Istighathah

Additional quotes provided by Mufti Husain Kadodia

The issue of the permissibility of istighathah/isti ‘anah is one that is widely discussed and a bone of contention for many. The elders of Deoband — like their predecessors from the Waliullah and Mujaddidi tradition — write that there are three meanings of isti’anah. Imam Rabbani Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi, quoting Mi’ah Masa’il and Arba’in Masa’il of Muhaddith Shah Muhammad Ishaq Dahlawi, writes:

“One is to beseech the Most High that he completes something on account of the holiness of such a such person. This is permissible by consensus regardless of whether this is [done] at the grave or some other place. No one has any objection to this.”

“The second is to address the person of the grave by saying, ‘You fulfil my work’. This is shirk, regardless of whether this is said at the grave or away from it. And that which has been mentioned in some narrations, ‘Aid me, oh slaves of Allah.’ In reality this is not isti’anah at the grave but the seeking of aid from the slaves of Allah who are in the desert; in that Allah has appointed them there for some work. So this is not from this (the concept of isti’anah). To bring [this] as proof of permissibility is ignorance of the meaning of the hadith.”

“The third is to go close to a grave and say, ‘Oh such a such person, pray for me that the Most High fulfils my work.’ There is a difference among the ‘ulama regarding this. Those who consider it permissible to believe that the dead can hear consider this permissible and those who do not believe that the dead can hear forbid this … However, there is no difference in the hearing of the Prophets (peace be upon them), on account of this they are exempt.”[1]

Mawlana Gangohi writes elsewhere that if a person was to do istighathah of the second type with the belief that the person called upon has knowledge of the unseen (‘ilm al-ghayb), then this is kufr. If, on the other hand, a person does not have this belief then this would not be kufr, but close to kufr.[2]

This is the safest and most prudent of positions on the issue. In relation to this, in counter-arguments against the esteemed and definitely safe position of the elders of Deoband, it is heartrending to come across accusations of the Deobandi ‘ulama being “reformative” and their opinions described as “minority opinions” (or bluntly put — “Wahhabi-like” or “Salafi-like”).

With the Azhar of India — Dar al-‘Ulum Deoband — founded in the 1860s, many of the Deobandi ‘ulama’s antagonists forward the impression that their views are recent. The reality is quite different, the elders of Deoband are merely the successors of a spiritual legacy that traces its origins through Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi (and his sons) to Mujaddid Alf al-Thani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi Naqshbandi and beyond through the ummat’s scholars to the best of creation, the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Below are a series of translations from various books on the topic, including primarily a section from a commentary of Shah Isma’il Shahid’s Taqwiyat al-Iman written by Shaykh Abu ‘l-Hasan ‘Ali Nadwi at the behest of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandahlawi. In his commentary, Shaykh Abu ‘l-Hasan presents the views of ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Haqq bin Sayf al-Din Bukhari Dahlawi (from his book Ashi’ath al-Lam’at) and Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dahlawi (from his book Majmu’ah Fatawa Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz).

In addition, translations of relevant sections of Mawlana Yusuf Ludhianwi’s brilliant Ikhtilaf-i-Ummat awr Sirat-i-Mustaqim (quoting Qadi Thana’ullah Panipati from Irshad al-Talibin), ‘Allamah Mahmud Alusi al-Hanafi’s Tafsir Ruh ul-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim wa Saba’a al-Mathani (also known as Ruh al-Ma’ani), ‘Allamah Muhammad Tahir Patni’s Majma’ Bihar al-Anwar, Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi’s Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi’s Majmu’ah Fatawa, ‘Allamah ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami’s Radd al-Muhtar, and ‘Allamah ibn Nujaym al-Misri’s Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq have been included to unequivocally show that the elders of Deoband’s position in relation to the second type of istighathah is not an isolated one but, rather, one that is firmly grounded in the Shari’ah as understood by traditional scholars of bygone days.

[1] Shaykh Sayyid Abu ‘l-Hasan writes in his commentary to Shah Isma’il al-Shahid’s masterpiece Taqwiyat al-Iman: “In the latter days, people adopted the wrong custom of seeking aid from and supplicating to people in the grave. Some pious people gave permission for it with the thought that it was a means of benefiting from the spirituality (ruhaniyat) of the person of the grave and that it was merely a request for du’a (supplication) from the person and nothing more.

However, well-versed jurists (muhaqqiq fuqaha’) and sincere Sufis forbade it, as it is a means of fitnah and an extremely delicate issue that may place one in err. In the above mentioned it is extremely difficult to differentiate between that which has been intended and that which has not. There is a fear that the lay masses may become involved in shirk and begin seeking aid from the dead, because according to Islamic dogma — in respect to those things that are not sensed (hissi), physical (tab’i), and ordinary (‘adi) — one may only seek aid from Allah and only rely on him.

This topic was discussed a long time ago, and the ‘ulama of that age discussed it. ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Haqq bin Sayf al-Din Bukhari Dahlawi (died 1052AH) — who is a hadith scholar (muhaddith), jurist (faqih) and Sufi, and someone of an easygoing opinion in these sorts of issues — has mentioned in his Persian commentary of Mishkat al-Masabih: ‘If those that visit the graves, abandon turning towards Allah and imploring Him, and have belief that the people of the grave have full power and an ability of their own — as is the way of the ignorant and simple lay masses, who having gone there indulge in haram and do such acts that Islam has prohibited, such as kissing graves, prostrating in front of them, praying in front of them and any other type of action that the shari’at has prohibited and which have been warned of — then this has been prohibited; (it is) haram and a wrong belief (‘aqidah)’.” (Ashi’ath al-Lam’at, Kitab al-Jihad, Qissat Qatla Badr).

[2] Shaykh Abu ‘l-Hasan further writes: “Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dahlawi (died 1239AH) writes: ‘(They) seek aid from the souls of the pious, (regarding this) a large number of Muslims have exceeded the limit. In relation to this, whatever the ignorant and lay masses do, in every action of theirs they have the belief of their (the souls of the pious) strength and involvement, this is open shirk.” (Majmu’ah Fatawa Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, p.121).

In addition, Fatawa ‘Azizi of Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dahlawi contains the following question and answer: “Question. Is it correct or not to seek aid from the Prophets (may Allah grant them peace), the noble saints, the worthy martyrs and the lofty pious after their deaths, saying, ‘Oh such and such a person, request for me a need from the Almighty, intercede on my behalf, and pray for me’.

“Answer. To seek aid from the dead (istimdad) — regardless of whether this is done at the grave or away — is without a doubt a bid’ah, and did not exist in the time of the Companions and the Followers. However, there is a difference of opinion regarding which type of bid’ah this falls into. In that, is it a reprehensible bid’ah or a praiseworthy bid’ah, as a result the ruling would be different. Considering istimdad is of different types, if the seeking is of the type mentioned in the above question then it is clear this is permissible. This is because there is no shirk in this. This is the same as making requests for supplications and other needs from the pious in their life. If this (istimdad) is done in a different way then the ruling would accordingly be different.” (Fatawa ‘Azizi, 1:89)

[3] Furthermore, the great Hanafi jurist, ‘Allamah Mahmud Alusi al-Hanafi, in Ruh al-Ma’ani, under the Qur’anic verse: “Oh believers, fear Allah and seek a means (wasilah) towards reaching him,” writes: “Indeed people have increased supplicating to others apart from Allah from among the saints, those that are alive or dead and others. For example (they say): ‘Ya sayyidi fulan agithni (Oh my such and such master, aid me).’ This is not from the permissible type of tawassul (intercession) at all… Many of the ‘ulama have considered this to be shirk.

‘Allamah Alusi, under the Qur’anic verse: “Surely, those you call apart from Allah cannot create even a fly,” writes: “This is an indication rebuking those who have exceeded the limit in regards to the saints when seeking their aid at times of distress while being neglectful of Allah Most High and making vows (nadhr) to them. And the intelligent from among them say, ‘They are our means to Allah Most High; we are only vowing to Allah Most High and dedicating its reward to the wali.’ And it is clear that in their first claim they are similar to those who worship idols who say, ‘We only worship them so they may bring us close to Allah.’ And there is nothing wrong with their second claim as long as they do not seek from them, with that, cure for their sick or the return of their lost items or something like that.

And the concept of [them] ‘seeking’ (from the dead person) is clear from their situation. This [meaning] is understood if they are told: ‘Make a vow for Allah Most High and allocate its reward for your parents for indeed they are in more need than those people.’ They would not do so.

And I have seen many of them prostrating at the doorsteps of the mausoleums of the friends of Allah. And among them are those who affirm that they all have the right of disposal (tasarruf) in their graves and that, however, they are different in that (in their ability of tasarruf) according to the differences in their statuses.

And the ‘ulama among them enumerate the right of disposal in the graves into four or five, and when they are asked for proof they say: ‘That was established through kashf‘. May Allah Most High fight them. How great is their ignorance and lies.

And among them are those who claim the saints can leave their graves and take different shapes. And their ‘ulama say their souls appear in different shapes and travel wherever they wish. At times they take the shape of a lion or a gazelle or something similar. And all of this is false, and without basis in the Book, the Sunnah and the speech of the predecessors of the Ummah. These people have ruined people’s faith and have become an object of ridicule for the people of those religions which have been abrogated, such as the Jews and the Christians, and likewise the people of other sects and the freethinkers (dahriyyah). We ask Allah for forgiveness and well being.”

[4] Mawlana Yusuf Ludhianwi, one of the leading khalifas of Shaykh al-Hadith Mawlana Muhammad Zakariyya Kandahlawi, writes in his brilliant Ikhtilaf-i-Ummat Awr Sirat-i-Mustaqim: “The other juristic issue is that just, as in the way of supplication and to gain nearness to Allah Most High, one calls out to Him and recites wazifahs (incantations) using His pure name. Similarly, some people use the names of some pious people (buzrugs) and call out to them and recite incantations. This is completely impermissible in Islam. The reason being that such actions fall under the scope of worship (‘ibadat) and all worship is purely for the sake of Allah Most High. Neither the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), nor the Sahabah, nor any pious predecessor used the name of any other being besides Allah Most High for the recitation of any incantations.”

[5] Mawlana Ludhianwi then quotes the great Hanafi jurist of India, ‘Allamah Qadi Thana’ullah Panipati, a Naqashbandi Mujaddidi Sufi master who was the khalifah of Mirza Mazhar Jani Janan and who was also one of the leading students of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi: “It is not permissible to make dhikr with the name of any of the pious (awliya) as a wazifah or as a means of achieving any objective or need, like how the ignorant ones do.” (Irshad al-Talibin, quoted from Al-Jannat li Ahl al-Sunnat, p.7)

Mawlana Ludhianwi quotes Qadi Thana’ullah again: “Juristic issue: It is not permissible to make supplications to the pious, who have passed away or are living or to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The Prophet of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said that supplications are the core of worship, and then the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) recited this verse: ‘And your Cherisher says: supplicate to Me, I answer you. Indeed those people who are proud (refrain) from My worship, soon they will enter the hellfire disgraced.’ And the statements of the ignorant ones: ‘Ya Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani shay’an lillah‘ and ‘Ya Khawaja Shams al-Din al-Panipati shay’an lillah‘ (‘Oh Shaykh Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani give something for the sake of Allah’, and ‘Oh Khawaja Shams al-Din Panipati give something for the sake of Allah’) are not permissible. In fact, they are shirk (polytheism) and kufr. But if someone says: ‘Oh my lord, through the mediation of Khawaja Shams al-Din Panipati fulfil the following need of mine…’ then this will be correct.” (Irshad al-Talibin, p.18.)

He further quotes Qadi Thana’ullah: “Juristic issue: If any person says that Allah Most High and His prophet are witness in a certain act, then that person becomes a kafir because such a person has regarded the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as the knower of the unseen (‘alim al-ghayb). The awliya of Allah do not have the ability or power to bring a non-existent thing into existence nor to make an existing thing non-existent. Hence, to relate to them the power of bringing into existence and taking out of existence, sustenance, granting of children, removing and averting illness and hardships, etc. is an act of kufr. Allah says: ‘Say (Oh Muhammad [may Allah bless him and grant him peace]), I do not have the power to benefit or harm my own self, except what Allah wills…'” (Irshad al-Talibin, p.18).

Qadi Thana’ullah writes at another place, “To prostrate before the graves of the prophets and saints, to circumambulate around them, to invoke them [for help], and to accept offerings of their behalf is haram; rather some of these matters lead to kufr.” (Ma la Budda Minhu, p.80)

[6] The Hadith Scholar ‘Allamah Muhammad Tahir Patni Shahid (died 986AH) writes: “Imam Malik disliked that one says, ‘We visited (zurna) his [the Prophet’s (peace and blessings upon him)] grave.’ And they have shown the reason for this, in that the word ziyarat is used in the meaning of that which is legal in terms of Shari’ah and that which is not. For indeed there are those among them who proceed to visit the graves of the prophets and the pious to pray by their graves, supplicate by them and ask them (the prophets and the pious) for their needs. And this is not permissible according to any of the scholars of the Muslims, for indeed worship, asking for needs and seeking aid (isti’anah) is only the right of Allah.” (Majma’ Bihar al-Anwar, 2:444)

[7] Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi (died 1176AH) writes: “And among that (the occasions where forbidden shirk is present): Surely they seek aid from [people] other than Allah for their needs — including cure for the ill and giving wealth to the poor; and they make vows (nadhr) and hope that their aims are successful on account of those vows; and they recite their [people’s] names hoping to gain their blessings. Allah Most High has made it incumbent on them that they say in their prayers, ‘It is only you that we worship and it is only you that we seek aid from.’ Allah Most High says, ‘So, do not call with [the name of] Allah anyone else.’ And the meaning of du’a (supplication) is not ‘ibadah (worship), as the exegetes say, but it is isti’anah (seeking aid), according to the saying of God, may He be Exalted, ‘No, but you call upon Him and He removes the thing because of which you call upon Him’ (Qur’an, 6:41).” (Hujjat Allah al-Balighah, 1:186)

[8] ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi (died 1304AH) writes: “…in that seeking aid (istighathah) from the saints and the prophets is haram and clear shirk.” (Majmu’ah Fatawa, 1:46-45)

[9] ‘Allamah ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami (died 1252AH), author of the famous Hanafi book of fiqh, Radd al-Muhtar, which is a commentary of ‘Allamah al-Haskafi’s Durr al-Mukhtar, writes: “[[His saying: And know that indeed the vows (nadhr) made to the dead by the majority of the lay-masses and what dirhams, candles, oil and their like are taken at the mausoleums of the noble awliya to gain proximity to them…]] like one says, ‘Oh my such and such a master, if you return that which I have lost or cure my illness or fulfil my need, then for you is a large amount of gold or silver or food or candles or oil or the like.’ [[His saying: this is baseless and haram]] on account of a few reasons. Among them (those reasons) is that he has promised to the creation and promising to the creation is not permissible because this is a [form of] worship and worship should only be for the creator; and among them is that the person being promised is dead and the dead cannot own; and among them is that if he thinks that the dead person has discretion (tasarruf)  in issues beside Allah Most High. And his belief in that is kufr, oh Allah, except if he says, ‘Oh Allah, surely I promise you — if you cure my illness, or return me my lost possession, or fulfil my need — that I shall feed the poor, who are at the door of Sayyidah Nafisah, or Imam Shafi’i, or Imam Layth etc, from among those things in which there is benefit for the poor and the offering is for Allah…'” (Hashiyyah Rad al-Muhtar, 2:439)

[10] ‘Allamah ibn Nujaym al-Misri (died 970AH) writes in a section about nadhr: “Shaykh Qasim (d. 879AH) writes in Sharh al-Durar: ‘And as to the vows (nadhr) made by the majority of the general lay public, according to what is witnessed, it is as if the person has lost something or is ill or has a necessary need, so he comes to some of the [graves of the] pious and places the sheet covering the grave on his head and says, “Oh my such a such master, if my lost item is returned, or my illness cured, or my need fulfilled, then for you is so much gold or silver or food or water or wax or oil.” Then this vow is baseless by consensus (ijma’) on account of a number of reasons. Among them (the number of reasons) is that making vows to the creation and vowing for the creation is not permissible because this is a [form of] worship and worship is not for the creation; and among them (the number of reasons) is that the person who is being vowed is dead and the dead person cannot own; and among them (the number of reasons) if he thinks that the dead person has discretion (tasarruf) in matters beside Allah Almighty, then his belief in that is kufr, oh Allah, except if he says, “Oh Allah, surely I promise you — if you cure my illness, or return me my lost possession, or fulfil my need — that I shall feed the poor, who are at the door of Sayyidah Nafisah, or the poor who are the door of Imam Shafi’ or Imam Layth [provide], or prayer mats for their mosques, or oil to light them, or [give] dirhams for those who worship inside etc,” from among those things in which there is benefit for the poor and the offering is for Allah…'” (Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq, 2:320)

Also see Istighathah: Seeking aid from other than Allah by Saad Khan.

_____________________________

  1. Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p.139 []
  2. Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p.72 []

71 Comments

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    1. Shaykh Shah Ghulam Ali Dahlwi was a famous Naqshbandi-Mujaddadi shaykh of the 13th century hijri. He studied under Imam Shah ‘Abdul Aziz Dahlwi, Shah Rafi al-Din Muhaddith Dahlwi, while he was ba’yah to Mirza Mazhar Jan-i-Janan shahid in tasawwuf. He mentions in malfuzat that once during his early years I uttered:

    يا شيخ عبد القادر جيلانى شيئا للّه

    “O, Shaykh ‘Abdul Qadir Jaylani give me something for the sake of Allah.”

    Right after I heard a very clear voice from ghayb, regarding which I have no doubt about, echoing in my ears:

    يا ارححم الراحمين شيئا للّه

    “Oh most merciful, give something for Allah’s sake.”

    (Durr al-Ma’arif, p.54)

    Shaykh Abul Hassan ‘Ali Nadwi has also mentioned this in his hashiyyah of Taqwiyat al-Iman.

    • Maashaa Allah, it made goose bumps over my body. So chilling, so divine, so true. May Allah show us the right path and give strenghth for the persverence till we die.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Answer to the Sayyid Ahmad bin Alwan text in Radd al-MuhtarText from the ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Abidin al-Shami’s Radd al-Muhtar:

    “Al-Ziyadi reported that when a person loses something of his, and he intends that Allah Most High returns it [his lost item] to him, then he should stand on a lofty place facing Qibla, recite Surah Al-Fatihah, send its reward to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Sayyid Ahmad bin ‘Alwan, and say: ‘Oh my master Ahmad bin ‘Alwan. If my lost item is not returned (Translator: note the passive verb) then I shall remove you from the register of the saints.’ Then, indeed Allah will return to whoever says that his lost item on account of his [Sayyid Ahmad bin ‘Alwan’s] barakah.”

    Commenting on this, ‘Allamah Safaraz Khan Safdar writes in Guldastah-i-Tawhid:
    “It is wrong to derive proof of isti‘anah from Sayyid Ahmad bin ‘Alwan (may Allah mercy him) using this text. This is because the text clearly contains at the beginning the wording, ‘And he intends that Allah returns it [his lost item] to him’, and at the end, ‘Then, indeed Allah will return to whoever says that his lost item on account of his [Sayyid Ahmad bin ‘Alwan’s] barakah’. In other words, when one intends to seek his lost item — in that Allah Most High returns it — then he should recite this supplication. When he reads it then the item would be returned to him through the barakah of Sayyid Ahmad bin ‘Alwan (may Allah mercy him). The text is also clear that the Allah Most High is the one returning it. Yes, it includes Sayyid Ahmad’s barakah, mediation and wasilah, and the juristic issue of tawassul is different [to the juristic issue of isti‘anah/istighathah].

    “On account of ignorance or dishonesty, Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Sahib [Translator: This text was originally written in response to Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan. However, the following comments also apply to others who have quoted this text to derive proof of isti‘anah/istighathah] translated the Arabic text ‘in lam turadda ‘alayya dallati’ in the active form (translated as: If you do not return my lost item) rather than the passive form [translated as: If my lost item is not returned] for his own vested interests. The reason for this is that the subject of [the verb] ‘return’ at the beginning and end [of the text] is Allah Most High. Why attribute the act of returning to Sayyid Ahmad bin ‘Alwan?

    “The meaning [of the text] is: If my lost item is not returned (that is only Allah Most High) then I will feel that you are not a saint and then what use is your tawassul and barakah.”

  • ” – I shall remove you from the register of the saints” and
    “I will feel that you are not a saint and then what use is your tawassul and barakah.”

    Apparently seems to be very disrespectful.
    An insignificant, poor and ordinary individual, like me, threatening and exhorting a friend of Allah.

    Also, these statements seems to make no sense and appear contrary to the teachings of Tasawwuf.

    How can an ordinary person remove the wilaya of an established wali?
    The wilaya of Allah is a secret between Allah and the wali. No other party can influence or remove it. It is only removed by disobedience to Shariah rulings by the wali himself.

    Can someone, please, clarify this?
    JazakAllah!

  • as-salamu `alaikum maulana Ismaeel

    I am a beginner at arabic sidi so it would be helpful if you have the report with the tashkeel – the scan I have has no tashkeel. From a linguistic point of view though aren’t turaddu [is returned] and taruddu [you return] both plausible here? The phrase is then proceeded by wa illa which is used as a conditional phrase – does this not favour the view that the verb is in the active sense? Thank you for your help.

    Also, either way does it really make any difference when we know that the one who returns the lost item is ultimately Allah – the creator of everything. Surely everyone affirms that Allah alone is capable of implementing his will independently and unilaterally and that the implementation of the will of creatures is subject to His will and all are utterly dependent on His power and have no power whatsoever in themselves. Once again thank you for your help in clarifying these matters.

    was-salam

  • Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthmani (amy Allah have mercy on him) author of Ila as-Sunun (proof of Hanafi fiqh from Prophetic traditions) writes:

    There are similar details for calling someone after death.
    Those are:
    1. To call the Nabi or wali at his grave.
    2. To call them from a distant place but this calling in not to address them directly. It is from the overwhelming rapture of their love one does it.
    3. To call them with the belief that they hear from a distance.
    4. To call them in their absence but this is neither to address them or due to overwhelming rapture but as a recitation of a dua which contains their name as being addressed.
    From all these situations:
    #1 is permissible according to the consensus of muhaqqiq (scholars). Provided that at the grave the impermissible istenanat (help) is not sought (this has been elaborated in this fatwa before).
    #2 is also permissible
    #3 is impermissible. Because to belief such is shirk (associate partners with Allah SWT)
    #4 is permissible given that this dua is explicitly present in a verse of Quran or hadith.
    Irshad fil masala e istemdad, Maqalaat e Usmani ra page 288

  • As Salamu Alaykum dear Deobandi Muslims.

    Before I write a comment I would like to clarify that I am neither Deobandi nor Barelvi, I am a neutral student of Islamic literature, however having said that I am all for Tassawuf, Ashari’i stance on Mutashbihaat, belief in hearing of the deceased, right belief in Prophet being Hadhir Nadhir (i.e. alive in his grave and witnessing our actions as proven from sahih ahadith), believer in Istighatha (as proven from ahadith and aqwal of great Ulama whose proofs I will show), Atai’i (i.e. granted) knowledge of Unseen to Porphet (Peace be upon him), for me these are the beliefs of Akabir Ulama highly revered by both Deobandis and Barelvis.

    Coming to the topic i.e. Istighatha, first of all the stance of Ahlus Sunnah is explicitly and clearly in conformity with belief that “REAL” help is from Allah azza Wajjal alone, the help sought from Anbiya and Awliya is secondary causation and is dependent upon grant of Allah, plus our belief is nothing more than asking the anbiya and awliya to make dua for us “TO ALLAH” for this we have to look at scholars rather than Jahileen amongst Awaam un Naas, the deobandis know very well that they cannot accuse the scholars because their aqaid are simply what I have outlined above.

    So Let me start with this beautiful hadith of Sahih Bukhari which is also a Mutllaq Hadith

    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Al-Ansari: Allah’s Apostle said, “Name yourselves after me (by my name) but do not call (yourselves) by my Kuniya (1), for I am Al-Qasim (distributor), and I distribute among you Allah’s blessings.” This narration has also come on the authority of Anas that the ! Prophet said so.”[ Volume 8, Book 73, Number 216: Sahih Bukhari]

    So the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is Al-Qasim (i.e. distributor) to whole Ummah in all times.

    Now let us see what the Akabireen held in high esteem by both deobandis and Barelvis had to say

    # 1 Imam Ibn Hajr al Haythami (Rahimuhullah) who requires no introduction, he allocates a whole chapter with title:[/i] Intermediation “BESEECHING FOR HELP” or Intercession through the Prophet (Peace be upon him)” in his book called Al-Jawhar al Munazzam fi Ziyaratil Qabril Muqarram, there he further writes: [/i]

    Amongst the evil deeds of Ibn Taymiyyah, something which nobody before him in this world proclaimed is his rejection of Istighatha (Beseeching for help) and Tawassul through Prophet (salalallaho alaihi wasalam). This Tawassul through Prophet (salallaho alaihi wassalam) is Hassan (fair) in all conditions whether before his creation (i.e. him being sent to the world), after it (i.e. his death), also in this world and on Day of Judgment.[ Al-Jawhar al Munazzam fi Ziyaratil Qabril Muqarram, Page No. 171, Published by Dar ul Hawi, Beirut, Lebanon]

    Hence rejection of Istighatha and Tawassul is amongst the evil deeds of Ibn Taymiyyah otherwise Ahlus Sunnah allowed it.

    This was a general verdict, now let us come towards more specific verdicts which explain Istighatha in detail

    I am sure you people must have read Imam Shams ud din Ramli (Rahimuhullah)’s verdict which is a magnificent one (in case someone wants proofs of it then it could be provided on demand meanwhile you may read the Arabic of it from here: http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=239&DocID=63&ParagraphID=2507&Diacratic=0) but I will provide proof from other great scholars so that It becomes absolutely clear that Istighatha is soundly established and those who call it shirk are themselves Bidati and actually have Khawarji inclinations.

    [i]Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhadith Dhelvi (Rahimuhullah), he is respected highly by all Muslims (including Ghair Muqalideen) , he says: [/i]

    “I WISH MY INTELLECT WAS OWNED BY THOSE PEOPLE WHO REJECT BESEECHING FOR HELP FROM AWLIYA”, so what do they understand from it? What we understand is that the one making dua is dependent upon Allah, and he makes dua to Allah, asks Him for his Hajah and presents the Wasila of Allah’s friend , he says: O Allah, the blessings which you have bestowed upon this friend of yours, please grant me something through his wasila, as you are the best of givers, “THE SECOND CASE IS THAT ONE CALLS OUT (NIDA) THE WALI AND MAKES HIM MUKHATIB AND SAYS: O SLAVE OF ALLAH, O ALLAH’S FRIEND DO MY SHAF’AAT AND MAKE THIS DUA TO ALLAH THAT HE GRANTS ME MY NEED”, hence the one who grants and the one who fulfills the need (in both cases) is “ONLY ALLAH” , the man in-between is just an intercessor , whereas the Qadir, Fa’il, one who brings about change is only Allah [Sharah al Mishkaat, Ash’atul Lamaat, Volume No. 3, Page No. 401]

    [/i]As Qadhi Thana Ullah Panipatti (rah) was mentioned above and his verdict was misused to reject Istighatha so I find it important to post proof from the same scholar, he writes in his famous and best work i.e. Tafsir al Mazhari under the ayah: [/i]

    “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not” (2:154)

    The meaning of Martyrs being alive is that “ALLAH HAS GRANTED POWER TO THEIR BODIES AND SPIRITS THROUGH WHICH THEY CAN TRAVEL TO HEAVEN, PARADISE RATHER ALL PLACES, THEY ALSO HELP THEIR FRIENDS AND KILL THEIR ENEMIES”, due to such life the earth does not consume their bodies…. It is an accepted fact that such life is not only granted to Martyrs rather its proven from Athaar and Ahkaam that Anbiya have greatest power in this regard, due to this reasoning the wives of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) are not allowed to re-marry after his passing away, whereas marriage is allowed with the widow of martyr, The Sadiqeen also have superior status in this life than martyres… this is why Allah said: …those on whom is the Grace of Allah,- of the prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the witnesses (who testify), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship! (4:69).. “DUE TO THIS REASON THE SUFIS SAY THAT THEIR SPIRITS ARE THEIR BODIES AND THEIR BODIES ARE THEIR SPIRITS, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF KNOWN EXPERIENCES THROUGH WHICH IT IS PROVEN THAT AWLIYA HELP THEIR FRIENDS AND DESTROY THEIR ENEMIES” plus those whom Allah wants to guide they are guided through them (i.e. Awliya) [Tafsir al Mazhari, Volume No. 1, Page No. 223-224]

    There are many more proofs, but hope these suffice.

    Wassalam

  • 1. Our Akabir accept tawassul.

    2. For general people they forbid istighatha

    3. There are exceptions for #2 for an intelligent person who knows the reality and can differentiate between the permissible and impermissible calling.

    4. Our akabir accept the numerous narrations of awliya helping people even after their death. However, it must be clear that in these incidences they are merely a means used by Allah SWT. And this does not prove their powers, free-will or legitimizes calling them.

    5. It is well established that Angels are delegated with various forms of assistance to individuals. However, they are on duty to do so by Allah SWT. None calls them or prays to them etc.

    6. It is well established that istighatha that you also call impermissible is rampant in Muslim cultures. Even the authors of centuries ago lament about it.

    7. Also, it is essential to understand that the Deobandi prohibition of istighatha and similar acts like mawlid, urs, etc. has a very solid fiqhi basis. InshaAllah, in the future something on this should be posted.

  • It is an excellent effort to promote the ideology of Ahl al Sunnah wa-Al Jama’ah through this website. May Allah accept your effort.
    wassalam

  • Certain individuals have mentioned that evidence from Ruh al-Ma’ani of Allama Alusi (may Allah have mercy on him) should be ignored as there is report of tampering in its contents.

    Respected Mufti Husain Kadodia (may Allah preserve him) clarifies this,
    “Read though the article properly, as well as everything else written on the issue. Not one person has brought even one example with proof of tahrif that took place in Ruh al-Ma’ani.

    The Iraqi Professor said that they found many errors in the print edition, nothing about them being deliberate, nothing about them changing the meaning, or them being in aqidah, neither did he or anyone else give one example of willful tampering in an aqidah discussion, which is what is being claimed by al-Kawthari and GF (Haddad).

    Ruh al-Ma’ani is currently under tahqiq, by the worlds best team of muhaqqiqs, with top non-Salafi muhaqqiqin supervising the work and as per what they mentioned recently to a friend of mine, they haven’t come across any examples of tampering!
    It is possible they might find some as the work progresses, until then, this isn’t an example of proven tampering. “

  • Another refernce:
    Imam Birgivi al-Hanafi , a Turkish scholar [d: 1572] and author of famous book Tariqah al-Muhammadiyyah, writes:

    “Visiting graves to offer prayers by them, circumambulate them, kiss them, carry out their istilam, to rub cheeks on them, take their dust, to supplicate to the occupants [of the grave], seek their aid [isti’ana], ask from them help, sustenance, well being, children, fulfillment of debts, removal of difficulties, help with sorrows and other needs which the worshippers of idols used to ask their idols. None of this is sanctioned in Shari’ah, according to the consensus of the Imams of the Muslims, as the Messenger of Allah [may Allah bless him and grant him peace] and none of the Companions and Followers and the imams of the faith did this. Rather, the basis of this polytheistic, bid’ati visit has been derived from the worshippers of statutes.”

    فزيارة القبور لأجل الصلاة عندها
    والطواف بها وتقبيلها واستلامها وتعفير الخدود عليها وأخذ ترابها ودعاء
    أصحابها والاستعانة بهم ، وسؤالهم النصر والرزق والعافية والولد
    وقضاء الديون وتفريج الكربات وإغاثة اللهفات وغير ذلك من الحاجات التي كان عباد
    الأوثان يسألونها من أوثانهم فليس شيء من ذلك مشروعاً باتفاق أئمة المسلمين إذ
    لم يفعله رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أحد من الصحابة والتابعين وسائر
    أئمة الدين ، بل أصل هذه الزيارة البدعية الشركية مأخوذة من عباد الأصنام

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    It was mentioned above, “So the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is Al-Qasim (i.e. distributor) to whole Ummah in all times.”

    Similar hadith Muawiyyah, may Allah be please with him, as narrated in Mishkat:

    Muawiyyah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “With whosoever Allah intends good, he provides him with fiqh in religion and I am only the ‘Qasim’ (distributor), Allah is the giver.”

    ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud mentions that the distribution (Qasim) mentioned here is distribution of knowledge due to the first part of the hadith which refers to fiqh in religion. As a result Mulla ‘Ali Qari writes in Mirqat:

    (I am only the ‘Qasim’ (distributor)) in other words [distributor] of knowledge. (Allah is the giver) in other words [the distributor of] understanding in knowledge through its roots, and in pondering its meaning and acting upon what it demands…”

    Shaykh ‘Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dahlawi mentions in Lamat quoting from ‘Allamah Turbushi that the indication is toward the knowledge and wisdom that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) would give to the Companions.

    It should be kept in mind that scholars either brought these ahadith under the baab of “Fiqh/’Ilm” or “Ghanaim”. Our friend failed to mention that for obvious reasons.

    From Bukhari: Bab of fiqh.

    بَاب مَنْ يُرِدْ اللَّهُ بِهِ خَيْرًا يُفَقِّهْهُ فِي الدِّين
    ِ
    – حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ عُفَيْرٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ عَنْ يُونُسَ عَنْ
    ابْنِ شِهَابٍ قَالَ قَالَ حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ سَمِعْتُ مُعَاوِيَةَ خَطِيبًا يَقُولُ
    سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ مَنْ يُرِدْ اللَّهُ بِهِ خَيْرًا يُفَقِّهْهُ فِي الدِّينِ وَإِنَّمَا
    أَنَا قَاسِمٌ وَاللَّهُ يُعْطِي وَلَنْ تَزَالَ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةُ قَائِمَةً عَلَى أَمْر

    From Bukhari: Baab of Khams.

    بَاب قَوْلِ اللَّه تَعَالَى
    { فَأَنَّ لِلَّهِ خُمُسَهُ وَلِلرَّسُولِ }
    يَعْنِي لِلرَّسُولِ قَسْمَ ذَلِكَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِنَّمَا أَنَا قَاسِمٌ وَخَازِنٌ وَاللَّهُ يُعْطِي

    حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سِنَانٍ حَدَّثَنَا فُلَيْحٌ حَدَّثَنَا هِلَالٌ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَن
    ِ بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرَةَ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ
    أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ
    مَا أُعْطِيكُمْ وَلَا أَمْنَعُكُمْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا قَاسِمٌ أَضَعُ حَيْثُ أُمِرْتُ

    These ahadith have nothing to do with batil belief that Allah has given the rights to distribubte the sustinense to Holy Prophet Peace be upon him) or Shaykh Jaylani.

    May Allah save us from ghuluw.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    1. Imam Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri, while discussing the hadith of deeds being presented to Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), writes:

    ان عرض كعرض الاسمآء على الملا ئكة لا علم محيط

    “Certainly, the presentation is like the presenting of the names [asma’] upon the angels. Not all encompassing knowledge (‘ilm-muhit).” (‘Aqidah Islam, p.11)

    2. And he writes at another place:

    قوله: (فإِذا عيناه تَذْرِفان) وقد مَرّ وَجْه البكاء أنه قال: كيف أشهدُ عليهم ولم أشاهدهم؟ فقيل: إنه تُعْرض الأعمالُ عليك، والعَرْض عِلْم إجمالي.

    “His saying [So, when his eyes shed tears]. And it has been mentioned the reason for crying in that he said: ‘How can I be a witness for them when I cannot see them?’ So it was said: ‘Surely, deeds will be presented to you.’ And the presentation is ijmali knowledge [knowledge that is summarized/overall].” (Faydal-Bari sharh al-Bukhari, 6:458)

    3. Shaykh Sayyid Ahmad al-Barzanji (may Allah have mercy on him), grand Mufti of Shafi’is in Madina, writes in refutation of batil belief of hadhir nadhir:

    “Bakr bin ‘Abd Allah al-Muzani said that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, “My life is better for you. You speak and are spoken to. When I die, my death will be better for you. Your deeds will be presented to me. So, if I see good, I shall praise Allah. And if I see anything apart from that, then I shall seek forgiveness for you from Allah.”

    He [Imam al-Subki] then mentioned more ahadith after this, all of which prove that the angels present the Salat wa Salam of his Ummah to him (Allah bless him and grant him peace). He then said after this that: Our purpose in writing all these ahadith is to illustrate the [concept of] ‘presenting’ to the Prophet [may Allah bless him and grant him peace] and the meaning of this is the conveying of the angels to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)…

    Hence, these hadiths that Imam Taj al-Din al-Subki has mentioned tell that the Prophet (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) is only informed of the Salat wa Salam of that person who is away from his noble grave and the deeds of his Ummah after they are conveyed to him by those angels who are entrusted with this [duty].

    As a result, if the situation was as Molwi Ahmad Radha Khan has thought is that the knowledge of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is encompassing all of “what was and what shall be” (ma kan wa ma yakun) — detailing minute particulars (juziyyat) and entireties (kuliyyat) — then his knowledge of that would not be dependent on the angels’ conveying [of that knowledge] to him because the inseparable attributes of the above mentioned [claim of] encompassing [knowledge] would be that he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is knowledgeable that such and such a person is, for example, offering prayers and sending Salutations on him at such a such time, and that such a such a person is doing such a good or bad deed at such a time. If this was the case, then what need would there be for the angels who have been explicitly mentioned in the above mentioned ahadiths.”

    (See: Ghayat Al-Ma’mul fi ‘Ilm Ghayb al-Rasul)

    4. ‘Aqidah of Sultan Bahu!

    No one beside Allah Most High is hadhir nadhir – ‘aqidah of Shaykh Sayyid Sultan Bahu (d. 1691C).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29U7KfVDe0k

  • Brother Saad khan gave explanation from Imam Muhaddith Haq Dhelvi (rah) regarding the hadith of Prophet (Peace be upon him) being a Qasim (i.e. distributor), however he did not refer to the hadith from Sahih Bukhari which I had shown, let us first see what the hadith of Bukhari states

    The hadith states: …I am Al-Qasim (distributor), and I distribute among you “ALLAH’S BLESSING”

    Please note at “ALLAH’S BLESSINGS” hence this hadith talks in Muttalaq terms not just knowledge because Allah’s blessing is not only knowledge.

    Imam Muhaddith Haq dhelvi (rah) explains another hadith of Mushqaat

    سل فقلت أسألك مرافقتك في الجنة . قال أو غير ذلك ؟ . قلت هو ذاك . قال فأعني على نفسك بكثرة السجود . رواه مسلم

    Translation: (The Prophet) said: Ask for something, (Ibn k’ab RA) said: I ask for your companionship in Jannah, The Prophet said: You want something other than this? He replied: Just this, the Prophet (saw) then said: help me with praying more nawafil – Taken from (Sahih) Muslim [Mishqat ul Misabih, Volume No. 1 Page No. 156, Published by Maktaba al Mishkaat]

    This hadith proves that the Sahabi asked for paradise from Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) and the Prophet (saw) in return told him to ask for more, The Prophet (saw) did not say that you asked for Jannah from Ghair Ullah, hence you have become Mushrik!

    Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhadith Dhelvi (rah) writes under this hadith:
    The question was Mutallaq i.e. Ask for anything, in this (the Prophet) did not confine it to something specific, this proves that all doing is in the hands of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam), he can grant whomsoever with the leave of Allah, because the world and hereafter is his Sikhawat and the knowledge of Loh ul Qalam is part of his Uloom [Ash’at ul Lamaat, Sharah al Mishkaat]

  • “Imam Shams ud din Al Ramli (Rahimuhullah) on Istighatha”

    ( سئل ) عما يقع من العامة من قولهم عند الشدائد يا شيخ فلان يا رسول الله ونحو ذلك من الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والمرسلين والأولياء والعلماء والصالحين فهل ذلك جائز أم لا وهل للرسل والأنبياء والأولياء والصالحين والمشايخ إغاثة بعد موتهم وماذا يرجح ذلك ؟

    ( فأجاب ) بأن الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والمرسلين والأولياء والعلماء والصالحين جائزة وللرسل والأنبياء والأولياء والصالحين إغاثة بعد موتهم ؛ لأن معجزة الأنبياء وكرامات الأولياء لا تنقطع بموتهم . أما الأنبياء فلأنهم أحياء في قبورهم يصلون ويحجون كما وردت به الأخبار وتكون الإغاثة منهم معجزة لهم . والشهداء أيضا أحياء شوهدوا نهارا جهارا يقاتلون الكفار . وأما الأولياء فهي كرامة لهم فإن أهل الحق على أنه يقع من الأولياء بقصد وبغير قصد أمور خارقة للعادة يجريها الله تعالى بسببهم والدليل على جوازها أنها أمور ممكنة لا يلزم من جواز وقوعها محال وكل ما هذا شأنه فهو جائز الوقوع وعلى الوقوع قصة مريم ورزقها الآتي من عند الله على ما نطق به التنزيل وقصة أبي بكر ، وأضيافه كما في الصحيح وجريان النيل بكتاب عمر ورؤيته وهو على المنبر بالمدينة جيشه بنهاوند حتى قال لأمير الجيش يا سارية الجبل محذرا له من وراء الجبل لكمين العدو هناك ، وسماع سارية كلامه وبينهما مسافة شهرين ، وشرب خالد السم من غير تضرر به . وقد جرت خوارق على أيدي الصحابة والتابعين ومن بعدهم لا يمكن إنكارها لتواتر مجموعها ، وبالجملة ما جاز أن يكون معجزة لنبي جاز أن يكون كرامة لولي لا فارق بينهما إلا التحدي

    Translation:

    Question:

    That which occurs amongst the general public who when in distress call out “Ya Sheikh Fulan and Ya Rasul Ullah and other such things in seeking help (Istighatha) from the Prophets, the saints, Ulama and upright people. Is this allowed or not? Do the Messengers/Prophets/Saints/righteous/Mashaikh have the capability to help others after death and what makes this concept strong?

    Answer:

    “Istighatha i.e. Seeking Help from the Prophets and Messengers, the Saints, Ulama and upright people is “PERMITTED” after their passing away. The messengers, prophets and saints have (power to) help after their passing away because their miracles do not become abolished after their deaths, The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying and also performing hajj as it has been mentioned in many ahadith. Therefore the help from them shall be a miracle from them, the martyrs are also alive which is proven that they have been seen openly killing the disbelievers.

    Now regarding Awliya then this is a Karamat from them, the people of truth believe that this happens from (the hands) of awliya both with their intention and without it. Having a change in outer aspects of things is brought forward by Allah through them. The Dalil for this is that these things are possible and their occurrence is not something impossible, for example the story of Maryam (a.s) and how the provision came to her from Allah as is stated in Quran and the incident of Abu Bakr (ra) with his guests as is present in Sahih, the Nile flowing to its full due to letter of Umar (ra) plus him also seeing right from his mimbar in madina, the army approaching (Sariya ra) and he exclaiming to the leader: “Ya Sariyatul Jabal (i.e. O Sariya turn to the mountain)” i.e. warning him about the enemy behind the mountain and Sariya (ra) even heard him though he was so far that it would take 2 months of travel. Also Khalid bin Walid (ra) drinking poison but it not harming him. The matters which generally go against the norm have for sure occurred from the hands of Sahaba, Tabiyeen, and those later to come. It cannot be possible to deny this fact because when we take this as a whole then they reach the level of Tawatur (i.e. definitely known reality), Hence what is possible as a miracle from Prophet is also possible as Karamah from a Saint, there is no difference between the two except for the fact that former is shown as a challenge [Fatawa al Ramli]

    See: http://feqh.al-islam.com/Display.asp?Mode=0&MaksamID=239&DocID=63&ParagraphID=2507&Diacratic=0

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    A. POINT NUMBER ONE:

    Answer: Firstly, brother it is Mishkat NOT Mushqaat. I can clearly see that the study of Hadith has obviously not been the stronger points for the dominions of those who live contrary to the Sunnah and give preference to the rational sciences rather than the manqulat.

    1] Coming to this hadith from Rabi‘a bin Ka‘b, it has also been narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and in Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah [vol.5, p.225] with the text that:

    “O Prophet of Allah, I ask that you intercede on my behalf to your Cherisher so he may free me from the Fire.”

    In this Hadith, there is a clear mention of Shifa‘ah/Intercession, which does not support the meaning taken by Amir. Rather, the Sahabi asked the Prophet to intercede on his behalf.

    2] In another Hadith it is mentioned that when the Holy Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) told the Sahabah that no one will enter Paradise on account of his deeds, the companions asked:

    “And not even you, O Messenger of Allah.” He replied: “And not me, except that my Cherisher envelopes me with His mercy.”

    (Bukhari, 2:957 — Muslim,2:377)

    From this Hadith we are led to ask how could the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) give Paradise to a Companion when He himself was not assured himself except through the mercy of Allah? This is an indication that the meaning presented by Amir is off-mark. The correct meaning is below.

    3] The text also mentions that the Prophet advised Rabi‘a that “help me with praying more nawafil.” This leads one to ask: If the Prophet [pbuh] has the ability to give, then why would he ask the Companion to “help” him “with praying more nawafil”?

    It is rather a more plausible explanation that the Prophet was simply asking the Companions to worship Allah and strengthen his case in front of Allah — in other words be a worthwhile slave of the Almighty, this will strengthen my intercession for you to Allah Almighty.

    4] Further to this, if the Holy Prophet was Mukhtar-i-Kul as you allege then he would have replied — instead of “help me with praying more nawafil” – by saying he has given him paradise.

    5] Mulla ‘Ali Qari writes under “help me with praying more nawafil” — “In other words be my aid in acquiring what you seek by correcting yourself [islah] through plenty of prostrations in the world so that you may accompany in the afterlife. Ibn al-Malik [‘Allamah ibn al-Malik al-Hanafi] said, ‘There is an indication in this that this high level [of paradise] cannot be acquired through just asking. Rather, there should be questioning and asking the Prophet to supplicate to Allah Most High.’” See Mirqat.

    It seems the Hadith scholars also feel that the Companion did not ask the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) Paradise for Jannah but asked that Prophet to intercede on his their behalf to Allah for its acquisition.

    6] There is another Hadith mentioned in the Fadhl al-Sujud of Sahih Muslim in which a Companion asked the Prophet [pbuh] for a deed that would enter him into Paradise. So he replied that the plentiful Prostration [in other words Nafl prayer]. We learn from this Hadith that this question was not mutlaq [general] but hinged on an action, the performance of which would lead one to Paradise.

    7] When the Companions prepared for Tabuk some companions came to the Prophet and asked for mounts at which the Prophet said, as mentioned in the Quran in Surah Tawbah: “La Ajidu Ma Ahmilukum Alayhi.” [I do not have that upon which I can mount you].

    Can the Mukhtar-i-Kul say such a thing?

    Hence, the indications from within this Hadith and while taking other Hadiths into consideration [in other words looking at the corpus of Hadith literature altogether], we learn that Rabi‘a bin Ka‘b did not ask for Paradise but asked Allah through the barakat of the Prophet’s Intercession and dua to gain Paradise from Allah.

    B. POINT NUMBER TWO:

    Amir then quotes Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haqq Muhaddith Dahlawi that this Hadith is Mutlaq [Amir — your wrote Mutallaq. This is wrong, you meant Mutlaq. Mutallaq is the masculine form for Mutallaqa i.e. a divorcee]. In answer, the following points need to be kept in mind:

    1] In opposition to qat‘i texts and Sahih Hadiths one can not produce the texts of a human who could possibly make mistakes.

    2] There are other explicit texts within Ashi’at al-Lam‘at opposing the meaning that you have produced, indicating that this text of Shah ‘Abd al-Haqq should be interpreted in a different way. Hence, he says:

    مى گويد ۑروردگار تعالى نيست شفاعت كردن مركسے كه گفت است لا اله الا اللّه مر ترا ونيست ايں كرتو

    (Ashi’at al-Lam‘at, 4:208)

    C. POINT NUMBER THREE:

    1] It says in a long haidth in Bukhari and Muslim:

    فاقول يا رب ائذن لى فيمن قال لا اله الا اللّه قال ليس ذالك

    “…So I will say, O my Rabb give me permission to intercede for those individuals who have recited kalima. Allah will say, this is not in your power…”

    Mulla ‘Ali Qari writes in sharah of this hadith:

    قال شارح من علمائنا المحققين المعنى ليس اخراج
    من قال لا إله إلا الله من النار لك أي إليك يعني مفوضا إليك وإن
    كان لك فيهم مكان شفاعة أو لسنا نفعل ذلك لأجلك بل لأنا أحق أن نفعله كرما وتفضلا

    “A sharih from among our Muhaqqiq ‘Ulama have said that the meaning [of this hadith] is that it has not been disposed to Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to take out anyone from Hell who has recited the kalimah nor is there any ikhtiar [control] of Prophet in this [matter], even though Prophet has the right to do shifa’h.”

    (Mishkat, 2:289)

    And from Shaykh ‘Abdul Haq Dahlawi:

    مى گويد ۑروردگار تعالى نيست شفاعت كردن مركسے كه گفت است لا اله الا اللّه مر ترا ونيست ايں كرتو

    He even negates jabri and qahri shifat, let alone ikhtyiar to distribute Jannah and Jahannam.

    It is the belief of Rawafid that the whole World is under the jurisdiction of their 12 Imams. This aqida of Rawafid was stolen by our so called “Sunnis”.

    2] Shaykh Dahlawi on mu’jizat and karamat:

    “…However, esoterically and in reality these actions will be of the Cherisher because miracles [mu‘jizah and karamah] are the actions of Allah Most High that appear at the hands of the slave for his verification of truthfulness and honor. Miracles [mu‘jizah and karamah] are not the actions of the slave that they appear with his intention and choice like his other chosen actions. Hence, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir himself writes that those acts that are contrary to norms and the ability of tasarruf are the actions of Allah Most High which appear at the hands of the slave.”

    (Tarjumah Shaykh, p.27)

    Shaykh Dahlawi says that mu’jizaat are not under the tasarruf of Prophets or awliya, let alone jurisdiction to give Jannah and Jahannam.

  • Brother Saad said: Firstly, brother it is Mishkat NOT Mushqaat. I can clearly see that the study of Hadith has obviously not been the stronger points for the dominions of those who live contrary to the Sunnah…

    Answer: I knew you would pick up on this and start accusing me of not following Sunnah… Naudhobillah (how typical of you), however If you read my posts properly you will know that It was a typing mistake from my side (look at your keyboard and you will see “u” and “i” to be located adjacent to each other) howeverin the references I have written the name Mishqaat or Mishkaat (both are right), so brother do not resort to false accusations upon other Muslims and do not become so defensive already.

    Regarding you showing different ahadith from texts other than Sahihayn then the ahadith which I showed could be cited if someone shows yours and vice versa, but the great thing is that the texts in Sahiayn are Mutlaq and I proved from Imam al Muhadith Haq Dhelvi (rah) too.

    Now coming to the hadith from Musnad Ahmed which you cited, brother first of all you can deceive someone who is not well versed, Alhamdulillah I am very close student of Islamic literature and you are clearly ignoring the wording of Prophet (Peace be upon him) in that hadith itself

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said:

    يا ربيعة بن كعب سلني أعطك

    Translation: O Rabi’a bin Ka’b: “ASK ME AND I WILL GRANT YOU” [Al Bidayah 5:225]

    Even this hadith proves that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) made it Mutlaq himself, however the hadith of Sahih Muslim proves that the Sahabi asked for companionship of Prophet in paradise and the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said “ANYTHING ELSE? I.e. it has already been granted, It is this Hadith which is also mentioned in Mishqaat which Imam Muhaddith Haq Dhelvi (rah) explained as:

    The question was Mutallaq i.e. Ask for anything, in this (the Prophet) did not confine it to something specific, this proves that all doing is in the hands of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam), he can grant whomsoever with the leave of Allah, because the world and hereafter is his Sikhawat and the knowledge of Loh ul Qalam is part of his Uloom [Ash’at ul Lamaat, Sharah al Mishkaat]

    You said: In this Hadith, there is a clear mention of Shifa‘ah/Intercession, which does not support the meaning taken by Amir.

    Answer: My meaning is also intercession because when we refer to Istighatha then we only mean Tawassul, I have also clarified it above and also through the quote of Same Imam Muhadith haq dhelvi (rah) whom you are quoting out of context, I have cited his complete explanation on Istighatha and he has proven people who deny it to be fools, I shall cite it in the end again.

    What we precisely believe is that the doer/Qadir/Fa’il only remains Allah azza Wajjal, the Hajjah presented to Nabi or Awliya is just to ask them for making dua in court of Allah, the Ulama from Barelvi school whom you love to accuse also believe the same, I can cite Sheikh Ghulam Rusul Sa’eedi (rah) from his Sharh Sahih Muslim (the work which is praised even by Mufti Taqi Uthmani)

    Continued…

  • You then misused the hadith from Bukhari in which the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is stressing upon reliance of Allah, you misused it to prove as if the Prophet (Peace be upon him) does not know what will happen to himself (Naudhobillah), deep inside you also know that you are contradicting with Deobandi aqida over here because deobandis firmly believe that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was fully convinved about being granted paradise and that Quran proves that Allah will satisfy him for sure.

    Let us see what Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani (rah) has to say about such ahadith

    Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani (Rahimuhullah) writes about such ahadith in his great Fath al Bari:

    وإنما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك موافقة لقوله تعالى في سورة الأحقاف ( قل ما كنت بدعا من الرسل , وما أدري ما يفعل بي ولا بكم ) وكان ذلك قبل نزول قوله تعالى ( ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك وما تأخر ) لأن الأحقاف مكية , وسورة الفتح مدنية بلا خلاف فيهما , وقد ثبت أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ” أنا أول من يدخل الجنة

    The Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam) said it at the time when this Ayah was revealed [Say: “I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you(46:9)]But it was said before Nazul of this Allah’s saying (i.e. Abrogated) [That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow (48:2)] Without any disagreement It is known that Surah al Ahqaf was revealed in Makkah whereas Surah al-Fath was revealed in Madina, and it is also proven from the hadith of Prophet (saw) that he said: “I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO ENTER PARADISE” [Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani, Fath al Bari]

    So please do not misue ahadith and you are going against the very deobandi aqida itself by saying that Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not know whether he will get paradise or not (Naudhobillah)

    You said: The text also mentions that the Prophet [pbuh] advised Rabi‘a that “help me with praying more nawafil.” This leads one to ask: If the Prophet [pbuh] has the ability to give, then why would he ask the Companion to “help” him “with praying more nawafil

    Then you also said: Further to this, if the Prophet [pbuh] was Mukhtar-e-Kul “AS YOU ALLEGE”…

    Answer: You are actually trying to put words in my mouth, nowhere have I used this term but now I will explain to you how you do not even understand the status which mere mankind holds let alone the Pride of the worlds (salallaho alaihi wasalam)

    This is the best try you made in your posts, however we know that Ashra Mubashra were granted paradise right on this earth, of course this happens with the will of Allah, but we also know that Prophet (Peace be upon him) has talked about his Ikhtiyaar at many occasions, for example in many sahih ahadith the Prophet (Peace be upon him) remained silent on many questions from sahaba “SO THAT THE ASKED THING DOES NOT BECOME OBLIGATORY UPON THEM” i.e. If he asked them to do Hajj every year then It would indeed become obligatory, then we have example of Abu Talib present in Sahihayn

    Book 001, Number 0409: (Sahih Muslim)

    Abdullah b. al-Harith reported: I heard Abbas say: I said: Messenger of Allah, verily Abu Talib defended you and helped you; would it be beneficial for him? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes; I found him in the lowest part of the Fire and “I BROUGHT HIM TO THE SHALLOW PART”

    This proves that Prophet (Peace be upon him) even has Ikhtiyaar to bring change to people who were granted hell, plus we also know that Prophet (Peace be upon him) has Ikhtiyaar in Shariah, he was given authority to make things halal and haram and he has also done so, so by Ikhtiyaar we always mean the “LIMITED” Ikhtiyaar which is “GRANTED” by Allah, those who deny this are in actual disrespecting Allah because Allah has made human beings as his viceregents, there are many Quranic and Prophetic proofs for this aswell.

  • Let me shed more light upon this so that no confustion is left behind
    Sahih Bukhari states:

    قال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏إن الله قال ‏ ‏من عادى لي وليا فقد ‏ ‏آذنته ‏ ‏بالحرب وما تقرب إلي عبدي بشيء أحب إلي مما افترضت عليه وما يزال عبدي يتقرب إلي بالنوافل حتى أحبه فإذا أحببته كنت سمعه الذي يسمع به وبصره الذي يبصر به ويده التي يبطش بها ورجله التي يمشي بها وإن سألني لأعطينه ولئن استعاذني لأعيذنه وما ترددت عن شيء أنا فاعله ترددي عن نفس المؤمن يكره الموت وأنا أكره مساءته

    Volume 8, Book 76, Number 509: (Sahih Bukhari – Hadith al Qudsi)

    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah said, “I WILL DECLARE WAR AGAINST HIM WHO SHOWS HISTILITY TO A PIOUS WORSHIPPER OF MINE (I.E. WALI ULLAH)” And the most beloved things with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing Nawafil (praying or doing extra deeds besides what is obligatory) till I love him, “SO I BECOME HIS SENSE OF HEARING WITH WHICH HE HEARS, AND HIS SENSE OF SIGHT WITH WHICH HE SEES, AND HIS HAND WITH WHICH HE GRIPS” and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me, I will give him, and if he asks My protection (Refuge), I will protect him; (i.e. give him My Refuge) and I do not hesitate to do anything as I hesitate to take the soul of the believer, for he hates death, and I hate to disappoint him.”
    __

    In explanation of this hadith I will cite 3 mighty scholars

    Imam Fakhr ud dinRazi (rah) who said:

    وكذلك العبد إذا واظب على الطاعات بلغ إلى المقام الذي يقول الله كنت له سمعا وبصرا فإذا صار نور جلال الله سمعا له سمع القريب والبعيد وإذا صار ذلك النور بصرا له رأى القريب والبعيد وإذا صار ذلك النور يدا له قدر على التصرف في الصعب والسهل والبعيد والقريب.

    Translation: When a person becomes totally dedicated to It’aat (of Allah), then he becomes established on such a state about which Allah has said: I become his hearing and sight, hence when Allah’s Nur becomes his hearing, “THEN HE HEARS FROM NEAR AND DISTANT PLACES”, and when Allah’s Nur becomes his sight then he sees from near and distant places and when Allah’s Nur becomes his hand then “HE CAN MAKE TASSARUF (I.E. BRING CHANGE)” in difficult and easy problems “FROM NEAR OR FAR” [Tafsir ul Kabir, Volume No. 21, Page No. 77]

    Imam Fakhr ud din Razi (rah) also said:

    الأنبياء، وهم الذين أعطاهم الله تعالى من العلوم والمعارف ما لأجله بها يقدرون على التصرف في بواطن الخلق وأرواحهم، وأيضا أعطاهم من القدرة والمكنة ما لأجله
    يقدرون على التصرف في ظواهر الخلق

    Translation: The Anbiya are granted with so much knowledge and Marifah by Allah that they have the power to “TO DO TASSARUF IN BATIN AND DHAHIR OF CREATION” [Tafsir ul Kabir, Volume No. 7, Under 6:88]

    Mullah Ali Qari (Rahimuhullah) states in his magnificent Mirqaat Sharh al Mishkaat

    والمواظبة على العلم والعمل وفيضان الأنوار الإلهية حتى يقوى النور وينبسط في فضاء قلبه فتنعكس فيه النقوش المرتسمة في اللوح المحفوظ ويطلع على المغيبات ويتصرف في أجسام العالم السفلي بل يتجلى حينئذ الفياض الأقدس بمعرفته التي هي أشرف العطايا فكيف بغيرها

    Translation: Due to knowledge and implementation and Faidh of Allah’s benevolence, the Nur becomes strong and spreads in every corner of the heart, then it starts to see the images of Loh al Mahfuz then it knows about the Unseen matters “AND ALSO STARTS TO DO TASSARUF IN LOWER WORLD” rather the Faydh of the Lord with His Marifah manifests on it, which is the best of all grants [Mirqaat, Sharah al Mishkaat, Volume No. 1, Page No. 26]

    Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri, the famous Deobandi commentator and scholar clarifies the confusion which some people try to create over this hadith, he writes:

    That which some scholars of Shariah have said that the bodily parts of slave become obedient to Ridha of Allah to the extent that they do not do anything other than what Allah demands, so it would be correct to say that he does not listen except for Allah, he does not do kalaam except for Allah.

    “I SAY THESE WORDS DO NOT DO JUSTICE TO THE ACTUAL WORDING OF HADITH” because “KUNTU SAMUAHU” with the Seegha Mutakalim proves that a person getting closeness of Allah through prayers and nawafil only becomes a Skelton and body “WHEREAS THE DOER THROUGH HIM BECOMES ONLY ALLAH” [Sharah ul Bukhari, Faydh ul Bari, Volume No. 4 Page No. 428]
    You said: Amir — your wrote Mutallaq. This is wrong, you meant Mutlaq. Mutallaq is the masculine form for Mutallaqa i.e. a divorcee
    Answer: Once again you are being defensive only, Alhamdulillah I know how to pronounce the word so you do not have to tell me what I meant, but still I will say It was my grammatical mistake in English.

    You said: There are other explicit texts within Ash’at al-Lam‘at opposing the meaning that you have produced[/b]

    You are talking about irrleveant passages which you are also taking out of context, however I had shown you complete passage from same Imam Muhaddith haq dhelvi (rah) on Istighatha and you have not commented on that because you knew “THAT WAS TRUE AQIDA OF AHLUS SUNNAH”

    Here I will show again

    Imam al Muhadith Haq Dhelvi (rah) states: I WISH MY INTELLECT WAS OWNED BY THOSE PEOPLE WHO REJECT BESEECHING FOR HELP FROM AWLIYA”, so what do they understand from it? What we understand is that the one making dua is dependent upon Allah, and he makes dua to Allah, asks Him for his Hajah and presents the Wasila of Allah’s friend , he says: O Allah, the blessings which you have bestowed upon this friend of yours, please grant me something through his wasila, as you are the best of givers, “THE SECOND CASE IS THAT ONE CALLS OUT (NIDA) THE WALI AND MAKES HIM MUKHATIB AND SAYS: O SLAVE OF ALLAH, O ALLAH’S FRIEND DO MY SHAF’AAT AND MAKE THIS DUA TO ALLAH THAT HE GRANTS ME MY NEED”, hence the one who grants and the one who fulfills the need (in both cases) is “ONLY ALLAH” , the man in-between is just an intercessor , whereas the Qadir, Fa’il, one who brings about change is only Allah [Sharah al Mishkaat, Ash’atul Lamaat, Volume No. 3, Page No. 401]

    Plus you did not comment on the explicit and detailed explanation which I showed from Imam Ramli (rah) the great Shafi’I Jurist, I want you to confirm whether you consider all these scholars to be Mushrikeen or Bidati atleast, remember Istighatha refers to Aqida and It is not a Farohi Masla, therefore mighty ulama proving Istighatha (like Imam Haythami, Ramli, Muhadith Haq Dhelvi etc…) means that they firmly believed in it.

    Fee Amaan Allah.

  • As salamu alaykum

    Br. amirik,

    Firstly, it must be clear from the original post that istigatha as a form of tawassul is permissible for intelligent individuals. Therefore, your emotional rhetoric that we ‘consider all these scholars to be Mushrikeen or Bidati’ is completely out of place and absolutely wrong. These great luminaries never did istegatha in the sense you imply!

    Secondly, it is very strange that initially it is claimed that by istegtha we are calling Allah, Most High, however, then you proceed to provide ‘proof’ that the dead hear from distant, do tassaruf, etc. Hence, you conclude that having the capability to do so they should be called upon for help directly. These two contradict each other.

    Also, if Prophets and awliya had tassaruf as you believe in and are trying to convince us, not a single kafir will remain on the face of the Earth and not a single Muslim without marifa.

    Allah SWT alone is the mutasarrif and He may select any of His creation as an instrument to do so.
    However, it will be stupid to call upon the instrument.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Tasarruf/Takwin in the terminology of Sufiya and its explaination:

    1. While explaining the stations [maqams] of a salik, Sayyid al-Taifa Shaykh ‘Abdul Qadir Jaylani writes:

    “…When one lowers himself and becomes annihilated (fana‘) then at this time the ability of creating [takwin] and that which is contrary to norms (khariq al-‘adat, miracles) will be attributed to you. And, outwardly, it will be seen to come from you when in reality, in terms of belief, it is the action of Allah and His intention.”

    (Futuh al-Ghayb, Maqalah #6 p.7)

    Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq Muhaddith Dahlawi writes in the translation of the above:

    “Hence, when you obliterate yourself and become annihilated, and there is nothing else left in you apart from action and intention, then the ability to create the world and actions which are contrary to norms (khariq al-‘adat) will be attributed to [come from] you. In others words you will be counted among the disposers [mutasarrif] of the world. In relation to those acts that are contrary to norms and miracles, they will be attributed to you exoterically. However, esoterically and in reality these actions will be of the Cherisher because miracles (mu‘jizah and karamah) are the actions of Allah Most High that appear at the hands of the slave for his verification of truthfulness and honor. Miracles (mu‘jizah and karamah) are not the actions of the slave that they appear with his intention and choice like his other chosen actions. Hence, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir himself writes that those acts that are contrary to norms and the ability of tasarruf are the actions of Allah Most High which appear at the hands of the slave.”

    (Tarjumah Shaykh, p.27)

    2. Shaykh Jaylani writes at another place:

    “Then at times the ability of creating (takwin) is attributed to the wali. So, all his needs, through the permission of Allah, are fulfilled.”

    (Futuh al-Ghayb, Maqalah 46 p.80)

    Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq Muhaddith Dahlawi writes in the translation of the above:

    “In that the ability to create things and disposal (tasarruf) in the Universe is handed to him. In other words actions contrary to norm (khariq al-‘adat) and miracles appear at his hands.”

    He writes further:

    “In reality, these are the actions of Allah Most High which come from the hands of the wali like the mu‘jizah that come from the hands of a prophet.”

    (Tarjumah Shaykh, p.207)

    It becomes evident from the above statements that kamarah is not an action of a wali [unlike every day acts]. Also it becomes clear that in the terminology of Sufiya, whenever the words takween and tasarruf are used, their meaning is nothing else but karamah. It doesn’t mean they have been given qudrah to do literal tasarruf. This is where Ahl al-Biddah misapprehend the statements of Sufiya and believe that karamah and takween are at the disposal of awliya. All it means by takween and tasarruf is that a karamah happens at the hand of a wali which is an action of Allah and that wali has no qudrah over that karamah.

    3. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jaylani also writes:

    “ The believing slave should have firm belief that in reality there is no doer except Allah. And there is none that can give movement or peace except Allah. There is no good or evil or harm or benefit or giving or forbidding or opening or closing or death or life or grace or disgrace or wealth or poverty except all of this is in the hands of Allah. So [with complete tawhid] one becomes — in front of taqdir — like a suckling child in the arms of a wet nurse.”

    (Futuh al-Ghayb, Maqalah #3 P.5)

    Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq Muhaddith Dahlawi writes in the translation of the above:

    “Hence, he has faith and — in terms of belief (yaqin) and seeing — understands that in reality the creator and disposer of all that exists, regardless of whether this is the actions of the slaves or juzz, is none apart from Allah. This is in spite of the fact that apparently, in view of the general metaphorical meaning (majaz) that which exists is also attributed towards the means (asbab) [However, this is something else].

    “There is none that can give movement apart from Allah Most High, and nor is there peace or piety or misfortune or harm or benefit or giving or preventing or opening or closing or dying or living or grace or disgrace or wealth or living like a dervish except that all of these issues are in the power of Allah Most High and choice. Hence, the slave at this stage and at this station of destiny (qada‘) and taqdir becomes like a suckling child in the arms of a wet nurse in that the ability of planning and choosing, and insight and consideration in doing or not doing any action would be completely lost.”

    (Tarjumah Shaykh, p.16)

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Statement of Qadi Sanaullah Pani Pati was brought forward to prove istighathah. I don’t know if one should cry or laugh at the “strength” and “revelence” of that proof! Irrelevent statements are being brought forward one after other and then he accused us of:

    “As Qadhi ThanaUllah Panipatti (rah) was mentioned above and his verdict was misused to reject Istighatha so I find it important to post proof from the same scholar, he writes in his famous and best work i.e. Tafsir al Mazhari under the ayah:” [See comment # 6 above]

    The quote of Qadi sahib is totally irrelevent here. It has nothing to do with istighathah or calling dead for help from far. It will be better to explain it in the words of Mujaddid Alf-i-Sani:

    Imam Rabbani Mujaddid Alf al-San writes to Mirza Ihsan al-Din Ahmad regarding khawariq:

    واوليائے كه صاحب علم و كشف اند جائز است كه بعضے از خوارق جود اطلاع پيدا
    نه كنند بلكه صور مثاليه ايشاں رادرامكنه متعه ظاہر سازند ودرمسافت بعيده كارہائے
    عجيبه وغريبه آن صور بظهور رآند كه صاحب آن صوررا از آنہا اصلا اطلاع نيست

    “And at times, it happens that people report a certain miracle (karamah) from a certain wali when he himself is not aware at all of this karamah. And those awliya that are from people of knowledge and kashf, it is possible that they are not aware of their own khawariq (karamaat); and their likeness (misaali surats — an appearance of their figures) appear in far away places and perform strange things which these [awliya] have no knowledge of.”

    And then Mujaddid explains this by giving an example:

    “Hadhrat Makhdum qibla (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned [to me] that a certain buzurg used to say that how strange it is that people from all around visit and some [among them] say we saw you in Makkah during the Hajj season and we performed Hajj with you and some [among them] say that we saw you in Baghdad and they claim to be friends of mine when I have not even left my house nor have I seen these people before. What a great accusation they put against me!”

    (Maktubaat, vol.I #216)

    This is the reality of the statement of Qadi sahib. Our akabir accept the numerous narrations of awliya helping people even after their death. However, it must be clear that in these incidences they are merely a means used by Allah SWT. And this does not prove their powers, free-will or legitimizes calling them.

    It would be better if one refrain from irrelevent statements. Fatawa of Qadi sahib are clear that those who call on awliya from far with the belief of hadhir nadhir are mushriks.

    In case it was missed:

    “Juristic issue: If any person says that Allah Most High and His prophet are witness in a certain act, then that person becomes a kafir because such a person has regarded the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) as the knower of the unseen (‘alim al-ghayb). The awliya of Allah do not have the ability or power to bring a non-existent thing into existence nor to make an existing thing non-existent. Hence, to relate to them the power of bringing into existence and taking out of existence, sustenance, granting of children, removing and averting illness and hardships, etc. is an act of kufr. Allah says: ‘Say (Oh Muhammad [may Allah bless him and grant him peace]), I do not have the power to benefit or harm my own self, except what Allah wills…’

    (Irshad al-Talibin, p.18)

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    It was said:

    Book 001, Number 0409: (Sahih Muslim)

    Abdullah b. al-Harith reported: I heard Abbas say: I said: Messenger of Allah, verily Abu Talib defended you and helped you; would it be beneficial for him? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes; I found him in the lowest part of the Fire and “I BROUGHT HIM TO THE SHALLOW PART”

    Reply:

    Imam Nawawi creates the following baab [chapter] in his sharah of Muslim:

    باب شفا عت النبى صلى اللّه عليه وسلم لابى طالب والتخفيف عنه بسببه

    And then Imam Nawawi brings forward the above mentioned hadith. This clearly shows that it was through the shifa’at of Prophet that punishment of Abu Talib was reduced.

    1. If Prophet was mukhtar-i-kul, He would have entirely taken Abu Talib out of Jahannam and not just move him to shallow part.

    2. If Prophet was mukhtar-i-kul, why was He stopped from doing maghfirah for Abu Talib?

    3. It is clear that since Abu Talib helped Prophet in this dunya, Allah reduced his punishment through the shifa’at of Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).

    Belief that it is in the hands of Prophet to give out Jannah and Jahannam was borrowed from Rawafid by our bid’ati brethren. Rawafid believe that Sayyiduna ‘Ali will distribute Jannah on the day of Qiyamah.

    May Allah keep us steadfast on true path.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    It was said by saad khan in comment # 15:

    “In another Hadith it is mentioned that when the Prophet told the Sahabah that no one will enter Paradise on account of his deeds, the companions asked:

    “And not even you, O Messenger of Allah.” He replied: “And not me, except that my Cherisher envelopes me with His mercy.”

    (Bukhari, 2:957 — Muslim, 2:377)

    From this Hadith we are led to ask how could the Prophet give Paradise to a Companion when He himself was not assured himself except through the mercy of Allah? This is an indication that the meaning presented by Amir is off-mark. The correct meaning is below.”

    At this Aamirik replied:

    “I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TO ENTER PARADISE” (Imam Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Fath al Bari)

    So please do not misue ahadith and you are going against the very deobandi aqida itself by saying that Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not know whether he will get paradise or not (Naudhobillah).”

    Reply:

    This has led me to question the basic comprehension skills of Aamirik. How is his reply relevant to the above post? It was clear from my post that even Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is dependent on the mercy of Allah to enter Jannah. Yes, He will be the first one to enter Jannah but only through the mercy of Allah. Those ahadith clearly negate the belief that it is in the dispostion of Prophet to distribute Jannah and Jahannam.

    The topic being discussed was if Jannah and Jahannam are at the dispostion of anyone beside Allah. We are not discussing if Prophet knew if he would enter Jannah or not. There is no difference at all on this matter. Next time please read my posts atleast few times before you reply with irrelevant stuff.

  • “@Hanif”

    You said: Firstly, it must be clear from the original post that istigatha as a “FORM OF TAWASSUL” is permissible for intelligent individuals. Therefore, your emotional rhetoric that we ‘consider all these scholars to be Mushrikeen or Bidati’ is completely out of place and absolutely wrong. These great luminaries never did istegatha in the sense “YOU IMPLY!”

    Answer: Again you people are trying to put words in my mouth although I have clarified through Ulama and also my stance that Istighatha is indeed a form of Tawassul, even when calling out the Anbiya or Awliya directly it only means to ask them for “MAKING DUA FOR US IN THE COURT OF ALLAH” hence the doer/Qadir/Fa’il only remains Allah! .. Do I have to repeat this over and over again in order to make you guys stop hurling false accusations upon me??

    You said:.. then you proceed to provide ‘proof’ that the dead hear from distant, do tassaruf, etc. Hence, you conclude that having the capability to do so they should be called upon for help directly. These two contradict each other.

    Answer: Correct yourself, that was not my conclusion, I proved directly from Hadith ul Qudsi of Sahih Bukhari and 3 mighty scholars (including the famous Anwar shah Kashmiri sahab), scroll up and read my posts properly first, both cannot contradict because the hadith is itself from Allah azza Wajjal.

    You said: Also, if Prophets and awliya had tassaruf as you believe in and are trying to convince us, not a single kafir will remain on the face of the Earth and not a single Muslim without marifa.

    Answer: This is your assumption the Mushrikeen make idols out of their deities and they believe them to be Qadir on their own, they attribute independent godhood to them, whereas the belief of Muslims is that nothing happens in this world without the will of Allah, even help from alive people is through the grant of Allah but this does not mean we start calling it shirk, secondly this concept of alive helping and passed away not is baseless and has no authentication from shariah, It is aqida of both Deobandis and Ahlus Sunnah that Sama al Mawta (hearing of the deceased) is Haqq and also that Faidh is taken from Awliya even after their deaths, here I will quote Imam Ghazzali (rah) whom even Wahabis have to accept as Hujjat ul Islam!

    Imam Ghazzali (rah) said:

    إذا تحيرتم في الأمور فاستعينوا من أصحاب القبور أي أصحاب النفوس الفاضلة المتوفين ولا شك في أنه يحصل لزائرهم مدد روحاني ببركتهم وكثيراً ما تنحل عقد الأمور بأنامل التوسل إلى الله تعالى بحرمتهم

    Translation: “Whenever there is in some difficulty then one should ask the people of tombs for help, they are people of (sacred) souls but have passed away (i.e. transferred into another dimension)” There is no doubt in it that any person visiting (their tombs) “GETS SPIRITUAL HELP AND ALSO BENIFIT” many times when their Waseela is presented in the court of Allah, the difficulties are removed [Tafsir Ruh ul Ma’ani, Volume 30, Page No. 27-28, or look under 79:1-5]

    This is the mainstream belief of Ahlus Sunnah and it is perfectly justified, even Deobandi Akabireen accept that Faidh is obtained from Awliya even after their passing away, Ulama like Haji Imdad Ullah Mahajir Makki (rah) honored highly by both deobandi and barelvi factions, even Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rah) has allowed this for intellectual Muslims (which I agree is a right verdict because Awaam un Naas do not understand the technicality of it), plus derobandi texts have many examples of their “OWN DEOBANDI SCHOLARS” helping others after passing away, so kindly do not set double standards that you people allow it for your own deobandi akabireen but declare it shirk for other great scholars who justify it.

    Continued…

  • Here I have Nash rut Tib of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rah) in my hands, let us see what he states on Page No. 173 (Published by Mushtaaq book corner, Urdu Bazaar Lahore)

    “Dastageeeri Kijiyay meray Nabi Kashmakash main tum hee ho meray Nabi”

    “Juzz Tumharay hai kahan mere Panah Fauj e Kaflat Mujh par aa Ghalib hoi”

    – [Nashr ut Tib, Page No. 173]

    I can cite many more proofs, now please do not give me that typical answer that Thanvi sahab was in state of intoxication and and then such things are allowed!

    “@Saad Khan”

    Jazak Allahu Khayrun for those wonderful explanations by al-Ghawth Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (rah), they further strengthen my viewpoint, this is indeed the case that when Wali Ullah reaches the stage when his hearing is Allah’s hearing, his seeing is Allah’s seeing then only Allah is acting through him, this is perfectly the belief of Ahlus Sunnah and I would never differ with this.

    However brother Saad Khan, Im sure you must have read Imam Shams ud din Ramli (rah)’s verdict by now, please do not go off tangents and comment on that first, scroll up and read it with full attention and then tell me whether you consider him Mushruik or Bidati?

    Regarding Mukhtar e Kul then nowhere have I used this terminology, you just came up with it yourself, I do believe that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was given “IKHTIYAR” incase of shariah i.e. he could make things halal and haram, plus the Abu Talib issue also goes in my favour because Shaf’aat is only for Muslims not Kufaar, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) becoming Shafi’i for kufaar is proof that he does have Ikhtiyaar and Allah satisfies him in his demands. Remember this Ikhtiyaar is not indipendant nor is it Kulli in the sense of Khaliq (Naudhobillah), this Ikhtiyaar is given to him as a Makhlooq, let me sum it up in simple poetry

    “Baad azz Khuda Bazurg tu hee Qisa Mukhtasar!”

    Fee Amaan Allah.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    1. Our scholars allow istighathah in poetry. It is not taken upon its dhahir but there is mubalghah in it. See Al-Irshad fi Masala al-Istimdad by Shaykh al-Islam Zaffar Ahmad ‘Usmani. http://www.4shared.com/file/67353935/5a657b8f/Al-Irshad_fi_Masala_al-Istimdad_-_Shaykh_al-Islam_Zaffar_Ahmad_Uthmani.html

    Bringing poetry won’t be of any use here since there is no difference on that.

    2. Quote from Shaykh Jaylani actually destroy the belief of tasarruf or the belief that everything is at the dispostion of Prophet and awliya. It is clear from the quotes Prophets and awliya does’t have any God-given qudrah over miracles. They don’t have any choice over it.

    I will quote again:

    Miracles [mu‘jizah and karamah] are not the actions of the slave that they appear with his intention and choice like his other chosen actions. Hence, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir himself writes that those acts that are contrary to norms and the ability of tasarruf are the actions of Allah Most High which appear at the hands of the slave.”

    (Tarjumah Shaykh, p.27)

    So from above we know that our normal everyday acts, we have choice over those actions like miracles. It is possible that a wali is not even aware of his own karamah.

    3. Belief that Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had the right to change haram into halal and haram into halal was borrowed from Rawafid. Only Allah is shar’i as it will be shown.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Explanation of the second Imam Razi’s comment from Tafsir al-Kabir:

    Amir wrote: The Anbiya are granted with so much knowledge and Marifah by Allah that they have the power to “TO DO TASSARUF IN BATIN AND DHAHIR OF CREATION” [Tafsir ul Kabir, Volume No. 7, Under 6:88]

    This quote from Imam Razi is totally unrelated. Imam Razi’s meaning is not, as you assume, that the Prophets have the ability of Tasarruf in those actions that are beyond Asbaab or above al-Umur al-‘Adiya. If this were the case — as you assume Amir — then the Prophet Adam would have prevented his son, Kabil, from murdering his innocent brother, Habil. The Prophet Nuh would not have allowed his son and wife to die as disbelievers. The Prophet Lut would not have also allowed his wife to die as a disbeliever. The Prophet Ibrahim would not have allowed his father to die the same. And the Last of the Prophet, the Seal of the Prophets, Our Beloved [pbuh and may I be sacrificed for him a thousand times over] would not have granted the gift of IMAN to his beloved uncle, Abu Talib!

    Imam Razi himself writes under the verse: “Say, I do not possess for myself harm…” —

    قُل لاَّ أَمْلِكُ لِنَفْسِي نَفْعاً وَلاَ ضَرّاً إِلاَّ مَا شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ
    والمراد ان انزال العذاب على الاعدأ واظهارالنصرة للاوليأ لاا يقدر عليه احد الا اللّه سبحانه

    “And the meaning of this is that the descending of punishment upon the enemies and the appearance of help for the friends, none has the ability for this except Allah.”

    This indicates — through the words of Imam Razi himself — that the meaning you have assumed is not the correct meaning.

    In fact, the appropriate meaning of the comment that you have produced is that Allah Almighty has granted the Prophets (Allah bless him and give them peace) so much knowledge and marifah that they are able to do tasarruf on the hearts of the creation and their souls. In other words, they teach and show them knowledge and marifah, and people — having accepted them and been affected by them — their lives are changed and they are adorned [by sacred knowledge]. Those that were ignorant and oppressors, through the teachings of the Prophets and through their fuyudh, they become guides for the creation of the Almighty.

    This is the correct meaning. To support this, let me produce what Imam Razi has said elsewhere. Under the verse,

    قُلْ إِنِّي لاَ أَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرّاً وَلاَ رَشَداً }
    Say, certainly, I do not possess for you harm nor guidance,”

    إما أن يفسر الرشد بالنفع حتى يكون تقدير الكلام:
    لا أملك لكم غياً ولا رشداً، ويدل عليه قراءة أبي (غياً ولا رشداً)، ومعنى الكلام
    أن النافع والضار، والمرشد والمغوي هو الله، وإن أحداً من الخلق لا قدرة له عليه.

    Imam Razi writes that the word RUSHD could be explained as NAF‘I so that the inner meaning would be that I do not possess for you divergence and guidance. The QIRAAT of Sayyiduna ‘Ubay indicates towards this. He has recited GAYYAW WALA RASHADA. To lead astray or guide. From the above we learn that that real person to give benefit, harm, guide and lead astray is none other than Allah. Makhlooq has no qudrah over it. He says in the Quran: “He guides who he wishes and leads astray who he wishes.”

    In light of these clear texts from Imam Razi’s book, to assume that he is of the view that the Prophets can do TASARRUF on the hearts of the people is totally false and rejected. The TASARRUF that he speaks of is in fact of knowledge, guidance and tazkiyyah, as mentioned above. And that is only for those who seek these things and are chosen by Allah Most High.

  • Below is a quote of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq Dahlawi which I posted some time back on S.F. This clearly shows that those scholars who used the word istimdad, they meaning was majazi istimdad and not haqiqi. Ahl al-Bid’ah of our time took this as literal istimdad. Eartly Sufis used the word istimdad for tawassul and nothing else. Shaykh says his commentary of Mishkat:

    “That group which denies istimdad and imdad, what is their meaning of this? Whatever we understand istimdad and imdad is that a in need person, who is in need of Allah, supplicates to the Lord and seeks his need from Him and takes a wasila and the spirituality of this noble and close [muqarrab] slave in the Court of the Lord and says, ‘Oh Lord, through the blessing of this noble and this chosen slave — upon whom you have sent your mercy — and through the blessing of that grace and kindness that has befallen this chosen one, fulfill my need in that you are the giver and kind.’

    Or he calls out to this honoured and close [to Allah] person that, O servant of God, Friend of Allah, please intercede for me and ask God for me that God fulfill my aim and desire, and that the giver and the one who is asked, and the one from whom fulfillment of needs is hoped is the Creator, the Exalted and Sanctified. This buzurg is only a means between the one making du‘a and Allah the Exalted. There is no doer (Fa’ail) and one possessing total control (Mutasarrif) in existence except God [Haq] Subhanahu Wa Taala.

    And the friends of Allah are annihilated (fani) and perished in the actions, power and force of God [in other words they have no control]; they have no power, nor control [tasarruf], nor any action, neither in the graves nor at the time when they were alive in the world. And if the meaning that we have mentioned for Imdad and Istimdad necessitates Shirk and turning to other then Allah [the Exalted] as the one who condemns imagines, he should forbid the seeking a means (tawassul) and asking for dua from the pious and friends of God during their lifetimes. And this is not forbidden but is rather, by agreement, desirable (mustahab) and good (mustahsan), and widespread in the religion.

    NOTE: It is also understood from this tashbih (comparison) that the meaning of nida is not nida ‘an al-ba‘id (nida from afar) but on arriving at the grave.”

    Scans:

    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i72/khanbaba21/tawassul1.jpg
    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i72/khanbaba21/tawassul2.jpg
    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i72/khanbaba21/tawassul3.jpg

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Aamirik posted:

    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Al-Ansari: Allah’s Apostle said, “Name yourselves after me (by my name) but do not call (yourselves) by my Kuniya (1), for I am Al-Qasim (distributor), and I distribute among you Allah’s blessings.” This narration has also come on the authority of Anas that the ! Prophet said so.”[ Volume 8, Book 73, Number 216: Sahih Bukhari]

    Reply:

    Imam Bukhari brought this hadith in baab بَاب مَنْ سَمَّى بِأَسْمَاءِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ
    “Chapter on those who name using the names of the Prophets.”

    Here is the Arabic.

    حَدَّثَنَا آدَمُ حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ عَنْ حُصَيْنِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَنْ سَالِمِ بْنِ أَبِي الْجَعْدِ عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ قَالَ

    قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ سَمُّوا بِاسْمِي وَلَا تَكْتَنُوا بِكُنْيَتِي فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا قَاسِمٌ أَقْسِمُ بَيْنَكُمْ

    وَرَوَاهُ أَنَسٌ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

    Aamirik, can you tell us where did you get “Allah’s blessings” from?
    There is no mention of the words “Allah’s blessings” in this particular hadith.

    Now, the meaning is clear when one looks at all different versions of this same hadith. They refer to distribution of knowledge and ghana’im. Scholars brought these ahadith under baab of fiqh or ghana’im and didn’t create a new baab of rizq and sustenance.

    May Allah save us from ghuluw.

  • You said: [b] Our scholars allow istigatha in poetry. It is not taken upon its dhahir but there is mubalga in it. See Al-Irshad fi Masala al-Istimdad by Shaykh al-Islam Zaffar Ahmad Usmani [r.h].

    Answer: What do you mean by “OUR SCHOLARS” If it is shirk or bidah then It is shirk/Bidah full stop. From where have you deobandis cooked up the rule that polytheism is allowed in poetry but not elsewhere? If tomorrow someone says in poetry that Krishna is god then would you allow that too?

    Point is that Deobandi Akabireen could not resist to express this truth either and for your kind information they have tried to prove it in texts other than poetry aswell, I can cite those texts aswell but I know you will try every twisted tawil possible to defend your own scholars (i.e. biasness or you can call it double standards)

    You said: Quote from Shaykh Jailani [r.h] actually destroy the belief of literal tasarruf or the belief that everything is at the dispostion of Prophet [s.aw] and awliya. It is clear from the quotes Prophets and awliya does’t have any God-given qudrah over miracles. They don’t have any choice over it.

    Answer: Who on earth is trying to say that “EVERYTHING” is in disposition of Prophet?? Or that Tasarruf is Haqiqi, I always proved it in Majaaz at first place and always clarified along that It is through the grant of Allah, but as usual you are putting words in my mouth in order to somehow accuse me of shirk, I talked about him having Ikhtiyaar only with the approval and will of Allah, for example even mere human beings have ikhtiyaar i.e. free will but that is also in control of Allah azza Wajjal, in case of the Prophet (Peace be upon him) the Ikhtiyaar is broader because he is Rehmat al lil Alameen, Shafi’i, even the shariah is called Shariat e Muhammadi, his obedience = Allah’s obedience rather whosoever differentiates between obedience of Allah and his Apostle then he becomes Kafir!

    You said: Belief that Prophet [s.a.w] had the right to change haram into halal and haram into halal was borrowed from Rawafid. Only Allah is sahrih as it will be shown.

    Again you are playing with my words, nowhere did I say “CHANGING” Halal “INTO” Haram, what I said was that he has been given power to make “THINGS” Haram or Halal

    “Here is proof from Quran”

    Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and “MAKES LAWFUL” to them the good things (وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَٰتِ)” and “MAKES UNLAWFUL” to them impure things (وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْخَبَـٰئِثَ), and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful. (7:157)

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Let me not find one of you reclining on his couch when my hadith reaches him and he says: Between us and you is present Allah’s book , so we consider Halal those things which are declared Halal in it and Haram which are declared Haram. Although “WHAT THE PROPHET HAS MADE HARAM IS AS IF ALLAH MADE IT HARAM (وإن ما حرم رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏كما حرم الله)” [Sunnan Tirimdhi, Volume No. 5, Page No. 38, Imam Tirimdhi declared it “Hassan”]

    So first get to know what Shairah means mister and how it has come to us, a person who does not even know that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was given power to make things Halal or Haram does not deserve to call himself as his devotee, maybe you are reclining on your couch as mentioned in above hadith.

    You said: This quote from Imam Razi is totally unrelated. Imam Razi’s meaning is not, as you assume

    Answer: It is indeed related and I have not assumed anything about it, I just presented it as it is, plus you only chose the one small passage from my post but you ignored the proofs from same scholar plus other 2 scholars whom I had shown, plus I had shown them in explanation of a “SAHIH HADITH UL QUDSI OF BUKHARI”

    Here is what Imam Fakhr ud din Razi (rah) said, kindly comment on the statements which Im showing rather than going off tangents, you have still not touched the detailed explanation which I showed from Imam Ramli (rah) htough I have asked you couple of times to address it.

    Imam Fakhr ud din Razi (rah) said:

    وكذلك العبد إذا واظب على الطاعات بلغ إلى المقام الذي يقول الله كنت له سمعا وبصرا فإذا صار نور جلال الله سمعا له سمع القريب والبعيد وإذا صار ذلك النور بصرا له رأى القريب والبعيد وإذا صار ذلك النور يدا له قدر على التصرف في الصعب والسهل والبعيد والقريب.

    Translation: When a person becomes totally dedicated to It’aat (of Allah), then he becomes established on such a state about which Allah has said: I become his hearing and sight, hence when Allah’s Nur becomes his hearing, “THEN HE HEARS FROM NEAR AND DISTANT PLACES”, and when Allah’s Nur becomes his sight then he sees from near and distant places and when Allah’s Nur becomes his hand then “HE CAN MAKE TASSARUF (I.E. BRING CHANGE)” in difficult and easy problems “FROM NEAR OR FAR” [Tafsir ul Kabir, Volume No. 21, Page No. 77]

  • Regarding your irrelevant material from Imam Razi (rah) through which you are trying to prove that Prophet (Peace be upon him) is not able to “GUIDE OR HELP” others then let us see what Quran states:
    God did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them an apostle from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of God, “SANCTIFYING THEM (يُزَكِّيهِمْ)” and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error.(3:164)

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) indeed sanctifies and this sanctification goes on for whole of his Ummah because he is Rehmat al lil Alameen.

    You said Below is a quote of Shaykh Dehlawi [r.h] which I posted some time back on S.F. This clearly shows that those scholars who used the word istimdad, they meaning was majazi istimdad and not haqiqi. Ahle Biddah of our time took this as literal istimdad. Eartly Sufis used the word istimdad for tawassul and nothing else. Shaykh says his commentary of Mishkat :

    There you go again with your false accusations, by the way do you mean by Ahle Bidah those people who tried to prove that Shaytan has more knowledge than Prophet (Peace be upon him), or the one who used words like Chamaar and Zaleel even for the greatest of creation (Naudhobillah) .. Im sure you know who these people are 🙂

    Ahlus Sunnah also firmly believes in Majazi Istimdad, however I need you to read above the verdict from Hujjat ul Islam Imam Abu Hamid Ghazzali (rah) which I have shown and also by Imam Ramli (rah) which you keep on ignoring, please stop this straw man argument by assuming yourself that by Istighatha through Anbiya and Awliya I mean Haqiqi help (Naudhobillah), please do not make me repat once more that we also believe merely in tawassul when we refer to Istighatha or Istimdad.
    Anyways here is what Shah Abdul Aziz Muhammad Dhelvi (rah) said in his Fatawa al Azizi:

    “”Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dhelvi (Rahimuhullah), the author of all One says””

    ‘Oh Allah! For the sake of this person whom you have bestowed your mercy upon, ease my hardship, or one says like this

    O Allah’s servant and his friend, do intercession in my regard, ask for my need in the court of Allah so that he fulfills it, we should know that the man inbetween is nothing but an intercessor, whereas the Qadir, the granter and Mawsul is Allah, and in this way there is no possibility of it being shirk atall, “THE REJECTER OF THIS ONLY FOLLOWS HIS WHIMS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS ALLOWED WITHOUT DISPUTE” that Wasila could be sought from Saliheen and friends of Allah when they are alive and that they should be asked to make dua, then “WHY SHOULD IT BE PROHIBITED THAT THEY SHOULD BE ASKED FOR HELP AFTER THEIR PASSING AWAY” (Note: Before this, Shah Abdul Aziz had shown Imam Ghazzali rah’s verdict that one who is asked for help in life is also asked for help after his death), The arwah of Kamileen (truly sincere ones) do not hold a difference between their life and death except for the fact that after death their arwah become “MORE STRONGER”, in Sharah of Mishkaat (by Mullah Ali Qari) and Sharah as Saudoor by Imam Suyuti, this has been explained in detail and in these books the ahadith have been mentioned with multiple chains in this regard [Fatawa al Azizi, Page No. 192, Published by H.M. Saeed company, Karachi, Paskistan]

    Continued…

  • You said about the hadith of Prophet (Peace be upon him) being distributor: Imam Bukhari brought this hadith in baab بَاب مَنْ سَمَّى بِأَسْمَاءِ الْأَنْبِيَاءِ

    Bingo, this is exactly what I wanted you to say because this proves that the hadith is not only narrated in Bab regarding Fiqh (i.e. understanding of religion) so the hadith becomes general as Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhadith Dhelvi (rah) beautifully explained in Sharh of Mishqaat.

    You asked: Aamirik, can you tell us where did you get “Allah’s blessings” from?

    There is no mention of the words “Allah’s blessings” in this particular hadith.

    Answer: I got it from Muhsin Khan’s translation of Sahih Bukhari, the famous English translation, and you know it very well that he was hardcore Wahabi.

    The wording of hadith in Bukhari is:

    فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا قَاسِمٌ أَقْسِمُ بَيْنَكُمْ

    Which would literally mean: I am a Distributor “WHO DISTRIBUTES AMONGST YOU”

    However Muhsin Khan, plus I have translation of Sahih Bukhari in English Published by leading Islamic Publicashers in the world i.e. Dar ul Kutb al iLmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, there it is translated as:

    …for I’m Qasim (distributor) who distributes (Allah’s blessings) among you [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No.4, Page No. 131, Published by Dar ul Kutb al iLmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon]

    Anyways so you mean to say that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is only Qasim of Fiqh ? (Naudhobillah), so did you get other blessings directly or someone else is distributer? Secondly the Hadith also calles Allah as “THE GIVER” so do you believe Allah to be Giver only of Fiqh?

    Remember that calling him distributor of Fiqh has no Nafi of him being distributor of all blessings (which he indeed is)

    Fee Amaan Allah.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Answer to first quote of Imam Razi:

    1. Only second part of the statement was quoted and not the first part. Imam Razi is mentions these points as karamah which can happen once in a while. He also mentions the incident of Hadhrat Ali at Khaybar which is from karamat of Hadhrat Ali. It was a karamah of Hadhrat Ali that he was able to uproot the door of castle. Listening from far is similar to when Hadhrat ‘Umar called Hadhrat Sarya at Nahwand and he was able to hear from afar. Doors of unseen were open for Hadhrat Umar and he was able to see the army as it is infront of him. General ruling can’t be decuded from mujizaat and miracles. This has nothing to do with hadhir nadhir, istighathah, etc.

    2. Imam al-Asr Mawlana Anwar Shah Kashmiri has explained this text as follows:

    اما علماء الشريعة فقالو امعناه ان جوارح العبد تصير تابعةً للمرضاة الالٰهية حتى لا تتحرك
    الا على ما يرضى به ربه فاذا كانت غاية سمعه وبصره وجواحه كلها هواللّه سبحانه فحينئٍذ صح
    ان يقال انه يسمع الا له ولا يتكلم الا له فكأن اللّه سبحانه صار سمعه

    “As to the Ulama of Shari’ah, they have said that its meaning is that the limbs of the slave become subservient to the divine commands [of Allah] until he does not move except on that which his Lord agrees with. So when the final end of his listening and seeing and his limbs, all of them, is Allah Most High then it would be correct that it is said he only listens through He and only speaks through He. It is as if Allah Most High has become His ears…”

    (Faydh al-Bari, 4?:428)

    3. This same explanation is also given by Hafidh ibn Hajr as quoted by Mulla ‘Ali Qari:

    وقال ابن حجر فلا يسمع شيئًا ولا يبصر ولا يبطش ولا يمثى الا و شهد انى المؤجد لذلك
    والمقدر له فيصرف جميع ما انعمت به عليه الى ما خلق لا جلہ من طاعتى فلا يستمل سمعه
    وغيره من مشاعرە الا فيما يرضينى ويقربه منى فلا يتوجه اشئ الا وانا منه بمرأى ومسمع
    فانا له سمع وعين ويد ورجل وعون و وكيل وحافظ ونصيرا

    Ibn Hajar said, ‘Hence he does not hear anything, nor sees, nor hold, nor walks, except that he bears witness that I [ALLAH] am his creator in that and the one to give ability for that. Hence, he will use all of those blessings which I have graced him with in pursuit of that for which those blessings have been created from my obedience. And he will use his sight and his other limbs only in that which pleases me and brings him closer to him. He will not turn to anything except that I am at the place where he looks and hears. So, it is as if I am his ears, eyes, hands, feet, helper, protector and aide.”

    (Mirqat, 5:55)

    Similar explaintion has been given by Imam Alusi and Shaykh al-Islam ‘Allamah ‘Ayni.

    These statements are very clear and need no further explaination.

    4. As far as miracles, they are not under the qudrah of humans. Imam Razi mentions:

    “From among all those proofs which establish the correctness of our mentioned claim is this one in which Allah Most High has mentioned the saying of the disbelievers who sought from him a powerful miracle.

    “And they say we shall never bring faith on you until you bring forth a spring from the ground.” So, Allah said, “Say, [O Muhammad], Subahan Rabbi. I am only a human Prophet.”

    “In other words, a person being a prophet is only dependent on him being perfect in strength relating to viewpoint and action, and having the ability to perfect the imperfect. This does not necessitate that he is capable of that which you seek [miracles].”

    5. It is evident from the discussion so far the proponents of literal istighathah have only brought forward unambigious statements of ‘ulama or a statement from one scholar, a statement from another and used these to build a base for thier ‘aqaid.

  • @ Aamir Ibrahim

    Only those of your comments were deleted which were either slanderous or had nothing useful in them except the age old Barelwi-ish (anti-Deobandi) rants. We don’t have a problem with individuals expressing opposing view points, as long as the discussion is civil. So please keep this mind before posting any more comments. JazakAllah.

  • @Hamood

    I did not slander in any of my posts nor did I use foul language, I have all my posts saved with myself so please do not spread wrong information about me “AFTER DELETING MY POSTS” plus usefulness would have been decided at the end of discussion.

    Don’t you see the false accusations of Shirk being hurled at me by your deobandi counterparts, why haven’t you deleted their posts?… double standards ..eh?

    Anyways If anyone of you has the courage to discuss/debate with me on a nuetral forum or “DIRECTLY” on msn then he’d be most welcome, this place is not suitable for intellectual discussion anymore because injustice is being practised here.

    my msn ID is: aamir_ibraheem@hotmail.com

    And correct yourself, I am not Barelvi, anyone who refutes Deobandism does not become Barelvi ok, Ahlus Sunnah with true Aqida exist in every part of the world, Ulama like Sheikh Nuh, Aisha Bewley, Habib Ali Jifry, Hamza Yusuf, GF Haddad (May Allah’s Mercy be upon them all) etc… are not barelvis nor deobandis by any means, they are plain Ahlus Sunnah with true Aqida.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    1. There is one large Hadith in Bukhari regarding deception/cheating in war booty. In this Hadith it is said that the one at fault will say: “O Prophet of Allah, help me. So I will say: I have nothing for you. I have conveyed to you (the hukm).”

    (Bukhari, 1:432)

    In explanation and translation Shaykh ‘Abdul Haq writes,

    “One of you shall say, help me and save me from this punishment. So I shall say, I have nothing for you [word used was malik – owner] — nor saving you, nor removing this punishment. Without a doubt I have conveyed the Shariah to you and warned you. And explained it fully. However, you did not act.”

    (Ashi’at al-Lamat, 3:389)

    From the above it is clear that it is not in the qudrah of Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to save anyone from hell-fire, He is not the owner of this. On the other hand, Prophet will do shifa’at/du’a and both these concepts are contrary to each other. People of intellect are able to differentiate between the two.

    2. Shaykh ‘Abdul Haqq in explanation of the Hadith — “Oh Fatima Bint Muhammad (pbuh), ask what you wish from my wealth. I cannot save you from Allah’s punishment”

    (Bukhari, 2:702)

    Shaykh Dehlawi writes: “The meaning is that if there is anything in my ownership then ask. As to salvation in the hereafter, then this is not in my choice.”

    (Ashi’at al-Lamat, 4:275)

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    From Faislah Haft Mas’alah of Hajji Imdadullah Muhajir Makki as he is often half-quoted by other camp:

    The Fourth Issue of Calling Someone Apart from Allah

    “The research in this is that the purpose and aim of the calling [nida] is different. At times it is to only express desire, at times to express remorse, at times to make the person being called listen, at times to convey a message — to call unto an absent creation.

    [1] If it is only for remembering, expressing longing to meet or remorse at separations —like when a lover mentions the name of a beloved and consoles his/her heart — then there is no sin in this. The story of Majnun is mentioned in the Mathnawi:

    [Haji Imdadullah then quotes a poem from the latter. Translator]

    Such nida is narrated from the Companions in many narrations, as is clear to those with knowledge and depth.

    [2] And if the purpose is to make the person being called hear, then if the caller sees the person being called through the purity of his inner self then this is also permissible. If he is not seeing but knows that this nida is reaching him through a certain means and that means is established with dalil then this is also permissible. For example, the conveying of Salat wa Salam to the Prophet via the angels is established from the Hadith. According to this if a person says Al-Salat wa al-Salamu ‘alayka Ya Rasulullah then there is no harm.

    [Please note that when Haji Imdadullah mentions dalil then he means a Shar’i dalil— Quran, Hadith, Ijma, and the Qiyas of a mujtahid. Translator]

    [3] And if the person is not seeing [the person being called] and does not aim to send a message, and there is no existence of dalil that there is a means of conveying the message, then such a nida is impermissible. For example one calls out onto some Wali from afar in a way that he aims to make that person hear, and that person is not in front [of the caller], and nor is it established that this news will be conveyed to him through some means or that [the caller] has fixed a means without any Shar’i dalil, then this belief is fabricating [iftira] something against Allah and a claim of ‘ilm al-ghayb, rather this is similar to shirk. However, it is bold to call it shirk and kufr without hesitation because it is possible that Allah Most High may convey that news to that Saint. And to believe in the possible is not Shirk. However, since the actual happening of a possibility is not necessary, there is no permission to make such useless nida. However, that nida that is mentioned in the texts [of Quran and Hadith] such as [in the hadith]: “Oh slaves of Allah, aid me.” This is by consensus permissible. And this explanation is for the general masses. And the situation of the elite is different, and the ruling is different in that for them this becomes an act of worship. The elite will understand this. There is no need for further explanation.

    From this, the ruling of the incantation —”Ya Shaykh ‘Abdul Qadir Shayan Lillah” — is understood. However, if someone considers the sheikh to be the actual disposer then this will take one towards shirk. Yes, if someone considers this as a wasilah and means or considers them to be blessed and has an empty mind then there is no harm in this. This is the reality of this issue.

    Now, some ulama —with the view that the general masses would not be able to understand the difference — forbid this. Their intention is good…”

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    1. Shaykh Ahmad al-Rumi (may Allah have mercy on him) has also spoken against the practice of istimdad.

    He was Ahmad bin ‘Abdul Qadir al-Rumi (d: 1041H) — a learned scholar from the people of Akhisar in present day Turkey. He has authored many books, including Majalis al-Abrar wa Masalik al-Akhyar in asceticism. There are copies in the Topkapi and at other places…

    This book is divided into 100 majalis (chapters). He writes in chapter 17, which is titled:

    المجلس السابع عشر فى بيان عدم جواز الصلوة عندالقبور ولااستمداد من اهلها واتخاذ السروج والشموع عليها

    “The situation has become, in respect to these misguided people who misguide others that they have began performing Hajj on graves and have created rituals for it, to such an extent that some extremists have written books on this topic which they called “Manasik Hajj wa Mashahid,” in which they have drawn comparisons between graves and the Bayt al-Haram. It is clear that this leads to separation from the religion of Islam, entering into the religion of the idol worshipers. So, see the great difference between that which the Prophet [Allah bless him and give him peace] has legislated regarding graves in terms of forbidden acts, as mentioned above, and that which these people have legislated and intended. There is no doubt, the corruption in this are so many that a man would be incapable of mentioning them all.

    “Among them [the corruption] is showing so much respect of graves leads one to put make people into fitnah. And among them is giving the graves more importance than mosques, which are the best of places and the most loved by Allah, for indeed these people, when they go to graves they go their with such importance and respect, humility, and solemnity, and softness of heart, things they would not do in mosques … And among them [the corruption] is making mosques on top of graves and enlightening them. And among them is performing itikaaf by them, covering them with sheets, and appointing custodians on them. This is to such an extent that these people consider the sitting close to these graves better than sitting in the Masjid al-Haram and feel that guarding them is better than serving mosques. Among them is offering nadhr to these graves and their guardians. And among them is visiting these places to offer worship there and to circumambulate them, kiss them, perform their istilam, put the dust of graves on their faces, take their soil, call on the people of the graves, ask them for aid (istighathah), and ask them for help, sustenance, well-being, children, fulfilling of loans, removing of difficulties and others needs that the worshipers of idols ask their idols. All of this is not legislated by any imam of religion, because all of this has not been done by the Prophet of the Lord of the Universe (Allah bless him and give him peace), neither by any Sahabah, Tabi’i and any of the imams of the religion. It is impossible that any of this is permissible and righteous.”

    2. ‘Allamah ibn Jawzi (d: 597H / may Allah have mercy on him) has brought forward a fatwa from ‘Allamah Abul-Wafa ‘Ali ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali (d: 488H / may Allah have mercy on him) on the prohibition of asking the dead for help in his Tablis al-Iblis. ‘Allamah ibn ‘Aqil, a Hanbali imam from Baghdad, lived even before Sayyid al-Ta’ifah Shaykh ‘Abdul Qadir Jaylani (d: 561H / may Allah have mercy on him).

    G.F Haddad writes in reply to a question, “Are Hanbali and Athari aqida the same?”

    “…This is the strain that a few Hanbalis embraced in their own positively Ash’ari creeds such as Ibn `Aqil, Ibn al-Jawzi, and al-Saffarini…”

    Ibn Jawzi writes on p.136:

    قال ابن عقيل: لما صعبت التكاليف على الجهال والطغام عدلوا عن أوضاع الشرع إلى تعظيم أوضاع وضعوها لأنفسهم فسهلت عليهم إذ لم يدخلوا بها تحت أمر غيرهم قال وهم كفار عندي بهذه الأوضاع مثل تعظيم القبور وإكرامها بما نهى الشرع عنه من إيقاد النيران وتقبيلها وتحليقها وخطاب الموتى بالألواح [بالحوائج] وكتب الرقاع فيها يا مولاي أفعل بي كذا وكذا وأخذ التراب تبركا وإفاضة الطيب على القبور وشد الرحال اليها وإلقاء الخرق على الشجر أقتداء بمن عبد اللات والعزى ولا تجد في هؤلاء من يحقق مسألة في زكاة فيسأل عن حكم يلزمه والويل عندهم لمن لم يقبل مشهد الكهف ولم يتمسح بآجرة مسجد المأمونية يوم الأربعاء ولم يعقد على قبر أبيه أزجا بالجص والآجر ولم يشق ثوبه إلى ذيله ولم يرق ماء الورد على القبر ويدفن معه ثيابه

    “Ibn ‘Aqil said: “When these obligations were hard on the ignorant and rabble ones, they diverted themselves from the positions of Shari’a to revere positions which they laid down for themselves, so it felt easy to them as they will not be regulated by the order of anyone except themselves.” He added: “To me, they are kafir (infidels) due to these positions; like revering the graves and paying respect to them with things which are forbidden by Shari’a like burning fire, kissing the graves, roaming around them, addressing the dead with sheets (of requests) and notes on patches which say like this: O my lord! Do me so and so, and taking the soil for getting blessing, pouring perfume on the graves, undertaking journey to visit them, hanging shreds with trees, as imitation to those who worship Lat and Uzza. You will find none among them who enquires a matter about Zakat and asks its ruling which he should fulfill. According to them, woe is to one who did not kiss the Mashhad al-Kahaf and did not touch the wall of the Al-Mamuniyah mosque on Wednesday, who did not erect building on the grave of his father with brick and plaster, who did not tear off his clothe to tail, did not spray rose water on the grave of his father and did not bury his clothes with him.”

    3. And Shah ‘Abdul Aziz writes in his Tafsir ‘Azizi discussing batil (deviant) ‘aqaid:

    يارتبه آئمه واولياء رابرابر رتبه انبياء و مرسلين گرداند وانبياء ومرسلين را لوازم الوهيت
    از علم غيب وشنيدن وفرياد هر كس درهر جاد قدرت برجميع مقدورات ثابت كند

    “…or elevate the status of the Imams and saints to the level of the Prophets and Messengers, and to establish for the Prophets and Messengers the intrinsic qualities of divinity such as knowledge of the unseen (‘ilm al-ghayb), hearing the needs [faryad] of everyone from anywhere and prove their ability [qudrah] over everything…”

    (Tafsir ‘Azizi, 1:40)

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    It is believed by some that as long as one says that Allah has granted the awliya the qudrah of hadhir nadhir, complete ‘ilm-i-ghayb, do tasarruf [not referring to karamah] in the Universe and come to our help when callen upon, it is completely safe to do so. This is most absurd taweel that can be done. Even mushrikeen doesn’t believe in “zaati/personal” powers for those they call on for help.

    Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi writes in his magnum opus Hujjat Allah al-Baligah chapter 74, “The explanation of what had been the condition of the people of Jahiliyya which the Prophet reformed”

    “Among the principles agreed upon among them [the people of the Ignorant Age] was the belief that God, may He be exalted, had no partner in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the substances in them, and that He had no partner in managing the great affairs and that no one could reject His order nor frustrate His decree once it had become settles and decided, and this is His saying, may He be exalted, “If you asked them who created the heavens and the earth they would answer Allah, [31:25], and His saying, “If God’s chastisement comes upon you, will you call upon any other than God, if you speak truly? No; upon Him you will call, and He will remove that for which you call upon Him if he will, and you will forget whatever partners you associated with him,” [6:41-42], and His saying, “All upon whom you call for help lose their way except Allah.” [That is, these others fail in times of crisis or disaster] But it was due to their deviance in religion that they held that there were personages among the angels and the sprits who could manage [the affairs of] the people of the earth except for the major matters…What gave rise to this were the pronouncements of the divine laws concerning entrusting of the affairs to angels, and the answering of the prayers of those people who are closest [to God], so they supposed that this was an administration [of power] on their part like the administration of kings, by analogy of the unseen to the visible world, and this was false.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Has it been disposed to Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) to make things haram and halal?

    An ayat of the Qur’an was posted to back up this belief. And then posted a hadith which is referring to munkar-e-hadith.

    1. Firstly, Prophet said:

    “Whoever interprets the Qur’an by his opinion, or without knowledge, let him assume his seat in Hellfire.”

    (Sunan al-Tirmidhi and Sunan al-Nisa’i)

    Secondly, none of the scholars of Islam understood from this ayat what the proponents of this belief have derived from this ayat.

    See: Authority to Permit and Prohibit

    http://deoband.org/2009/08/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/authority-to-permit-and-prohibit/

  • Although My posts are getting deleted from here and this place ceases to be suitable for an intellectual discussion but still I consider it important to address the last post of brother Saad Khan.
    You said: From the above it is clear that it is not in the qudrah of Prophet [s.a.w] to save anyone from hell-fire, He is not the owner of this.

    First of all nobody talked about Prophet (Peace be upon him) being owner of paradise/hell, so don’t create straw-man argument yourself, however Prophet (Peace be upon him) has been given “Ikhtiyaar” on Shaf’aat and his intercession will “FOR SURE” be accepted, denial of this is itself disrespect of Allah and his Prophet in worst manner, the first incomplete and out of context hadith which you have used is going against you itself, because in it the Prophet (Peace be upon him) is talking about not helping those “WHO ARE AT FAULT” you have put an axe on your own feet by showing the wording: “THE ONE AT FAULT WILL SAY”…

    Regarding the hadith of Prophet (Peace be upon him) saying to “KHATUN AL JANNAH (i.e. Leader of women in Paradise, read this title of Sayyidah Fatima over and over again)” that he cannot save her from Allah’s punishment, then the answer to this is same as we give to Shi’ites i.e. Khulafa ar Rashideen and Ashra Mubashra were granted paradise right on this earth so there is no chance of them becoming apostates later, The Prophet (Peace be upon him) being sure about Allah’s promise that he will be first to enter Paradise but still he spent long parts of nights in worship, this actually proves humbleness of Prophet (Peace be upon him), this is the greatest daleel of Tawakkal but those who misuse such ahadith to disrespect Prophet (Peace be upon him) i.e. he has no authority to save even himself or his blessed family members then such people are nothing short of nincompoops.

    Here is what Prophet (Peace be upon him) said about “LADY OF PARADISE”
    Allama Shami (rah) states: Tabarani in his Mu’jam has narrated with “SAHIH” chain from Ibn Abbas (ra) that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said to Fatima (ra): “ALLAH WILL NIEHTER PUNISH YOU NOR YOUR OFFSPRINGS” [Ras’ail Ibn Abideen, Volume No. 1, Page No. 5]

    He further states another hadith: Imam Ahmed, Baihaqi and Hakim who narrated it with “SAHIH” chain from Hadrat Abu Sa’id (ra) that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) while standing on his pulpit said: STRANGE ARE THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT I CANNOT BENEFIT MY RELATVIES ON DAY OF JUDGEMENT, REMEMBER I WILL BENEFIT THEM BOTH IN THIS WORLD AND HEREAFTER [Ibid]

    Plus the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: I have been “GRANTED THE RIGHT OF INTERCESSION (أعطيت الشفاعة)” and Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 1, Page No. 62)

    So the Prophet (Peace be upon him) has been given Ikhtiyaar for intercession, It is also proven from many ahadith of Sahihayn that Allah will himself say ”ASK O MUHAMMAD AND IT WILL BE GRANTED” and for your kind information I never said anywhere that he has been made owner of paradise and hell (Naudhobillah) as you have assumed and falsely accused me.

    By Ikhtiyaar we only refer to “granted” Ikhtiyaar, even mere human beings have Ikhtiyaar let alone the Prophet (Peace be upon him), the Prophet has Ikhtiyaar to intercede for whosoever he wishes but ofcourse he will intercede only for those who deserve it, Allah has made the heart of Prophet so pure that it could never get inclined towards something wrong or bad.

    This issue about Ikhtiyarat e Mustafa (salallaho alaihi wasalam) requires detailed explanation now, I will prove from overwhelming ahadith and Aqwaal of Ulama that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was indeed given Ikhtiyaar.

    You said in your ignorance: Only Allah is sahrih as it will be shown.
    That is like saying only Allah is to be obeyed, even this would sound very good to some people but It is nothing short of being kufr because there is no difference between obedience of Allah and his Apostle (Peace be upon him), this is something which not even the Prophet (Peace be upon him) has clarified himself but Allah aza Wajjal has done it in Quran when He said: Whoever obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah [4:80].

    Now whosoever brings discord in this regard then he is clearly walking the path towards Kufr, similarly to say that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was not given the authority to make things halal or Haram is walking same path and he has totally failed to understand what Shariah and Sharih means.

    Let us look at overwhelming ahadith and Aqwaal of Ulama in this regard and see how Prophet (Peace be upon him) has been given Ikhtiyaar in this regard.

    **Hadith # 1**

    When the Prophet (Peace be upon him) took an oath from women not to do lamentation, Umm Attiya (ra) said: O Messenger of Allah except members of such a tribe who helped me (in lamentation) during pre-Islamic days, there is left no alternative for me, but that I should also help them. “UPON THIS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH SAID: (YES) BUT ONLY IN CASE OF THE MEMBERS OF SUCH A TRIBE” [Sahih Muslim, Kitab ul Jan’aiz, Hadith # 2038]

    This hadith proves that the Prophet (Peace be upon him) can make anyone specific in case of general orders (i.e. given Ikhtiyar)

    **Hadith # 2**

    It is also proven from ahadith that to sacrifice a goat of 6 month old is not allowed but Prophet (Peace be upon him) allowed Hadrat Abu Burda bin Niyyar (ra) to sacrifice a goat of 6 month old, rather he said:, ‘Slaughter it (as a sacrifice) but “IT WILL NOT BE SUFFICENT FOR ANY-ONE ELSE (AS SACRIFICE AFTER YOU) [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No.2, Page No. 834]

    Continued…

  • **Hadith # 3**

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) forbade to cut grass and trees in Harram of Makkah, however Ibn Abbas (ra) asked about “Al-Idhkhir” for their goldsmiths and graves, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Except Al-Idhkhir for our graves and houses [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 1, Page No. 22]

    **Hadith # 4**

    The minimum requirement for Mahr is 10 Dirhams, however for one Sahabi the Prophet (Peace be upon him) made “TEACHING OF QURAN AS MAHR” [Sunnan Abu Dawud, Volume No.1, Page No. 287]

    **Hadith # 5**

    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 157: (Sahih Bukhari, Translation by Muhsin Khan)

    Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were sitting with the Prophet a man came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have been ruined.” Allah’s Apostle asked what was the matter with him. He replied “I had sexual intercourse with my wife “WHILE I WAS FASTING” Allah’s Apostle asked him, “Can you afford to manumit a slave?” He replied in the “NEGATIVE”. Allah’s Apostle asked him, “Can you fast for two successive months?” He replied in the “NEGATIVE” The Prophet asked him, “Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?” He replied in the “NEGATIVE” The Prophet kept silent and while we were in that state, a big basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet . He asked, “Where is the questioner?” He replied, “I (am here).” The Prophet said (to him), “TAKE THIS (BASKET OF DATES) AND GIVE IT IN CHARITY” The man said, “Should I give it to a person poorer than I? By Allah; there is no family between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains who are poorer than I.” The Prophet smiled till his pre-molar teeth became visible and then said, “FEED YOUR FAMILY WITH IT”

    ___

    This hadith proves Ikhtiyar of Prophet (Peace be upon him) to the extreme, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) kept on changing the ruling for the poor sahabi, remember It is wajib to do Kaffara by either keeping 60 fasts or giving charity, If the Prophet (saw) did not have Ikhtiyaar then he would have never been allowed to do such a thing!

    **Hadith # 6**

    Quran has made it fardh to wash our feet in Surah Maidah Verse 6, however the Prophet (Peace be upon him) allowed to wipe over (Leather socks), a muqeem can do this for 1 day whereas a traveler for 3 days
    And there are many more ahadith, now let us see what eminent scholars had to say regarding Prophet (Peace be upon him) being Sharih himself (contrary to Bidah which Saad Khan said that he is not Naudhobillah)

    **Scholar # 1**

    Imam al Arif, Hadrat Abdul Wahab Sha’raani (rah) said: Allah had given power to the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in making whatever he likes as Wajib or Ghayr Wajib. [Al-Mizan ul Kubra, Chapter of Wudhu]
    He also states: Allah has appointed the Prophet (Peace be upon him) on such a state that he can make any (Hukm) by his will, the example of this mentioned in the hadith regarding plants in Harram of Makkah (the hadith is mentioned above). If Allah had not made the Prophet as Sharih (i.e. having Ikhtiyar) then the prophet (Peace be upon him) could never make something separate from what Allah had declared Haram. [Al-Mizan ul Kubra, Volume No.1, Page No. 48]

    **Scholar # 2**

    Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani (rah) said: The Ahkaam are referred towards Prophet (Peace be upon him), at times regarding some ruling he can make someone form ummah specific whereas he can forbid another from the same thing, whether “THERE IS SOME NEED OR NOT” [Fath ul Bari, Sharh Sahih ul Bukhari, Volume No.10, Page No. 16]

    **Scholar # 3**

    Mullah Ali Qari (rah) said: Our scholars (i.e. Ahnaaf) have explained the quality of Prophet (Peace be upon him) that he can make anyone “Khaas” with any ruling [Mirqat, Sharh al Mishqaat, Volume No. 2, Page No. 323]

    And there are many other scholars, now those people who deny the Ikhtiyar of Prophet (Peace be upon him) have only made him into a Postman (Naudhobillah), although anyone with commonsense would believe that even mere human being is made “VICETREGENT” of Allah let alone the Prophet (Peace be upon him) who is greatest Burhan of Allah and upon whom Allah himself sends Salaam!

    Fee Amaan Allah.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Again irrelevent quotes and ahadith.

    He says:

    “Quran has made it fardh to wash our feet in Surah Maidah Verse 6, however the Prophet (Peace be upon him) allowed to wipe over (Leather socks), a muqeem can do this for 1 day whereas a traveler for 3 days”

    Our friend is not aware that even ahadith are wahi from Allah and regarded as non-recited wahi. It those matters where there was no wahi, Prophet [s.a.w] had the right to do ijtihad. If His ijtihad was not correct, wahi would come and correct it.

    Shah Waliullah Muhaddith al-Dahlawi (d. 1174H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes in his famous and unparalleled book Hujjat Allah al-Balighah [chapter 39 titled The Categories of Shirk]: “The secret behind this is that making something permitted (halal) or forbidden (haram) is an expression for a creative process (takwin) that is operative at the level of Malakut (Realm of Sovereignty) whereby one will or will not be held accountable for a certain thing. Thus this creative process (takwin) is the reason for a person being or not being held accountable for a thing, and this is part of the attribute of Allah Most High. As for the attribution of permitting (tahlil) or prohibiting (tahrim) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), it is in the sense of his speech being a decisive sign (imarah) of Allah’s permitting or forbidding. As for the attribution of them [permitting and forbidding] to the mujtahids of his community, this is in the sense of their transmitting element of the divine legislation based on the revealed text of the lawgiver, or their inferring the meaning of his words.”

    وسر ذلك ان التحليل والتحريم عباة الكوين نافذ فى الملكوت ان الشئ الفلانى يوأخذ به و لا يوأخذ به فيكون
    هذا التكوين سببا للمواخذة ونزكها وهذا من صفات اللّه تعالى ـ واما نسبة التحليل والتحريم اى النبى
    صلى اللّه عليه وسلم فبمعنى ان قوله امارة قطيعة لتحليل اللّه وتحريمه واما نسبتها الى المجتهدين
    من امته فبمعنى روايتهم ذالك عن الشرع من نص الشارع اواستنباط معنى من كلامه

    From the above statement of Shah Waliullah al-Dahlawi the following becomes evident:

    [1] Rulings of Shari’ah are derived from matters related to takwin. Takwin is from the attributes of Allah Most High and there is no associate of Him in this, just like His other attributes.

    [2] In matters of Shari’ah, the attribution of permitting and prohibiting to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is in the sense that he is a messenger from Allah. The Prophet’s conveying something as permitted or prohibited is a decisive sign that Allah Most High has deemed such a thing permitted or prohibited. This does not mean that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) has the authority to permit and prohibit.

    [3] The attribution of permitting and prohibiting to mujtahids is in the sense … that they infer rulings from the sources of the Shari’ah. The attribution of permitting and prohibiting to the mujtahids is not in the sense that they themselves can permit or prohibit something.

  • Saad khan said: Again irrelevent quotes and ahadith.

    Answer: That’s what you assume my friend although the 6 ahadith out of which 5 you totally ignored and gave illogical explanation on one, they all clearly prove the Ikhtiyarat of Muhammad o Mustafa (salallaho alaihi wasalam), here I will shed some more light upon this topic

    Quran states: O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say, “NOR WHEN YOU ARE UNDER AN ABLIGATION TO PERFORM A BATH” unless (you are) travelling on the road– until you have washed yourselves.. (4:43)

    Quran explicitly forbids the believers for entering mosque in state of Janabat, however let us see Ikhtiyaar of Prophet (Peace be upon him)

    Narrated by Abu Sa’id (ra) from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) who said to Ali (ra): O Ali, It is not allowed for anyone to in state of seminal impurity in this mosque, “EXCEPT FOR ME AND YOU” [Sunnan Tirimdhi, Volume No. 1, Page No. 535 where Imam Tirimdhi declared it “Hassan”]

    So those who reject that Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not have the authority to make things Halal or Haram are in actual rejecting Quran itself because

    Quran states: …(The Prophet Peace be upon him) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and “MAKES LAWFUL” to them the good things (وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَٰتِ)” and “MAKES UNLAWFUL” to them impure things (وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْخَبَـٰئِثَ), and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful. (7:157)

    Quran states at another place: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden “WHICH HATH BEEN FORBIDDEN BY ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER” (ما حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ) [9:29]

    These verses prove without any shadow of doubt that Allah has given authority to Prophet (Peace be upon him) in making things Halal or Haram, If not then these ayahs would turn out to be illogical (Naudhobillah) because It should have been enough to mention that Only Allah allows or forbids things.

    Quran also explicitly states: But no! by your Lord! “THEY DO NOT BELIEVE (IN REALITY) UNTIL THEY MAKE YOU A JUDGE (HAKIM)” of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have “DECIDED AND SUBMIT WITH ENTIRE SUBMISSION” (4:65)

    Quran also states: “O YE WHO BELIEVE! OBEY ALLAH AND OBEY THE MESSENGER” and make not vain your deeds! [47:33]

    Before I explain this in light of classical scholars, It is commonsense itself that Allah azza Wajjal has made it obligatory to follow the Prophet (Peace be upon him), had the Prophet not been given authority to make things halal or haram then Allah would have never said to follow the Prophet along with himself because only obedience to Allah would have been enough. I challenge all deobandis to bring 1 Ayah from Quran in which “ATIULLAH” has been mentioned alone, every time Allah has said Obey Allah “AND HIS APOSTLE (WA ATIUR-RUSUL)”

    *Imam Shatibi (Rahimuhullah) explains:

    All those ayahs in which obedience to Allah and his Messenger have been mentioned along, they prove that Allah’s obedience is regarding whatever has been ordered or stopped from in Quran whereas the obedience of Prophet (Peace be upon him) is what the “PROPHET HAS ORDERED OR STOPPED US FROM, IF THEY WERE OREDERED IN QURAN THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED ALLAH’S OBEDIENCE (NOT THAT OF RUSUL)” [Imam Shatibi in Al-Muafqaat, Volume No.4, Page No. 10]

    Quran states: And whatever the Messenger “GIVES YOU” accept it, and from whatever he “FORBIDS YOU” keep back, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in retributing (evil) [59:7]

    Quran states at another place: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, “WHEN A MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER” to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. [33:36]

    Is it not enough for Allah to decide a matter? But All praise be to Allah who appoints even the Prophet (Peace be upon him) as Sharih and Mukhtar In this case, I will conclude with explanation from Ibn Taymiyyah who is sheikh ul Islam not only for Wahabis but also for deobandis.

    He writes:

    جهة حرمه الله ورسوله جهة واحدة فمن اذى الرسول فقد اذى الله ومن اطاعه فقد اطاع الله لان الامة لا يصلون ما بينهم وبين ربهم الا بواسطة الرسول ليس لاحد منهم طريق غيره ولا سبب سواه وقد اقامه الله مقام نفسه في امره ونهيه واخباره وبيانه فلا يجوز ان يفرق بين الله ورسوله في شئ من هذه الامور

    Translation: The Jiha of Allah’s Hurmah and that of Prophet (Peace be upon him) is same, whosoever annoys the Prophet then he indeed annoys Allah, whosoever obeys the Prophet then he has indeed obeyed Allah because without the “WASITA” of prophet (Peace be upon him) the Ummah cannot reach their Lord, nobody from this Ummah has any option but to follow the Prophet (Un-conditionally). THEREFORE ALLAH IN HIS “AMR (ORDERING)” IN HIS “NAHI (FORBIDDING)” IN HIS “KHABR (TEACHING)” AND IN EXPLANATION OF THESE MATTERS, HE HAS RAISED THE PROPHET TO HIMSELF, THEREFORE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE IN THIS REGARD IS “IMPERMISSIBLE” [Ibn Taymiyyah in Al-Sarim ul Mosool, Page No. 41]

    This proves Prophet (Peace be upon him) to be Mukhtar in Shariah, and this is precisely the belief of Ahlus Sunnah, we never believe that Prophet (Peace be upon him) becomes owner of heavens, worlds, paradise, hell etc… (Naudhobillah) what we believe is that he has been “GRANTED” Ikhtiyaar in making things halal or haram, he is Sahib e Shariah and It is called Shariat e Muhammadi (Salallaho alaihi wasalam)

    Now let us come towards ahadith, although I had shown 6 magnificent ahadith but brother Saad ignored 5 most important of them and gave a pseudo interpretation on one i.e. Prophet (Peace be upon him) allowing wiping over leather socks does not prove him to be Sharih, I ask this Saad to prove from Quran where It has been allowed “NOT TO WASH OUR FEET IN ABLUTION”

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) has been given the authority and power to make rulings, the issues over which Quran is silent then the Prophet (Peace be upon him) could make them Wajib, Haram, Sunnah, Mustahab etc…
    Let me shed light upon this by showing some more ahadith.

    **Hadith # 7**

    Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) addressed us and said: O people, Allah has made Hajj obligatory for you; so perform Hajj. Thereupon a person said: Messenger of Allah, (is it to be performed) every year? He (the Holy Prophet) kept quiet, and he repeated (these words) thrice, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: “IF I WERE TO SAY “YES” IT WOULD BECOME OBLIGATORY (FOR YOU TO PERFORM IT EVERY YEAR)” and you would not be able to do it. Then he said: Leave me with what I have left to you, for those who were before you were destroyed because of excessive questioning, and their opposition to their apostles. So when I command you to do anything, do it as much as it lies in your power and “WHEN I FORBID YOU” to do anything, then abandon it. [Book 007, Number 3095: (Sahih Muslim), Sunnan Nasai’I Hadith # 2619 and others]

    The wording “لوجبت” in this hadith proves that Prophet (Peace be upon him) has the authority to make anything obligatory or Haram, had the Prophet asked them to do it every year then It would have become Wajib upon us every year till today.

    Continued…

  • **Hadith # 8**

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said:

    وإني قد أعطيت مفاتيح خزائن الأرض

    I have been “GRANTED THE KEYS OF (ALL) TREASURES ON EARTH” [Sahih Bukhari, Hadith # 6611]

    **Hadith # 9**

    It is forbidden for men to wear Gold, however the Prophet (Peace be upon him) told Suraqa bin Malik (ra): O Suraqa what will be your state at a time “WHEN YOU WILL WEAR (GOLD) BANGALS OF KASRA” [Seerat al Halbi, Volume No.2, Page No. 221]

    This hadith also proves Ilm ul Ghayb of Prophet (Peace be upon him) which is a different topic but I dare you with the grant of Allah to debate me on it on a neutral forum, anyways later Umar (ra) did make Suraqa (ra) wear the golden bangles of Kasra!

    **Hadith # 10**

    Volume 2, Book 13, Number 12: (Sahih Bukhari)

    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “If I had not found it hard for my followers or the people, I would have ordered them to clean their teeth with Siwak “FOR EVERY PRAYER”

    ___

    It is our belief that Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was granted miracles that of all Anbiya combined together (Deobandi Ulama) also believe that.

    We also know that Allah had given “IKHTIYAR” to Isa (a.s) in making birds out of clay and blowing life into them and curing lepos etc… this is mentioned right in the Quran itself, as a matter of fact the word for Isa’s making birds into shape and blowing life into them is “TAKHLUQU” of course this Ikhtiyaar was with the will of Allah but this does not mean Isa (a.s) could not do it, Similarly Allah has given “IKHTIYAAR” to Angel of death to take Life from “ANYWHERE” in the world, as a matter of fact he sees the whole world like a platter (Proven from many ahadith) and that he visits “EVERY HOUSE” about 5 times everyday (also proven from many ahadith), now remember Angels did Sajdah at Tazeemi to Adam (a.s) and Allah has made human beings far superior than angels both in spirit and body.

    Our Prorphet (Peace be upon him) was given highest degree of Ikhtiyaar than any other Prophet or Angel, he even gave Life to dead ones (of course with the grant of Allah), he made fountains flow from his fingers, he parted the moon, he made the trees cry, he made the animals and tress prostrate to him as a matter of fact his miracles are uncountable.

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) brought a dead goat back to Life [refer to Al Bidayah wan Nihayah, Volume No.6, Page No. 109]

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) made a sword out of “WOOD” [Refer to Seerat Ibn Hishaam, Volume No.3 , Page No. 185]

    When Prophet (Peace be upon him) stood on Uhud with Abu Bakr (ra) Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra), It started to shake, at this the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Stop O Uhud because upon you are standing a Prophet, a Saddiq and “2 MARTYRS” [Sahih Bukhari, Hadith # 3483]

    This above hadith also proves Ilm ul Ghayb of Prophet (Peace be upon him) as he knew about martyrdom of Hadrat Umar and Uthman (Ridhwan Allahu Ajmain) beforehand.

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) curing overwhelming Sahaba with his blessed Saliva [Im sure reference is not needed for this one]
    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) made a tree to cry due to his sermon [refer to Sahih Bukhari, Hadith # 3390], in another hadith it states: If the Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not make the tree to go silent then “IT WOULD HAVE CRIED TILL QIYAMAH” [Sunnan ibn Majah, Hadith #1415]

    A Munafiq used to sit with Prophet (Peace be upon him), upon listening to the Prophet he used to make (strange) faces, once the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: BE AS IT IS and his face became deformed till his death [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Hadith # 31746]

    There are many more proofs but I will end my discussion with this beautiful hadith of Ibn Majah, brother Saad Khan please stop reclining on your couch and take heed from this hadith

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Let me not find one of you reclining on his couch when my hadith reaches him and he says: Between us and you is present Allah’s book , so we consider Halal those things which are declared Halal in it and Haram which are declared Haram. Although “WHAT THE PROPHET HAS MADE HARAM IS AS IF ALLAH MADE IT HARAM (وإن ما حرم رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏كما حرم الله)” [Sunnan Tirimdhi, Volume No. 5, Page No. 38, Imam Tirimdhi declared it “Hassan”]

    Final Note: May Allah save you from disrespecting the Prophet (Peace be upon him) and not doing Bidah by rejecting sound and established qualities of Prophet (Salallaho alaihi wasalam) i.e. Him having Ikhtiyar to make Halal or Haram.

    Wassalam

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Again irrelevenet ahadith that are unrelated to the discussion. If our friend was aware that there are of 2 types of wahi, he would not be using those ahadith to prove his shia-fied aqida.

    1. Recited wahi = Quran.
    2. Unrecited wahi = Hadith.

    What did Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) do where there was no wahi?

    Imam Nasafi and Mulla Jiwan Hanafi writes:

    وعندنا هو مامور بانتظار الوحى فيما لم يوح اليه اى از انزلت الحادثة بين يديه
    يجب عليه ان ينتظر الوحى اولا لجوابها الى ثلاثة ايام اولى ان يخاف فوت الفرض
    ثم العمل بالرأى بعد انقضأ ودة الانتظار فان كان اصاب فى الرأى لم ينزل الوحى
    عليه فى تلك الحادثة
    وان كان اخطأ الراى ينزل الوحى للتنبيه على الخطأ قط بخلاف سائر المجتهدين
    فانهم ان اخطأوا يبقى خطأهم الى يمم القيامة

    “According to us, in those ahkam in which wahi had not come, Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was required to wait for wahi. Meaning that when an issue would arise infront of the Prophet, at first it was required of Him to wait for wahi for three days or unless there was fear of a fardh being missed. After this waiting period it was allowed for Him to follow His own rai [opinion]. If His rai (opinion) would be correct then there would be no need for the wahi regarding that matter.” “And if He would err [in his ijtihad], then wahi would come and He was never kept on that error. This is contrary to all other mujtahidin, if they err, then they stay on error till the day of Judgement.”

    (Nur al-Anwar with Al-Manar, p.218)

    1. So from the above we know that Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was not given the ikhtyar to make anything haram or halal.

    2. Hw would wait for the wahi [recited or unrecited].

    3. Then after three days, Prophet would do ijtihad, and if correct, He was kept on this and He had erred, wahi would come and correct Prophet.

    This is the ‘aqidah of Ahl al-Sunnah. According to Ahle Sunnah, this is attribute of Allah to make haram and haram.

    Now according to Shi’ahs, their Imams were given ikhtiyar to make haram and halal and according to their Barelwi brethrens, Prophet was given ikhtiyar to make haram and halal without wahi.

  • I knew you would resort to false accusations of calling me Shia-fed, but in reality you seem to be unaware that all of us have Ikhtiyaar but this Ikhtiyaar is in control of Allah of course, in case of Prophet (Peace be upon him) the Ikhtiyaar is much much broader and he has been sent as Sharih and Quran proves him to be one who can make things Halal or Haram, who on earth is denying over here that Prophet (Peace be upon him) does not say anything contrary to what Allah desires? As a matter of fact he does not do a single thing without command and will of Allah, this actually proves him to be infallible, sinless and totally error-free unlike the Batil aqida of Khawarjites and degraders of Anbiya who attribute Sins towards anbiya.

    What I’m saying is not shia-fed, It is rather in perfect conformity with Quran and Sunnah as I have proven from both the Islamic sources, actually what you are saying could be termed as “Khawarji” inclined aqida and you are proving yourself to be because you are even denying the Prophet to be Sharih, like disrespectful one could be!

  • @Hamood

    Which part of overwhelming Quranic Ayahs and ahadith which I showed do you not understand? though they are absolutely clear :)… brother saad not being able to refute them started to call them as irrelevant though they precisely prove the Ikhtiyaar of Prophet (Peace be upon him) beyond any doubt, do you want me to summarize the proofs from Quran and Sunnah as were shown?

  • Aamir,

    degraders of Anbiya who attribute Sins towards anbiya

    Who are you referring to? The author of Nur al-Anwar for writing what he wrote? Where exactly did he attribute sin towards the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam)? This is a pretty grave accusation, which needs immediate clarification from yourself.

  • Brother Aamir has clearly proven Ikhteyar of Nabi (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) I do not know why some people are acting blind over here, the hadiths shown do give sound proof that our Nabi (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)can make matters Halal, Haram, Wajib, Ghair wajib etc…

    I was not fully convinced about this ikhteyar issue but now Alhamdulillah I am.

    Jazzak Allah brother once Again. 🙂

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Amir said:

    Although “WHAT THE PROPHET HAS MADE HARAM IS AS IF ALLAH MADE IT HARAM (وإن ما حرم رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏كما حرم الله)” [Sunnan Tirimdhi, Volume No. 5, Page No. 38, Imam Tirimdhi declared it “Hassan”]

    Correct translation:

    That which was classified as Haram by Nabi [Salalahu Alayhi wasaalam] is equal [in status] to that classified as Haram by Allah.

    I showed from numeruos Ulama that only Allah is hakim and shar’i. It is the ‘aqidah of Shi’ahs that Nabi or Imams were given the rights to be shari as mentioned by Imam Shah ‘Abdul Aziz Dahlawi in his Tuhfah Ithna Ashariyyah.

    He posted many ayats and hadiths but then he added his own commentary! Now Mr.Amir has reached the level of mufassir and muhaddith!

    None of the ‘ulama of Ahl al-Sunnah deduced what Shias and Barelwis [like amir, no mater how much he denies it] deduced from these ayats and hadiths.

  • This hadith shown by aamir explains everything.

    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Let me not find one of you reclining on his couch when my hadith reaches him and he says: Between us and you is present Allah’s book , so we consider Halal those things which are declared Halal in it and Haram which are declared Haram. Although “WHAT THE PROPHET HAS MADE HARAM IS AS IF ALLAH MADE IT HARAM …

    (وإن ما حرم رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏كما حرم الله)” [Sunnan Tirimdhi, Volume No. 5, Page No. 38, Imam Tirimdhi declared it “Hassan”]

    One from my side.

    عن نصر بن عاصم عن رجل منهم انه اتى النبى فا سلم على انه لا يصلى الا صلاتين فقبل زلك منه.

    Nasr ibn Asim narrates from one Sahabi that he came in court of Prophet (pbuh) and accepted Islam on a condition “that he will only offer 2 daily prayers, the Prophet (pbun) accepted this condition” [Musnad Ahmad, Volume 005, Page No. 363, Hadith Number 20302]

    And Allah Knows Best

  • @Hamood

    Brother please do not play this trick of attributing towards me what I have not said, remember I have also quoted scholars on Ikhtiyaar of Prophet (Peace be upon him) and also Imam Ghazzali (rah) and Imam Ramli (rah) who explicitly proved and allowed Istighatha, so I can say to you If you are calling them as Mushrikeen???

    The point is that Quran and Sunnah directly prove that Allah has given authority to Prophet (Peace be upon him) in making things Halal or Haram, plus overwhelming ahadith have been shown which prove this to be and no qawl of scholar can supercede this.

  • Aamir,

    I am not playing any tricks here nor is this some sort of competition. Any student of knowledge can see the fallacy in your amateurish arguments. You have so far evaded my question. I don’t know what your background is but your attempts to prove your point by quoting hadiths out of context is laughable to say the least. Until unless you have anything valuable to contribute to this discussion, I wouldn’t suggest anyone to waste time debating this issue with you.

  • You guys are again deleting my posts!!! I am left with no option but to call you as cheats!

    @Saad Khan

    Your so called correction of translation is only making me laugh, the translation which I showed is “ACCURATE” and the one which you have shown is actually identical, so stop trying to fool people who do not know Arabic, changing my words with yours (having identical meanings) does not mean you have corrected me.

    I thought you deobandis would give competition atleast on a pro-deobandi website, but as expected you guys have started to delete our posts, anyways Im saving this discussion for my record.

    Truth always wins O Deobandis whether you people resort to cheating or not!

  • @Waseem

    The second hadith you showed was wonderful, that has hit bang on target..Indeed the Prophet (Peace be upon him) allowing someone to accept Islam even on the condition of praying only twice a day, this definitely proves his Ikhtiyaar to the core… Jazak Allahu Khayrun brother

    Wassalam

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Hadhrat Umar bin ‘Abdul Aziz, mentioned the following in refutation of those who denied the existence of taqdeer:

    “They [the Sahabah , Tabi’in and Salf-i-Saalihin), have also recited these Aayat which you recite, but they have understood its meaning and import whilst you have not. Notwithstanding their recitation of all these Aayaat, they accepted the concept of taqdeer.”

    (Abu Dawud, 2:278)

    This answer is also sufficent for Shias and their brothers [Beralwi & company]. None of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah understood from these ayats and ahadith what these proponents of batil aqaid do. They have borrowed this aqida of theirs from Shias along with many of their other ‘aqaid.

    May Allah save us from their fitnah.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Reply to fatwa of Shaykh Ramli which Ahl al-Biddah believe to be one of their biggest proof.

    Brother Amir, you have clearly misunderstood — deliberately or otherwise — Imam Ramli’s fatwa. What the respected Imam is saying is that it is possible for the dead saints to hear one and help one THROUGH MU’JIZAH or KARAMAH. Imam Ramli says [in your own translation] “because their miracles do not become abolished after their deaths…”

    I have mentioned above the issue of istiqlal or being mustaqil — these miracles are not the outcome of the given [ata’i] powers of the saints but through the hukm and will of Allah.

    Imam Ramli writes: “Now regarding Awliya then this is a Karamat from them, the people of truth believe that this happens from [the hands] of awliya both with their intention and without it. Having a change in outer aspects of things is brought forward by Allah through them.”

    This shows that Imam Ramli based his answer on people not believing such aid to be ISTIQLALI [permanent powers given by Allah]. He is basically saying that if a person believes that it is possible for Allah Ta’alla to take this statement of mine to the wali and then for Allah ta’ala to allow him to help me, then it is jaiz for him to say it. This is the same thing that Mujaddid Alf-i-Sani and Qadi Sanaullah Panipatti have mentioned and which I have produced above. It is possible that awliya might not even be aware of their karamah.

    Imam Ramli is saying that yes as a miracle, Allah may use a Prophet or a Saint to help a person without them even being aware. Imam Ramli is not saying that it is permitted for a person to believe that the Wali can hear from far and near. That is Haram and a Kufri type of Istighathah which is under discussion here.

    The view of the mutakallimin on mu’jizaat:

    قال المتكلمون وتختص المعجزه بكونها فعل اللّه تعالى وليست داخلة تحت قدرة البشر

    The Mutakallimin say: And miracles are special in being the action of Allah Talah, and are not under the power [ata’i powers] of the human.

    So it is clear that fatwa of Shaykh Ramli is not a proof for those who believe in batil type of istimdad. Ahl al-Bid’ah have hijacked the fatwa to prove wrong type of istimdad with the belief of hadhir nadhir, and permanent ata’e powers. The issue of mu’jizaat and karamah are separate.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Aamir said:

    “So those who reject that Prophet (Peace be upon him) did not have the authority to make things Halal or Haram are in actual rejecting Quran itself…”

    And he said:

    “Now whosoever brings discord in this regard then he is clearly walking the path towards Kufr, similarly to say that Prophet (Peace be upon him) was not given the authority to make things halal or Haram is walking same path and he has totally failed to understand what Shariah and Sharih means.”

    Reply:

    Now let see how many scholars have denied the Qur’an, have walked the path of kufr and failed to understand what Shariah and Shari’ means.

    I posted statements of many scholars that only Allah is Shari’, hakim, and Prophet [s.a.w] didn’t have the authority to make haram and halal. He would wait for wahi [recited or unrecited] or do ijtihad.

    Below I will only list the names of scholars as their verdicts can be found above.

    1. Imam Nasafi.
    2. Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi.
    3. Shaykh Abdul Haq Dahlawi.
    4. Shaykh al-Islam ‘Allamah Ayni.
    5. Imam Shah ‘Abdul Aziz Dahlawi.
    6. ‘Allamah ‘Abdul Wahhab Sharani.
    7. Shaykh Muhyyi al-Din ibn Arabi.
    8. Mulla Jiwan Hanafi.
    9. Muhaqqiq Imam ibn Humam.
    10. Mullah Muhibullah Bihari.
    11. ‘Allamah Abu Jaffar Al-Nahhas.

    According to Amair these scholars are gilty of:

    1. Rejecting the Qur’an.
    2. Walking the path of kufr.
    3. Failing to understand what is Sharia.

    Naudbillah!

    True face of Beralwi-ism has come out, no matter how hard they try to hide it.

    These scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah were unable to understand the Shari’ah, save Shi’ahs and Beralwis.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Mr. Aamir posted few ahadith and then he interpreted them to suit his own fancies.

    1. Mr. Aamir posted:

    **Hadith # 3**
    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) forbade to cut grass and trees in Harram of Makkah, however Ibn Abbas (ra) asked about “Al-Idhkhir” for their goldsmiths and graves, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Except Al-Idhkhir for our graves and houses [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 1, Page No. 22]

    Reply:

    a. The Barelwis — such as Aamir — quote this Hadith to establish that, al-Iyadh billah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is mukhtar. They claim that this hadith establishes that the Prophet can make Halal what he wishes and Haram what he wishes.

    In answer, let us firstly look at what the muhaddithin actually say about this hadith. We are the followers of the Pious Predecessors and not of those who abandon the predecessors and introduce into the religion new things such as the Barelwis and brother Aamir, may Allah guide them and him and their ilk.

    b. Imam Nawawi in his commentary of Sahih Muslim 1:437 writes:

    “This [the exemption of Al-Idhkir] bears the meaning that the exemption of Al-Idhkir and its particularity from the general ruling was revealed to the Prophet [pbuh] at that time. Or it was revealed to him prior to that that if someone was to seek an exemption then grant him the exemption, or he performed IJTIHAD in all of this.”

    c. Likewise, ‘Allamah Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni in reply to the question whether the exemption of Al-Idhkir was through WAHI or through IJTIHAD writes:

    “The Ulama have differed in this … and the Prophet’s granting of permission was communication from Allah Almighty, either through ILHAM or through WAHI. And whosoever claims that revelation demands some time, then such a person is delusive.”

    Readers can see what Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah understood from this hadith, and what Beralwism understood from this hadith.

    2. Mr. Aamir posted:

    **Hadith # 1**
    When the Prophet (Peace be upon him) took an oath from women not to do lamentation, Umm Attiya (ra) said: O Messenger of Allah except members of such a tribe who helped me (in lamentation) during pre-Islamic days, there is left no alternative for me, but that I should also help them. “UPON THIS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH SAID: (YES) BUT ONLY IN CASE OF THE MEMBERS OF SUCH A TRIBE” [Sahih Muslim, Kitab ul Jan’aiz, Hadith # 2038]

    Reply:

    a. Subhanallah, I am left surprised at this so-called scholar of Islamic literature!!! It seems the study of hadith has never been the lot of you people — eating sweet rice, ghiyarweens, laddos, biryani, meat curries and lassi has been the lot of the Barelwis from day one. Hankering after biddats leaves one little time for serious study. You have faltered providing this hadith. May Allah guide you. Again, unlike the Barelwis, we are the followers of the Ulama of this Ummah and do not speak from our whims.

    Let me first explain that NOWHA [lamentation] was — in Islam — first permissible, then made MAKRUH and then made HARAM. Umm Atiyya was granted permission before the time when NOWHA was made HARAM. This is not TASARRUF in Shari’ah and nor making HARAM into a HALAL as you — a scholar of Islamic literature — assumes.

    b. ‘Allamah Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni in his Sharh, 8:451, writes that the Prophet gave permission to Umm Atiyyah when NOWHA was Makruh Tanzihi.

    3. Mr. Aamir posted:

    **Hadith # 8**
    The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said:
    وإني قد أعطيت مفاتيح خزائن الأرض
    I have been “GRANTED THE KEYS OF (ALL) TREASURES ON EARTH” [Sahih Bukhari, Hadith # 6611]

    a. This hadith is narrated in Sahih Muslim also from Uqba ibn ‘Amir. Prior to answering the false meaning you have provided — we must understand that there is no contradiction among hadiths and also between hadiths and the Quran. Hence, in light of the above there is a verse in which Allah tells the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that say I do not have the treasures of Allah.

    b. So, how should we understand this hadith? In answer, let me first show you a few more hadiths. One such narrated in the Mustadrak of Imam Hakim, 4:449, in which the Prophet of Allah said:

    “And Allah has given me the two, red and white, treasures. And certainly, my Ummah will reach that land which was brought close to me” [in other words shown to me. translator].

    The above Hadith is not regarding the Prophet being MUKHTAR-I-KUL — Imam Nawawi writes in explanation Sharh of Sahih Muslim, 2:250:

    “Its meaning is to explain that the PROPHET’S UMMAH will own the treasures of the earth and that has happened.” Please note the PROPHET’S UMMAH!!!

    c. In another Hadith in Sahih Muslim, 2:244, it is mentioned:

    “The Prophet of Allah said:

    “While I was sleeping I was given the treasures of the earth and two gold bracelets were given in my hands. Hence, they became burdensome on me and worried me, so it was revealed to me that I should blow them away.”

    In explanation of this hadith ‘Allamah ‘Azizi writes in Al-Siraj al-Munir, 1:245,

    “That this is a metaphor to Allah’s promise of conquering the lands.”

    Also, some ‘Ulama have considered the last verse of Surah al-Baqarah to be the Treasures. Hafidh ibn Hajr Al-‘Asqallani, Ibn Khuzaymah, and Imam Nasa’i have also mentioned this. This is mentioned in Fath al-Bari, 2:259.

    Hence, in light of all of these Hadiths we learn that the meaning of being “GRANTED THE KEYS OF [ALL] TREASURES ON EARTH” is not that Allah’s Messenger was made Mukhtar-i-Kul [as is your batil belief] but that Allah granted the Prophet [pbuh] and his Companions the ability to conquer distant lands…The companions showed this and conquered distant lands.

    This is what ‘Ulama of this Ummah understood from this hadith.

  • Assalam o ‘alaykum,

    Continuing with my previous post:

    4. Mr. Aamir posted:

    **Hadith # 5**
    Volume 3, Book 31, Number 157: (Sahih Bukhari, Translation by Muhsin Khan) Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were sitting with the Prophet a man came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have been ruined.” Allah’s Apostle asked what was the matter with him. He replied “I had sexual intercourse with my wife “WHILE I WAS FASTING” Allah’s Apostle asked him, “Can you afford to manumit a slave?” He replied in the “NEGATIVE”. Allah’s Apostle asked him, “Can you fast for two successive months?” He replied in the “NEGATIVE” The Prophet asked him, “Can you afford to feed sixty poor persons?” He replied in the “NEGATIVE” The Prophet kept silent and while we were in that state, a big basket full of dates was brought to the Prophet . He asked, “Where is the questioner?” He replied, “I (am here).” The Prophet said (to him), “TAKE THIS (BASKET OF DATES) AND GIVE IT IN CHARITY” The man said, “Should I give it to a person poorer than I? By Allah; there is no family between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains who are poorer than I.” The Prophet smiled till his pre-molar teeth became visible and then said, “FEED YOUR FAMILY WITH IT”

    Reply:

    a. This hadith is also mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawud, Sunan Tirmidhi, Musnad Imam Ahmad, Tahawi, Sunan Kubrah, etc…None of these versions mention that the Prophet told the companion that go, your Kaffarah has been fulfilled. This is very important. Why? Because, isn’t there a possibility that — although the companion at that time was not physically or financially fit to fulfill the kaffarah — he could have, at a later time, fulfill it when he became financially or physically able. There is a well-known principle that إذا جاء الإحتمال بطل به الإستدلال When there is a possibility [IHTIMAL] then the ISTIDLAL [deriving of proof] becomes void on account of it.

    As a result Imam Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim [and also it is in Sharh Muhadhab] that kaffarahs can be fulfilled late. ‘Allamah Sarakhsi writes: “However, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) granted him the excuse to fulfill late due to poverty”. (Al-Mabsut, 3:71])

    The same is mentioned by Muhaqqiq Imam Ibn Humam in Fath al-Qadir, 2:720.

    b. Further to this, the same hadith in Sunan Dar Qutni 1:251 from Sayyiduna ‘Ali includes the following:

    “Hence, Allah has atoned you.”

    If Allah has atoned the Companion then the Prophet is simply the conveyor of this news!!! How can you establish that the Prophet cancelled the Kaffarah on behalf of the Companion and that he was MUKHTAR?

    5. It comes in a hadith:

    عن نصر بن عاصم عن رجل منهم انه اتى النبى فا سلم على انه لا يصلى الا صلاتين فقبل زلك منه.
    Nasr ibn Asim narrates from one Sahabi that he came in court of Prophet [pbuh] and accepted Islam on a condition “that he will only offer 2 daily prayers, the Prophet [pbun] accepted this condition”

    (Musnad Ahmad, 5:363)

    Reply:

    a. The Barelwi Faqih-‘-A’zam Hind Abu Yusuf Muhammad Sharif Muhaddith Kotlawi [he who was given this title by Molwi Ahmad Rada Khan Sahib Barelwi himself] has narrated this hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud 1:61 and said there is nothing explicit within that the Prophet excused the Companion from the rest of the Prayers.

    Subhanallah! this is from one of Molwi Ahmad Rada Khan’s own. He writes that the Prophet ordered the praying of these two prayers as a Muallim or Murabbi bringing the Companion to offering all prayers slowly. If the Companion was to offer these two prayers then offering the rest would become easy.

    b. In addition it is mentioned in the Quran:

    “Guard strictly your [habit of] prayers, especially the Middle Prayer…”

    There is no meaning that only read Asar and Zuhr and the rest are forgiven. Likewise, when the delegation from Thaqif came to the Prophet to become Muslim and said they would not give Zakat or take part in Jihad, at this Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “You shall see that soon they will give Zakat and take part in Jihad but let them become Muslim.”

    (Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, 5:30)

    6. Mr. Aamir posted:

    **Hadith # 2**

    It is also proven from ahadith that to sacrifice a goat of 6 month old is not allowed but Prophet (Peace be upon him) allowed Hadrat Abu Burda bin Niyyar (ra) to sacrifice a goat of 6 month old, rather he said:, ‘Slaughter it (as a sacrifice) but “IT WILL NOT BE SUFFICENT FOR ANY-ONE ELSE (AS SACRIFICE AFTER YOU) [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No.2, Page No. 834]

    Reply:

    a. This was done through the permission of Allah. We believe in two types of wahi, recited and unrecited.

  • We know that the prophet (saw) and awliya Allah can help and their spirits re alive. but it is not our task to beseech them. We should beseech only ur true creator and sustainer Allah SWT. if he wants then he can get our work done by any of the great prophets or saints and martyrs.So we believe in the aqeeda of life for prophets and martyrs but still we do not ask them.
    LA tadu’ ma’Allahi Ilaahan akhar.

  • As-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah.

    First quote from the article:

    In addition, Fatawa ‘Azizi of Mawlana Shah ‘Abd al-’Aziz Dahlawi contains the following question and answer: “Question. Is it correct or not to seek aid from the Prophets (may Allah grant them peace), the noble saints, the worthy martyrs and the lofty pious after their deaths, saying, ‘Oh such and such a person, request for me a need from the Almighty, intercede on my behalf, and pray for me’.
    “Answer. To seek aid from the dead (istimdad) — regardless of whether this is done at the grave or away — is without a doubt a bid’ah, and did not exist in the time of the Companions and the Followers. However, there is a difference of opinion regarding which type of bid’ah this falls into. In that, is it a reprehensible bid’ah or a praiseworthy bid’ah, as a result the ruling would be different. Considering istimdad is of different types, if the seeking is of the type mentioned in the above question then it is clear this is permissible. This is because there is no shirk in this. This is the same as making requests for supplications and other needs from the pious in their life.

    Second quote from the article:

    Imam Shah Waliullah Dahlawi (died 1176AH) writes: “And among that (the occasions where forbidden shirk is present): Surely they seek aid from [people] other than Allah for their needs — including cure for the ill and giving wealth to the poor; and they make vows (nadhr) and hope that their aims are successful on account of those vows; and they recite their [people’s] names hoping to gain their blessings.

    The first quote seems to allow asking for the needs from other than Allah (see last sentence), while the second quote seems to forbid it.

    Why is this?

    Please can someone explain this, if it is not a contradiction.

    Frankly speaking, I simply do not agree with the first quote.

    • You need to read both carefully. The first is requesting dua from Allah and the second is requesting general needs. There’s a difference in the two.

    • The first is asking the dead to PRAY ON YOUR BEHALF. This is no different than asking your mother to pray FOR you.

      The second is asking THE DEAD for its help. And that is what is Haram, as only Allah can help you. You are praying TO the dead, instead of ASKING it to pray FOR you to Allah.

Comments are closed.