‘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

براءة الشيخ إسماعيل الدهلوي من القول بكون تعظيم القبور شركا أكبر

October 30, 2015

قد اشتهر أن الشاه محمد إسماعيل بن الشاه عبد الغني الدهلوي – حفيد الشاه ولي الله الدهلوي – تغالى في رسالته ‘تقوية الإيمان’ فى تكفير المسلمين ورميهم بالشرك، حتى يقال إنه بلغ في هذا الأمر حد الوهابية، بل يدعى البعض أنه تأثر بالدعوة الوهابية مباشرة مع أنه لا دليل على هذه الدعوى أصلا، فإنه رحمه الله كان بعيدا من الوهابية وطنا وزمانا، وإنما دخل الحجاز بعدما تم جلاء الوهابية عنها، وصنف رسائل وكتيبات يتضح منها أنه ليس على منهج محمد بن عبد الوهاب وجماعته، ك:’العبقات’ باللغة العربية و’منصب إمامت’ باللغة الفارسية، وإنه صرح بكون الأشاعرة والماتريدية على الحق، وصرح في ‘تقوية الإيمان’ بجواز التوسل بالصالحين خلافا لما عليه الوهابية النجدية

وقال فيه العلامة شبير أحمد العثماني عند البحث عن التجلي على لسان الصوفية: [وما وجدنا تفصيل أحكام التجلي وتحقيق ماهيته بحيث يطمئن به القلب وينشرح به الصدر مع الفحص الشديد والتتبع البالغ في كتب القوم إلا ما حققه العلامة الجليل والعارف النبيل فقيد المثيل في زماني وعديم العديل في أقرانه سيدي وسندي محمد المدعو بإسماعيل الشهيد الدهلوي قدس الله روحه في كتابه ‘العبقات’ فإنه – جزى الله عنا وعن كل من استفاد من علومه – كفى وشفى حين بين الصبح لذي عينين] إلخ (فتح الملهم، دار إحياء التراث العربي، ج٢ ص٣١٥) وله ترجمة في ‘نزهة الخواطر’ للعلامة المؤرخ عبد الحي الحسني اللكنوي

وقد وقع في رسالته المذكورة أن بعض الأمور التى راجت وعمت فى الديار الهندية معدودة من ‘الشرك’، وقد يتوهم من يقرأها أن مراده بالشرك هو الشرك الأكبر المخرج من الملة الإسلامية، مع أن مراده هو الشرك الأصغر أو الشرك العملي كما صرح به المؤلف نفسه وسيأتى النقل عنه، وكان هذه الحدة فى العبارة دواء عالج بها الشاه إسماعيل الدهلوي الجهلة والعوام في ذلك الزمن الذين كان مبلغ علمهم وعملهم فى الأمور الدينية منحصرا فى العادات والتقاليد والرسوم الشائعة حول المقامات والقبور

أما الشبهات على كتابه هذا وغيره من المؤلفات – من أنه أنكر الشفاعة المحمدية وقال بأن الأرض قد أكلت جسد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم المبارك وأنه جعل احترامه عليه السلام كاحترام الأخ الأصغر للأخ الأكبر وأنه شنع على من أنكر الجهة لله سبحانه وتعالى إلى غير ذلك – فقد أجاب عنها العلماء وأثبتوا أنها من الإفتراءات عليه، وليس هذا موضع البسط

أقدم للقارئين الكرام هنا ترجمة لجواب حرره الشاه محمد إسماعيل عن سؤال ورد حول استعماله لفظ الشرك في كتابه ‘تقوية الإيمان’. قد نقل جوابه هذا في الفتاوى الرشيدية للعلامة رشيد أحمد الگنگوهي، وعلق عليه العلامة المذكور، فأنقل الجواب والتعليق كليهما فيما يلي معربا

فهذا نص السؤال والجواب

السؤال: لو صدر عن زيد بعض الأعمال الشركية التي ذكرت في تقوية الإيمان كالنذر بغير الله وتقبيل القبر وإسدال الغلاف عليه والحلف باسم غير الله ومثل هذه الأمور، هل يستوجب زيد التسمية باسم ‘الكافر’، وهل يجوز استباحة دمه وماله، وهل يجوز معاملته كمعاملة سائر الكفار، أم لا؟

الجواب: لا يجوز عد زيد كافرا محضا، ومعاملته كمعاملة الكافرين، بناء على هذه الأعمال التي ذكرت فى السؤال فقط، ومن يعامله كمعاملة الكافرين بناء على صدور الأعمال المذكورة منه فهو عاص. وتفصيل ما ذكر في ‘تقوية الإيمان’ هو أنه: كما ورد فى الحديث الشريف أن الإيمان بضع وسبعون شعبة وأفضلها لا إله إلا الله وأدناها إماطة الأذى عن الطريق، وورد في روايات أخرى أن الحياء شعبة من الإيمان، وورد في عدة من الروايات أن الصبر والمروءة والخلق الحسن شعب من شعب الإيمان، وهذا مع أنه قد يلاحظ كثيرا أن هذه الأوصاف وجدت فى الكافرين، فعلى سبيل المثال: كثير من الكافرين لهم حياء وكثير منهم لهم خلق حسن؛ فبناء على مجرد وجود خصلة إيمانية في هذا الكافر لا يمكن تسميته مؤمنا ولا يعامل كمعاملة المؤمنين، ولكن يجب أن يعلم أن الحياء أحد شعب الإيمان وهي محبوب عند الله وإن لم يكن هذا الشخص بعينه محبوبا عند الله لكونه كافرا، ومع هذا إن خصلته هذه مستحبة، فكذلك الشرك، بما أنه مقابل للإيمان، يجب أن يكون له هذا التعدد في شعبه

لذا لا يسمى أحد مشركا بناء على مجرد حلفه بغير الله، وإن كان من الواجبات عد هذا العمل من أعمال الشرك، وإنكاره وإهانته. ومرتكبه يجب أن يعاتب بالهيئة المناسبة له، لأنه من الممكن أنه كما وجدت فيه هذه الشعبة من شعب الشرك قد وجد فيه كثير من شعب الإيمان أيضا، فيكون مقبولا عند الله بناء على هذه الشعب من الإيمان وإن كان عمله هذا مردودا

وينبغي أن يتذكر أن هذا التفصيل إنما يتأتى فى المرتكب (لهذه الأفعال) الذي لا ينكر الشريعة بواحا. فإنه لو أنكر الشريعة المحمدية – على صاحبها أفضل الصلوات وأكمل التحيات والتسليمات والزاكيات – بواحا، كأن يقول: إن هذا العمل ممنوع فى الشريعة ولكن الشريعة ليست منطبقة عليه وإنما هي منطبقة على غيره فإن دينه الطريقة وليست بالشريعة، فإنه يكون في هذه الصورة كافرا محضا، وتنهدم شعب الإيمان التي كانت فيه، ويكون هو محبوسا فى الغضب الإلهي

كتبه محمد إسماعيل، مصنف ‘تقوية الإيمان’، عفي عنه

جمادى الأولى، ١٢٤٠ ه

وعلق عليه الإمام الرباني الفقيه مولانا رشيد أحمد الگنگوهي بما يلي

جواب مولانا محمد إسماعيل صواب، فإن الأعمال الشركية منها ما هي شرك محض، ومنها ما يصدر من رجال ويحتمل فيها التأويل. النوع الأول منها هو كالسجود لصنم أو شد الزنار، قد صار مرتكب هذه الأفعال مشركا. وأما مرتكب النوع الثاني من الأعمال (الشركية) قد اكتسب هو كبيرة، ولكن لم يخرج من دائرة الإسلام. إن بعض الأمور الشركية شرك أصلي وبعضها أدنى منه، يسمى: شركا دون شرك، فهذه الدرجة الثانية من الشرك ليست شركا حقيقيا. وهذا كالحلف بغير الله الذي يسمى: شركا، ويسمى الرياء: شركا، ويسمى التسمية بغير الله (عند الذبح): شركا. بما أن هذه الأعمال في صورة الشرك تسمى شركا (توسعا). لا يصير الرجل مشركا حقيقيا بارتكابها. والله تعالى أعلم

العبد: رشيد أحمد الگنگوهي، عفي عنه

١٣٠١ ه

(التأليفات الرشيدية، ص ٨٦-٨٨)

ليعلم أن تقوية الإيمان ترجمة للقسم الأول من الكتاب الذي صنفه الشاه محمد إسماعيل باللغة العربية باسم رد الإشراك، الذي قسمه إلى قسمين: القسم الأول في رد الشرك وأنواعه والقسم الثاني في رد البدعة وأنواعها. فقام الشاه محمد إسماعيل بترجمة القسم الأول منه مع شرح وجيز تحت كل آية وكل حديث باللغة الأردوية فسماه تقوية الإيمان، وحذف مقدمته فى الترجمة

وهذا مقدمة كتابه الأصلي باللغة العربية، ويظهر من هذه المقدمة أنه لم يذهب إلى مذهب محمد بن عبد الوهاب وجماعته من تجريد مفهوم الشرك عن الإعتقاد الباطني، بل صرح بكون أصل الشرك مبنيا على الإعتقاد، وإن يتفرع عليه أفعال التعظيم التي هي داخلة في مفهوم الشرك تبعا لا أصلا

 قال رحمه الله

اعلم أن الإشراك – الذي أنزل الكتب الإلهية لإبطاله وبعث الأنبياء لمحقه – ليس مقصورا على أن يعتقد أحد أن معبوده مماثل للرب تبارك وتعالى في وجوب الوجود، أو إحاطة العلم بجميع الكائنات، أو الخالقية لأصول العوالم كالسماء والأرض، أو التصرف في جميع الممكنات، فإن هذا الإعتقاد ليس من شأن الإنسان أن يتلوث به، اللهم (إلا) أن كان ممسوخا كفرعون وأمثاله، وليس لأحد أن يذعن بأن الكتب الإلهية إنما نزلت والأنبياء إنما بعثت لأجل إصلاح أمثال هؤلاء الممسوخين فقط، كيف ومشركوا العرب الذين سماهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالمشركين وقاتلهم وأراق دماءهم وسبى ذراريهم ونهب أموالهم لم يكونوا مذعنين بهذا الإعتقاد، بدليل قوله تعالى: ((قل من بيده ملكوت كل شيء وهو يجير ولا يجار عليه إن كنتم تعلمون، سيقولون: الله، فل: فأنى تسحرون؟)) وأمثال هذه الآية كثيرة جدا. بل معناه أن يشرك أحدا من سوى الله معه تعالى فى الألوهية أو الربوبية. ومعنى الألوهية أن يعتقد في حقه أنه بلغ فى الإتصاف بصفات الكمال من العلم المحيط أو التصرف بمجرد القهر والإرادة مبلغا جل عن المماثلة والمجانسة مع سائر المخلوقين، وذلك بأن يعتقد أنه ما من أمر يحدث سواء كان من الجواهر أو الأعراض فى الأقوال أو الأفعال أو الإعتقاد أو العزائم والإرادات والنيات إلا وهو ممتنع أن يغيب من علمه وهو شاهد عليه أو يعتقد أنه يتصرف فى الأشياء بالقهر أي: ليس تصرفه فى الأشياء من جملة الأسباب بل هو قاهر على الأسباب. ومعنى الربوبية أنه بلغ في رجوع الحوائج واستحلال المشكلات واستدفاع البلايا بمجرد الإرادة والقهر على الأسباب مبلغا استحق به غاية الخضوع والتذلل، أي: ليس للتذلل لديه والخضوع عنده حد محدود، فما من تذلل وخضوع إلا وهو مستحسن بالنسبة إليه وهو مستحق له. فتحقق أن الإشراك على نوعين: إشراك فى العلم وإشراك فى التصرف. ويتفرع منهما: الإشراك فى العبادات، وذلك بأنه إذا اعتقد في أحد أن علمه محيط وتصرفه قاهر فلا بد أنه يتذلل عنده ويفعل لديه أفعال التعظيم والخضوع، ويعظمه تعظيما لا يكون من جنس التعظيمات المتعارفة فيما بين الناس، وهو المسمى بالعبادة. ثم يتفرع عليه: الإشراك فى العادات وذلك بأنه إذا اعتقد أن معبوده عالم بالعلم المحيط متصرف بالتصرف القهري لا جرم أنه يعظمه في أثناء مجارى عاداته بأن يميز ما ينتسب إليه كاسمه وبيته ونذره وأمثال ذلك من سائر الأمور بتعظيم ما. وقد رد الله تعالى في محكم كتابه أولا وعلى لسان نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم ثانيا على جميع أنواع الشرك على أصوله وفروعه وذرائعه وأبوابه ومجمله ومفصله

ثم سرد آيات وأحاديث في رد الشرك والبدعة لا يمازجه من كلامه إلا قليل


Ibn Hajar Makki on impermissible names

January 16, 2013

‘Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki writes,

It is haram to keep the name of Shahanshah (Malik al-Amlak) because this title is only for Allah. Similarly, it is not correct to keep names such as ‘Abd al-Nabi, ‘Abd al-Ka’bah, ‘Abd al-Dar, ‘Abd al-‘Ali, ‘Abd al-Husayn, etc. because such names are indicative of shirk.” (Minhaj al-Sunnah from The Path of Sunnah, Allamah Sarfarz Khan Safdar)


The Reality of Miracles

September 24, 2012

By ‘Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar and others

Compiled and Translated by Saad Khan

‘Allamah Muhammad Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (d. 1430 AH) writes that the word mu‘jizah is linguistically derived from ‘ajz(inability), which is an antonym of qudrah (power). He adds that the [round] ‘ta’ at the end is either for intensiveness (exaggeration) or that the word mu‘jizah is an adjective of words like ayah (sign), etc. It is Allah Most High alone who creates‘ajz (inability) in mu‘jizat and in reality He incapacitates the rejecters. A mu‘jizah is from Allah alone, but appears at the hands of a prophet. The prophet has no power over it.

Reality of Mu‘jizah

Imam Rabbani Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d. 1323 AH) has elaborately discussed the issue of mu‘jizat (miracles of the prophets), karamat (miracles of the saints), and extraordinary events (khawariq al-‘adat) in Fatawa Rashidiyyah. He quotes from the Persian book Radd-i-Bawariq[1] of Shaykh Husayn Shah al-Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), who is also known as But Shikan, “To provide the power and choice and to entrust the capability of something are different and distinct from manifesting a trait through something unique to it [in the sense that such a trait is not naturally found in the object].

“For example, one can say Zayd writes with a pen and that Zayd has manifested his trait of writing through [the medium] of a pen. However, it cannot be said that Zayd has provided [or entrusted] the capabilities of motion and writing to the pen itself, since the pen cannot become human [or an intelligent sentient being] and therefore can never gain the capability of [self] motion or acquire the ability of writing. So, if an individual says that Zayd has bestowed the power and capability of writing to a pen, it would mean that Zayd has turned a pen into a human [or a sentient being]. On the contrary, if a person says that Zayd wrote with a pen, it would mean that the action of writing is a unique trait of Zayd which he manifested through the medium of a pen, and the pen has no power or freewill in this action of writing whatsoever; therefore there is a huge difference between the two concepts.

“If you have understood the concepts clarified above, try to understand our actual point of view and hopefully it will be understood. Power, authority and discretion are the characteristics of the One who has no partners (i.e., Allah Most High), and might and sovereignty are [also] attributes belonging solely to the One who is Eternal (i.e. Allah). Therefore, to provide a person or an object the power or capability actually means that the matter has been elevated from [the realms of] possibility (mumkin) to the stages of obligation (wajib) because, after all, origin of power, control of affairs, and axis of might and sovereignty are traits of Wajib al-Wujud, i.e. Allah (not of mumkin, i.e., possible).” (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, 3:230)

‘Allamah Sarfaraz writes that this passage sufficiently highlights the fact that extraordinary feats (khawariq al-‘adat) are actually beyond the power and capability of humans, and this passage also destroys the self-made and farfetched concepts of personal (dhati) and granted (ata‘i) of the Ahl al-Bid‘ah.

Moreover, Shaykh al-Islam Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani (d. 1369 AH) writes in his brief but comprehensive treatiseKhawariq al-‘Adat, “(a) Remember that a miracle is in fact an act of Allah, an action which may be contrary to the usual or normal events but not against the special traits of Allah; since to break the routine and to manifest something extraordinary to achieve specific aims is from the special traits of Allah. (b) Furthermore, a miracle is from Allah, [and therefore] to declare a miracle a prophet’s personal action is a huge mistake. (c) And as we pick up a pen and write, apparently it seems as if the pen is writing, but in reality it has no choice in writing; similar is the case with miracles. It is not that prophets can start streams of water from their fingertips anytime they wish; rather, they can do so only when Allah wills so.”

Mawlana Amin Safdar Okarwi (d. 1421 AH) explains that there are four principles that should be kept in mind regardingmu‘jizat and karamat: (1) There is no ikhtiyar (choice) involved on the part of humans. (2) There is no continuity (dawam). (3) There is no generality (kulliyat), i.e., if an extraordinary event happens at the hands of a certain saint (wali), it is not necessary that it can also happen at the hands of other saints. (4) They are not absolute (qat‘i). However, if a mu‘jizah isqat‘i al-thubut (proven through conclusive evidence), then its qat‘iyyah (decisiveness and certainty) will be established. (See Khutbat-i-Amin, p.155-157)

Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani al-Maliki (d. 403 AH) writes, “The meaning of our statement that the Qur’an is inimitable (mu’jiz), as per our principles, is that people are not able to produce anything like it. It has been established that it is not correct to include the miracle proving the truthfulness of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) under the ability of people. Rather, Allah Almighty alone has power over it … and so is the case with the miracles of all the Prophets (i.e., they are beyond human ability).” (I‘jaz al-Qu’ran, from Al-Itqan, 2:186)

Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505H) writes, “The reason a miracle attests to the truthfulness of prophets is that everything which human beings cannot produce [its similitude] must be the work of Allah. Whenever this is linked to a Prophet’s challenge, it is as if Allah Most High has said: ‘You are true.’[2].” (Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din, 1:97)

‘Allamah ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Aqbaras al-Shafi‘i al-Misri (d. 862 AH) writes, “The theologians (mutakallimun) say that miracles are exclusively from the action of Allah Amighty and they are not included under the power (qudrah) of humans.” (Fath al-Safa’ sharh al-Shifa’, from Hidayat al-Murtab, p.20; Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p.144)

‘Allamah Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Rumi (d. 1041H) writes in his brilliant book Majalis al-Abrar wa Masalik al-Akhyar, “Amu‘jizah is actually from amongst the actions of Allah, out of the norm, which he manifests at the hands of His messenger.” (Majalis al-Abrar, p.43)

He writes in another place, “Whatever appears at their hands as extraordinary is created by Allah Most High and they have no power to invent it; since if they had power to invent it, they would have been able to repel from themselves the lighter matters as well such as disease, hunger, thirst, pain of heat and cold, the harms of the people and so on.” (Majalis al-Abrar, p.103)

Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi (d. 606 AH) writes, “From the many verses that support the veracity of our previous statement is that when He (Exalted is He) related of the disbelievers that they requested overwhelming miracles (al-mu’jizat al-qahirah) from him in His (Exalted is He) statement: ‘They said [to the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace)]: We shall never believe in you unless you cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth…’ He (Exalted is He) then said: ‘Say [O Muhammad]: I proclaim the Purity of my Lord. I am nothing but human (bashr), a messenger.’ (Qur’an, 17:90-93). In other words, a person being a human with the quality of messengership implies he is perfect in his theoretical and practical faculties, and is able to treat [other human beings] who are deficient in these two faculties; but it is not necessary in acquiring this quality [of messengership] that he has the ability to [bring about] the conditions [i.e.mu‘jizat] which you request from him.” (Matalib ‘Aliyyah, from Al-Kalam, 2:225, Mawlana Shibli Nu‘mani)

‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Khaldun (d. 808 AH) states, “One of the signs [of the prophets] is that they work wonders which attest to their truthfulness. ‘Wonders’ are actions, the likes of which are impossible for human beings to achieve. They are, therefore, called ‘miracles’ (mu’jizat). They are not within the ability of men, but beyond their powers. There is a difference of opinion as to how they occur and as to how they prove the truthfulness of the prophets. Speculative theologians (mutakallimun) base themselves on the doctrine of the ‘voluntary agent’ and say that miracles occur through the power of Allah, and not through the action of the prophet. The Mu‘tazilah maintain that human actions proceed from man himself, but still miracles do not belong to the type of actions that human beings perform. According to all schools, the prophet’s place in the performance of miracles is confined to the ‘advance challenge’ (tahaddi) that he offers by divine permission. That is, the prophet uses the miracles before they occur as proof of the truth of his claims. They therefore take the place of an explicit statement from Allah to the effect that a particular prophet is truthful.” (Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun, p.93)[3]

‘Allamah Sarfaraz explains that it is clear from the statement of ‘Allamah Ibn Khaldun that miracles are not from those acts which humans have been given power over. The Mu‘talizah are of the view that humans are khaliq (creators) of their actions but when it come to miracles, even they believe that miracles are acts of Allah.

Furthermore Shaykh Shah ‘Abd al-Haq Muhaddith Dahlawi (d. 1052 AH) writes, “A mu‘jizah is not an act of a prophet, rather an act of Allah Most High which He manifests at the hands of a prophet. Contrary to other actions, which are created by Allah and the acquisition (kasb) is by the servant; in miracles the acquisition (kasb) too is not from the servant.” (Madarij al-Nubuwwah, 2:116)

And he writes in another place, “Miracles (mu‘jizat) are the actions of Allah Most High that appear at the hands of the slave for verification of his truthfulness and honor. Miracles are not the actions of the slave such that they appear with his intention and choice like his other chosen actions (af‘al ikhtiyariyyah).” (Tarjamah Futuh al-Ghayb, p.27)

‘Allamah Shah Muhammad Isma‘il Shahid (d. 1246 AH) writes on the discussion of khawariq al-‘adat, “It means that Allah Most High, with His absolute power, acts in the universe in an unusual manner in order to endorse any of His beloved servants, not that He creates in him the power of miracle and appoints him to demonstrate it. No, never; freewill in controlling the affairs of the world is from the exclusive attributes of Allah, not from the characteristics of human power.” (Mansab-i-Imamat, p.31)

Mufti Muhammad Shafi‘ (d. 1396 AH) writes, “Miracles and wonders are the direct acts of Allah, but they are manifested through prophets and saints so that people may recognize their spiritual station — prophets and saints themselves have no power to make such things happen… Another verse of the Holy Qur’an reports what a group of prophets said to their people in reply to a similar demand: ‘We cannot give you proof, except by Allah’s will,’ (Qur’an, 14:11). This again was an admission that it was not in their power to produce a miracle, for all power rests in the hands of Allah. In short, it is not at all possible for a prophet or a saint to show a miracle whenever he likes and whatsoever he likes. The disbelievers used to demand specific miracles from the Holy Prophet and from the earlier prophets but Allah manifested only those that He Himself pleased, and not others. The Holy Qur’an presents many such instances.” (Ma‘arif al-Qur’an, 1:102

And ‘Allamah Dr. Khalid Mahmud writes, “A few divine feats are exposed at the hands of the prophets. These feats are technically referred to as mu’jizat. These feats bear testimony to the genuineness of their prophethood because the entire world is incapable of performing such feats. The mu’jizat are divine accomplishments of Allah Most High. They are not subject to the will of the prophets. The prophets are not able to expose these miracles as and when they desire.” (The Concept of Nabuwwah and Rislah, p.7)

The truth that miracles are acts of Allah and that humans have not been given any power over them has also been mentioned by various other luminaries of the Ahl al-Sunnah. Such personalities include:

  • Imam Fadlullah Turipisthi al-Hanafi (d. 661 AH) in Mu‘tamad fi ‘l-Mu‘taqad (ch.2:1);
  • Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari (d. 1014H) in Al-Mirqat (2:530);
  • Shaykh ‘Abd al-Wahhab Sha‘rani (d. 772 AH) from Shaykh Abu Muhammad Tahir ibn Ahmad al-Qazwini (d. 756 AH) and Shaykh Muhyi al-Din ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 638 AH) in Al-Yawaqit wa ‘l-Jawahir (1:158);
  • Muhaqqiq Kamal al-Din ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi (d. 861 AH) in Al-Musayarah (2:89);
  • Shaykh Kamal al-Din ibn Abi Sharif al-Shafi‘i (d. 905 AH) in Al-Musamarah (2:89);
  • Qadi ‘Adud al-Din al-Iyji al-Hanafi (d. 757 AH) in Mawaqif (p.665);
  • ‘Allamah Jalal al-Din Dawani (d. 907 AH) in Sharh al-‘Adudiyyah (p.95);
  • ‘Allamah Sa‘d al-Din Mas‘ud al-Taftazani (d. 792 AH) in Sharh al-‘Aqa’id al-Nasafiyyah, (p.18);
  • Hafiz Ibn Kathir (d. 744 AH) in Tafsir Ibn Kathir (3:144);
  • Qadi Nasir al-Din Baydawi (d. 686 AH) in Anwar al-Tanzil (17:93);
  • ‘Allamah Sun’ Allah ibn Sun’ Allah al-Halabi (d. 1120 AH) in Sayf Allah ‘ala man Kadhiba ‘ala Awliya’ Allah (p.45);
  • Imam Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dahlawi (d. 1239 AH) in Fatawa ‘Azizi (p.408);
  • ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Hayy Lakhnawi (d. 1304 AH) in Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (3:18);
  • Mawlana Sayyid Awlad Hasan al-Kannauji (d. 1252 AH) from Fatawa Rashidiyyah (3:27);
  • Mawlana Shah Sikhawat ‘Ali Jonpuri (d. 1274 AH) from Fatawa Rashidiyyah (3:26);
  • Mawlana Haydar ‘Ali Tonki (d. 1273 AH) from Fatawa Rashidiyyah (3:25);
  • ‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Haq Haqqani Dahlawi (d. 1336 AH) in ‘Aqa’id al-Islam (p. 154);

This view regarding mu‘jizat and karamat, which has just been presented, is that of Islamic theologians (mutakallimin), jurists (fuqaha) and mystics (sufis). Now, it will be unfair not to present the view of the other factions who regard mu‘jizatand karamat as acts of the prophets and saints.

‘Allamah ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Khaldun states, “The philosophers hold that wonders are acts of the prophet, even though they occur in areas where the prophets have no power. This is based upon their doctrine that [there exists] an essential and Necessary [causality] and that events develop out of each other according to conditions and reasons that [always] come up anew and, in the last instance, go back to the Necessary per se that acts per se and not by choice. In their opinion, the prophetical soul has special essential qualities, which produce wonders, with the help of the power of [the Necessary per se] and the obedience of the elements to Him in the universe. The prophet, in their opinion, through those qualities that Allah put into him, is by nature fitted to do discretion (tasarruf) among all created things, whenever he addresses himself to them and concentrates on them. They hold that wonders are brought by the prophet himself, whether it is for ‘challenge’ (tahaddi) or not. They are evidence of the prophet’s truthfulness, in as much as they prove that he performs discretion (tasarruf) among the created things; such activity constituting a special quality of the prophetic soul, not because they take the place of a clear assertion of certainty (tasdiq).” (Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun, p.94-95)[4]

From the above statement of ‘Allamah Ibn Khaldun, it is clear that according to the philosophers, miracles are acts of prophets, and prophets have been given the ability of discretion (tasarruf) in the cosmos by Allah. This belief is contrary to that of jurists, theologians and mystics.

Tasarruf and Takwin

‘Allamah Sarfaraz explains that tasarruf and takwin are terms used for miracles by the sufis. Sufis do not intend the meaning of discretion in the cosmos. This is where the people of innovation (ahl al-bid‘ah) misapprehend the statements of sufis and believe that tasarruf and takwin are at the disposal of the prophets and saints like the self-determined actions (af‘al ikhtiyariyyah).

For example, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Haq Dahlawi writes in his commentary of Futuh al-Ghayb of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (d. 561 AH), “Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani himself mentions that kharq al-‘adat and tasarruf are acts of Allah that happen at the hands of the servant.” (Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, p.27)

There is a detailed discussion in Fatawa Rashidiyyah regarding tasarruf and takwin. It would be beneficial to produce some excerpts hereunder:

“We should know that there is a vast difference between the exclusive actions of Allah (af‘al khassah) and the self-determined actions of the servants (af‘al ikhtiyariyyah), since the actions produced by the servants through tools and resources are bound with some conditions. For instance, one needs some things before writing a matter — a pen, paper, a knife to smoothen the pen, eyesight, light, mind, thought, intention, and fingers and their movement. However, the creating of Allah — the Lord of the servants — is neither connected to these matters nor with these conditions; rather, He produces whatever He likes with just an intention, without being dependent upon the resources. This creation of His which is based only on intention is called ‘kun fayakun’: ‘His command, when He intends to do something, is no more than He says, “Be”, and it becomes,’ (Qur’an, 36:82). So supporting the first view for the servants that these actions are from Allah is all right, but affirming the second view (i.e., the power of kun fayakun) is open unbelief (kufr) and heinous polytheism. In brief, asking them to fulfill the matters under self-determined actions (af‘al ikhtiyariyyah) is correct, but demanding to carry out the divine actions [under the power of kun fayakun] is out of place; because the former is within their power and the latter is exclusively related to Allah Most High …” (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p.143)

And it states, “First, some actions of exclusive attributes of Allah sometimes manifest in the holy existence of the angels and the prophets. These holy existences do not have any power to carry out these acts. So, these acts should not be considered like the actions of eating and wearing, which are within the realm of their choice (ikhtiyar) and power. Demanding them to carry out or bring about these acts is just like addressing the pen overlooking the writer to write such and such, rather believing that the pen in any case has to produce such an act and its power and choice is barred and invalid… Second, [regarding] submission, choice and managing (tadbir) which are attributed to some angels, the same resemblance is found with the pen and writer and the same thing is meant when we say that the writer writes. We have already elaborated on it in detail. It does not mean that He has entrusted the power of creating and the creative process (takwin) with the intention of ‘kun fayakun’ (Be! and it becomes); since it can be available to only the one who is Eternal, as we have already mentioned…” (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p.141)

It further states in Fatawa Rashidiyyah, “So, the changes and revolutions in any part of the world which appear for the human beings all emanate from the divine power of Allah and are not the result of any possible power. It is not that Allah Most High allows them to act freely (tasarruf) in the world and entrusts the affairs of the human beings to them that they with Allah’s permission use their power and bring about various types of changes and interventions in the universe. So, this belief is pure polytheism (shirk) and absolute unbelief (kufr). One who holds such beliefs about these pious people is a polytheist and is rejected. In short, it is one matter that destiny changes its course for someone’s honor, or fate changes due to the du‘a of some pious man, while it is a different matter that changes take place in the universe through discretion (tasarruf) of a pious man, though with Allah’s permission; the first one is exactly Islam while the second is pure unbelief (kufr)…” (Fatawa Rashidiyyah, p.139-140)

Translator: I would like to thank Mawlana Muhammadullah Khalili Qasmi for help with the translation of Persian texts.

Bibliography:

Fatawa Rashidiyyah – Imam Rabbani Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi

Hidayat al-Murtab Ila Tariq al-Sawab fi Tahqiq al-Mu’jizat (Rah-i-Hidayat) – ‘Allamah Sarfaraz Khan Safdar

_____________________________

  1. A refutation of Al-Bawariq by Fadl Rasul Badayuni. []
  2. Allah Most High’s displaying a miracle at the hands of a Prophet who had announced he will display it as proof of his truthfulness, is equivalent to Divine confirmation of his Prophethood []
  3. Translation compared with Franz Rosenthal’s translation of Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah. []
  4. Ibid []

Source: http://www.deoband.org/2011/09/aqida/deviant-beliefs/the-reality-of-miracles/


What is Ibadah?

September 5, 2012

Imam Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Dahlawi writes while defining (‘ibadah) worship,

“Worship means to prostrate, or to circumambulate, or recite/call his name with the intention of taqarrub (seeking closeness), or to slaughter animal in his name, or to call oneself a bandah (‘abd – slave) of someone. Any ignorant Muslim who will do such with the inhabitants of the grave, he will become kafir and fall outside the fold of Islam.” (Fatawa ‘Azizi, 1:45)

پرستش آنست كه سجده كند يا طواف نهايند يا نام اورا بطريق تقرب وردسازد يا ذبح جانور بنام او كند
يا خودرا بنده فلانى بگويد وهرآنكه ازمسلمان جاهل با اهل قبور ايں چيزها بعمل آرد
فى الفور كافر مى گردد وازمسلمانى مى برآيد

So the following fall under ‘ibadah (worship):

1. To perform sajdah to the creation;

2. To perform tawaf around the graves;

3. To call the inhabitants of the graves or to recite their names to seek their taqarrub;

4. To slaughter animals in someone’s name;

5. Or to call oneself a bandah [‘abd] of any creation, like ‘Abd al-Mustafa, ‘Abd al-Husain, etc.


Exaggerations regarding Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jaylani – Mujaddid Alf al-Thani

May 6, 2012

There has not been more exaggeration and excessiveness in this Ummah about any other personalities more than Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir Jaylani (may Allah have mercy on him). Rawafid went into extreme regarding Sayyiduna ‘Ali and Ahl al-Bid’ah went into extreme regarding Shaykh Jaylani.

This was something also noticed by Mujaddid Alf al-Thani Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi (may Allah have mercy on him). He writes in his Maktubat:

“A group of ‘Abd al-Qadir’s disciples had excessive reactions (ghullu) to him and in their love for him they went beyond acceptable limits. This is like the exaggerated lovers of Sayyiduna ‘Ali [i.e. Rawafid]. Allah Almighty bless his face. From the words of this group [of ‘Abd al-Qadir’s exaggerating disciples], it is clear that they consider ‘Abd al-Qadir to be more excellent than any other protégés of Allah, before or after his time. Other than the prophets it seems as if they give the greatest preference to ‘Abd al-Qadir. This is from excessive love.

What if it said that more miracles appeared from ‘Abd al-Qadir than anyone else, and therefore he should be given preference? We say that the number of miracles is no proof of preference. It can be said that a person who has performed no miracles is more preferable than one who has manifested miracles.

The shaykh of shaykh (Abu Hafs al-Suhrawardi in his ‘Awarif al-Ma’arif, after mentioning the miracles of shaykhs, says, “All miracles are a gift of Allah almighty which manifest to some people through unveilings. They share these and [appear to be] superior to others [who do not have the same experiences.] They receive nothing [in terms of spiritual growth] from performing these miracles, which are for strengthening a person’s certainty. One who is given certainty does not need miracles. Other than remembrance in the heart and in the Essence, there is no need for miracles.”

Performing many miracles to demonstrate one’s excellence is like trying to show the preference of Sayyiduna ‘Ali over Sayyiduna Abu Bakr mentioning Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s many excellence and virtues.” (Maktubat, 1:293 – Revealed Grace, p. 215-216)

Mujaddid compares the bid’atis with Rawafid.

Bida’tis were deceived by many miracles of Shaykh Jaylani. This led them to attribute the qualities of ‘ilm al-ghayb, hadir nadir, etc. to him. Then they attributed false quotes to him and started to call him for fulfillment of their needs.

May Allah save us from this excessiveness.