the dead - How do you understand this term venerating? Isn't that just the general word for all of this ( Those who engage in it , exclude the haram forms )

It's more important to understand how the scholars define "veneration" and what types are Haraam. If a person stays away from what is Haraam in acts of Ibaadah, then what worry do they have for falling into innovations or Shirk?

[abufulaans]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Jazak Allah khair

1) Why is asking the dead to fulfill a need shirk akbar?

1) You are at the grave site
2) You believe they can hear you
3)You assume Allah has granted them certain abilities after death.

Your proof is the answering of dua / " Are you belittling sayiduna Rasulullah !?!?!?!? " salla Allaho alayhi wa salam

What makes it Shirk or Kufr ? Why not bid'ah / pointless ?

1) Because Allah tells the mushrikeen to stop calling upon other than Allah, Allah does not tell them to simply believe what they call upon does not harm/benifit them without the permission of Allah only, rather in numerous ayaat he links calling upon other than Allah, (yes the mere act of calling) to shirk, this means calling upon other than Allah is ALWAYS shirk EXCEPT where there are clear exceptions

Once the exceptions have been gathered together, we can see it's only allowed to ask for help from someone with the 3 qualities

1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
2) Present in the situation
3) Able to help

Regarding your three points

1) Ok at the grave site
2) They can hear ok but help is a different issue,
3) Assume just isn't enough, how about I assume Allah has given me the ability to give life to the dead like ISA AS, I need a clear authority from Allah to claim this, and if I was to claim such a thing I would be a mushrik since it's just not true and giving and taking life is only in the hands of Allah

Likewise if I claimed to be a wali and claimed I can help people on the other side of the world and hear them, I would be a mushrik because Allah gave me no such ability

Likewise if I claimed I could create the heavens and the earth because Allah gave me the ability to do so, I would be a mushrik

I can go on and on with examples, the point is claiming Allah gave such and such special powers that are not found in his creation to someone
is shirk akbar, unless we have a clear evidence from Allah, claims and assumptions are not enough

Infact why don't we go further than that and claim Allah gave this idol the power to increase my rizq so I will go call upon it (just like the mushrikeen believed for most of their idols, not all), would I be doing shirk akbar or not just because I CLAIM Allah gave it this power?

The main point I want to make is 1) as said above, Allah says the calling upon other than him is shirk, believing that such and such has certain abilities that Allah has (even if we claim Allah gave it to them) is a sperate shirk altogether

[abufulaans]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

[MENTION=3349]AbuNajm[/MENTION]

My understanding is that As-Subki equated asking the prophet ﷺ to ask Allah and asking him directly, meaning even when he said you can call the prophet ﷺ he meant you call him to ask Allah and that he cannot help you directly (even with the permission of Allah), to put it simply he just saw it as a different way of asking

Is this correct....

And if it's not, it means he called to shirk akbar, why is he excused?

[AbuNajm]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

@AbuNajm

My understanding is that As-Subki equated asking the prophet ﷺ to ask Allah and asking him directly, meaning even when he said you can call the prophet ﷺ he meant you call him to ask Allah and that he cannot help you directly (even with the permission of Allah), to put it simply he just saw it as a different way of asking

Is this correct....

And if it's not, it means he called to shirk akbar, why is he excused?

Your understanding is not confirmed by the following:

والسبكي لا يقصد هاذين، وإنما يقصد في هذا الموطن قول الشخص في دعائه: (أسألك بنبيك، أو بحق نبيك) كما ذكر ذلك في كتابه هذا، وهذه مسألة سهلة، وهي مسألة اجتهاد

http://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/30524/

As-Subki differed with Ibn Taymiyyah on whether it was allowed to make Istighaathah and Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS by saying: "I ask You [Allah] through Your Prophet," or "...by the right of Your Prophet..."

There are weak Hadith/evidences which support this wording and due to the differing over the weakness/strength of that evidence, the matter is considered related to Ijtihaad.

I have not seen any scholars, not even Ibn Taymiyyah, claim that the wording mentioned entail Shirk or Kufr, rather he conveyed the Karaahah and prohibition of that and the difference of opinion about it.

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Yes, it does. The question between the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah is whether it is excused or not; not whether it is Shirk Akbar or not.



Sajdah may or may not have been permissible in earlier Umam; however, Islamic Shari'ah clearly forbids Sajdah to anyone and thus any previous legislation is abrogated and cannot be used as proof for permissibility or lack of prohibition.



Islam at the time was still being revealed and rulings had not yet been made clear to even some Companions RA. To compare this period of Islam with the periods following, when Islamic knowledge and laws spread far and wide, is not an acceptable comparison in general.

However, scholars have argued that it is possible for this early period of Islam to be representative of isolated populations at any time and place. At this point several issues become paramount: 1) what is considered 'Iqamat al-Hujjah'; 2) who is considered Mushrik/Kaafir Asli based on a lack knowing what is 'al-Ma'lum min ad-Deen bidh-Dharurah'; 3) are the actions still defined as Shirk/Kufr Akbar however the individual granted exception due to qualified ignorance.



As-Subki, may Allah have mercy on him, is not an Imam of Aqeedah with respect to Tawassul. Rather he is an Imam of innovation in Tawassul. Also, there is no fairness in citing "Najdis" when discussing the mistakes of Imam as-Subki as they are separated by hundreds of years and there were contemporary Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah who refuted as-Subki in these matters.



This is one of the weakest argument that a person could make for saying a prohibited form of Shafaa'ah is "probably Halal/Mustahab".

First, define exactly what form of Shafaa'ah is being referred to for a ruling.
Second, provide a list of names of scholars who performed this exact type of Shafaa'ah or declared it permissible/recommended.
Third, stating the lack of something. i.e. not knowing of scholars who declared prohibited forms of Shafaa'ah to be Shirk Akbar before the 1800's, is not a proof in and of itself in favor of the opposite.

Not doing any of the above and still opining on the matter is "simply irrational".

Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS, whether at his SAWS grave or as a Gha'ib, is not a matter of "Najdis vs. Sunni tradition". It is a matter of Ahl as-Sunnah vs Ahl al-Bid'ah.

No type of Istishfaa', after the death of the Prophet SAWS and before the Resurrection, has been permitted by the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah, and definitely not "recommended".

As for the "customs of scholars" at the grave of the Prophet SAWS, then this is not a valid proof in the Shari'ah and not a means of amending what is legislated in Ibaadah. Again, none of the Imams of Aqeedah of Ahl as-Sunnah ever promoted any kind of Istishfaa' through the Prophet SAWS after his death or at his grave, neither by calling on him SAWS or appealing to Allah through his SAWS "honor" or "rank" with Allah.

It is most definitely Shirk to call upon the Prophet SAWS. Whether it takes one out of the Deen or not depends on factors. So saying it is not Shirk Akbar as a general statement is only true if we assume that the person making Istishfaa' does not call on the Prophet SAWS. If they call upon Allah and appeal to Allah through the "honor" or "rank" of the Prophet SAWS, then this is misguidance and innovation, though not Shirk Akbar.



Anyone who refers to the deviant and misguided "GF Haddad" for anything concerning Aqeedah is seriously confused and in danger of ruining their Aqeedah. He is one of the biggest promoters of deviation with regards to Tawassul and Quburiyyah today.



The common trope that many rely on to justify their sin and deviancy is "you don't know the intention", so what is the point of asking about the intention of the millions of people who make Tawaf around graves and other structures?



This sounds like a very flimsy defense of those who make Tawaf around graves and other objects.

If the Tawaf is considered to be legislated [due to ignorance] and the intention is for the sake of Allah and not someone/something else, then it is an abominable Bid'ah. If the Tawaf is for the sake of someone/something other than Allah, then it is Shirk Akbar.

https://islamqa.info/ar/112867



What is your obsession with defining things in such a restricted manner, i.e. "Salafi definition" vs. "xyz"?

Istighaathah is done by people at grave sites. Many people visit graves and pay money, bring offerings, make Tawaf, make sacrifices, or swear oathes to the dead in exchange for relief from their suffering, which entails Shirk.

The difference between Istighaathah, Tawassul and Shafaa'ah has nothing to do with location, presence or absence. In fact, each one can involve a absent or present being, although Tawassul does not involve ability.



The problem with people who deal with these topics is that they become obsessed with determining whether this or that act is Shirk Akbar, Shirk Asghar or "just Haraam" or "just an innovation".

Also, the people who really want to justify these sins are always looking for the gap in the armor which would be some dissent among the scholars regarding the ruling. So they ask "is there Ijmaa' on the ruling for this issue?" As if the answer to that will settle their heart regarding whether the argument in defense of the act is righteous or sinful.

"Slaughtering for other than Allah" regardless of the method, intention or any dissent on its ruling, is an abomination. With so many people who spend countless pages and threads demanding "proof" for rulings in Islam, it's strange that here we have something which is clearly prohibited and contrary to Islam itself, and yet people are wondering whether it is possible to declare this act of Shirk to be Akbar or Asghar in general.

If you don't already know that there is Tafseel in most issues of Fiqh in which the ultimate ruling on an individual depends on several factors, then it would be better for you to ask questions about Usuul and to learn that science. Otherwise you're going to have the same confusion and difficulty with every issue that has Tafseel in it.



It's more important to understand how the scholars define "veneration" and what types are Haraam. If a person stays away from what is Haraam in acts of Ibaadah, then what worry do they have for falling into innovations or Shirk?

Jazak Allah khair for your response. I can not re-quote you conviniantly , so please excuse that.

Firstly , I am not promoting or staunchly defend any side. The questions I asked were for my own knowledge while attempting to briefly understand what each party is saying. Ultimately I avoid any doubtful and unnecessary practices and surely that is the safest route regardless of it's hukm.

I should not have said , " it is probably halal/mustahab " regarding tawasul in the manner I said it. Obviously that is not a shar'ee proof and I was not attempting to make a definitive case.

Before proceeding akhi , it is obvious that you do not recognize the positions of the 'deviant' scholars of madhahib in this circumstance.

1) The main purpose of my quote / participation within this thread was to get a perspective as to whether or not MIAW had unprecedented views in his a classification of shirk.

Question : Would you say asking the Prophet(saws) to ask Allah to forgive us / having the Prophet intercede is a majority opinion amongst fuqaha? I am not refering to a limited number of Hanabalee's / Salaf , but rather , all scholars of ahlus Sunnah ? I am currently under the impression that the majority either consider it halal or Mustahib , is that wrong ?

2) tawasul / Shafa'a / istighatha are not words with only one meaning. Depending on who is using them and in what context , is how we know what is being referred to , as you even requested for me to propose an understanding of Shaffa'a. Unless I have misunderstood the Ashari's , their understanding of Istighatha differs from the understanding of Salafis. It is either that or they do not expose their beliefs with clarity. Istighatha , as I use it , is to refer to seeking a request from an 'absent'.

From what this brother mentioned / others have mentioned , their istighatha resembles more of a tawasul ( Calling on Allah , seeking His aid for the sake of the one being mentioned )

3) I shouldnt have mentioned GF Haddads name , the purpose was to promote the article for the sake of the ahadith / scholarly positions he quotes. The question I am still curious of is how do these people acquire the 'barakah' and what makes it shirk?

4) It is irrational to suggest an act as Shirk akbar if no one has concluded the same in 1200 years.

My sources are truly limited and hence , I do keep an open mind - neither am I heavily sectarian. Would you agree that no scholar prior to MIAW classified tawasul / shaffa'a at the grave of the Prophet as shirk akbar?

Sure , this is not a decisive method of "seeking truth" , but it is incoherent to suggest, as per the views I hold , that every single person was wrong except for an individual 12 centuries after the fact. Call it fraudulent , to me that is sound reasoning.

I don't conform to what all scholars say myself , especially on these theological issues - but unprecedented views are to be shunned based on common sense. That is not to say that the fuqaha do not provide daleels in substantiating their practices. Whether you want to accept those is a different story and indeed , I am internally sympathetic towards shunning these practices , in spite of how much support they have ..

You said ..

The problem with people who deal with these topics is that they become obsessed with determining whether this or that act is Shirk Akbar, Shirk Asghar or "just Haraam" or "just an innovation".

"Also, the people who really want to justify these sins are always looking for the gap in the armor which would be some dissent among the scholars regarding the ruling. So they ask "is there Ijmaa' on the ruling for this issue?" As if the answer to that will settle their heart regarding whether the argument in defense of the act is righteous or sinful."

As far as this thread is concerned , this is actually the core of the discussion.

Did MIAW incorrectly charge 'Muslims' with extreme classifications of Tawhid and Shirk , or was his theology completely coherent with the ongoing Islamic tradition?

Hope to get back at you in a few.

Salamo alaykom

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

1) Because Allah tells the mushrikeen to stop calling upon other than Allah, Allah does not tell them to simply believe what they call upon does not harm/benifit them without the permission of Allah only, rather in numerous ayaat he links calling upon other than Allah, (yes the mere act of calling) to shirk, this means calling upon other than Allah is ALWAYS shirk EXCEPT where there are clear exceptions

Once the exceptions have been gathered together, we can see it's only allowed to ask for help from someone with the 3 qualities

1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
2) Present in the situation
3) Able to help

Regarding your three points

1) Ok at the grave site
2) They can hear ok but help is a different issue,
3) Assume just isn't enough, how about I assume Allah has given me the ability to give life to the dead like ISA AS, I need a clear authority from Allah to claim this, and if I was to claim such a thing I would be a mushrik since it's just not true and giving and taking life is only in the hands of Allah

Likewise if I claimed to be a wali and claimed I can help people on the other side of the world and hear them, I would be a mushrik because Allah gave me no such ability

Likewise if I claimed I could create the heavens and the earth because Allah gave me the ability to do so, I would be a mushrik

I can go on and on with examples, the point is claiming Allah gave such and such special powers that are not found in his creation to someone
is shirk akbar, unless we have a clear evidence from Allah, claims and assumptions are not enough

Infact why don't we go further than that and claim Allah gave this idol the power to increase my rizq so I will go call upon it (just like the mushrikeen believed for most of their idols, not all), would I be doing shirk akbar or not just because I CLAIM Allah gave it this power?

The main point I want to make is 1) as said above, Allah says the calling upon other than him is shirk, believing that such and such has certain abilities that Allah has (even if we claim Allah gave it to them) is a sperate shirk altogether

Walahi it takes too much effort to quote you at the moment.

1) Claiming to be a wali who is helping people on other side of the world is shirk ? Are you 100% sure ?

I don't intend to misrepresent the opposition within Sunni Islam , but I don't believe they entirely agree with your understanding of abilities and shirk.

Yes , certain abilities belong to Allah , and to claim them is claiming to be Allah / having his power ( The reality / perfection of His sifat , forgiveness , etc )

There two issues which I believe are key and Allah knows best.

1) It is possible for a Wali to perform miracles , by Allahs leave , i.e help others on different parts of Earth.

2) To claim this ability incorrectly would only imply two possibilities

- Deceit
- Misunderstanding

Why would it be shirk to be wrong on something which is possible ?

What is your daleel for this , has anyone prior to Ibn Taymiyyah suggested this ?

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

1) Because Allah tells the mushrikeen to stop calling upon other than Allah, Allah does not tell them to simply believe what they call upon does not harm/benifit them without the permission of Allah only, rather in numerous ayaat he links calling upon other than Allah, (yes the mere act of calling) to shirk, this means calling upon other than Allah is ALWAYS shirk EXCEPT where there are clear exceptions

Once the exceptions have been gathered together, we can see it's only allowed to ask for help from someone with the 3 qualities

1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
2) Present in the situation
3) Able to help

Regarding your three points

1) Ok at the grave site
2) They can hear ok but help is a different issue,
3) Assume just isn't enough, how about I assume Allah has given me the ability to give life to the dead like ISA AS, I need a clear authority from Allah to claim this, and if I was to claim such a thing I would be a mushrik since it's just not true and giving and taking life is only in the hands of Allah

Likewise if I claimed to be a wali and claimed I can help people on the other side of the world and hear them, I would be a mushrik because Allah gave me no such ability

Likewise if I claimed I could create the heavens and the earth because Allah gave me the ability to do so, I would be a mushrik

I can go on and on with examples, the point is claiming Allah gave such and such special powers that are not found in his creation to someone
is shirk akbar, unless we have a clear evidence from Allah, claims and assumptions are not eenough

You said ..

1) Allah said do not call upon other than Allah .. ( to prove its shirk )

2) The one you are calling upon could possibly hear you at grave site.

3) Du'a means to call. The Quran says " Do not make your dua of the Messenger like yourselves " ( Regarding adab )

4) The one at the grave site is not calling a 'God' , nor are they intending worship in their call.

5) This understanding contradicts asking the Prophet to ask Allah for forgiveness ( unless you say that the 'call' is only minor Shirk)



"
1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
2) Present in the situation
3) Able to help
"

Where do you get this definition from? Did anyone preceed ibn Taymiyyah in this ?

Don't mean to trouble you by the way , just curious to see how you deal with these responses.

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

You said ..

1) Allah said do not call upon other than Allah .. ( to prove its shirk )

2) The one you are calling upon could possibly hear you at grave site.

3) Du'a means to call. The Quran says " Do not make your dua of the Messenger like yourselves " ( Regarding adab )

4) The one at the grave site is not calling a 'God' , nor are they intending worship in their call.

5) This understanding contradicts asking the Prophet to ask Allah for forgiveness ( unless you say that the 'call' is only minor Shirk)



"
1) Alive in the dunya (not in barzakh)
2) Present in the situation
3) Able to help
"

Where do you get this definition from? Did anyone preceed ibn Taymiyyah in this ?

Don't mean to trouble you by the way , just curious to see how you deal with these responses.

[MENTION=118642]abufulaans[/MENTION] actually regret sending this. Better not to even entertain hypotheticals. Jazak Allah khair

[AbuNajm]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

I should not have said , " it is probably halal/mustahab " regarding tawasul in the manner I said it. Obviously that is not a shar'ee proof and I was not attempting to make a definitive case.

We should never reduce ourselves to speaking about Islam without 100% certainty and the ability to provide a reference at any time. May Allah reward you for acknowledging the deficiency in your statement. Ameen.

Before proceeding akhi , it is obvious that you do not recognize the positions of the 'deviant' scholars of madhahib in this circumstance.

When it comes to Aqeedah, it is required to refer to the Imams of that science and not any other science. Referring to Fuqahaa' as authorities in Aqeedah is like relying on an engineer as an authority in medicine. There are some Imams of Aqeedah who were also Fuqahaa', Mufassireen, Muhadditheen, Nahwiyeen, etc. However there were several Fuqahaa' who were deviant in Aqeedah.

The reason for this is because it became common for individual scholars in Fiqh to adopt sectarian views in Aqeedah and Usuul such that they say "I am Hanafi in Furuu' and Maturidi in Usuul," or "I am Maliki in Fiqh and Ash'ari in Usuul."

If we know that a Faqeeh is Maturidi, Ash'ari, Mu'tazili, Shi'i, or any other sect in their approach to Usuul and Aqeedah, then it is not allowed to use them as authorities in Aqeedah or Usuul except where they confirm what the Imams of Aqeedah and Usuul of Ahl as-Sunnah establish.

1) The main purpose of my quote / participation within this thread was to get a perspective as to whether or not MIAW had unprecedented views in his a classification of shirk.

This is the wrong question to ask. Rather people should be asking "Did al-Hijaz and the rest of the Ummah have unprecedented levels and practices of Shirk during the time of MIAW?"

Why focus on the response of one man to what was/is clearly a problem in the entire Ummah? The focus on MIAW is because it is far easier to find fault with and mistakes in an individual as a deterrence and distraction from addressing the problem of Shirk in our Ummah. This way, if it is proven that MIAW was wrong about anything, then it allows the Mushrikeen hiding in our Ummah to remain unchallenged and unnamed.

Question : Would you say asking the Prophet(saws) to ask Allah to forgive us / having the Prophet intercede is a majority opinion amongst fuqaha? I am not refering to a limited number of Hanabalee's / Salaf , but rather , all scholars of ahlus Sunnah ? I am currently under the impression that the majority either consider it halal or Mustahib , is that wrong ?

You have to refer to Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah as I mentioned above. The Fuqahaa' are not necessarily authorities in Aqeedah. Fiqh and Aqeedah are two separate sciences whose experts are not necessarily cross-trained. When you discount the unqualified views of Fuqahaa' who were members of various sects outside of Ahl as-Sunnah and who were not authorities in matters of Aqeedah for Ahl as-Sunnah, then there is unanimity in declaring Nidaa' to anyone/anything other than Allah is Shirk.

2) tawasul / Shafa'a / istighatha are not words with only one meaning. Depending on who is using them and in what context , is how we know what is being referred to , as you even requested for me to propose an understanding of Shaffa'a. Unless I have misunderstood the Ashari's , their understanding of Istighatha differs from the understanding of Salafis. It is either that or they do not expose their beliefs with clarity. Istighatha , as I use it , is to refer to seeking a request from an 'absent'.

From what this brother mentioned / others have mentioned , their istighatha resembles more of a tawasul ( Calling on Allah , seeking His aid for the sake of the one being mentioned )

There's no reason to get stuck on terms or definitions.

Tawassul = seeking a means to something through someone.

Legal: "Brother, can you hand me that hammer." There is a brother nearby who can hear you and you request his assistance in acquiring something needed/wanted.
Illegal: "Oh Shaykh Abd ul-Qadir, ask Allah to grant me guidance!" Abd ul-Qadir has been dead for hundreds of years and he can neither hear you nor help you in any way.
Ikhtilaf: "Oh Allah! Grant me guidance through the honor of Shaykh Abd ul-Qadir."

Tashfa'a = seeking intercession through someone for something.

Legal = "Oh Messenger of Allah! Intercede for me with Allah from the Hell-Fire." This supplication will be made on the Day of Resurrection as mentioned in authentic Ahadith.
Illegal = "Oh Messenger of Allah! Intercede for me with Allah to grant me children." This supplication is made in a way that has no proof from the Quran, Sunnah or Salaf.

Istighaathah = seeking relief from a hardship.

Legal = "Oh Allah! Help me find my way. I am lost and in danger."
Illegal = "Oh Ali! Help me find my way. I am lost and in danger."

As you can see, the only forms which "Najdis/Salafis" object to, in each matter, are those in which someone other than Allah is called upon. This is not because the "Najdis/Salafis" are the first in history to object to calling upon other than Allah, but rather the amount of Shirk in the Ummah and courage to oppose it is unprecedented [at least for a long time].

3) I shouldnt have mentioned GF Haddads name , the purpose was to promote the article for the sake of the ahadith / scholarly positions he quotes.

There is no value to the "scholarly positions" or Ahadith that GF Haddad quotes in his articles. He is a liar and a very dishonest person. He is well-known for distorting translations of references and selectively quoting scholars to give false impressions.

The question I am still curious of is how do these people acquire the 'barakah' and what makes it shirk?

Not sure what you're referring to.

4) It is irrational to suggest an act as Shirk akbar if no one has concluded the same in 1200 years.

You're assessment that "no one has concluded the same in 1200 years" is wrong. Just because you haven't been exposed to the previous conclusions doesn't mean they don't exist. And when those conclusions are reported to you through contemporary scholars, it doesn't make them "irrational".

What is "irrational" is to disregard the wide-spread opinion of contemporary scholars of Aqeedah simply because Ahl al-Bid'ah have labeled them "Najdi" or "Salafi".

My sources are truly limited and hence , I do keep an open mind - neither am I heavily sectarian. Would you agree that no scholar prior to MIAW classified tawasul / shaffa'a at the grave of the Prophet as shirk akbar?

First define "Shaffa'a at the grave of the Prophet".

1) If by Shafaa'ah you mean: "Oh Messenger of Allah! Ask Allah to grant rain." Then there is no doubt this is Shirk and the scholars of Aqeedah have never ceased saying this. There is a disagreement over whether the ignorant person who does this is excused or not.

2) If by Shafaa'ah you mean: "Oh Allah! Through the honor of Your Prophet, grant us rain." I have never read that a scholar of Aqeedah has ever said this is Shirk Akbar, not MIAW, Ibn Taymiyyah, or anyone else. They simply disagreed over whether it was an innovation or not.

Ahl al-Bid'ah love confusing this matter so that it appears like MIAW or Ibn Taymiyyah declared #2 to be Shirk Akbar, when that is not the case.

Ahl al-Bid'ah also love pointing out the fact that several Fuqahaa' have falsely declared #1 to be permissible or recommended without an Ayah or Hadith as proof while at the same time they hypocritically declare scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah to be "Mujassimah" or "Hashawi" for using statements of the Companions and Tabi'een as proof in the Names and Attributes.

Unfortunately, many Muslims who are like you in being "limited in sources" with "open minds" fall prey to Ahl al-Bid'ah on this and many other issues in Aqeedah.

[Side note: the transliteration of the term شفاعة is Shafaa'ah or Shafa'ah, not "Shaffa'a".]

Sure , this is not a decisive method of "seeking truth" , but it is incoherent to suggest, as per the views I hold , that every single person was wrong except for an individual 12 centuries after the fact. Call it fraudulent , to me that is sound reasoning.

You are under a false impression about the views on this issue of a majority of scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah. You've been led to believe that MIAW or Ibn Taymiyyah were alone in what they ruled about Tawassul, Istighaathah and Shafaa'ah. This is a false impression and thus the "reasoning" is false as well.

I don't conform to what all scholars say myself , especially on these theological issues - but unprecedented views are to be shunned based on common sense. That is not to say that the fuqaha do not provide daleels in substantiating their practices. Whether you want to accept those is a different story and indeed , I am internally sympathetic towards shunning these practices , in spite of how much support they have ..

1) "Unprecedented" views are not shunned as an Islamic principle.

Rather, unprecedented actions and statements are subjected to rigorous analysis by qualified scholars of the respective science and then a ruling is derived based on principles established by the Quran, Sunnah and Ijmaa'.

Of course an "unprecedented act/statement" will result in an "unprecedented view". As long as the scholars of the respective science agree on the ruling, then this establishes a consensus that must be followed by Muslims.

2) "Daleels" do not hold weight in Islam unless those proofs are based on the agreed upon Usuul ad-Deen: Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa' and Qiyaas Saheeh. You will never find a single scholar of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah putting forward a single evidence from the agreed upon Usuul ad-Deen supporting Nidaa'/Calling upon other than Allah.

This being the case, it is not a matter of choice whether to accept "Daleels" that are not from Usuul ad-Deen that promote calling on other than Allah. Rather rejecting these so-called "Daleels" is a part of "common sense" in Islam.

As far as this thread is concerned , this is actually the core of the discussion.

Did MIAW incorrectly charge 'Muslims' with extreme classifications of Tawhid and Shirk , or was his theology completely coherent with the ongoing Islamic tradition?

Hope to get back at you in a few.

Salamo alaykom

Can you provide any evidence of MIAW taking an individual Muslim and declaring him a Kaafir and executing him based solely on that Muslim making Istishfaa', Tawassul or Istighaathah, EVEN if they did so in one of the ways agreed upon to be Haraam/Shirk?

Or is the matter more correctly couched in a historical perspective where MIAW spoke against the polytheistic forms of Istishfaa', Tawassul and Istighaathah. When he acquired enough power and strength, then he used that to force people to abandon such acts by destroying shrines and removing leaders who promoted them. When he made those moves, both the promoters of Shirk and those who felt politically threatened by the strength and influence of MIAW fought against him and mobilized people by making false accusations, not dissimilar to accusations of "terrorism" today. This led to wide-spread fighting and deaths/executions on both sides.

Rather, the situation with MIAW in Najd during the 1800's is similar to IS in Syria and Iraq in the sense that there are clear examples of Shirk/Kufr happening at the state level in both. An unpopular group arises from within the states involved and their fight to eliminate that Shirk/Kufr is what makes them unpopular.

Just imagine how different Ahl al-Bid'ah would remember MIAW if he had supported their Shirk and their authority in the land. Also imagine how differently IS would be discussed today if they were calling for "democracy" and protecting the interests of Turkey or the West.

Is this discussion really about the personal beliefs of MIAW and how he implemented that in his fight in Najd and the surrounding areas?

If that's the case, then why does the discussion always lead to whether or not calling upon other than Allah is Shirk Akbar and the flimsy, invalid "Daleels" used to excuse those members of Ahl al-Bid'ah among the Fuqahaa' who opposed Ahl as-Sunnah?

I already listed above the "Legal vs Illegal" routes of Tawassul, Istighaathah and Shafaa'ah. These things did not exist among the Salaf or early scholars, thus the lack of a need to address those forms of worship that were innovated much later on. When they were innovated, the scholars of Ahl as-Sunnah at the time refuted them despite the deviant rulers' and their appointed leaders' attempts to oppress the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah.

It's like saying, "No scholar before the end of the 20th century ever said that using stem cells from intentionally aborted foetuses is prohibited."

Scholars of Islam did not rule one way or another on the use of foetal tissues, despite the existence of spontaneous miscarriages throughout history, for the simple fact that the practice did not exist before the end of the 20th century. The silence of the scholars on any issue before its wide-spread practice is not an evidence of permissibility or recommendation.

Fuqahaa' did not begin claiming "permission" or "recommendation" of calling on the Prophet SAWS or righteous, whether at their graves or in their absence, until long after the time of the Salaf. However, when the practice became wide-spread or known, the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Aqeedah clearly and definitively rejected the acts.

In order to prove that MIAW or Ibn Taymiyyah were "unprecedented" in rejecting Shirk in Istighaathah, Tawassul and Shafaa'ah, proof is required that there was ever a time when that was permitted and no scholars objected to it.

[abufulaans]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Your understanding is not confirmed by the following:

والسبكي لا يقصد هاذين، وإنما يقصد في هذا الموطن قول الشخص في دعائه: (أسألك بنبيك، أو بحق نبيك) كما ذكر ذلك في كتابه هذا، وهذه مسألة سهلة، وهي مسألة اجتهاد

http://www.alukah.net/sharia/0/30524/

As-Subki differed with Ibn Taymiyyah on whether it was allowed to make Istighaathah and Tawassul through the Prophet SAWS by saying: "I ask You [Allah] through Your Prophet," or "...by the right of Your Prophet..."

There are weak Hadith/evidences which support this wording and due to the differing over the weakness/strength of that evidence, the matter is considered related to Ijtihaad.

I have not seen any scholars, not even Ibn Taymiyyah, claim that the wording mentioned entail Shirk or Kufr, rather he conveyed the Karaahah and prohibition of that and the difference of opinion about it.

So when As-subki allowed istighatha, he didn't mean that you call upon the prophet (SAW) for help at or away from his grave?
Meaning he didn't intend the shirki meaning like some sufis do, is this correct?

Im not reffering to the issue above, indeed there is ikhtilaaf on it.

[abufulaans]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Walahi it takes too much effort to quote you at the moment.

Yes you are best replying from a laptop

1) Claiming to be a wali who is helping people on other side of the world is shirk ? Are you 100% sure ?

I don't intend to misrepresent the opposition within Sunni Islam , but I don't believe they entirely agree with your understanding of abilities and shirk.

Yes , certain abilities belong to Allah , and to claim them is claiming to be Allah / having his power ( The reality / perfection of His sifat , forgiveness , etc )

Tell me, can a person help someone at the other side of the world? The answer is no.
The problem is that some ashahris seemed to be on the opinion that as long as you say 'by the will/power of Allah', nothing in actions and abilities is shirk, no rather shirk is what Allah says is shirk, I gave the example of Isa AS who gave life to the dead, if a wali claimed he can do the same thing, and people belived him, they would all be falling into shirk.

I even gave an example, so I will give another, if I said I can control your affairs and grant you rizq and remove all of your didfiiculties where ever you are by the permisssion of Allah, are you seriously saying this is not shirk? Yes it is, and it would be shirk for you to believe this OR ask any of these things from me.

Or how about if I said I can create humans like Allah has created us, by Allahs permission? Does it suddenly not become shirk just becasue I said by the permission of Allah?

All of this applies to what we are talking about aswell, it is no different.

There two issues which I believe are key and Allah knows best.

1) It is possible for a Wali to perform miracles , by Allahs leave , i.e help others on different parts of Earth.

Firstly awliyaa cannot perform miracles, they can only perform minor miracles less then prophets, now if no prophet could help any one in the world when he wanted how can a wali?

2) To claim this ability incorrectly would only imply two possibilities

- Deceit
- Misunderstanding

Why would it be shirk to be wrong on something which is possible ?

Because it is not possible, and therefore shirk, likewise it is shirk to ask a wali to help you when he is at the other side of the world or not present.

What is your daleel for this , has anyone prior to Ibn Taymiyyah suggested this ?

This would require a whole new search or what shirk is on these type of issues.

[Abu Sulayman]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

May Allah ta'ala protect us from speaking regarding the religion of Allah without knowledge.
Wallahi some people here mention the Ahl al-Sunnah while having no connection to them at all. What they're upon is nothing but compound ignorance.

So when As-subki allowed istighatha, he didn't mean that you call upon the prophet (SAW) for help at or away from his grave?
Meaning he didn't intend the shirki meaning like some sufis do, is this correct?

Im not reffering to the issue above, indeed there is ikhtilaaf on it.

Instead of asking some Najdi cultist, how about you simply start reading the words of Imam al-Subki (d. 756 AH) himself and that of other classical scholars?! Please read the links:

I had an thread regarding this issue on IA Forums, but IA Forums doesn't work anymore unfortunately. But one can still find many of the qoutes on different websites.

Here is the statement of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), who discusses the issue quite in detail:

Imam Taqi Al-Din Al-Subki on Tawassul, Istighatha and Tashaffu’

Note that the above qoutes are all from his book Shifa` al-Saqam and the book has been praised by scholars like the Shaykh Salah al-Din al-Safadi (d. 764 AH) (who was a student of both Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Subki), the Hafidh Wali al-Din Abu Zur'ah al-'Iraqi (d. 826 AH), the Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 AH), the Imam Ibn Hajar al-Hayatami (d. 974 AH) and other than them.

Then you can read this link, which contains the qoutes of classical Shafi'i scholars like Imam al-Mawardi (d. 448 AH), Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), Imam al-Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), Imam al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), Imam al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH), Imam Zakariyyah al-Ansari (d. 926 AH), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli (d. 957 AH) and Imam Shams al-Din al-Ramli (d. 1004 AH):

The ruling of seeking aid with the Prophet (s) according to the scholars of the Shafi’i Madhhab

Note that many of the qoutes are regarding the seeking of intercession, but there are also qoutes which are regarding the permissibility of seeking aid like those of A`immah like al-Subki, al-Qastallani, al-Haytami and al-Ramli.
My original thread also contained a qoute from Imam al-Samhudi where he called the Prophet's name while being in Makkah (i.e. Istighathah from afar) and got healed from an illness and also the statement of Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d.829 AH) (who also specifically mentions Istighathah from afar).

The above link also contains the statements of non-Shafi'i scholars like Imam al-Kirmani (d. 597 AH), Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH), the Adib Ibn al-Jannan al-Ansari al-Andalusi (d. 646 AH), Imam Yahya bin Yusuf al-Sarsari (d. 656 AH), Imam ‘Abdullah bin Mahmud bin Mawdud al-Mawsili (d. 683 AH), Imam Ibn al-Hajj al-‘Abdari (d. 737 AH), Imam al-Taftazani (d. 793 AH) and the 'Allamah Mansur bin Yunus al-Bahuti (d. 1051 AH).
The book Misbah al-Dhalam fil Mustaghithin bi Khayr al-Anam by Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa bin al-Nu’man al-Marakashi (d. 683 AH) is also menitioned, which is a book filled with Ahadith and Athar containing Tawassul, Tashaffu’ and Istighathah with the Prophet, sallallahu 'alazhi wa sallam.

And this a link to the response of Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) against Ibn Taymiyyah concening Istighathah (where he qoutes the Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH)):

Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH) refuting Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) on seeking aid with the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam

You can basically look into any major classical Fiqh book and you'll see that all of them have allowed seeking intercession: Whether it's al-Mughni of Imam Ibn Qudamah (d. 620 AH), Sharh Fath al-Qadir of Imam Ibn Humam (d. 861 AH), the al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah of Imam Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi (d. 741 AH) or the Fatawa al-Hindiyyah.


To make it short: According to the understanding of IAW (d. 1206 AH) the scholars of this Ummah have pretty much always been upon Shirk akbar and he would have fought against any classical scholar, if he would have lived in his time. In fact he would have even fought against Ibn Taymiyyah, because he would never ever have agreed to his crazy Takfir.

[Abu Sulayman]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Please re-read this comment here:

The Jumhur of the classical scholars regarded Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istaghathah with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa Allan - as permitted. The first one to actually disagree was Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH), who regarded Tawassul as an innovation (bid'ah), Tashaffu' as some thing that leads to polytheism (dhari'ah ila al-shirk). As for Istighathah: He called it as shirk, but he refrained from doing Takfir.
During his times and after him major scholars responded to his view and clarified the issue.

There are different proofs for its permissibility and among that is the Ayah 4:64, the Hadith of the man in need and the Hadith of the blind man, the Athar of Malik al-Dar, the Tawassul of Adam - peace be upon him, the statement of Imam Malik (d. 158 AH) to Abu Ja'far al-Mansur (d. 179 AH) to seek intercession (which the Malikiyyah had accepted and acted upon) and also the practise of the Salaf to say "O slaves Allah, I've lost my way. Help!" or what is similar to that when they would get lost and other than that.
The Salafis act as if all these proofs are not authentic, but let them face the reality that the classical scholars did actually regard these proofs as authentic and acted upon them.
And even the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-Abbas - may Allah be pleased with both of them - is another proof [against them and not for them], because the Tawassul of 'Umar goes back to the high rank and status of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - which is why he does not simply say "through al-'Abbas", but rather "through the uncle of your Prophet"

In Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah differrent wordings are used, but it goes basically all back to the same meaning and that is to get help from Allah ta'ala by the means of our Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.


Tawassul is to ask Allah ta'ala by the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - or his high rank and status. Example: "O Allah help me for the sake of your Prophet!"

Tashaffu' is to seek intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - unto one's Lord. Example: " Ya Rasulallah, supplicate for the forgiveness of my sins." or "Intercede for me, o Messenger of Allah!".

Istighathah is the seeking of aid. While one mentions the name of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - what one intends here is that he becomes a mean (sabab) in the fullfillment of one's need, while the real help is expected from Allah ta'ala. And the usage of seeking of aid regarding the one who's a sabab (mean) in the fullfillment of one's need is correct shar'an and 'urfan (for example: going to the doctor, while knowing that healing comes from Allah ta'ala alone). Example: "Ya Rasulallah, [help]!"

The Wahhabiyyah say now that the polytheists (read: some of them) would call upon Allah ta'ala alone when in great hardship and that therefore the Muslim who says "Ya Rasulallah!" during hardship is worse than those polytheists.
The mistake in this line of thinking is that there is a huge difference in the beliefs of the Muslims and polytheists.
The Muslim believes that Allah ta'ala alone is divine and that He alone is the creator and sustainer of the Universe and that nothing happens except by his permission and by his power.
The polytheist however may accept a major divine being, who has created the world, but it the same time he believes that there are other divine beings besides him, who also may bring harm and benefit independently [in specific matters]. This is not the belief of Muslims regarding the Prophets and the Righteous.
As for some of the polytheists calling upon Allah during great hardship: This is simply, because they may realize at that moment that real help can only be expected from Allah and that is similar to the case of the atheists, who also may call upon God in such situations.
As for the Muslim who mentions the name of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - then he's doing that while believing that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - can be a mean (sabab) for Allah's help to come. He knows that Everything is under the control of Allah ta'ala whether it's before, during or after the hardship.

What is however indeed not allowed is to ask in the same way like one asks Allah ta'ala and that is for example by saying "O so and so, grant me children / forgive my sins / etc.".
If a person believes that anyone other than Allah ta'ala can harm or benefit him independently, then this clear-cut Shirk (no matter whether one calls upon that person or not). A Muslim however usually does not believe this, that's why Takfir is not made. Even if the intention of that Muslim is that the one whom he mentioned becomes a mean in the fullfillment of his need, his action/call is still ugly. One should therefore correct him and remind him that Allah ta'ala alone benefits and harms independently.

I'll post some links inshallah where classical scholars are qouted regarding the issue of Tawassul, Tashaffu' and Istighathah, which should leave no doubt that the above mentioned is the classical position.

[Linkdeutscher]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

[MENTION=63294]AmantuBillahi[/MENTION]

Are you a follower of Hatim al Awni in these matters?

[AmantuBillahi]

Re: The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than

Yes you are best replying from a laptop

Patience is a virtue .. Lol

Tell me, can a person help someone at the other side of the world? The answer is no.
The problem is that some ashahris seemed to be on the opinion that as long as you say 'by the will/power of Allah', nothing in actions and abilities is shirk, no rather shirk is what Allah says is shirk, I gave the example of Isa AS who gave life to the dead, if a wali claimed he can do the same thing, and people belived him, they would all be falling into shirk.

I even gave an example, so I will give another, if I said I can control your affairs and grant you rizq and remove all of your didfiiculties where ever you are by the permisssion of Allah, are you seriously saying this is not shirk? Yes it is, and it would be shirk for you to believe this OR ask any of these things from me.

Or how about if I said I can create humans like Allah has created us, by Allahs permission? Does it suddenly not become shirk just becasue I said by the permission of Allah?

All of this applies to what we are talking about aswell, it is no different.



Firstly awliyaa cannot perform miracles, they can only perform minor miracles less then prophets, now if no prophet could help any one in the world when he wanted how can a wali?



Because it is not possible, and therefore shirk, likewise it is shirk to ask a wali to help you when he is at the other side of the world or not present.



This would require a whole new search or what shirk is on these type of issues.

Ok let me rephrase , just so I can get a clear perspective.

If I claim to be able to fly , would that make me a Mushrik? If so , why?

I am not associating myself with any of Allah's attributes. I am just giving myself a false ability.

- Deciet
-Misunderstanding

Speaking logically here , the claim would make me a liar or a lunatic , not a polytheist.

( This is assuming the individual believes in La Ilaha illa Allah and does not have any other internal deficiencies like claiming internal abilities separate from Allahs Will for them to have it )