[DeronBoltonRen]

You are a real politician, aren't you?

Considering that most politicians are kuffar and liars, no I am not... and I still don't know what you are saying or joking about.

Lot of words come out of your mouth but nothing meaningful and you have a habit of not reading but assuming. No meaning from the explanation of Qurtubi? Okay...

You said the verse is not Muhkam but Majaaz, Qurtubi mentioned otherwise, So I am asking you... If it is Majaazi what is the meaning?

Firstly you have cleverly skipped the questions because you can't explain it! Open a new topic and I will answer you, probably the same way I answered here.

1) There is no kayfiyah to the sifaat of Allah

2) Imam Malik would have beat you up.

3) Ibn Rajab called you a Innovator for asking.

Secondly, How are you assuming that someone is YELLING at the top of the voice or even RAISING their voice? What?

Where did you get this conversation from? What?

Lets discuss the figments of your imaginations for 5 days What?

I think after all that ambiguous thinking you've went to, you've started to speak in the same way.

[lakraboob]

Considering that most politicians are kuffar and liars, no I am not... and I still don't know what you are saying or joking about.



Nothing meaning from the explanation of Qurtubi? Okay...



Open a new topic and I will answer you, probably the same way I answered here.

1) There is no kayfiyah to the sifaat of Allah

2) Imam Malik would have beat you up.

3) Ibn Rajab called you a Innovator for asking.



What?



What?



What?

I think after all that ambiguous thinking you've went to, you've started to speak in the same way.

Bro, when you want to make some coherent and intelligent statements we will carry on.

The issue was resolved in Post 4:

Wa 'Alaykum Salaam

I'm more inclined to the view that the narration is a proof for tawassul through the living rather then it being proof for this issue.

Here is the text:

Mālik ad-Dār (RA) has related: The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of ‘Umar (bin al-Khattāb). Then a Companion walked up to the Prophet’s grave and said, “O Messenger of Allah, please ask for rain from Allah for your Community who is in dire straits.” Then the Companion saw the Prophet in a dream. The Prophet said to him, “Go over to ‘Umar, give him my regards and tell him that the rain will come to you. And tell ‘Umar that he should be on his toes, he should be on his toes, (he should remain alert).” Then the Companion went over to see ‘Umar and passed on to him the tidings. On hearing this, ‘Umar broke into a spurt of crying. He said, “O Allah, I exert myself to the full until I am completely exhausted.”

There are three possible ways of looking at this tradition:

1. Discuss the Authenticity of this text and we can argue back and forth as both sides can quote enough Scholars of Hadeeth
2. Take the narration on face value and it categorically proves that it is permissable to go to the grave of Rasul-ullah and make dua
3. Interpret the narration and thus show that Rasul-ullah taught correct Aqeedah to the man in a dream

If you want to take option 3 then we will say prove to us that Sayyidina Umar (RA) REBUKED or REFUTED the man on his action.

Wa 'Alaykum Salaam

So apart from that are there any other evidences people bring for this practice?

There is no apart from this business once an Athar has been established to be Authentic, you can't go around saying "apart from this and that"

Imam Baihaqi (RA), Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (RA) & Al-Hafidh Ibn Haj'r Al-Asqalani (RA) & "I believe" Imam Ibn Kathir (RA) accept the authenticity of this narration so that's case closed, job done.

[DeronBoltonRen]

Secondly, How are you assuming that someone is YELLING at the top of the voice or even RAISING their voice?

Where did you get this conversation from?

Lets discuss the figments of your imaginations for 5 days

The brother Hussain said in order for it to be tawassul that is not shirk you have to be near the Prophet , doing other wise would constitute shirk.

So being near the Prophet NOW means being in the Masjid Nabawi. Which means the Prophet is behind doors, walls, people, guards, ropes. So I am asking how loud do you or anyone else have to speak for him to hear you?

In which al Qurtubi mentions that some scholars say it is not right also to raise your voice near the Prophets grave.

Assuming that a person goes to the grave and starts speaking loud enough that the people around him can hear him, assuming that the person is speaking Arabic- It will end up in the person getting kicked out at least. And if he raises his voice, it is going against the Muhkam verse.

Is this my imagination or real?

Is it permissible to use Qiyyas in our religion or not?

[DeronBoltonRen]

Bro, when you want to make some coherent and intelligent statements we will carry on.

The issue was resolved in Post 4:

No offense brother but I really think you need to check yourself and look at what you are saying.

I haven't said anything incoherent or stupid, I have brought you an issue of Qiyas related to your situation of calling upon the Prophet in real life, if you want to ignore the possibilities of you or anyone else going against the Muhkam verse, that does not make my statement incoherent or un-intelligent.

Likewise, like I said... the action of one Sahaba is not proof when there is no proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah and other Sahaba that back it up.

If you would think outside of the box you've built yourself into, you would see that it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE to go to Umar or Ibn Abbas if Tawassul is permissible, because it would be better to go directly to the Prophet himself.

If you can't get that through your head, I'm sorry.

Btw, I really don't know what you mean by politician, I am simply trying to find and follow the Haqq.

Now are you going to ignore the fact that you said the verse in Question is not literal, can I have your explanation of that since I seem to be not a good enough reader to understand.

[DeronBoltonRen]

[*] Take the narration on face value and it categorically proves that it is permissable to go to the grave of Rasul-ullah and make dua[*] Interpret the narration and thus show that Rasul-ullah taught correct Aqeedah to the man in a dream[/LIST]
If you want to take option 3 then we will say prove to us that Sayyidina Umar (RA) REBUKED or REFUTED the man on his action.

.

So now we should be literalist in our understanding of this hadeeth and only this one?

But for the verse about raising the voice we should not be?

Secondly, the hadeeth taken literally does not mean Umar knew that the man made tawasal to the grave.

Thirdly, is it better to go to Umar, Ibn Abbas, or Prophet Muhammad ? Why would Umar (if he knew the permissibility of tawassul) believe the mans dream? Wouldn't Umar be the first to say that going to the Prophet is better than going to his uncle if in fact it was true and tawassul was allowed?

Aside from this (yes we need more proof) when did any other Sahaba do tawassul?

[Virosponna]

Neither does it indicate that he told him everything, rather to me it would see that when he informed him he would have informed him of that which included him (Umar) only, unless Umar would have wanted to know more.... .

Yes it does. The text will be understood in it's general meaning until specified.

[8jIDXQ80]

.

[DeronBoltonRen]

Yes it does. The text will be understood in it's general meaning until specified.

Sorry I don't believe you.

The text does not indicate at all that Umar knew about the tawassul, and you can repeat 1000 times that you think it does, and I can repeat 1000 times that I think it doesn't, because it is not clear in the fact that he told Umar everything rather it is clear that he told Umar the dream. The general meaning you are getting and the general meaning I am getting is two different general meanings, your meaning is not any more general than mine. All that was needed for umar to ask ibn Abbas to do istisqa was the dream of the Prophet by the Sahaba, not the going to the grave.

If going to the grave was mentioned, there would have been a reply. Either Umar would have said your dream is false because tawassul to the Prophet is allowed, and since he is the best of mankind there is no need to come to me or anyone else.

Or Umar would have did tawassul, why? Because in the mans dream the Prophet said "Umar you must be clever"

Is it more clever to go directly to the Prophet (if mashroo') or to go to someone less than him?

Secondly speaking of Aam and khaas, lets ASSUME that the permissibility of tawassul through the dead was given to that one Sahaba, please show me the proof for it being Aam, since we only have that ONE sahabas action and no others. To me that seems pretty Khaas to me, since if tawassul was Mashroo' why the need for Umar to go to Ibn Abbas? Why didn't Umar then go directly to the Prophets grave and ask?

Going to the Prophet would be better, and closer to Allah through Waseelah than going to Umar or ibn Abbas, PERIOD if it were allowed.

It seems like you guys use logic at all the wrong times for all the wrong reasons.

So instead of going upon an ambiguous statement of one Sahabi.

Is it better for umar to go ibn Abbas, or go to the Prophet and repeat the tawassul since umar is clever?

[911_993_911]

I think this might be relevant:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...D=2487&CATE=24

[11] `Umar showed the possibility of tawassul through X. even though Y. - also present - may be better than X. He showed that tawassul through the inferior in the presence of the superior is permissible as there is Consensus that the best of all living human beings after Prophets then, namely `Umar, `Uthman, and `Ali are all three superior to al-`Abbas, Allah be well-pleased with all of them. This was also a mark of humbleness on `Umar's part as already cited from Fath al-Bari. Another example of this is the tawassul of Mu`awiya for rain through the Sahabi Yazid ibn al-Aswad al-`Amiri as narrated by Abu Zur`a al-Dimashqi in his Tarikh and his tawassul also through the Tabi`i Abu Muslim al-Khawlani as narrated by Ahmad in al-Zuhd cf. al-Tahanawi, I`la' al-Sunan (8:193).

[12] `Umar used al-`Abbas also as a precaution lest people's faith in the Prophet, upon him peace, be shaken in case the prayer were not answered.

[13] Finally, the Sunna prayer for rain formally has to be performed by the outward, political Imam of the Muslims or his deputy. It is in that function that the office of the Messenger of Allah - upon him blessings and peace - had ceased and was taken over, first by Abu Bakr, then by `Umar. Al-`Abbas's position in this event was that of the deputy of the latter as the Commander of the Believers. And Allah knows best. I found the above interesting because the same thought came to my mind when reading the question that someone posed: "Why would Umar have done tawassul by Abbas instead of the Prophet if doing it through dead people was permissible?" I don't think that line of questioning is very beneficial. There could be any number of reasons why a person chooses to do X instead of Y, and just posing the question that way doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was because Y was the wrong thing to do. Because as the part in bold suggests, if hadhrat Umar, hadhrat Uthman and hadhrat Ali all have a higher status than Abbas, and all three were alive at the time, then why do tawassul by him instead of one of them?

If we adopt this line of reasoning, we could ask "why" about everything. For example, if asking the Prophet's help after his death was wrong, why didn't he say so in the dream ? Doesn't the fact that he appeared in the sahabi's dream after the request was made imply that he can hear and respond to requests? Maybe the reason he told the sahabi to go to Umar was because there was already a sunnah method to pray for rain, so in this case that needed to be fulfilled rather than asking the Prophet for help.

Also, I don't understand the restriction of asking the Prophet only when "near" his grave. Isn't that term subjective? Someone brought up the point that now there are all these barriers so it's not possible to request things from the Prophet anymore But even back in the old days, wasn't there 6 feet of soil separating the people from the Prophet? Who can hear through a barrier that thick? So why assume that the Prophet's hearing after he died is comparable to the hearing of someone who is alive? I genuinely would like to know, would appreciate an explanation.

[Vodonaeva]

Someone brought up the point that now there are all these barriers so it's not possible to request things from the Prophet anymore But even back in the old days, wasn't there 6 feet of soil separating the people from the Prophet? Who can hear through a barrier that thick? So why assume that the Prophet's hearing after he died is comparable to the hearing of someone who is alive? I genuinely would like to know, would appreciate an explanation.

Exactly, the people who have raised this "argument" havent' realized that the same argument could be used regarding the established, praiseworthy practice of giving Salam to the Messenger of Allah :saws: when visiting him at his grave. People give him Salam without raising their voice, what's the difference - regarding him hearing it - between giving him Salam at his grave and requesting him to make du'a' to Allah for something?

[lakraboob]

Exactly, the people who have raised this "argument" havent' realized that the same argument could be used regarding the established, praiseworthy practice of giving Salam to the Messenger of Allah :saws: when visiting him at his grave. People give him Salam without raising their voice, what's the difference - regarding him hearing it - between giving him Salam at his grave and requesting him to make du'a' to Allah for something?

Unfortunately our error is that we expect a certain level of intelligence from Madkhalees.

In addition to what you have added, what I was implying as to where did he assume that background noise (or people etc in the Mosque) doesn’t interfere with “Salam” but does interfere with “dua”? Secondly he made a second assumption that “Salam” is said in a normal voice while making dua is done in a LOUD, YELLING way.

I mean give me a break!!!

As far as the Athar is concerned it is mere conjecture on their part to "spin" it.

For people with normal perception and intelligence all of these are straight forward matters to think about, consider and understand.




P.S: I am busy with some work but when I have some time to waste on childish conversations I will enage the "politicians" again.

[DeronBoltonRen]

Unfortunately our error is that we expect a certain level of intelligence from Madkhalees.

Unfortunately for you, you would rather accuse people and call them names rather than talk about the argument.

Do you even know what a "Madkhali", Do you also know that I have none of his books, never heard his cassettes, never seen him on the T.V, Never heard of him on the radio? In fact most people in this part Saudi don't even know who he is...

So please inform me how did you come to the conclusion that I am part of this "Madkhali" group, when this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with their Manhaj?

It just makes you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, like if I were to call you a bravalwi.

In addition to what you have added, what I was implying as to where did he assume that background noise (or people etc in the Mosque) doesn’t interfere with “Salam” but does interfere with “dua”? Secondly he made a second assumption that “Salam” is said in a normal voice while making dua is done in a LOUD, YELLING way. Unfortunately there are specific hadeeth that say that Salams are given to him by the Angels, regardless of whether or not he hears us.

So now give us the hadith that says the Angels also give him our dua to him.



As far as the Athar is concerned it is mere conjecture on their part to "spin" it.

For people with normal perception and intelligence all of these are straight forward matters to think about, consider and understand.
Right now explain how that ayah is not Muhkam.

[polleroy]

Unfortunately there are specific hadeeth that say that Salams are given to him by the Angels, regardless of whether or not he hears us.

So now give us the hadith that says the Angels also give him our dua to him.

Ain't Salawaat on Rasulullah a form of du'a anyway?

[DeronBoltonRen]

I found the above interesting because the same thought came to my mind when reading the question that someone posed: "Why would Umar have done tawassul by Abbas instead of the Prophet if doing it through dead people was permissible?"I don't think that line of questioning is very beneficial. There could be any number of reasons why a person chooses to do X instead of Y, and just posing the question that way doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was because Y was the wrong thing to do. Because as the part in bold suggests, if hadhrat Umar, hadhrat Uthman and hadhrat Ali all have a higher status than Abbas, and all three were alive at the time, then why do tawassul by him instead of one of them? Who cares what line of questioning you think is beneficial?

You say that Qiyyas is permissible, this is Qiyyas.

The hadeeth is not clear in that Umar knew about the Tawassul, point blank. So we can't build this portion of deen upon something that is already doubtful.

In order to come a logical clear answer concerning our Ibada, we have to ask questions and understand things in full context. Why is he the only sahabi doing this? Why didn't the other sahaba do it? Why didn't the prophet tell us to do? These are the questions we NEED to ask, otherwise we can just say this is his ijtihaad and he made a mistake, since nothing else coincides with his action.

If we adopt this line of reasoning, we could ask "why" about everything. For example, if asking the Prophet's help after his death was wrong, why didn't he say so in the dream ? Doesn't the fact that he appeared in the sahabi's dream after the request was made imply that he can hear and respond to requests? Or we can ask a normal question like.

If asking the Prophet for something after his death was right WHY DIDN'T HE TELL US.

So now you're saying that dream was from the Prophet reply? No, it was from Allahs reply. The Prophet does not control our dreams.

Maybe the reason he told the sahabi to go to Umar was because there was already a sunnah method to pray for rain, so in this case that needed to be fulfilled rather than asking the Prophet for help. So it's not okay to ask why, but it's okay to think about Maybe? Maybe you're right, Maybe I'm right. Maybe non of us are right, so now give us another Proof from the Quran and Sunnah that explains it, since the Quran and Sunnah is pretty clear in the fact that we should have full tawakul for Allah, it would be hard for you to find another proof.

Also, I don't understand the restriction of asking the Prophet only when "near" his grave. Isn't that term subjective? Someone brought up the point that now there are all these barriers so it's not possible to request things from the Prophet anymore But even back in the old days, wasn't there 6 feet of soil separating the people from the Prophet? Who can hear through a barrier that thick? So why assume that the Prophet's hearing after he died is comparable to the hearing of someone who is alive? I genuinely would like to know, would appreciate an explanation. Were the Sahaba restricted from entering the house after his death, for the purpose of visiting the grave?

So you're saying the Prophet can hear us from any place in the world? Or you're saying that the Angels tell him everything we say including Dua?

[lakraboob]

Unfortunately for you, you would rather accuse people and call them names rather than talk about the argument.

Do you even know what a "Madkhali", Do you also know that I have none of his books, never heard his cassettes, never seen him on the T.V, Never heard of him on the radio? In fact most people in this part Saudi don't even know who he is...

So please inform me how did you come to the conclusion that I am part of this "Madkhali" group, when this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with their Manhaj?

It just makes you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, like if I were to call you a bravalwi.



Unfortunately there are specific hadeeth that say that Salams are given to him by the Angels, regardless of whether or not he hears us.

So now give us the hadith that says the Angels also give him our dua to him.





Right now explain how that ayah is not Muhkam.

You can demand whatever you like "Right Now" but will get back to you when I have some time to waste

[DeronBoltonRen]

Ain't Salawaat on Rasulullah a form of du'a anyway?

It's a specific dua, that the hadeeth mentions specifically.

Should I now go to the bathroom and before entering say.... I seek refuge in allah from all the evil and evil doers-and oh muhammad please help me?

[DeronBoltonRen]

You can demand whatever you like "Right Now" but will get back to you when I have some time to waste

I meant.

Right, now.

Sorry for the typo.

However, you are right you did waste time, because you brought in subjects that had nothing to do with this (sifaat allah), and then said that an ayah muhkam was mutashaabih and majaazi.

[polleroy]

It's a specific dua, that the hadeeth mentions specifically.

Should I now go to the bathroom and before entering say.... I seek refuge in allah from all the evil and evil doers-and oh muhammad please help me?

When going to the bathroom, enter with your left foot and say Allaahumma innee a'uthu bika minal khubuthee wal khabaa'ith (O Allah, I seek refuge in You from the male and female evil jinn). Not what you translated above.

You're confusing making du'a to Allah for Rasulullah with making du'a to Rasulullah .

[nintenda]

It would shirk to ask the Prophets directly while knowing they are a Waseela to Allah? Or it would be shirk to ask the Prophets directly thinking they are the ones alone who will fulfill your request? Or both?

so the question arises how loud do you have to scream next to the grave of the Prophet in order for him to hear your Dua?

what about this verse in the Qur'an?

"O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not."


Now there are guards, doors, walls, thousands of people around... It wouldn't be possible to speak in a normal tone of voice and have him hear it, while still being sure you are not going against the clear Nass above.

Dear Brother, Assalaamoalikum

It would shirk to ask the Prophets directly while knowing they are a Waseela to Allah? The answer is NO.


Or it would be shirk to ask the Prophets directly thinking they are the ones alone who will fulfill your request? Answer is YES.

so the question arises how loud do you have to scream next to the grave of the Prophet in order for him to hear your Dua? A whisper is enough. In fact, you don't even have to be near the grave for him to hear you. One can also make the same du'a from one's place - just as he hears the durood / salaam I send upon him.

what about this verse in the Qur'an?

"O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech like the loudness of some of you to others, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not." This verse is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This verse was revealed at the time when the Holy Messenger(SAW) was with his Sahaba (ra) who used to call him in a loud voice as they were close (in relation) to him.

Now there are guards, doors, walls, thousands of people around... It wouldn't be possible to speak in a normal tone of voice and have him hear it, while still being sure you are not going against the clear Nass above. [/QUOTE]

If we speak in a normal tone, he will hear us 100%.

Brotherly yours
farook

[MAKEMONEY]

Dear Brother, Assalaamoalikum


The answer is NO.

"...the purpose of the mutawassil (the one performing tawassul) is that the Real Giver is Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), but He authorises these matters to a servant from among His pious servants. So he remembers Allah (Glorified is He) in du’a seeking blessing through His name, but the objective is du’a to the mutawassal bihi (the intermediary), because it is through his execution the matters come to pass according to his belief. This is shirk by ijma’ (consensus)." Mufti Taqi Usmani.

IE: asking others, though you believe the real giver is Allah is shirk by consensus.