[roundman]

In the book "Differences in the Ummah and the Straight Path" Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi Shaheed refutes the practice of asking the pious dead to make dua for you as a bid'ah that must be avoided. But immediately after that Maulana Sahib stated:

At this juncture, I would like to clarify a certain point --- this entire discussion is regarding the non-prophets. Regarding the Ambiyaa (alaihi salaam), especially, our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) my belief is that he is alive (in his grave). It (permissibility) has been recorded in our Kitaabs regarding going to the blessed grave of Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and making Durood and Salaam there and also to request for intercession. So, whoever that has the excellent fortune of presenting himself at the graveside of our Nabi (sallAllaahu alaihi wasallam) and making dua and seeking his intercession, I regard this not merely as being permissible, in fact, it is commendable and most virtuous. And Allaah Ta`ala Knows best. What is the proof for this from ahadith and practice of the Salaf?

[lakraboob]

In the book "Differences in the Ummah and the Straight Path" Maulana Yusuf Ludhianvi Shaheed refutes the practice of asking the pious dead to make dua for you as a bid'ah that must be avoided. But immediately after that Maulana Sahib stated:



What is the proof for this from ahadith and practice of the Salaf?

So you rejet the Athar of Malik Daar (RA)?

[roundman]

So you rejet the Athar of Malik Daar (RA)?

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.

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

[lakraboob]

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.

[lollypopz]

Roger that

[roundman]

There are three possible ways of looking at this tradition:

Discuss the Authenticity of this text and we can argue back and forth as both sides can quote enough Scholars of Hadeeth
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

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. That narration is analysed with the understanding of some classical scholars in this article.

Narration of Malik al Dar, evidence for Tawassul by the living & not by the Prophet after his death

The reply to your objection is given as:

The ones who use this hadith for this type of tawassul say that Umar radiyallahu anhu did not rebuke the man who did istisqa’ at the grave.

Reply:
There is no clear evidence in the hadith indicating that the man told Umar of him going to the grave, but clearly he did tell him of the dream, telling him the message of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. So to say that he told him about his istisqa’ at the grave is an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence.

There is no evidence that Umar radiyallahu anhu knew about the man going to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. I will explain it to you in the following points insha Allah:

1. In the narration it says (The man went and told `Umar), it does not mention what the man told Umar, if he told him that he went to the grave and about the dream, or if he ONLY told him about the dream. We know for sure that he told him about the dream but we don’t have any evidence that he told him about him going to the grave.

It is just an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence.

2. If the man told Umar radiyallahu anhu that he went to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and made tawassul through him, then why would Umar radiyallahu anhu make tawassul through al Abbas after knowing that?

Isn’t the tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam sufficient? and he is the best creation of Allah !

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" Brother, the reason I am asking for any other evidences is because the understanding of that narration is in doubt. And if the act was "commendable and most virtuous" then surely there would be other evidences for it as well.

If there arent other proofs then why shouldnt the following principle apply in this case:

"If there is a doubt whether a practice is Sunnah or bid'ah, then to omit a Sunnah is better than perpetrating a bid'ah."

[lakraboob]

That narration is analysed with the understanding of some classical scholars in this article.

Narration of Malik al Dar, evidence for Tawassul by the living & not by the Prophet after his death

The reply to your objection is given as:

The ones who use this hadith for this type of tawassul say that Umar radiyallahu anhu did not rebuke the man who did istisqa’ at the grave.

Reply:
There is no clear evidence in the hadith indicating that the man told Umar of him going to the grave, but clearly he did tell him of the dream, telling him the message of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. So to say that he told him about his istisqa’ at the grave is an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence.

There is no evidence that Umar radiyallahu anhu knew about the man going to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. I will explain it to you in the following points insha Allah:

1. In the narration it says (The man went and told `Umar), it does not mention what the man told Umar, if he told him that he went to the grave and about the dream, or if he ONLY told him about the dream. We know for sure that he told him about the dream but we don’t have any evidence that he told him about him going to the grave.

It is just an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence.

2. If the man told Umar radiyallahu anhu that he went to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and made tawassul through him, then why would Umar radiyallahu anhu make tawassul through al Abbas after knowing that?

Isn’t the tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam sufficient? and he is the best creation of Allah !


Brother, the reason I am asking for any other evidences is because the understanding of that narration is in doubt. And if the act was "commendable and most virtuous" then surely there would be other evidences for it as well.

If there arent other proofs then why shouldnt the following principle apply in this case:

"If there is a doubt whether a practice is Sunnah or bid'ah, then to omit a Sunnah is better than perpetrating a bid'ah."

My brother in Islam,

It appears that you like arguing for the sake of arguing. In the article we have "half quoted bits laced with a healthy dose of spin by Um Abdullah!". There is nothing substantive to discuss e.g. here are examples of her "spin"

He didn’t mention the rest of the hadith because it has nothing to do with the chapter heading, he only quoted what he believed fits the chapters title, for he says at the end of the section, after mentioning this narration: (Note: these 2 narrations could be weak, but the point is that al Hafidh Ibn Kathir rahimahu Allah mentioned them right before the narration of Malik, showing what it is about, which shows what he understood it to mean, same as what Ibn Hajar (r A) understood from it). You say that it’s an "assumption" that the man told Sayyidina Umar (RA). Instead of arguing I take your word on face value, equally its “assumption” on your part to say that “he didn’t”. Please present ESTABLISHED FACTS that:

1. The man didn't tell Sayyidina Umar (RA)
2. And if he did then he was REBUKED & REFUTED by Sayyidina Umar (RA)

If you reject my assumption then I reject your assumption. Again instead of spending 5 days arguing back and forth I am giving you the leeway that its "an assumption"

The words "commendable and most virtuous" are the words of Shaykh Yusuf Ludhyanwi (RA), here my purpose was to establish the "permissibility" of the matter by this Athar and unless you can categorically prove otherwise it stands!

The Tawasul through Sayyidina Ibn Abbas (RA) is a separate matter and not to MixNMatch and these are separate matters. Its a major "assumption" on your part to link the two together merely on hypothesis and supposition.

Discuss facts and we can continue this discussion further.



P.S: I am Sorry but I am not a politician so you will have to do something better then this! You want to argue for 5 days over spin, carry on.

[Virosponna]

Salam aleikum

If you are in doubt then leave it and follow that principle, but don't think that other people share that doubt.

[roundman]

My brother in Islam,

Salam aleikum

[Virosponna]

The assumtion your view makes is that Umar knew what the man did and he approved of it. That assumption is based on the general wording "fa akhbarahu". It doesn't say fa akhbarahu bil manam. Yes, the imperative akhbirhu was mentioned before, but it doesn't indicate that he only told him about the dream and nothing else. The generality of the wording holds until the contrary can be proven.

[DeronBoltonRen]

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"

Is that really true? That once ONE athar has been established to be true (even though the meaning you intend it to be is not 100% clear) we shouldn't ask for anything else apart from that?

Is that how the Hanafi Usool works?

That sounds similar to what the Salafis do, they find one athar and then say this is authentic and you can't follow anything else.

However, the fact remains that the actions of the Sahaba especially when ambiguous such as this one are not completely accepted except after further clarity. Why is this the only hadeeth about asking the Prophet for something, why are there no other Major Sahabas doing it? Why didn't the dua get answered the first time, but rather Allah sent a dream to him to tell him what to do next? How do we know that the Sahaba in this case was right in his Ijtihad of asking the Prophet directly, especially if we have no other clear proof? Assuming we have no other proof, why not rely on what the Prophet did, what he taught the other 99.99999 % percent of the Sahabas to do?

I'm definitely not trying to argue, but would seriously like to know whether or not it is permissible to ask the Prophet something? Can we also ask Jesus for something or how about the rest of the greatest 5 Prophets (Alayi Salam)?

[DeronBoltonRen]

That assumption is based on the general wording "fa akhbarahu". It doesn't say fa akhbarahu bil manam. Yes, the imperative akhbirhu was mentioned before, but it doesn't indicate that he only told him about the dream and nothing else. The generality of the wording holds until the contrary can be proven.

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....

Secondly, if he informed him of his Tawassul, and Tawassul was correct and right knowing Umar he probably would have cut his head off for thinking that coming to Umar to go to Ibn Abbas is better than going directly to the Prophet , so why would Umars or Ibn Abbas' dua be accepted after a PERMISSIBLE tawassul to the best of mankind?

Well it can be said that the dream is what made him go to Umar after the "Permissible" tawassul and thus Umar was satisfied with that, But that again goes back to the point. What is the point of Tawassul through the Prophet to begin with? When the end result is going to Allah directly through Istisqa through a live person? Why should we beat around the bush, when we can go directly to the source?

If going to the living (who is not the Prophet) is better than going to the Prophet who is not living, then there is absolutely no need to go to any dead at any time, you should either go directly to the living (Allah is the ever living) or go to someone who is living and more religious than you.

[roundman]

I'm definitely not trying to argue, but would seriously like to know whether or not it is permissible to ask the Prophet something? Can we also ask Jesus for something or how about the rest of the greatest 5 Prophets (Alayi Salam)? Just in case someone reading this misunderstands. This discussion is limited to the permissability of asking the Prophet at his graveside to make dua to Allah for us.

Asking the Prophet directly for help would be shirk.

Prophet Eesa alayhi salaam was raised up alive and hasnt passed away yet. So this question doesnt even arise.

Regarding the other Prophets, I think those who believe in this practice allow it for them as well provided the request is only made at the graveside.

[DeronBoltonRen]

Just in case someone reading this misunderstands. This discussion is limited to the permissability of asking the Prophet at his graveside to make dua to Allah for us.

Asking the Prophet directly for help would be shirk.

Prophet Eesa alayhi salaam was raised up alive and hasnt passed away yet. So this question doesnt even arise.

Regarding the other Prophets, I think those who believe in this practice allow it for them as well provided the request is only made at the graveside.

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.

[lakraboob]

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.

Brother,

Another politician who likes to spin!

Brother, there are matters in Islam which are NOT TAKEN LITERALLY! If you want to begin to interpret things literary then please answer the following:

1. How does Allah (SWT) descend to the lowest heaven?
2. If Allah (SWT) is UP then which way is UP when the Erath is round?

Please explain to me and we will then talk about Rasul-ullah or any other dead able to hear despite background noise.

[DeronBoltonRen]

Brother,

Another politician who likes to spin! Not exactly sure what you mean?

Really.....

Brother, there are matters in Islam which are NOT TAKEN LITERALLY! If you want to begin to interpret things literary then please answer the following: Why are you talking literally the action of one Sahaba? Is this on your list of Literally taken things?

1. How does Allah (SWT) descend to the lowest heaven?
2. If Allah (SWT) is UP then which way is UP when the Erath is round?

Don't get into a sifat war please, that has nothing to do with the ayah I posted because even if you are of the opinion that sifat are mutashaabih this verse above is not mutashaabih, and is muhkam.

Besides I don't answer questions that would get me beat by Imam Maalik.

If the verse "Don't raise your voices" is Maajazi, what is the Maajazi meaning?

why does Allah continue to say...

"Indeed, those who call you, [O Muhammad], from behind the chambers - most of them do not use reason." then....

"And if they had been patient until you [could] come out to them, it would have been better for them. But Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." Since the Prophet was buried where he died, it means he still still in his chambers, and anyone who calls upon him while he is in his chambers... most of them are Ghayr al-Aaqil.

Please explain to me and we will then talk about Rasul-ullah or any other dead able to hear despite background noise. Why should I explain to you an issue of Sifat Allah, when we are talking about Manners related to our Prophet these are two different topics, and according to most of Sunni-forumers two different types of verses.

Wa iyyak.

[Dwerfsd]

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.

عليكم السلام

Eureka! The above answered the question I had for long as to why this self made, half baked cluster of Mujaddids think the way they think. Juvenile Tangential Thinking Syndrome!

[DeronBoltonRen]

Brother,

Another politician who likes to spin!

Brother, there are matters in Islam which are NOT TAKEN LITERALLY! If you want to begin to interpret things literary then please answer the following:

I'm seriously wondering did you look at the tafseer or determined what is haqeeqi and what is maajazi by yourself?

Al-Qurtubi mentions a hadeeth narrated by Bukhari and Tirmidhi, which mentions Umar and Abu Bakr conversing in front of the Prophet , and they raised their literal real voices, and this verse was revealed.

He also mentions:

وقد كره بعض العلماء رفع الصوت عند قبره عليه السلام. وكره بعض العلماء رفع الصوت في مجالس العلماء تشريفاً لهم؛ إذ هم ورثة الأنبيا

That some scholars hated for voices to be raised near the Prophets grave, and some of them also hated for it to be in a sitting with scholars, out of respect for them because they are the waratha of the scholars.

He also mentions for ayah 4 a real story of a bedoin entering the Masjid and calling upon the Prophet while he was behind his walls.

So I'm really confused about what you mean exactly?

[DeronBoltonRen]

عليكم السلام

Eureka! The above answered the question I had for long as to why this self made, half baked cluster of Mujaddids think the way they think. Juvenile Tangential Thinking Syndrome!

If you look at what I said below, you will see that Al-Qurtubi mentions that this is ayah is applicable to the grave of the Prophet as per some scholars...

So now that you look like a moron, either apologize or walk away in shame because of your quick sharp tongue.

What do you mean by Half baked cluster?

I am simply a student of knowledge, far from being Juvenile, and just repeating what scholars have said. If you don't like the clear Quranic Ayah and want to go for the ambiguous saying of one Sahaba as a dalil for your ibada be my guest.

Is Al-Qurtubi and his reflection of "Ulama" considered to be juvenile in their ijtihaad? Or is your Ureka moment over?

[lakraboob]

I'm seriously wondering did you look at the tafseer or determined what is haqeeqi and what is maajazi by yourself?

Al-Qurtubi mentions a hadeeth narrated by Bukhari and Tirmidhi, which mentions Umar and Abu Bakr conversing in front of the Prophet , and they raised their literal real voices, and this verse was revealed.

He also mentions:

وقد كره بعض العلماء رفع الصوت عند قبره عليه السلام. وكره بعض العلماء رفع الصوت في مجالس العلماء تشريفاً لهم؛ إذ هم ورثة الأنبيا

That some scholars hated for voices to be raised near the Prophets grave, and some of them also hated for it to be in a sitting with scholars, out of respect for them because they are the waratha of the scholars.

He also mentions for ayah 4 a real story of a bedoin entering the Masjid and calling upon the Prophet while he was behind his walls.

So I'm really confused about what you mean exactly?

You are a real politician, aren't you? Lot of words come out of your mouth but nothing meaningful and you have a habit of not reading but assuming.

Firstly you have cleverly skipped the questions because you can't explain it!

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