[frkksptn]

Although the topic is being tackled by Sh. Yasir Qadhi and Br. Yahya Whitmer (both salafi-oriented), it still looks like it's going to be an interesting series of articles on the much debated topic of istighatha. The comments are also worth considering and one may also provide their comments/questions/etc.

http://muslimmatters.org/2012/03/09/line-in-the-sand/

[_tppga_]

Brother Dawud_Israel is holding his ground, or at least trying to, in the comments section.

[Sopzoozyren]

Here is part 1 of the series "Line in the Sand":

http://muslimmatters.org/2012/04/27/...e-sand-part-1/

[wrenjmerg]

Brother Dawud_Israel is holding his ground, or at least trying to, in the comments section.

I dont see anything wrong with dawud israel cooments . Tawassul / wasila was always accepted in islam . Only the dogs of hell-fire reject it . why because they reject what Rasulullah sallalhu alahiwasallam taught and what the sahaba's did.

Calling to any other than Allah swt is shirk but Tawassul/wasila permissble.

[Savviers]

I dont see anything wrong with dawud israel cooments . Tawassul / wasila was always accepted in islam . Only the dogs of hell-fire reject it . why because they reject what Rasulullah sallalhu alahiwasallam taught and what the sahaba's did.

Calling to any other than Allah swt is shirk but Tawassul/wasila permissble.

Dawud Israel was arguing for the permissibility of Istighatha, not tawassul.

[THOUTHCAW]

. Tawassul / wasila was always accepted in islam . Only the dogs of hell-fire reject it . why because they reject what Rasulullah sallalhu alahiwasallam taught and what the sahaba's did.

You should be careful what you say. You just put some great `ulama in your "dogs of Hellfire" category.

[Smabeabumjess]

A related post from another thread:

Wa `alaykum as-Salam

Apologies for the interjection, just wanted to post the continuation of the series "Line in the Sand" (Part 1) which deals with the topic at hand:

http://muslimmatters.org/2012/04/27/...e-sand-part-1/

The comments section is also worth a read as it covers some questions which are ofter arisen concerning this topic.

This only shows, unfortunately, that no matter how much a group's rhetoric emphasizes unity or attempts to distance itself from the anathematizing elements of some of its representatives, the fundamental positions remain the same (see the second paragraph of the article). The fundamental positions here typify Wahhabism.

Neither the article nor the comments deal with the topic. One need only look at the articles definition of tawassul to know its position:

1. Asking Allah via invocation of His Names and Attributes

2. Asking Allah through the virtue of your own good deeds

3. Asking a pious person to make du'a for you As long-winded as the article is (quoting Churchill?), it makes no mention of the hadith of the blind man. How does an article on tawassul leave out of its discussion the very hadith upon which the permissibility of tawassul is based? Is that bad scholarship or deception?

The only mention is deep in the comments section, where he says to a question, "Other than the narration Uthman Ibn Hunayf that involves Uthman Ibn Affan, there's no textual evidence to support that practice (and we've already discussed the weakness of that narration)."

The hadith he is referring to is the hadith in Tabarani. The other hadith, the hadith of the blind man, is in Tirmidhi. Both hadiths are sahih. Regarding the latter hadith, "Nearly fifteen hadith masters ... have explicitly stated that this hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih). As mentioned above, it has come with a chain of transmission meeting the standards of Bukhari and Muslim, so there is nothing left for a critic to attack or slanderer to disparage concerning the authenticity of the hadith" (Reliance of the Traveller, 938). Regarding the former hadith, Shaykh Nuh Keller says,


The hadith is rigorously authenticated (sahih), as Tabarani explicitly states in his al-Mu'jam al-saghir (y131), 1.184. The translator [Shaykh Nuh], wishing to verify the matter further, to the hadith with its chain of narrators to hadith specialist Sheikh Shu'ayb Arna'ut, who after examining it, agreed that it was rigorously authenticated (sahih) as Tabarani indicated, a judgement which was also confirmed to the translator by the Morrocan hadith specialist Sheikh 'Abdullah Muhammad Ghimari, who characterized the hadith as "very rigorously authenticated," and noted that hadith masters Haythami and Mundhiri had explicitly concurred with Tabarani on its being rigorously authenticated (sahih). (Reliance of the Traveller, 939)

[Pwy9egVW]

You should be careful what you say. You just put some great `ulama in your "dogs of Hellfire" category.

Please give some examples. Not doubting..just like to know.
thanks

[curcercanty]

Please give some examples. Not doubting..just like to know.
thanks

One name easily comes to mind Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah...people should remember that whatever their differences with him, they are not worthy of the dust on the feet of Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah.

[refsherne]

i honestly don't see what thew point is in making statements like...whoever doesn't agree with x,y,z fatwa is a dog of hell or other sweeping statements.....honestly who do people think they are to make such sweeping and decisive statements.

[Fiipolera]

You should be careful what you say. You just put some great `ulama in your "dogs of Hellfire" category.

I think you meant to say Istimdad which is wrongly understood by many as tawasul. Am I right ?

[QbCp7LaZ]

the pretentiousness of that yuppaki site is just too much for me. bourgoise middle class know it all americans mixed in with colonized immigrant mindset with a sprinkling of the salafitnah (but, you know, with a smile on their face as they dont want to be confused with their co-religionists in the slums of philly or newark... heaven forbid the middle class is seen fraternizing with the proles) thrown in for good measure.

and yes i know this is about as off-topic as a post can come. mods can delete if they wish but i really detest that site.