Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī’s Sayf e Yamānī Bar Makā’id Firqah e RazāKhānī

December 29, 2018

Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī (1905 – 1997) engaged the Barelwī menace early on in his career. One of the classical works that was a product of these early endeavours was one published in 1930 CE (1349 H), called Sayf e Yamānī bar Makā’id Firqah e RazāKhānī (The Yemeni Sword on the Deceptions of the RazaKhānī Sect). The work is available here:

https://ia800809.us.archive.org/20/items/SAIFEYAMANI_201710/SAIF_E_YAMANI.pdf

This is a thorough and detailed refutation of Barelwī allegations against the Deobandī school and its elders. It was written in response to a booklet called ‘Aqā’id Wahhābiyya Deobandiyya published towards the end of 1347 H (1929 CE), the author being a certain ‘Azīz Aḥmad Kānpūrī. The booklet was written in response to a write-up of Mawlānā Nu‘mānī himself called Kashf al-Ḥijāb. Thus, someone from Kanpur sent a copy to Mawlānā Nu‘mānī. Mawānā Nu‘mānī felt no need to respond since it was essentially a regurgitation of typical Barelwī allegations which had been answered time and again, but then the Barelwī author, ‘Azīz Aḥmad Kānpūrī, began to claim that Mawlānā Nu‘mānī was unable to answer. Thus, to allay this false impression and provide readers with an objective assessment of the evidences and the claims being made, Sayf e Yamānī was written.

Mawlānā Nu‘mānī’s detailed response to Ḥusām al-Ḥaramayn called Fayṣlah Kun Munāẓarah (1933) has been translated and published online. See here:

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/the-decisive-debate-mawlana-manzur-numani/

Parts of his response to allegations against Shāh Ismā‘īl Shahīd in a work called Ḥaḍrat Shāh Ismā’īl Shahīd aur Mu‘ānidīn Ahl e Bid‘at kā Ilzāmāt (1957) have also been summarised. See here:

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/refuting-the-allegation-that-shah-ismail-said-allah-forbid-that-to-think-of-the-prophet-saw-in-salah-is-worse-than-thinking-of-animals/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/shah-ismail-calling-the-prophet-a-brother/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/shah-ismail-considering-the-prophet-lower-than-a-shoemaker/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/refuting-the-allegation-that-shah-ismail-shahid-denied-the-preservation-of-the-prophets-body/

https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/shah-ismail-the-belief-in-shafaah/

Sayf e Yamānī was written before both of these works, and was endorsed by several leading scholars.

While recounting his encounters with Ḥakīm al-Ummah Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943) in his autobiography Taḥdith e Ni‘mat, Mawlānā Nu‘mānī describes how he had apprised Ḥaḍrat Thānawī of the work before it was published in order to receive his feedback. Since this discussion is beneficial, we will produce a translation of the entire section below:

The writer of these lines [Mawlānā Manẓūr Nu‘mānī] wrote a comprehensive book in response to all the famous allegations and objections of the Barelwīs under the name Sayf e Yamānī. It included responses to several allegations and objections returning to Ḥaḍrat Thānawī, but the discussion on the dream of a devotee of Ḥaḍrat from Punjab was very detailed. Based on this [dream] a very serious propaganda was being made on the part of the Barelwīs against Ḥaḍrat on a wide scale, and hearing it many unthinking devotees were also becoming concerned on account of their ignorance. From special assistance and Tawfīq from Allāh Ta‘ālā the discussion in Sayf e Yamānī was such that in my view it was very satisfactory and the matter became completely clear from it. I had great satisfaction in this discussion, and was very happy that Allāh Ta‘ālā had given me the Tawfīq to [prepare] it.

Upon preparing this book Sayf e Yamānī, my heart wished that despite having no acquaintance with Ḥaḍrat Thānawī, I would request that he inspect this discussion and let me know his opinion. I had heard that Ḥaḍrat Ḥakīm al-Ummat very much disliked unnecessary length and forced formality even when writing [to someone]. Anything that is to be said or written should be done in a clear and direct manner using brief words according to the need. I sent a copy of Sayf e Yamānī to Ḥaḍrat via post and also wrote a letter, the content of which after honourable address and the sunnah greeting was:

“I have not acquired the privilege of being acquainted with Ḥaḍrat. Thus, Ḥaḍrat is probably completely unaware of me. I was a student of Dārul ‘Ulūm Deoband from a few years ago. Currently I am teaching some lessons at Madrasah Islamia at Amroha. Understanding it to be important Dīnī work, I have undertaken some work with the assistance and Tawfīq of Allāh Ta‘ālā to respond and refute the torrent of fitnah that the Barelwī group have raised against our Akābir. In connection to this I am currently writing a book. One copy I have sent in [your] service by post. If there is room within Ḥaḍrat’s schedule and engagement, and no disruption, I would hope that Ḥaḍrat Wālā would inspect the book or at least only the discussion which is regarding the famous dream of an individual in connection to Ḥaḍrat, which is from page so-and-so to page so-and-so of the book. Please inspect it and if not against your principles, and there is no kind of burden or disruption, then [I request] Ḥaḍrat to inform me of his respected view. If there is no room in his schedule, or inspection will cause disruption for whatever reason, I am not at all insisting. In this case, there is also no need to take the trouble to return the book. I have sent it in the service of Ḥaḍrat with only the intention of a gift. If accepted it will be a cause of favour and happiness for me. If not, please offer me any attention.”

This was my first ever letter in Ḥaḍrat Ḥakīm al-Ummat’s service. I had also put an envelope for a response. After four or five days Ḥaḍrat’s response came. According to his general principles he wrote the answer on the very same letter. The part of this letter that I remember that deserves mention is:

“Having read your letter, I was delighted by the fact that you wrote your need clearly and directly without any forced formality, and you kept in mind my schedule, principles and temperament. Because of this, du‘ā [for you] emerged from the heart. I am not unfamiliar with you. I keep hearing of you and your activities. Thus, I have a distant connection and love for you, and keep making du‘ā for you. To give you peace of mind, I write that I wholeheartedly accept your gift.

“I opened the book with the intention of glancing at it here and there, and to read in full the discussion related to the dream for which you wrote specifically. But when I started reading the book, I did not wish to leave out any part of it, and for as long as I did not complete the entire book, I did not engage in any other activities in between besides my established necessary activities. I was very happy with the entire book. Jazākumullāh khayrā! I read the discussion on the dream specifically with greater deliberation. Without pretence, I say that if I had myself tried I would not have been able to give such satisfying a clarification. May Allāh grant blessing in your life, knowledge and practice.”

Ḥaḍrat, according to his normal practice, wrote this on my very letter. It is unfortunate that this letter has not been preserved. But I remember the content of my letter and these parts of Ḥaḍrat’s response well, and I write this with the assistance of my memory. Apart from this, Ḥaḍrat wrote a short endorsement separately, which was published together with the book at that time. (Taḥdīth e Ni‘mat, p. 143-6)

Mawlānā Nu‘mānī continues to recount several occasions thereafter where he met with Ḥaḍrat Thānawī in person, beginning from a first meeting in 1931.

Endorsements

Some of the notable endorsers of the work are as follows:

  1. Ḥakīm al-Ummah Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī (1863 – 1943). He writes: “I have seen the treatise Sayf e Yamānī in full which was written in response to objections of some of the Ahl al-Ahwā’…May Allāh give the author excellent recompense and make the treatise a means of guidance.” (Sayf e Yamānī, p. 3)
  2. Shaykh al-Islām Mawlānā Shabbīr Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī (1887 – 1949), author of a well-known commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, referred to as “Muḥaqqiq al-‘Aṣr” by ‘Allāmah Kawtharī and a champion for the cause of Pakistan. He says: “For a long time I had hoped that if a comprehensive treatise on the subject were written it would be very beneficial. Many times I had thought to write something myself but this reward is your share. Mā shā Allāh, the teachings and statements of the Akābir have been explained in simple, generally understood and easy expressions. If any harshness is sensed in any passage it is to be considered as part of: ‘take revenge after being wronged’. In my opinion it is our duty to make all effort to publicise it…” (ibid.)
  3. ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Shakūr al-Fārūqī al-Lakhnawī (1876 – 1962), a famous author and debater. He wrote several books against the Shī‘ah and in favour of Ahl al-Sunnah. He wrote a popular work on Ḥanafi Fiqh called Ilm al-Fiqh. He is a scion of the famous Firangī Maḥall school of Lucknow, having studied for about 7 years under Mawlānā ‘Ayn al-Quḍāt al-Ḥaydarābādī a famous successor of ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī, perhaps the most well-known of the Firangī Maḥall scholars. Hence, he is a non-Deobandī scholar contemporaneous with the founding of the Barelwī school, who opposed them. He says: “May Allāh give excellent reward to the author for having properly shed light on all the issues which are disputed between Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jamā‘ah and the new innovated sect RazāKhāniyyah.” He dated the endorsement to 29 Dhu l-Qadah, 1348 (1930). (ibid. p. 4)
  4. ‘Allāmah Sayyid Murtaḍā Ḥasan Chāndpūrī (1868 – 1951), who ‘Allāmah Kawtharī referred to as “the prominent teacher” in reference to his work against Qādiyānīs. He has several works in refutation of Barelwīs and Aḥmad Riḍā Khān Barelwī. He even sent some of his refutations directly to the latter.
  5. ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī (1892 – 1974), the celebrated author of I‘lā al-Sunan. He wrote an endorsement in Arabic, part of which is: “I was honoured to read the treatise al-Sayf al-Yamānī, and by my life, it is like its name a sword cutting the necks of the people of desires and vain hopes. Indeed, its author did well and benefited and showed the people the ways of guidance…” (ibid. p. 5)
  6. ‘Allāmah Muḥaddith Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-A‘ẓamī (1901 – 1992), the famous scholar of ḥadīth.

Contents

‘Azīz Aḥmad Kānpūrī’s booklet consists of 30 so-called beliefs of the ‘Ulamā’ of Deoband and 22 questions. Mawlānā Nu’mānī thus addresses all the allegations and then answers each question.

Some of the important issues that are addressed are as follows:

  1. The passage from Barāhīn e Qāti‘ah about the knowledge of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
  2. The passage from Barāhīn Qāti‘ah describing a dream in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke Urdu
  3. The Deobandī position on Mawlid and ‘Urs, and the alleged “dissimulation” (taqiyya) of Deobandīs on this matter
  4. The title Raḥmatun lil ‘Ālamīn and whether it can be used for other than the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
  5. The meaning of “Khātamiyyah” and the finality of prophethood according to Deobandīs and Mawlānā Qāsim Nānotawī
  6. The dream of a devotee of Haḍrat Thānawī in which he mistakenly referred to the latter as “Rasūlullāh”
  7. A passage from Marthiya Gangohī describing Mawlānā Gangohī as “a second to Islām’s founder”
  8. The passage from Hifẓ al-Īmān on describing the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as ‘ālim al-ghayb
  9. The passage from Taḥdhīr al-Nās stating that deeds of an Ummatī can apparently be more numerous than those of their Prophets
  10. Imkān Kidhb
  11. Bid‘ah, its types and whether certain forms of īṣāl thawāb amount to bid‘ah

Some sections of the work may be translated/summarised in future posts, insha Allah.


Mufti Abdul Ghani Patialvi’s al-Junnah li Ahlissunnah

December 23, 2018

Mufti Abdul Ghani Patialvi, who was the headmaster at one of the famous Deobandi Madaris located in Delhi, Madrasa Aminia (where Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi famously taught), wrote a work against Barelwis called al-Junna li Ahlissunnah, available here:

https://ia600601.us.archive.org/18/items/Al-Junnah-Li-Ahlus-Sunnah/Al-Junnah-Li-Ahlus-Sunnah-Compressed.pdf

The title was suggested by Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanawi, who endorsed the book. It was also endorsed by Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi.

The work consists of three separate books/chapters written in the 1920s and 1930s. The first is a defence of Shah Isma’il Shahid; the second is a response to Ahmad Rida Khan’s allegations against the four Akabir; and the third is on the topic of innovation (bid’ah). There is also a lengthy introduction which refutes the claim that Shah Isma’il Shahid was influenced by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a “foreign person, whose integrity and knowledge is unknown.” (al-Junnah, p. 14) Indeed, all of Shah Isma’il’s positions that supposedly reflect influence by Wahhabis are found explicitly in the writings of his predecessors (ibid.), like Shah Waliullah Dehlawi, Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi and Qadi Thanaullah Panipati. Extensive quotes from these scholars and others are presented to show that they were Shah Isma’il’s sources, not Wahhabis. A detailed description is also provided on the nature of the beliefs of the common and ignorant Muslims that Shah Isma’il was addressing. Shah Isma’il’s liberal usage of the term “shirk” is also discussed – that he sometimes meant true shirk and sometimes an action associated with mushrikun though not true shirk.


Ahmad Rida Khan’s Father Rejects the Belief in Hazir/Nazir, Hearing from a Distance, for Saints

November 29, 2018

Naqi Ali Khan (1830-1880), Ahmad Rida Khan’s (1856 – 1921) father and primary teacher, says:

For example, an ignoramus holds the belief in connection to an accomplished individual from the saints of this Ummah that he knows the conditions of the entire world altogether at all times and moments and whoever calls him at any time from any place he hears immediately, then although the belief is apparently not established, but if together with this he does not regard him to be independent in the knowledge and power, and regards them all to be from the notification and power of God, and nor does he regard him to be of necessary existence and deserving of worship, he will not become Mushrik based on this belief. Yes, the masses should be prevented from this belief and its falsity should be demonstrated… (Usul al-Rashad, Idarah e Ahl e Sunnat, p. 45-6)

Thus, he clearly rejects the belief that saints are “hazir nazir” or are able to hear from a distance.

In regards to Naqi Ali Khan’s point, however, the masses cannot be trusted to always hold such pure beliefs as expressed by him. Many of them hold Mu’tazili-like beliefs about “secondary causes”, that is, Allah created things with inherent powers, and after receiving those powers they operate independently rather than being dependent on Him in each and every instance. Several centuries ago, Imam al-Sanusi (1428 – 1490) stated that this is generally the belief held by the masses (Sharh al-Kubra, p. 37).

Thus, the Hanafi imams have ruled that such beliefs about saints, which would clearly be based on “independence” (even if it is believed that the powers were initially received from Allah), to be kufr, as it would be to ascribe independent knowledge of the unseen to someone. Allamah Abdul Hayy al-Lakhnawi wrote:

Such recitation consists of calling on the dead from a distance and it is not established in the Shari‘ah that saints have the power to listen to a call from a distance. However, it is established that the dead hear the salutation of the visitors to their graves. But to believe that anyone beside Allah (Glorified is He) is present and seeing and aware of the hidden and evident at all times is shirk. In Fatawa Bazaziyyah it is written that if one marries without witnesses and says that I make Allah, His Messenger and the angels witnesses, ‘he has disbelieved because he believed that the Messenger and the angel know the unseen, and our ‘ulama’ have said that whoever says that the souls of the saints are present and knowing has disbelieved.’ Although Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir is one of the great saints of the Muhammadan nation and his merits and virtues are innumerable, but it is not established that he hears the distressed caller from a distance. And the beliefs that he is aware of his disciple’s affairs all the time, and hears their calls, are beliefs of shirk. And Allah knows best.” (Majmu’ah al-Fatawa, 4:331; quoted in Maqalat Usmani, 2:307)

Naqi Ali Khan refers to Shah Ishaq Dehlawi as “the second imam of the opposition (“Wahhabis”)” (i.e. after Shah Isma’il Dehlawi) (Usul al-Rashad, p 57 and other places), based on Shah Ishaq Dehlawi’s works Masa’il Arbain and Mi’ah Masa’il. Shah Ishaq Dehlawi (1782 – 1846) was like a son to his grandfather Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi, and Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi appointed him as his successor, and gifted him all his books. Thus, Shah Ishaq Dehlawi sat in Shah Abdul Aziz’s position after his death in 1824. In 1842, he traveled with a large group of his family and settled in Makkah, and was regarded very highly by the Ulama of Makkah. He had many students, including Shaykh Abdul Ghani Dehlawi (whose asanid are collected in al-Yani al-Jani), Shaykh Qutbuddin al-Dehlawi (author of Mazahir al-Haqq), Shaykh Ahmad Ali Saharanpuri (editor and publisher of the first print of Sahih al-Bukhari), Mufti Inayat Ahmad Kakorvi (author of Ilm al-Sighah), Shaykh Fadl al-Rahman Ganjmuradabadi (the famous spiritual master) and others. Sayyid Abdul Hayy Hasani says: “No sanad of hadith remains in India besides this sanad [via Shah Ishaq Dehlawi].” (Nuzhat al-Khawatir, p. 911)* This is a clear demonstration that Barelwi claims to be a continuation of the earlier scholarly tradition is false. Barelwi “scholarship” is an effort to justify popular beliefs and practices, not to be a continuation of the earlier scholarly tradition.

Naqi Ali Khan’s work, Usul al-Rashad, is problematic from many angles. He, for instance, claims that the view of bid’ah being divided into good and bad in only its linguistic usage rather than its Shar’i usage is a fallacy. (Usul al-Rashad, p. 61-2) But this reality was expressed by several imams of the past like Ibn Kathir, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali and Birgivi. (see p 18-20 here: https://bawariqalghaybtranslation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/bidah-a-study.pdf) His discussion on bid’ah is very selective and skewed, and overlooks some very important issues.

* This is apparently in reference to a sanad of hadith that is based on a complete recitation of the famous books of hadith; such a sanad can only be traced via Shah Ishaq al-Dehlawi in India. Otherwise, there are other sanads to Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlawi, but these are not based on a complete recitation of the books of hadith.


Istighāthah: The Importance of Definition

November 26, 2018

Istighāthah (taking help) can refer to asking a deceased person to fulfil one’s need. This is the meaning of istighāthah which the Barelwīs favour and the Deobandīs strongly oppose.

However, istighāthah has in the past been used more loosely to refer to other meanings, for example:

  1. Tawassul through deceased personalities. E.g. saying: “O Allah, I ask you through the intermediary of” or “by the blessing of so-and-so” “to fulfil this work of mine.”
  2. Deriving blessing (tabarruk) from the mention of someone. E.g. calling out Yā Muammad as an act of love and showing a connection with the blessed name, without the belief that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) will hear it directly or that it will necessarily reach him.
  3. Deriving spiritual blessing from the grave of a saint. That is, sitting at the side of the grave and meditating, but not asking for anything from the inhabitant of the grave.
  4. At the grave side, asking the inhabitant of the grave to pray to Allah for the fulfillment of one’s needs.

These are meanings that Deobandīs do not dispute. Deobandīs unanimously accept the first three meanings. The fourth meaning they describe as a matter of legitimate dispute. Mawlānā Rashīd Aḥmad Gangohī said about the fourth meaning: “To go close to a grave and say, ‘Oh such and such person, pray for me that the Most High fulfils my work.’ There is a difference among the ‘ulamā’ 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.” (al-Fatāwā al-Rashīdiyyah, p. 139) About the third meaning, the author of al-Muhannad states: “As for deriving benefit from the spirituality of the great saints and receiving internal effusions from their breasts or their graves, this is correct in the manner recognised by its experts and specialists, but not in the manner widespread amongst the common people.” (al-Muhannad, Dār al-Fatḥ, p. 60)

‘Allāmah Ṣun‘ullāh al-Ḥalabī al-Ḥanafī (d. 1708), a pre-Wahhābī pre-Deobandī Ottoman Ḥanafī jurist based in Ḥalab and Makkah, refuted the practice of calling out to dead saints for help while believing they have taarrufāt (powers of discretion) to help. He wrote a relatively lengthy treatise on the topic called Sayfullāh ‘alā man Kadhaba ‘alā Awliyā’illah, containing many useful discussions, including a crucial distinction between karāmāt (exceptional miracles) and taṣarrufāt (continuous powers). ‘Allāmah Ṣun‘ullāh was a Sunnī who made ta’wīl of the Ṣifāt Khabariyyah like yad (hand) (hence could not have been a “Taymī” or a “Wahhābī”), and supported Tawassul. In explaining what some of the scholars before him meant by the permissibility of “istighāthah”, he said: “What has been said about istighāthah being permitted via the prophets and saints, the intent is only deriving blessing (tabarruk) from mentioning them, and making tawassul through them, not asking for help [directly] from them.” (Sayfullāh ‘alā man Kadhaba ‘alā Awliyā’illah, Dār al-Kitāb wa l-Sunnah, p. 49-50)

Shaykh ‘Abdul Ḥaqq Muḥaddith Dehlawī (1551 – 1642), the celebrated imām of ḥadīth from the subcontinent, has a brief discussion on “istighāthah” in his Arabic commentary on Mishkāt, al-Lama‘āt (Lama‘āt al-Tanqīḥ, Dār al-Nawādir, 7:38-40). What is interesting about this discussion is that although Shaykh ‘Abdul Ḥaqq Muḥaddith Dehlawī uses the terms “istimdād” and “istighāthah” and defends their practice against opponents, it is clear that he is using them in the alternative meanings described above (in particular, meanings 1, 3 and 4). Relevant parts of this discussion are translated below:

As for istimdād from the inhabitants of graves, some jurists have denounced it. If the denunciation is because they have no hearing, knowledge or feeling of the one visiting and his conditions, then this has been proven to be false, and if it is because they have no power or control in that location to help them but are held back from them and occupied in the trials that occur to their souls which distract them from all else, then this is not regarded as always [being the case], especially for the pious who are the friends of Allāh, and thus it is possible for their souls to acquire closeness to the Lord Most Exalted in the Barzakh, and position and power to intercede and make du‘ā and ask for needs to those visiting and making Tawassul through them.

I don’t understand the istimdād and imdād that the denouncer is negating. What we understand is that a needy supplicant, in need of Allāh, makes du‘ā to Allāh and asks his need from His Most Exalted grace, and takes the spirituality of this slave brought close and ennobled by Him Most Exalted as an intermediary, saying: “O Allāh, by the blessing of this slave that You have shown mercy to and have ennobled, and the gentleness and honour You have over him, fulfil my need and grant my request, verily You are the Generous Giver.” Or he calls out to this slave brought close and ennobled by Him Most Exalted, saying: “O slave of Allāh, O friend of His, intercede for me and make du‘ā to your Lord and ask Him to give me my request and fulfil my need.” The giver and the one asked and the one hoped in is the Lord Most High and Most Exalted, and the slave in between is nothing but an intermediary. The one with power, agency and control is none but Him, and the friends of  Allāh are annihilated in His Most Exalted agency, power and control.

That which is transmitted from the saints who experience kashf upon istimdād (i.e. deriving spiritual benefit) from the souls of the accomplished and taking benefit from them, it is more than can be counted, described in their works, well-known amongst them, so there is no need to cite them. (Lama‘āt al-Tanqīḥ, Dār al-Nawādir, 7:38-40)

As can be seen, Shaykh ‘Abdul Ḥaqq is describing only the first, third and fourth meanings of “istighāthah” (a term he also uses in this passage alongside “istimdād”) described above. He is not talking about calling out directly to the deceased, asking for them to fulfil one’s needs. While describing how the ignorant engage in “istighāthah”, however, he states in the same discussion:

Yes, if visitors believe that the inhabitants of graves are independent, powerful actors, without turning to the Divine Presence and taking recourse to it, as believed by the heedless ignorant ones…that is prohibited and forbidden. The practice of the common people has no consideration at all. (Lama‘āt al-Tanqīḥ, Dār al-Nawādir, 7:39)

Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Dehlawī (1746 – 1824) also denounced the belief of the ignorant when engaging in istighāthah. He said in a Farsi answer:

People from this Ummah have gone into excess in the matter of istighāthah from pure souls. That which the ignorant and common people do, and what they believe about them of full independence in every action, this is manifest shirk without doubt. (Fatāwā ‘Azīzī, Maṭba‘ Mujtabā’ī, p. 121)

The Ḥanafī mufti of Baghdad who came a generation before the founders of Deoband, ‘Allāmah Maḥmūd al-Ālūsī (1802 – 1854), author of the celebrated Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, also condemned the istighāthah of the common people*:

People have increased in calling on other than Allah (Exalted is He), from the saints, the living of them and the dead, and other than them, like: ‘O my master so-and-so, give me relief.’ This is not from the permissible [form of] Tawassul at all. It is befitting the condition of a believer to avoid saying this and avoid roaming around its boundary. Some ‘ulamā’ have considered it shirk, and if it is not so, then it is close to it.

I have not seen anyone who utters this but he believes that the one called, whether an absent living person or a dead person, knows the unseen or hears the call and is able, intrinsically or extrinsically, to bring benefit and repel harm; otherwise he would not call him or open his mouth!

In this is a great trial from your Lord! It is obligatory to stay away from this and not seek [help] except from Allāh (Exalted is He), the Strong, the Independent, the Doer of what He wills.

Let it not delude you that the one seeking help from creation often has his need fulfilled and his objective accomplished, for that is a trial and a tribulation from Him (Great and Glorious is He). Often the devil takes the form to the one asking help of the one he asked help from, so he believes it to be a miracle of the one he asked help from. Far, very far! Indeed, it is only the devil misguiding him and turning him astray. (ḥ al-Ma‘ānī, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 7:181)

* Note: Some have claimed that his work, Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, has been tampered with. In fact, there is no tampering in Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī. The team of researchers who worked on the recent Mu’assasat al-Risālah print of Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī relied on a number of manuscripts, the primary manuscript being one copied (by several scribes) directly from the author’s own copy, which was then checked by the author (Sayyid Maḥmūd Ᾱlūsī) himself. The researchers comment: “The manuscripts that we relied on, particularly this primary manuscript, is no different from the widely available prints of the Tafsīr. They are exactly the same. Hence what was said…that the son of Ᾱlūsī was not trustworthy in printing the tafsir of his father does not conform with reality.” (Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 2010, 1:72)


Qāḍī Thanāullāh Pānipatī (1731 – 1810) Opposes Istighāthah and Belief in ‘Ilm al-Ghayb/Ḥāḍir-Nāẓir for Awliyā’

November 24, 2018

Qāḍī Thanāullāh Pānipatī (1731 – 1810) was a foremost student of Shāh Waliyyullāh al-Dehlawī (1703 – 1762) in external sciences and Mirzā Maẓhar Jānejān Naqshbandī (1699 – 1781) in esoteric sciences. The latter regarded Qāḍī Thanāullāh very highly, and gave him the title “‘alam al-hudā” (landmark of guidance), and said “If Allāh asks for a gift to present in His court, I will present Thanāullah.” Shāh Abdul Azīz referred to him as “Bayhaqī al-Waqt” (Nuzhat al-Khawāṭir, p. 942) Qāḍī Thanāullāh Pānipatī was known for his deep knowledge and for his piety and acts of devotion. He would pray 100 rak‘ats nafl each day, recite a seventh of the Qur’ān each day, along with other daily adhkār. He authored several works, including the very popular Mā Lā Budda Minhu and a Tafsīr named after his shaykh, al-Tafsīr al-Maharī.

He opposed ignorant beliefs about prophets and saints, including beliefs that would today be associated with the Barelwis. He authored a work called Irshād al-ālibīn on the subject of wilāyah (sainthood) and the misconceptions people have about wilāyah. The work was initially written in Arabic and then he translated it to Farsi. When censuring the excesses people engage in with regards to Awliyā, he writes:

Ruling: Just as it is impermissible to fall short in the ādāb towards the shaykh, going into excess, trespassing the bounds, in this is also a great evil, which results in falling short in the ādāb afforded to the Divine Presence. Christians went into such excess in veneration of ‘Īsa (upon him peace) that they regard him to be the son of God! This results in falling short in ādāb afforded to Allāh Most Exalted. The Rāfiḍīs have adopted excess in venerating Haḍrat ‘Alī (Allāh ennoble his face). Thus, some say that God Most Exalted dwelled in him, some say revelation came to him and some say he is better than the three Companions [Abū Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān], which results in falling short in ādāb towards God Most Exalted, the Messenger of God (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) or the three Companions.

Ruling: The Awliyā’ do not have ‘Ilm al-Ghayb. Yes, in connection to some unseen things, by way of breaking the norm, they are given knowledge via kashf or ilhām. To say that the Awliyā Kirām have knowledge of Ghayb is Kufr. Allāh Most Exalted said: ‘Say: I do not say to you I have the treasures of Allāh, nor do I know the Ghayb.’ And Allah Most Exalted said: ‘They do not encompass anything from His Knowledge but what He chooses.’ Other verses prove this thesis also.

Ruling: If someone says that God and His Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) are witness to this matter, he becomes Kāfir. The Awliyā Kirām are not capable of creating from nonexistence nor abolishing from existence. Thus, in connection to creating, abolishing, bringing sustenance, granting children, removing calamity, granting cure to illness etc., requesting help from them is Kufr; just as Allāh Most Exalted states in the Qur’ān Majīd: ‘Say I do not possess profit for myself nor harm, besides what Allāh chooses.’

Ruling: It is not permissible to make ‘ibādah of anyone besides God. Nor is it permissible to ask help of anyone besides God. ‘You alone we worship and You alone we ask for help.’ Allāh is teaching His slaves to say that we worship only you, and ask help only of you. Iyyāka is for exclusivity. Thus, to make offerings (nadhr) to Awliyā Kirām is not allowed, because such offerings are worship. If someone makes such an offering, he should not fulfil it, because it is necessary to safeguard oneself from sin as far as possible. It is not permissible to circulate graves, because Ṭawāf of Baytullāh shares the ruling of Ṣalāh.

Ruling: Supplicating to the deceased or living Awliyā or Anbiyā’ is not permissible. Rasūlullāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Supplication is worship.’ Then he recited the verse: ‘Supplicate to Me, I will answer you. Indeed those who disdain My worship will enter Jahannam, humiliated.’

Ruling: The statements of the ignorant ones: ‘Yā Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī shay’an lillāh’ and ‘Yā Khawāja Shams al-Dīn al-Pānipatī shay’an lillah’ (‘Oh Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī give something for the sake of Allāh’, and ‘Oh Khawāja Shams al-Din Pānipatī give something for the sake of Allāh’) are not permissible. In fact, they are Shirk and Kufr. But if someone says: ‘Oh my Lord, through the mediation of Khawāja Shams al-Dīn Pānipatī, fulfil the following need of mine’ then there is no harm. Allāh Most Exalted says: ‘Those they call upon besides Allah are slaves like you.’ If someone argues this is regarding the Kuffār who invoke their idols, the answer is ‘besides Allāh’ is a general expression, and it is the [generality of the] expression that is given consideration not the specific context. (Irshād al-Tālibīn, Urdu translation, Maṭba‘ Asrār Karīmī p. 22-24)

In his popular work, Mā Lā Budda Minhu, he writes at the end of the section on Janā’iz:

To prostrate before the graves of the prophets and saints, to circumambulate around them, to invoke them [for help], or to make offerings to the inhabitants of graves is ḥarām; rather some of these matters lead to Kufr. The Messenger of Allāh, may peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him, cursed the people who do such things and forbade the Ummah from doing them, and ordered us not to make his grave an idol. (Mā Lā Budda Minhu, Maktabah Raḥmāniyyah, p.82)


‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī Refutes False Barelwī Beliefs

November 21, 2018

‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī (1848 – 1886), a renowned ‘ālim and muḥaddith of the 19th century whose works are accepted amongst Deobandīs and Barelwīs, Arabs and non-Arabs, clearly and strongly refuted some extreme Barelwī beliefs.

āir Nāir/ ‘Ilm al-Ghayb

One of his fatāwā is as follows:

استفتاء: ما قولكم في رجل يظن أن الأولياء يعلمون ويسمعون نداء المنادي قريبا وبعيدا ويستمده بألفاظ يقولها الحاضر للحاضر، وينذر له بالأنعام يقول: نذرت له. بينوا توجروا

هو المصوب: هذا رجل فاسد العقيدة، بل يخشى عليه الكفر فإن سماع الأولياء النداء من بعيد ليس بثابت والعلم الكلي بجميع الجزئيات في جميع الأزمان مختص بالله جل جلاله، وقد قال فى الفتاوى البزازية: من قال إن أرواح المشايخ حاضرة تعلم يكفر، انتهى. وذكر فيه أىضا أن: من تزوج بشهادة الله ورسوله يكفر لأنه ظن أن الرسول يعلم الغيب، انتهى. والنذر لغير الله حرام، ويحرم المنذور لغير الله كما بسطه فى البحر الرائق والدر المختار وغيرهما، والله أعلم. حرره الراجي عفو ربه القوي أبو الحسنات محمد عبد الحي تجاوز الله عن ذنبه الجلي والخفي – مجموعة الفتاوى، ص٣٧٨-٣٧٩

“Question: What do you say about a man who assumes that the Awliyā’ know and hear the call of a caller from near and far, and seek his assistance using words that a person uses for someone in his presence, and makes vows of animals to him, declaring that he has made a vow to him. Explain, and be rewarded.

“Answer: [Allāh] grants rectitude. This is a man of corrupt belief. In fact, it is feared he has disbelieved because the Awliyā’ hearing the call from far is not proven, and complete knowledge of all particulars in all times is specific to Allāh (Glorious is His Grandeur). It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing has committed disbelief.’ It also states in it: ‘Whoever marries taking as witness Allāh and His Messenger, he disbelieves because he assumes the Messenger knows the Ghayb.’ Taking a vow by other than Allāh is ḥarām, and whatever a vow was made upon is ḥarām, as explained in al-Bar al-Rā’iq, al-Durr al-Mukhtār and other books. This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (Majmū‘at al-Fatāwā, p. 378-9)

In another fatwa in Farsi, it states:

“Question: What do you say (may Allāh ۢMost High have mercy on you) regarding the issue that is prevalent in our lands amongst the common people that in times of calamity and dire need, they call out in asking for assistance from the prophets and saints from afar believing that they are ḥāḍir & nāẓir and that whenever they implore them they are aware, and in turn, supplicate for them in the fulfilment of these needs? Is this permissible or not? Explain, and be rewarded.

“Answer: He grants direction to what is correct: In reality, such belief in the prophets and saints being ḥāḍir and nāẓir, and at all times are aware of our calling out to them even from afar is shirk, since it entails belief in ‘ilm al-ghayb for other than Him Most High, and this belief is shirk. This is because this characteristic is from those exclusive to Allāh (Great is His Grandeur), which no other being can have partnership with Him in. It states in al-Fatāwā al-Bazzāziyyah: ‘One marries without witnesses, saying: I make Allāh, His Messenger and the Angels witness, he disbelieves, because he believes that the Messenger and Angel know the Ghayb.’ [1] Further, it states in Bazzāziyyah: ‘About this our scholars have said: Whoever says the souls of Mashāyikh are present and knowing have committed disbelief.’ And Allāh knows best. This was written by one hopeful of the pardon of his Powerful Master, Abu l-Ḥasanāt Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Ḥayy, may Allāh pardon his manifest and hidden sins.” (ibid. p. 344-5)

In al-Āthar al-Marfū‘ah, ‘Allāmah ‘Abd al-Ḥayy al-Laknawī states:

“From amongst these [fabrications] is what the sermonisers mention, that the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was given knowledge of the first and the last in full detail, and was granted knowledge of all that has transpired and all that will occur as a whole and in terms of its minutiae, and that there is no difference [in this respect] between his knowledge and the knowledge of his Creator in terms of encompassment and inclusiveness, and the only difference between them is that the knowledge of Allāh is pre-eternal and eternal by virtue of His own self without having been taught by another as distinguished from the knowledge of the Messenger as he acquired it by the teaching of his Maker. This is flowery speech and falsehood as stated by Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī in al-Mina al-Makkiyyah Shar al-Qaīdah al-Hamziyyah and other spiritual masters. What is established from the verses of Qur’ān and the Prophetic ḥadīths is that [such] inclusiveness and encompassment and knowledge of all Ghayb is exclusive to the Revered Deity, and this characteristic has not been granted by the Revered Deity to any of creation. Yes, the knowledge of our Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) is more extensive and more numerous than the knowledge of all prophets and messengers; and the teaching of his Creator to him of unseen matters in relation to His teaching to others is more complete, thus he (Allāh bless him an grant him peace) is most complete in knowledge and practice and is the master of creatures in status and virtue.” (Al-thār al-Marfū‘ah li l-Akhbār al-Mawū‘ah, p. 38)

Ummī

He states in the same work:

“From these [fabrications] is what they state that he (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) was not unlettered but was able to write and recite from an initial natural state. This view is opposed to the Book, Sunnah and Consensus of the Ummah, so has no consideration according to those possessing understanding.”  (ibid)

Note: Famous Barelwī writer, Aḥmad Yār Khān, articulated this belief. See: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/barelwi-distortion-of-the-prophetic-title-ummi-unlettered/

The Hearing of the Prophet (allallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)

He writes in the same work:

“From these [fabrications] is what they state when mentioning the Muḥammadan hearing that he hears the blessing of one who sends blessing on him even if far from his grave without an intermediary. This is false, not confirmed by transmission. In fact, the opposite is proven, since the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Whoever sends blessing on me at my grave I hear it and whoever sends blessing on me from afar, Allāh has appointed an angel for it to convey it to me.’…” (ibid. p. 46)

The Prophet Attending Majālis of Mawlid

He states in the same work:

“From these [fabrications] is what they state that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) attends the gatherings of remembering his birth himself at the mention of his birth, and they base the standing out of reverence and respect at the mention of the birth on this. This is also from the falsities; no evidence being established for it. Mere possibility and supposition are outside the parameters of explanation.” (ibid.)

‘Allāmah Laknawī mentions that those who believe such things and articulate them are guilty of major sins and fall under the prophetic warning: “Whoever lies upon me let him prepare his abode in Hell.” He says: “It is necessary for every Muslim to be careful on such matters and not say anything before investigating it in the reliable books…and not be daring in mentioning what his mind invents or something [unproven] written by those before him…” (ibid. p. 47)

Naming a New-Born “‘Abd al-Nabī”

Al-Laknawī also opposed the Barelwī practice and belief of calling someone “‘Abd al-Nabī”, “‘Abd al-Muṣṭafā” etc. He wrote:

الاستفسار: هل يجوز التسمية بعبد النبي وعبد الرسول وأمة النبي وأمة الصديق وغير ذلك؟ الاستبشار: لا يجوز كل اسم فيه لفظ العبد أو الأۢمة، أو ما يؤدي مؤداهما بأي لسان كان، إلى غير الله، صرح به علي القاري في شرح الفقه الأكبر، وقد ورد الحديث بالنهي عن ذلك في سنن أبي داود وغيره، وأما إضافة لفظ الغلام إلى غير الله فهو جائز، فيجوز غلام الرسول ولا يجوز عبد الرسول أو بنده رسول أو نحو ذلك نفع المفتي والسائل/فتاوى اللكنوي، دار ابن حزم، ص٤٢٥

“Question: Is it permissible to use the names “‘Abd al-Nabi” (bondsman of the prophet) and “‘Abd al-Rasul” (bondsman of the messenger) and “Amat al-Nabi” (bondswoman of the prophet) and “Amat al-Ṣiddiq” (bondswoman of the truthful saint) etc?

“Answer: Every name in which the words ‘‘abd’ (bondsman) and ‘amah’ (bondswoman) or their equivalents in any other language are attributed to other than Allāh (Exalted is He) is impermissible. ‘Alī al-Qārī stated this in Shar al-Fiqh al-Akbar, and a ḥadīth prohibiting this appears in Sunan Abī Dāwūd and other [collections]. Attributing the word ‘Ghulām’ to other than Allāh is permissible, and thus Ghulām al-Rasūl is permissible, but ‘Abd al-Rasūl or Bandah e Rasūl or the like is not permissible.” (Naf‘ al-Muftī wa al-Sā’il, p. 425)

[1] The jurists also state that if one were to say the angels on their shoulders are witness to their marriage, they will not become disbelievers “because these angels are never absent from them.” (al-Muī al-Burhānī, 7:407; see also: al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah, 2:288) Hence, shirk and kufr is in affirming knowledge of something to a being that is not proven that they have acquired.


Ruling on Istighathah

November 19, 2018

Question

There are people in our area who seek help from Auliya ullah who are dead (Istigasa). I understand that these people are committing Shirk. Now the questions are:

  1. Are these persons among those Mushrikeen about whom Allah says that they remain in the Hell forever.
  2.  And is it that type of Shirk about which Allah says that He will forgive any Sin which He wills but will not forgive Shirk or is it a lesser form of Shirk.
  3. Will such an activity lead a person to kuffur if yes what type of kuffer and to what extent.
  4. Is he the person about whom we have been asked not to pray for?
Answer

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

At the outset, it is necessary to clarify some important aspects related to the ‘aqīdah of Tawhīd and the reality of shirk.

True Agency and Ownership Belong to Allāh Alone

One of the most fundamental teachings that the Messenger of Allāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) conveyed to the ummah is the absoluteness of Allāh’s authority over His creation. Every inch, every atom, of creation is in the exclusive ownership of Allāh Ta‘ālā.[1] Nothing is outside His dominion, power and control. He is All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Hearing and All-Seeing. No part of creation eludes His grasp, power, knowledge, hearing and seeing. Numerous verses of the Qur’ān and hadīths of the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) confirm these realities.

Hence, Allāh Ta‘ālā is not in need of assistance.[2] He is able to bring about anything as and when He pleases at His discretion. The will of no other being can override the will of Allāh Ta‘ālā.[3] No event can transpire in the whole creation without the will, power and agency of Allāh Ta‘ālā.[4]

Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) taught that verbal recognition of Allāh’s total and pervading authority over His creation is the truest speech that is uttered by the slave of Allāh. He (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:

أحق ما قال العبد، وكلنا لك عبد: اللهم لا مانع لما أعطيت ولا معطي لما منعت ولا ينفع ذا الجد منك الجد

“The truest thing that a slave proclaims, and each of us is Your slave, is: O Allāh, there is none to withhold that which You give, and none to give that which You withhold, and the owner of fortune will not be availed [of You] by his fortune.” (Sahīh Muslim)

Allāh Ta‘ālā says:

مَا يَفْتَحِ اللَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ مِن رَّحْمَةٍ فَلَا مُمْسِكَ لَهَا وَمَا يُمْسِكْ فَلَا مُرْسِلَ لَهُ مِن بَعْدِهِ وَهُوَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ

“Whatever blessing Allah opens for the people, there is none to hold it back, and whatever He holds back, there is none to release it thereafter. He is the Mighty, the Wise.” (35:2)

Asbāb as Correlation not Causation

While in this dunyā, we observe events taking place apparently in a cause-effect correlation, this connection is not one of independent causation. Rather, true agency rests only with Allāh Ta‘ālā, while the apparent causes are merely correlations Allāh has placed in His creation for a wisdom and reason that is known to Him. Allāh alone – independently and without support – brings something into being from nonbeing, whether a physical entity like a rock, an attribute like colour or an action like movement.[5]

For example, when a doctor, or the medicine he prescribes, “treats” or “heals” a patient, the true agent is not the doctor or medicine. The true agent is Allāh alone, while the doctor and medicine are only apparent causes or means (asbāb). When the result or action is ascribed to the sabab, it is as a metaphor, as the true doer is Allāh alone, not the sabab.

In the famous story of the boy and the king recorded in Sahīh Muslim, when the king’s courtier asks the boy to cure his blindness, the boy retorts:

إني لا أشفي أحدا، إنما يشفى الله تعالى، فإن آمنت بالله تعالى دعوت الله فشفاك

“Verily, I cure no one. Only Allāh (Exalted is He) cures. If you believe in Allāh (Exalted is He), I will supplicate to Allāh and He will cure you.” (Sahīh Muslim)[6]

Hence, while the du‘ā or the boy was a means of curing the blindness, the real doer was Allāh alone. By making this known to the courtier, the boy instilled in him the reality of Tawhīd. However, this does not mean the action (in this case, healing) cannot be ascribed to the means (in this case, the boy or his supplication).[7] It is correct to make this ascription, as long as the belief that the sabab is not the real cause is firmly understood.

Similarly, Allāh Ta‘ālā said to Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam):

وما رميت إذ رميت ولكن الله رمى

“You did not throw when you [apparently] threw, but Allāh threw.” (8:17)

Hence, the verse affirms that Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) threw, but at the same time negates that he threw. In other words, because he was a sabab for the action of throwing, it is correct to ascribe the act to him. However, true agency and causation, which is the act of bringing the throw into existence after nonexistence, is not ascribed to him, but to Allāh alone.

Allāh Ta‘ālā says:

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

“Allāh has created you and all that you do.” (37:96)

Everything Belongs to Allāh Alone

Similarly, sole dominion of the entire creation belongs to Allāh Ta‘ālā alone. No being truly owns any part of creation. “Ownership” as is customarily used amongst human beings is merely a kind of temporary entitlement that is given consideration in Sharī‘ah. However, it does not mean true and intrinsic dominion and sovereignty. This belongs only to Allāh.[8] Allāh Ta‘ālā says:

إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ

“Allāh is only one deity [worthy of worship]. To Him [alone] belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. Pure is He from having a son.” (4:171)

Allāh Ta‘ālā also says:

قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِيهِمَا مِن شِرْكٍ وَمَا لَهُ مِنْهُم مِّن ظَهِيرٍ

“Say [to the idolaters]: ‘Call upon those whom you claim (to be gods) beside Allāh. They do not possess (anything), even to the measure of a particle, neither in the heavens nor in the earth. They have no share at all in either of the two, nor is any of them a helper for Him.”

While this verse speaks about the false deities which the idolaters worshipped, it applies to all creation. No creation truly owns any part of creation, and no creation has any share in it.

In short, from the basic elements of Tawhīd is the belief that true agency, causation and action is Allāh’s alone, and similarly, true dominion, sovereignty and ownership is Allāh’s alone. This extends to the whole of creation, no atom, and not the minutest event, being exempted from this rule.

The Belief of the Mushrikūn and the Reality of Shirk

The mushrikūn that the Prophets (‘alayhimussalām), and in particular our Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), were sent to call to the core doctrine of Tawhīd did not believe in Allāh’s total sovereignty and complete agency. Rather, they believed His sovereignty, power, knowledge, hearing, seeing and agency are limited.[9] Hence, they believed Allāh was in need of subordinate gods appointed by Him to share in the ownership, dominion and management of different aspects of creation.[10]In this way, the dominion and control of the created realm, according to them, is shared between the greatest god, Allāh, and lesser gods, known as ālihah or asnām.

The Qur’ān, and the doctrine of Tawhīd, on the other hand, espouse that all creatures are just as helpless and dependent on Allāh as each other. Allāh Ta‘ālā says:

إِن كُلُّ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ إِلَّا آتِي الرَّحْمَنِ عَبْدًا لَقَدْ أَحْصَاهُمْ وَعَدَّهُمْ عَدًّا وَكُلُّهُمْ آتِيهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ فَرْدًا

“There is none in the heavens and the earth, but bound to come to the All-Merciful as a slave. He has fully encompassed them and precisely calculated their numbers. And each one of them will come unto Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone.” (19:93-5)

No being is on par with Allāh such that it can override His will or pressure Him to act against His decision as the mushrikūn believed. Hence, even while the Qur’ān and Sunnah acknowledge extraordinary acts or feats accomplished by certain created beings[11], this is qualified by the doctrine of total dependence on Allāh Ta‘ālā, and is not understood in the way the mushrikūn believed.[12]

Based on their corrupt beliefs, the mushrikūn held that their co-gods possessed independent rights of intercession with Allāh[13]. That is, because they believed the co-gods are partners in Allāh’s kingdom, they considered them to be on equal “bargaining terms” with Allāh. In other words, even if Allāh disapproved of a person, the mushrikūn believed that if the person gained the favour of a co-god, it could convince or coerce Allāh to act against His decision.[14] The Qur’ān repudiates this belief and says intercession belongs only to Allāh (Qur’ān 39:44). No creature can intercede without His will and permission (Qur’ān, 2:255). Allāh can never be coerced by any means to act against His will.

Similarly, based on their beliefs in shared power and ownership, the mushrikūn held that the subordinate gods possessed independent powers of bringing benefit or causing harm to their subjects.[15] These are some of the core beliefs that constituted the shirk of the mushrikūn which the prophets (‘alayhimussalām) were sent to abolish.[16]

In expressing the Islāmic belief of Tawhīd and negating the beliefs of shirk, Allāh Ta‘ālā says:

الحمد لله الذي لم يتخذ ولدا ولم يكن له شريك فى الملك ولم يكن له ولي من الذل وكبره تكبيرا

“All praise belongs to Allāh, Who has not taken unto Himself a son, and Who has no partner in sovereignty, nor has He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence.” (17:111)

Expressions and Acts of Shirk

Based on their polytheistic beliefs, the mushrikūn rendered acts of worship to their idols as an expression of their belief in their divinity and to draw their favour. Apart from obvious rituals like prostrating, bowing and praying before them, they would perform other acts in the service of their idols which were representative of their false beliefs; for example, taking oaths by them, vowing to them, slaughtering animals for them, and so on. Although some of these actions when done to other than Allāh do not in themselves entail the belief of the mushrikūn, and may simply indicate reverence and respect, the Sharī‘ah commands Muslims not to direct them towards any being besides Allāh, for three primary reasons:

  1. Firstly, it creates a resemblance with idolaters, and resembling harām is also harām.[17]
  2. Secondly, there is a danger that these acts could escalate and lead the common people into actual shirk.[18]
  3. Third, they are against the etiquette of how to interact with Allāh and His creation.

Istighāthah

Istighāthah means to seek or ask for help. If istighāthah is directed at other than Allāh in apparent causes (al-asbāb al-zāhirah), meaning those means that have been confirmed to correlate to certain outcomes through repeated experience, like istighāthah from a medical doctor for treatment, or from methods prescribed in the Sharī‘ah, like “seeking help” from prayer as mentioned in the Qur’ān[19], while holding them to be a means and the true cause being Allāh alone, then there is no question over its permissibility.[20] The fact that Allāh has made these matters a means in His creation is proven by repeated experience (‘ādah) and/or Sharī‘ah.

However, when istighāthah is done to beings besides Allāh in matters of the unseen (al-umūr al-ghaybiyya), like asking for good weather or prosperity, or asking help directly from the dead, it becomes an expression of shirk. The mushrikūn would ask such kind of help from their idols, believing them to have independent agency in granting them provision, bringing them benefit, interceding to Allāh for them, improving their lives and so on.

Shāh Walīullāh (rahimahullāh) said: “We intend to inform you of those things Allāh has considered the expected places of shirk in the Muhammadan Sharī‘ah and thus He forbade them…From amongst them is that they would ask help from other than Allāh in their needs like healing the sick and making the poor rich…”[21]

To seek help in matters which have been established by repeated experience (‘ādah) or Sharī‘ah to correlate to the outcomes that one seeks does not create the impression of shirk, as it is apparent by their nature that they are from the design of Allāh in His creation. When seeking help in asbāb ghaybiyyah from other than Allāh, however, an impression or doubt may arise that this being is an independent agent just like Allāh, as there is no immediate understanding of it being from Allāh’s design in His creation.[22] Hence, istighāthah of this kind is prohibited because it creates a resemblance with the idolaters who believed the beings they called to for help in such immaterial matters of the unseen were independent agents of creation.

Resemblance with idolaters, or doing acts that are suggestive of shirk, is forbidden. The Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:

من حلف بغير الله فقد أشرك

“The one who takes an oath by other than Allāh, he has committed shirk.” (Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī) 

The meaning of this is that the idolaters would show reverence to the false gods by taking oath by their name, while holding the belief that if the oath was thereafter broken, they would suffer a terrible fate at the hands of that idol.[23] Muslims who adhere to the belief in Tawhīd would, of course, not hold this belief were they to take an oath by other than Allāh. Nonetheless, since this was a distinctive feature of polytheism, Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) has forbidden taking an oath with other than Allāh.[24] However, this is not shirk that takes one out of Islām. Here, shirk is in the meaning of an expression of shirk in resembling the actions of the idolaters.[25] Hence, the term “shirk” may at times be used in the meaning of a lesser form of shirk and not the greatest shirk which takes its perpetrator out of Islām,

When a Sahābī said in conversation with Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), “What Allāh wills and you will”, he replied:

أجعلتني مع الله عدلا؟!

“Do you make me an equal with Allāh?!” (Sharh Mushkil al-Athār)[26]

In other words, even this vague resemblance with shirk is prohibited in Sharī‘ah.

Istighāthah of the dead in matters of unseen creates a strong resemblance with shirk, as explained earlier. Furthermore, it is a means to shirk[27] as it may lead simpleminded common Muslims to believing that these beings have independent powers. It is suggestive of independence even if the perpetrator holds the belief that they are only a means.[28] The reason is that when calling for help from beings in matters that are not included in asbāb zāhirah (apparent causes based on repeated experience) or asbāb assigned in the Sharī‘ah, the idea can easily come to their mind that these beings are not dependent on Allāh’s design, plan and will in His creation. Instead they are independently acting agents operating in the created realm just like Allāh. This belief is the highest form of shirk, as mentioned earlier.

Finally, it is against the correct etiquette to turn to other than Allāh for help, especially in such important matters. Asking for help shows dependence, and dependence, trust and reliance should only be expressed to Allāh.

Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said:

إذا سألت فاسأل الله وإذا استعنت فاستعن بالله

“When you ask, ask of Allāh and when you seek help, seek help of Allāh.” (Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī)[29]

And it is reported that when Abū Bakr (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) wished to ask help from Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) against a hypocrite, he said:

إنه لا يستغاث بي، إنما يستغاث بالله

“I am not asked for help. Only Allāh is asked for help.”[30]

From one group of Sahābah, Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) took the pledge, “do not ask anything of people.” One member of this group was seen thereafter, his riding stick having fallen to the ground, and he would not ask anyone to collect it for him but would dismount and pick it up himself. (Sahīh Muslim)[31]

This is an attitude that shows complete dependence and reliance on Allāh. On the other hand, by creating a culture of istighāthah in the manner that is common amongst the ignorant, dependence on Allāh is removed from the hearts of people and is placed on these created beings. This is a means to shirk.

On this basis, istighāthah is impermissible and an expression of shirk, as stated by the scholars.[32]

However, istighāthah will not take one out of Islām unless such beliefs accompany the act that clearly entail beliefs of kufr. Two beliefs in particular:

  1. If while calling out and asking for help, the person believes that this being is an independent agent that will give me what I seek without the will and agency of Allāh Ta‘ālā, even if it is believed that this power was granted by Allāh, he has committed clear shirk and disbelief.[33]
  2. The person believes that this being’s soul is always present, knowing and hearing. The scholars have declared this belief to be kufr[34] because it is to make a claim about unseen realities without recourse to revelation or evidence, while only Allāh possesses independent knowledge of unseen.

Hence, it is necessary to avoid istighāthah of the prophets and saints who have passed away in the way that is common amongst the ignorant. However, Muslims who engage in this practice, if they do not clearly express beliefs of kufr like those mentioned above, they will be considered sinful Muslims and not true mushrikūn or disbelievers.[35]

Finally, it should be noted that istighāthah in the manner explained is not the same as the permissible form of “tawassul,” which is to ask from Allāh through the intermediary of a pious person. When performing tawassul, the request is not directed at creation but to Allāh Ta‘ālā,[36] while creation is used merely as a means to draw the mercy of Allāh Ta‘ālā and to make the du‘ā more readily accepted by Him. Since the intermediary is only taken as a means and is not the object of asking, no false impression will be created of it having independent agency. Nor is istighāthah as described above the same as “tabarruk,” which is to acquire blessings from the belongings or artefacts of a pious person. In tabarruk, the barakah is a result of the acceptance of the pious individual before Allāh. No incorrect beliefs are attached to, or implied by, this. The permissibility of tawassul and tabarruk is proven from clear evidences of Sharī‘ah and they have been approved by the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, as distinguished from istighāthah of the dead.

And Allah Ta‘ālā Knows Best

Zameelur Rahman

Student Darul Iftaa
UK

Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.

www.daruliftaa.net

 


[1] ويملك كل شيء (العقيدة الطحاوية)

[2] قال تعالى ردا على المشركين: وَمَا لَهُ مِنْهُم مِّن ظَهِيرٍ وقال: ولم يكن له ولي من الذل، وقال الحافظ ابن كثير تحته: أي ليس بذليل فيحتاج أن يكون له ولي أو وزير أو مشير، بل هو تعالى شأنه خالق الأشياء  وحده لا شريك له، ومقدرها ومدبرها بمشيئته وحده لا شريك له (تفسير القرآن العظيم، دار ابن حزم، ص١١٤٣)

[3] لا شيء يعجزه…لا راد لقضاءه ولا معقب لحكمه ولا غالب لأمره (العقيدة الطحاوية)

[4] لا يكون إلا ما يريد…ما شاء لهم كان وما لم يشأ لم يكن…وكل شيء يجري بمشيئة الله تعالى وعلمه وقضائه وقدره، غلبت مشيئته المشيئات كلها وغلب قضاؤه الحيل كلها، يفعل ما يشاء (العقيدة الطحاوية)

لا محدث فى العالم العلوي والسفلي إلا وهو صادر عن علمه تعالى وقدرته وإرادته، هذا هو المعلوم من دين السلف الماضين والذي دلت عليه البراهين (المفهم لما أشكل من تلخيص كتاب مسلم للقرطبي، دار ابن كتير، ج١ ص١٣٢)

[5] ومعنى الوحدانية في أفعاله تعالى أنه ليس لغيره تأثير في شيء من الممكنات، ذواتا كانت أو صفات أو أفعالا، لا بالمشاركة ولا بالاستقلال، بل هو سبحانه المنفرد بالتأثير، أي: بإيجادها وإعدامها (الشذرات الذهبية للعلامة إبراهيم المارغني، ص٤٤)

قال العلامة الدردير المالكي: فالتأثر أي الإختراع والإيجاد للأشياء من العدم ليس أي لا يصح إلا للواحد القهار وحده جل وعلا. فلا تأثير لقدرتنا في شيء من أفعالنا الإختيارية كالحركات والسكنات والقيام والقعود ونحو ذلك بل جميع ذلك مخلوق له سبحنه وتعالى بلا واسطة…فأفعالنا الإختيارية فد تعلقت بها القدرتان، القدرة القديمة والقدرة الحادثة وليس للقدرة الحادثة تأثير وإنما لها مجرد مقارنة…فعلم أن هذا التعلق عبارة عن مقارنة القدرة الحادثة من غير تأثير وبحسبه تضاف الأفعال للعبد..وعلم أنه لا تأثير للأمور العادية فى الأمور التي اقترنت بها فلا تأثير للنار فى الإحراق وللطعام فى الشبع…بل التأثير في ذلك كله لله تعالى وحده بمحض اختياره عند وجود هذه الأشياء (شرح الخريدة البهية، دار البصائر، ص١٦٣)

[6] رياض الصالحين، مكتبة البشرى، ص٣٣

[7] وكان الغلام يبرئ الأكمه والأبرص ويداوى الناس من سائر الأدواء (صحيح مسلم، رياض صالحين، ص٣٣)

[8] قال الحافظ ابن كثير: الملك فى الحقيقة هو الله عز وجل، قال الله تعالى: هو الله الذي لا إله إلا هو الملك القدوس السلم، وفى الصحيحين عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه مرفوعا: أخنع اسم عند الله رجل تسمى بملك الأملاك ولا مالك إلا الله، وفيهما عنه عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: يقبض الله الأرض ويطوى السماء بيمينه ثم يقول أنا الملك أين ملوك الأرض؟ أين الجبارين؟ أين المتكبرون؟ وفى القرآن العظيم: لمن الملك اليوم، لله الواحد القهار، فأما تسمية غيره فى الدنيا بملك فعلى سبيل المجاز كما قال تعالى: إن الله قد بعث لكم طالوت ملكا (تفسير القرآن العظيم، دار ابن حزم، ص٧٠)

[9] قال ابن جرير تحت قول الله تعالى حكاية عن المشركين: أجعل الآلهة إلها واحدا، إن هذا لشيء عجاب: يقول: وقال هؤلاء الكافرون الذين قالوا: محمد ساحر كذاب: أجعل محمد المعبودات كلها معبودا واحدا؟ يسمع دعاء جميعنا ويعلم عبادة كل عابد عبده منا؟ إن هذا لشيء عجاب أي إن هذا لشيء عجيب! (تفسير الطبري، مكتبة هجر، ج٢٠ ص١٨)
قال ابن قيم الجوزية: إذا إنكروا البعث والجزاء فقد كفروا بربهم وأنكروا قدرته وربوبيته وحكمته (الداء والدواء، دار عالم الفوائد، ص٤٧٨)

[10]قال ابن كثير: يقول تعالى منكرا على المشركين في اتخاذهم الأنداد آلهة مع الله، يبتغون بذلك أن تنصرهم تلك الآلهة و ترزقهم و تقربهم إلى الله زلفى…(تفسير ابن كثير، ص١٥٧٧)

[11] قال تعالى: والمدبرات أمرا (سورة النازعات)، قال ابن كثير تحته: قال علي ومجاهد وعطاء وأبو صالح والحسن وقتادة والربيع بن أنس والسدي: هي الملائكة، زاد الحسن: تدبر الأمر من السماء إلى الأرض يعني بأمر ربها (تفسير ابن كثير، ص١٩٥٦)

قال تعال حاكيا عن عيسى عليه السلام: وأبرئ الأكمه والأبرص وأحيى الموتى بإذن الله[12]

قال ابن كثير: وأخبر أن الملائكة التي في السموات من المقربين و غيرهم، كلهم عبيد خاضعون لله، لا يشفعون عنده إلا بإذنه لمن ارتضى، و ليسوا عنده كالأمراء عند ملوكهم، يشفعون عندهم بغير إذنهم فيما أحبه الملوك و أبوه (تفسير ابن كثير، ص١٦١٤)

[13] قال تعالى: وما نرى معكم شفعاءكم الذين زعمتم أنهم فيكم شركاء

[14] قال مولانا ظفر أحمد العثماني نقلا عن ابن قيم الجوزية: ليس للعباد شفيع من دونه، بل إذا أراد الله سبحانه رحمة عبده أذن هو لمن شفع فيه كما قال تعالى: ما من شفيع إلا من بعد إذنه وقال: من ذا الذي يشفع عنده إلا بإذنه، فالشفاعة بإذنه ليست بشفاعة من دونه ولا الشافع شافع من دونه بل شفيع بإذنه، والفرق بين الشفيعين كالفرق بين الشريك والعبد المأمور، فالشفاعة التي أبطلها شفاعة الشريك فإنه لا شريك له…والفرق بينهما هو الفرق بين المخلوق والخالق والرب والعبد المالك والمملوك والغني والفقير والذي لا حاجة به إلى أحد والمحتاج من كل وجه إلى غيره، فالشفاعة عند المخلوقين هو شركاؤهم فإن قيام مصالحهم بهم وهو أعوانهم وأنصارهم الذين قيام الملوك والكبراء بهم…فلحاجتهم إليهم يحتاجون إلى قبول شفاعتهم (إمداد الفتاوى، ج١ ص١٢٩-٣٠)

[15]قال ابن كثير: يقول تعالى منكرا على المشركين في اتخاذهم الأنداد آلهة مع الله، يبتغون بذلك أن تنصرهم تلك الآلهة و ترزقهم و تقربهم إلى الله زلفى…(تفسير ابن كثير، ص١٥٧٧)

[16] للبسط راجع رسالة: نهاية الإدراك في أقسام الإشراك للعلامة ظفر أحمد العثماني (إمداد الأحكام، ج١ ص١١٩ – ١٣٢)

[17] التشبيه بالحرام حرام (العناية شرح الهداية، الأميرية، ج٢ ص٩٣)

[18] قال ابن حجر في بيان حكمة خفاء شجرة الحديبية على الصحابة: وبيان الحكمة في ذلك وهو أن لا يحصل بها افتتان لما وقع تحتها من الخير فلو بقيت لما أمن تعظيم بعض الجهال لها حتى ربما أفضى بهم إلى اعتقاد أن لها قوة نفع أو ضر كما نراه الآن مشاهدا فيما هو دونها وإلى ذلك أشار بن عمر بقوله كانت رحمة من الله أي كان خفاؤها عليهم بعد ذلك رحمة من الله تعالى (فتح الباري، دار السلام ج٦ ص١٤٣)

[19] استعينوا بالصبر والصلاة

[20] پس ايک صورت استمداد اور استعانت كى يہ ہوئى کہ غير خدا سے ايسے امور ميں استعانت چاہي جائے جو بظاهر عادة انسان كى قدرت مين ہے مگر اس كو محض آلہ اور ذريعہ اور سفير سمجها جائے، يہ صورت استمداد زندہ انسان سے بالاتفاق جائز ہے (الإرشاد في مسألة الإستمداد، مقالات عثماني، ج٢ ص٢٨٥)

[21] ونحن نريد أن ننبهك على أمور جعلها الله تعالى فى الشريعة المحمدية على صاحبها الصلوات التسليمات مظنات للشرك فنهى عنها…ومنها أنهم كانوا يستعينون بغير الله في حوائجهم من شفاء المريض وغناء الفقير…(حجة الله البالغة، دار الجيل، ج١ ص١٢٠)

[22] قال العلامة صنع الله الحلبي الحنفي المتوفى سنة ١١٢٠ ه: والإستغاثة تجوز فى الأسباب الظاهرة العادية من الأمور الحسية في قتال أو إدراك عدور أو سبع وحنوه كقولهم يا لزيد يا لقومي يا للمسليمين كما ذكروا ذلك في كتب النحو بحسب الأسباب الظاهرة بالفعل، أما الإستغاثة بالقوة والتأثير أو فى الأمور المعنوية من الشدائد…فمن خصائص الله (سيف الله على من كذب على أولياء الله، دار الكتاب والسنة، ص٥١)

[23] إنه على ظاهره حيث يحلفون معتقدين فيهم أنهم يضرونهم في أبدانهم وأموالهم (إمداد الأحكام ج١ ص١٢١ نقلا عن الفتاوى الكاملية عن حجة الله البالغة)

[24] فإن كان جرى على لسانه عادة من غير نية التعظيم فقد أشرك صورة (بذل المجهود، ج١٤ ص٢٢١)

[25] التأليفات الرشيدية، ص٨٨

[26] عن ابن عباس قال: جاء رجل إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فراجعه في بعض الكلام فقال: ما شاء الله وشئت فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: أجعلتني مع الله عدلا؟ لا بل ما شاء الله وحده (شرح مشكل الآثار، مؤسسة الرسالة ج١ ص ٢١٨)

[27] طلب الحاجة من أهل القبور بدعة لأنه قريب من الشرك (الفتاوى المحمودية، ج١ ص٣٥٢-٣)

[28] الإرشاد في مسألة الإستمداد، مقالات عثماني، ج٢ ص٢٨٥

[29] جامع العلوم والحكم، دار ابن كثير، ص٤٣٢

[30] مجمع الزوائد، دار الفكر، ٢٤٦

[31]  وفيه الحث على التنزيه من جميع ما يسمى سؤالا (فتح الملهم، ٦ ١٢٩)

[32] قال الشيخ محمد طاهر الفتني (ت: ٩٨٦ ه): من قصد بزيارة قبور الأنبياء والصلحاء أن يصلي عند قبورهم ويدعو عندها ويسألهم الحوائج وهذا لا يجوز عند أحد من المسلمين فإن العبادة وطلب الحوائج (أي فى الأمور الغيبية لا فى الأسباب العادية الظاهرة) حق الله وحده (مجمع بحار الأنوار، ج.٢ ص٧٣)

 

قال مفتي بغداد السيد محمود الآلوسي (ت. ١٢٧٠ ه): بقي هٰهنا أمران: الأول: إن التوسل بجاه غير النبـي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا بأس به أيضاً إن كان المتوسل بجاهه مما علم أن له جاهاً عند الله تعالى كالمقطوع بصلاحه وولايته، وأما من لا قطع في حقه بذلك فلا يتوسل بجاهه لما فيه من الحكم الضمني على الله تعالى بما لم يعلم تحققه منه عز شأنه، وفي ذلك جرأة عظيمة على الله تعالى، الثاني: إن الناس قد أكثروا من دعاء غير الله تعالى من الأولياء الأحياء منهم والأموات وغيرهم، مثل يا سيدي فلان أغثني، وليس ذلك من التوسل المباح في شيء، واللائق بحال المؤمن عدم التفوه بذلك وأن لا يحوم حول حماه، وقد عدّه أناس من العلماء شركاً وإن لا يكنه، فهو قريب منه ولا أرى أحداً ممن يقول ذلك إلا وهو يعتقد أن المدعو الحي الغائب أو الميت المغيب يعلم الغيب أو يسمع النداء ويقدر بالذات أو بالغير على جلب الخير ودفع الأذى وإلا لما دعاه ولا فتح فاه، وفي ذلكم بلاء من ربكم عظيم، فالحزم التجنب عن ذلك وعدم الطلب إلا من الله تعالى القوي الغني الفعال لما يريد ومن وقف على سر ما رواه الطبراني في «معجمه» من أنه كان في زمن النبـي صلى الله عليه وسلم منافق يؤذي المؤمنين فقال الصديق رضي / الله تعالى عنه: قوموا بنا نستغيث برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من هذا المنافق فجاءوا إليه، فقال: ” إنه لا يستغاث بـي إنما يستغاث بالله تعالى ” لم يشك في أن الاستغاثة بأصحاب القبور ـ الذين هم بين سعيد شغله نعيمه وتقلبه في الجنان عن الالتفات إلى ما في هذا العالم، وبين شقي ألهاه عذابه وحبسه في النيران عن إجابة مناديه والإصاخة إلى أهل ناديه ـ أمر يجب اجتنابه ولا يليق بأرباب العقول ارتكابه، ولا يغرنك أن المستغيث بمخلوق قد تقضى حاجته وتنجح طلبته فإن ذلك ابتلاء وفتنة منه عز وجل، وقد يتمثل الشيطان للمستغيث في صورة الذي استغاث به فيظن أن ذلك كرامة لمن استغاث به، هيهات هيهات إنما هو شيطان أضله وأغواه وزين له هواه، وذلك كما يتكلم الشيطان في الأصنام ليضل عبدتها الطغام، وبعض الجهلة يقول: إن ذلك من تطور روح المستغاث به، أو من ظهور ملك بصورته كرامة له ولقد ساء ما يحكمون، لأن التطور والظهور وإن كانا ممكنين لكن لا في مثل هذه الصورة وعند ارتكاب هذه الجريرة، نسأل الله تعالى بأسمائه أن يعصمنا من ذلك، ونتوسل بلطفه أن يسلك بنا وبكم أحسن المسالك. (تفسير الآلوسي، إدارة الطباعة المنيرية، ج.٦ ص.١٢٨)

[33] قال مولانا أشرف علي التهانوي: والتفصيل فى المسألة أن التوسل للمخلوق له تفاسير ثلاثة: الأول دعاؤه واستغاثته كديوان المشركين وهو حرام إجماعا. أما أنه شرك جلي أم لا فمعياره أنه اعتقد استقلاله بالتأثير فهو شرك كفري اعتقادا…معنى استقلاله أن الله قد فوض إليه الأمور بحيث لا يحتاج إلى إمضائها إلى مشيئته الجزئية وإن قدر على عزله عن هذا التفويض (بوادر النوادر، إدارة إسلاميات، ص.٧٠٦-٨)

[34] ويكفر بقوله: أرواح المشايخ حاضرة تعلم (مجمع الأنهر، دار إحياء التراث العربي، ج١ ص٦٩١)

[35] قال الشاه ولي الله الدهلوي: كل من ذهب إلى بلدة أجمير أو إلى قبر سالار مسعود أو ما ضاهاها لأجل حاجة يطلبها فإنه أثم إثما أكبر من القتل والزنا، ليس مثله إلا مثل من كان يعبد المصنوعات أو مثل من كان يدعو اللات والعزى، إلا أنا لا نصرح بالتكفير لعدم النص من الشارع في هذا الأمر المخصوس، كل من عين حيوان الميت وطلب منه الحوائج فإنه آثم قلبه (التفهيمات الإلهية، ج٢ ص٤٥)

[36] قال العلامة صنع الله الحلبي الحنفي: وما قيل من أنه يجوز الإستغاثة بالأنبياء والصالحين فإنما المراد به التبرك بذكرهم والتوسل بهم بلا إمداد منهم (سيف الله على من كذب على أولياء الله، ص٤٩ – ٥١)

Source: http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/30473