When this time came Hazrat focussed towards there and during his focus discomfort was evident on his body. Those present all asked so he replied that an arduous journey of some days has tired me.

When that boy returned he informed that there were bandits there, I moved my cart to one side, there the image of Hazrat’s form was present. The bandits looted the whole caravan but my cart was protected.”

There are many about other miracles about other Awliya too like Imam Ibn Ata Illah
So if you follow the Maliki madhab, what does the madhab say? Its shown by Imam Yusuf Ad-Dijwi, the great Azhari Maliki of the early 1900′s:
http://marifah.net/articles/tawassul-dijwi.pdf

Of course if you don’t trust the net, you can see the original sources.

We know that for the Shafi’is, its Imam Nawawi:
[The pilgrim] should then face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah (s) , make him an intermediary [to Allah ], and intercede through him to Allah … (Majmu’ Sharh Al-Madhhab – Kitab Al-Hajj)

For the Hanbali madhab its
Imām Ibn Qudāmah al-Maqdisī (ra), in his encyclopaedic work; al-Mughnī,(3/588), in the section concerning visitation of the Prophet’s (alayhi salaat wa salaam) grave: Then you go to the grave[of the prophet(alayhi salaat wa salaam)] and say: “ Indeed, I have come to you seeking forgiveness for my sins and seeking intercession through you unto my Lord.”This is also mentioned in ash-Sharh al-Kabīr.

Also the Hadith master Sheikh al Ghumari’s analysis of the Hadith of tawassul is excellent.

Allah knows best

Wa salam
Request of your duas

I have some questions conserning the verse cited above.

I wonder if this verse is really considered a nass without possible interpretation? I’m mainly asking for knowledges sake and not for taking part in the actual issue on any side.

Why I ask is because the comprehensiveness of the verse can be specified with for instance calling upon living persons or able persons for help. Does this not specify its comprehensiveness and open up the door for further specification (with proof of course)and also ijtihad?

Also, is there not a discussion among the scholars on the actual ruling of the nahy, even though the strongest opinion is that its basic nature prohibitive there are many scholars that differ on the issue. How would this affect the definite nature of the verse?

The above of course is if we take the word tad’u to mean call upon in a linguistic sense. However the context of the verse seems to mean (you know better) a legalistic meaning of supplication or worship, as is interpreted by for instance Imam al-Baydhawi.

Concerning the “with Allah(ma’Allahi)”, could it not also affect the meaning and strengthen the idea that its dealing with worshiping others than Allah.
If that is so does not the question go back to what this calling in “istighatha” is?

1. Is it supplicating someone besides and independently of Allah, giving him abilities belonging only to Allah and hence commit shirk?

2. Or is it calling upon someone who is believed to have an ability given from Allah similar to, or according to some maybe even greater than, a living person?

I think what is meant by the one permitting the action is the second, and the question is therefore, do they (through ijtihad) consider that they have a legal basis for believing that a person in a grave (with or without coming out of it) can assist as a living person can in any way?

I also think that the ones making it impermissible or shirk imply the first meaning, and I don’t think any muslim can disagree of it being impermissible and shirk.

Can’t one then say that the difference between the two groups come back to a difference mainly (but not only since we have the issue of the range of ability of the dead) in definition?

One can also ask, what is the REAL ability of a living in relation to a dead, does anyone believe that the living can do anything independently from Allah?

I hope I get some thoughts around the questions put forward even if they are a few.

Jazakumullahu khayran

Wa alaykum assalam

With all due respect, that seems to me, like someone saying, “I don’t want the As’haab’s view on the matter, instead, I want to hear what the people from the last century have said upon the matter.

If this understanding of mine is correct, then unfortunately it seems that it is a flawed approach.

If one wishes to learn Islaam, as the Prophet SallaaAllaahu `alayhi wa Sallam has taught it, then one must look for the opinions closer to his period.

The further one strays from the source, the more one will be hearing ‘Chinese Whispers’. If you live in the States, then the game ‘Telephone’ is what I am talking about.

Google it.

note: I an not the isa that has the wordpress link attached to his name.

What books of aqeedah would you recommend for those who know Arabic؟

جزاكم الله خيرا

I’m waiting for the response

I have been following discussions on the topic of istighatha for a while and i am sympathetic to concerns on both sides of the dividing line. It would be interesting to see what type of well grounded reply could be made against al_ramli’s fatwa. That’s not to say that one could take a different position and maintain that Istighatha through the creation is haram, but as for the bold comments of shirk, would the brothers be confident enough to say for example that “if this fatwa is actually from al-Ramli and is taken upon its apparent meaning … then Sh. al-Ramli is a mush…”.

As for personal practice and cautiousness, a lot of the advice has been relevant, but as far as a scholarly discussion is concerned, there is a plethora of information pertinent to the discussion. One point i will take offence to is brother Suhaib’s comment from Ibn al-Qayyim on innovators relying upon weak reports which seems to be a dig at the other side. The prominent scholars who speak in favour of this matter are not prone to the use of weak and spurious hadith. The irony is only further drawn out by the criticism levelled gainst ibn al-Qayyim himself as well as other ultra-hanbali scholars for the use of weak and fabricated hadith in defending their positions.

No offence inteneded in anything i said

Your article is well written, Mashallah, but I noticed that you said regarding tawassul through the Prophet or righteous person whether alive or dead, that “This was the opinion of some scholars”. Isn’t it that Majority of the Ulema allowed tawassul, including Imam Ahmed (to which Ibn Taymiyya admits)? And even the Hanbalis who adored and took greatly from Ibn Taymiyya such as Saffarini, Abdul Baqi Taghlabi, Ibn Balban (all three Hanbalis) and others did tawassul and had no problems.

Do Comment, at least through the email.
Awaiting Response
Wa ‘Alaykumus Salam

The fatwaa is clear for those whom have been blessed with the deep insights and a superlative understanding of the Deen. If you are having a difficult time in understanding istighaatha then in your case it would be best for you to leave it but at the same time you can not censor those who practice it since they have a strong basis for its validity within the Shariah, the Quraan and Sunnah, and the scholarship of the Ahl As-Sunnah Wa al-Jamaa’ah.

you said:

The issue is simple. When we say that one may only call upon Allah for help, we are talking about *divine* help/aid. We are talking about *supernatural* help/aid.

My reply is excactly, Allaah SWT is the One and Only that can only give divine help as He is the One and Only Ilaah/God. As for the Awliyaa it is within our ‘Aqeedah to believe in them and their *supernatural* abilities which we call karaamat (supernatural gifts that Allaah SWT has blessed His Awliyaa with) as stated by Imaam Tahaawi and his famous book of creed The Tahawi Creed:

99. We believe in what we know of the *karamat* or *marvels* of the awliya’ and in the authentic stories about them from trustworthy sources.

[taken from the Living Islam website]

It is impossible for the Awliyaa to perform these karamaat independent of Allaah SWT as these marvels can only manifest by the permission of Allaah SWT. In reality, like I said before, it is Allaah SWT that is acting like everything else that happens in existence, nothing is independent of Him SWT and everything is under His Command, Will and Power.

you said:

Let me ask you, brother. You say: “Ya Allah madad (O God, help me!)” Is this worship? Yes or no?

If you say “yes,” and surely you must, then why is it suddenly *not* worship when you say “Ya Jesus madad” or “Ya Nabi madad”?

My reply is that the word madad simply means to seek help or assistance and one can seek help from Allaah SWT *and* from the creation. Within this context it is *not* shirk. It only becomes shirk if one has the *conviction* that the one he is seeking aid from is *independent* of Allaah SWT or is *like* Allaah SWT or gives *divinity* to that individual then of course this is shirk. If someone thinks Abdul-Qaadir al-Jilaani RA is independent of Allaah SWT or that he is like Allaah SWT then this individual has not realized tawheed and has associated partners with Allaah SWT. The fact is there is no Muslim on the face of the earth that has this belief or else they wouldn’t be Muslim if they did.

Like I said before dear brother you do not have to split your hairs over this, my intention was to merely show that there were Sunni scholars that permitted istighaatha and they have their proofs. May Allaah SWT guide as all and bless us with the superlative understanding of our Deen. Ameen.