sino:


Brother, I am sure of the verse I quoted, and I know that it is about Prophet Isa (AS), for there is a similar information in an authentic narration which shows the fact that the Prophet (SAW) does not know what you all are doing after his demise.

From Sahih Bukhari

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 533:

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet stood up among us and addressed (saying) “You will be gathered, barefooted, Unclad, and uncircumcised (as Allah said): ‘As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it.’ (21.104) And the first human being to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be (the Prophet) Ibrahim Al-Khalil.
Then will be brought some men of my community who will be taken towards the left (i.e., to the Fire), and I will say: ‘O Lord! My companions whereupon Allah will say: You do not know what they did after you left them. I will then say as the pious slave, ‘Isa (Jesus) said, “And I was witness over them while I dwelt amongst them………. (up to) …the All-Wise.” (5.117-118).

The narrator added: Then it will be said that those people (relegated from Islam, that is) kept on turning on their heels (deserted Islam).

This is the words of the Prophet (SAW) himself, and nowhere did he command that you come visit his grave for your needs, rather what we have on record is about his strict warning not to take his grave as a place of festivity or worship! Except you can fault this narration, and by extension, explain the Qur'anic verse, then I see no substantive evidence for your claims.

For your information, everyone would come back to "life" after death, or what did all the questioning in the grave is all about?! And yes, the dead can hear and there is a limit to that too, not to mention that the Prophet (SAW) had given us the proper thing to do at the graves when we visit, he didn't inform us to seek forgiveness when we come to his grave, did you all think that the sahabas never read the verse (4:64), that they wouldn't have besieged the Prophet's grave every night and day?! Or they had no need to seek forgiveness?!

And with regards to the benefit of the Prophet dead or alive, that is already established, we send salams to him and Allah (SWT) rewards us in manifold, it has nothing to do with seeking for our needs from Allah (SWT), it is better we follow his teachings so as to get our needs fulfilled by Allah (SWT)!

First all, it seems we are talking about istighatha here. The verse with respect to that will continue to function till Qiyamah. As for going to the graves and beseeching the prophet or awliya Allah, this can be done with or without going there in the first place. And there seems to be slight difference btw istighatha and waseela. These two will function till Qiyamah. Now, i understand sending salaam on the prophet. No muslim worship the prophet at his grave. If nabi said his grave would not be center of worship, it is exactly that. Today, people troop his grave and beseech Allah for help through him. This is what Albaqir is saying. So my question is, if nabi said his grave would not be center of worship, are those people who beseech Allah at his grave worship the prophet?. That would be counterproductive.

Furthermore, even whenever muslims (sufi in particular) send salaam on the prophet outside of obligatory salat like group dhikr, tazkiyah, zawiya etc, some muslims still criticize them. So at what point is salaam on the prophet (saw) that does not conform with their ideology is agreed upon?. They criticize going to his grave. They criticize sending salaam on him(saw) that is different from their way. They criticize all salawat except solati Ibrahimiyah. So what is left exactly?

Also, if travelling from Makkah to Medina to visit his grave which is miles apart, then, that's TRAVELLING. This refutes the guy's claim that we can not travel for ziyara to his grave. Thats exactly what hujjaj do unless you can establish evidence from nabi himself that visit to his grave is part and obligatory act of Haj. I will like to have that proof please.

We are not supposed to worship at the grave. Ziyara to the grave as define by nabi(saw) himself is in itself not act of worship but act of reflection. And this practice existed pre-islamic era. There is difference btw saying "Ya Allah, bless me with righteous child by the virtue of your prophet muhammad" and "Ya rosulallah, bless me a with righteous child. The former is directly seeking help from Allah through his noble prophet(saw). This is tawassul(waseela) and sahaba did this at his grave. According to our salafi brothers, 'follow the sunnah and sunnah of khulafa rashideen". Hence, khulafa did this practice. This is sahih. So seeking help really is not act of worship even if done at the grave. It only becomes act of worship if, only if worshiper believes in his heart that the one in the grave has power to provide independent of Allah. This is a matter of aqeedah in the heart really. So the former is allowed but the later amounts to shirk. We can not accuse fellow muslim of mushrik unless otherwise stated. Even from the explanation of sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen(ra) shows grave visit is not essentially act of worship. He emphasized intention in his comment on this.

Lastly, as for the prophet not knowing what's going on after him, that seems to be apparent contradiction but in reality it is not. "my life is good for you, my death is good for you" . This is in two parts. The first part is about the status and meaning of the first hadith. The second part reconciles the apparent contradiction with the second hadith by contextualizing the latter through its variant wordings.


The Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: “My life is an immense good for you: you bring up new matters and new matters are brought up for you. My death, also, is an immense good for you: your actions will be shown to me; if I see goodness I shall praise Allâh and if I see evil I shall ask forgiveness of Him for you.” (H.ayâtî khayrun lakum tuh.dithûna wa yuh.dathu lakum wa-wafâtî khayrun lakum tu`rad.u a`mâlukum `alayya famâ ra’aytu min khayrin h.amidtu Allâha wa-mâ ra’aytu min sharrin istaghfartu Allâha lakum.)

Narrated from Ibn Mas`ûd by al-Bazzâr in his Musnad (5:308-309 §1925) with a sound chain of trustworthy narrators as stated by:

1. al-Suyût.î in Manâhil al-S.afâ (p. 31 § and al-Khas.â’is. al-Kubrâ (2:281),

2. al-Haythamî in Majma` al-Zawa’id (9:24 §91),

3. al-Zarqânî in Sharh. al-Muwat.t.a’ (1:97) and his commentary on al-Qast.allânî’s Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya.

“The hadîth means that the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, is a great good for his Community during his life, because Allâh the Exalted has preserved the Community, through the secret of the Prophet’s presence, upon him blessings and peace, from misguidance, confusion, and disagreement, and He has guided the people through the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, to the manifest truth; and that after Allâh took back the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, our connection to the latter’s goodness continues uncut and the extension of his goodness endures, overshadowing us. The deeds of the Community are shown to him every day, and he glorifies Allâh for the goodness that he finds, while he asks for His forgiveness for the small sins, and the alleviation of His punishment for the grave ones: and this is a tremendous good for us. There is therefore ‘goodness for the Community in his life, and in his death, goodness for the Community.’ Moreover, as has been established in the h.adîth, the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, is alive in his grave with a special ‘isthmus-life’ stronger than the lives of the martyrs which the Qur’ân spoke of in more than one verse. The nature of these two kinds of life cannot be known except by their Bestower, the Glorious, the Exalted. He is able to do all things. His showing the Community’s deeds to the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, as an honorific gift for him and his Community is entirely possible rationally and documented in the reports. There is no leeway for its denial; and Allâh guides to His light whomever He pleases; and Allâh knows best.”

But if you ask for my personal opinion or what i do basically in regard to this?. I will tell you i do nothing beyond sending salaam on the prophet in any manner deem fit. I also beseech Allah's help through his nabi like saying "ola anobi" for instance. That's all. I dont do crazy this at the graves. I am yet to visit one actually. I am hoping to do that in sha Allah. However, as portray in yoruba movies where woman goes to the grave of her husband and say things like '(my husband) look down on us and your children. protect us, let us live good life bla bla bla". This is out of it. A muslim should desist from this. This is what mushrikun of makkah did. They believe whatever is in the grave is capable of doing things without Allah's permission. This is not waseela.

iamgenius:
May Allah bless you. An innovator will always find something to support his innovations. Their wrong analogy shows how dull their brain is.

Listen, this thread is for educational purposes. Aimmah had differences but they never go about throwing insults at each other, nor called each others innovators. So if you have no meaningful contribution, kindly excuse us Evidences exist from both sides. Stop your dogmatism crap

I am going to digress a little.

AlBaqir:


* A good example is reward for Tahajjud - it is said that one could be raised to maqam Mahmud. Five daily prayer cannot give that. Yet Tahajjud is just mustahab.


Therefore, in my humble opinion, many ahadith on the Ziyarat to Imam Hussain's Qabr could fall in one of those 3 highlighted points. So, don't be terrify with its magnificent reward.

See what you just said. See why Sheikh Onikijipa was misunderstood. It is pretty much something like this when he said things others do not comprehend. To even earn a reward for obligatory salat is hard enough if it is not done properly. But these mustahabat get it good.

Does that mean nawafil are more rewardable than fard?. No


Fard practices = reward is small but you can not ignore, discard or miss it. You get punished[b]d


Nawafil practices = rewards are great but you may miss it, ignore it and discard it without punishment


So when alfa says salawat on nabi is greater than obligatory salat does not in any way means abandoning obligatory practices. So Alfa Saheed Shittu, mister loud mouth needs to zip it

AlBaqir:


# What do you mean a story?! It is an athar with an authentic sanad. None of your Imam ever doubt that report. That single report is a dead blow to your belief.

Dead blow?! "AlBaqir eyan Mayweather" Which authentic sanad?! The one you conjured?! It is a fabrication, just like that of Al Utbi, I just can't understand why you guys like to support your claims with fabricated stories...

"Its related from Abu Sadiq (ra) that Imam Ali (ra) said: "Three days after burying the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) arab did came and did throw himself on the grave of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), took the earth and throw it on his head. He said: "Ya Rasulallah! (Peace Be Upon Him) You did speak and we did hear, you learned from Allah and we did learn from you. Between those things which Allah did send you, is following: (4:64) I am the one, which is a sinner and now I did came to you, so that you may ask for me." After that a call from the grave did came: "Theres no doubt, you are forgiven!" [Tafsir al-Qurtubi, al-Jami li Ahkam al-Quran Volume 006, Page No. 439, Under the Verse, 4:64]

Comment: From this athar some people claim that this was the aqeeda of Imam al Qurtubi, but that is false because the narration is fabrication and no where al-Qurtubi authenticated it.


Scholars on this narration:

• 1. Muttaqi al Hindi quoted this naration in Kanzul Ummal and said:

(ad-Dahabi) said in al Mughni: al Haytam bin Adi al Taai is Matrook (rejected). [Kanz ul Ummal 4322]

• 2. as-Suyuti mentioned this narration in Jaam`e al Ahadeeth and said:

It is mentioned in al Mughni: al Haytam bin Adi al Taai is rejected. [Jaam`e al Ahadeeth 31/241]

• 3. Imam Ibn Abdul Hadi said

Some liars have even raised the chain to Alee bin Abee Taalib (as-Saarim al Munkee pg.246)

on page 247 he says
This story mentioned from al Arabi is not evidence, its chain is Dark”(end)
Source

AlBaqir:

# @underline, The command of Nabi as we have stated earlier is that " it is permissible to perform Ziyarat to the Qabr". It doesn't matter where you come from. That authentic athar revealed a Bedouin Arab who of course "travel" to Medina to visit Nabi. Last time I check, you still regard Ali as a rightly guided Caliph, therefore, if what the man did was wrong, Ali would have corrected him on that spot (just as he used to correct improper practices in his presence irrespective of who did it).

# The onus is rather on you guys to give us your "authentic" hadith where Nabi exclusively forbid making Ziyarat to Qabr for the sole purpose of Ziyarat to Qabr of whoever.

O you mean the fabricated athar of the Bedouin Arab abi...I wonder why it is a Bedouin Arab that understood the verse than even Ali (ra), or do we have authentic narrations from him to support your claims?! How many companions, tabiyeen and so on were involved in this traveling to visit graves?! Please give us the narrations!

When the Prophet (SAW) forbade traveling to visit any house of Allah, except 3, then it is traveling to visit graves of people that would be recommended abi?! And what I mean by traveling, I mean pilgrimage. What is the purpose of visiting graves in Islam?! Who will teach us this if not the Prophet (SAW), so let us learn:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Visit the graves, for they remind you of the Hereafter." (Narrated by Muslim, 976).

It was reported that 'Aa'ishah said that when it was her night for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to stay with her, he would go out during the latter part of the night to (the cemetery of) al-Baqee' and say, "Peace be upon you, dwellings of the believing people. There has come to you that which you were promised, …, and if Allaah wills we will follow you soon. O Allaah, forgive the people of Baqee' al-Gharqad." (Narrated by Muslim, 974).

So we see that we visit to get reminded of the hereafter or to pray for those in the grave...

AlBaqir:

# @underline, you mean people of your ideology?!

# What is the aim of going to Madina? To visit Nabi's mosque, and not to meet the owner of the mosque per se?


# Who told you I don't need to go to Nabi's Qabr to ask my needs? Ibn Abdulwahab or Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Baz?!

Again, Q.4:64 has clear the air.

# Of course, even courtesy demand you first greet the owner of a house/city before you request. Therefore, you say "as-Salam alayka Ya Rasulullah!" This is adab, and it is also proven from the authentic athar of that Bedouin Arab.

We have authentic hadith from the mouth of the Prophet (SAW) stating the rewards associated with observing salat in these 3 masaajid, of course traveling to Medina to pray is recommended, and also a mosque is the house of Allah (SWT), and Allah (SWT) says: "And the mosques are Allah's, therefore call not upon any one with Allah" (Q72:18), visiting the graves of the Prophet (SAW) and the pious predecessors is a plus, and you are to make salaam and salawaat on them...Asking for your needs at this place is not recommended by the Prophet (SAW) or can such be found in the Qur'an! What is authentic is warning against doing such, and clearly, it is an avenue to shirk

Also the Prophet (SAW) said:

'Aa'ishah and 'Abd-Allaah ibn 'Abbaas said: "When (death) approached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he started to cover his face with a cloak of his. When he became distressed he lifted it from his face and said, "May Allaah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they have taken the graves of their Prophets as places of worship." [The narrator said:] he was warning against doing what they did." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 425; Muslim, 531).

Abu Marthad al-Ghanawi said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Do not sit on graves and do not pray facing them." (Narrated by Muslim, 972).

Qur'an 4:64 is not to be taken in general terms as prove to go to the Prophet's grave, even in tafsir tabari, it pointed to those who the verse was revealed for and it was during the life of the Prophet (SAW), again if we continue reading, the next verse states:

"But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission."

So if the previous verse is evidence we can go to the Prophet's grave to seek forgiveness, as stated in the fabricated story, can we also use the above verse to carry our disputes to the grave of the Prophet (SAW) to judge?!

AlBaqir:

# You don't need to exaggerate Mr man. For a fact, it is not possible for every Muslims (over 1.6 billion still counting) to be going to Nabi's Qabr to fulfil their need. The point is whoever has the opportunity to visit Nabi and ask him to intercede for you before Allah (just like Q.4:64 puts it); SURELY, your request will be granted.

* Imagine! Salat in Makkah is more rewardable than Salat in any masjid. Asking Allah via Muhammad and in the presence of Muhammad (sallahu alayhi wa ahli) is far more guaranteed. We have seen this in the case of the hadith of Uthman Ibn Hunaif about the blind man.

Yeah exaggeration indeed, the population of those who go for hajj is more than a million, all asking for their needs via the Prophet (SAW) at the grave one after the other (calling on him, saying Ya Rasulallah) where he (SAW) warned not to turn to place of worship, when they can call on Allah (SWT) and ask Allah (SWT) directly in His house who is all hearing and all seeing doesn't look and sound contrary to the teachings of the Prophet (SAW) as directed by Allah (SWT) in the QUr'an?! Where is it stated by the Prophet (SAW) that fulfill your needs at my grave?! or call on me to help you pray to Allah (SWT) to fulfill your needs?!

Asking the Prophet (SAW) to intercede is subject to judgement day, it is a prayer we can say anywhere, it has nothing to do with mundane issues or problems you face.

I have discussed the issue of the blind man, and it was during the life of the Prophet (SAW) and not when he was dead!

AlBaqir:


# Makrooh ko, Mubah ni.

On a more serious note, there are few points:

1. There are lots of amal specify both in Sunni and Shii traditions with "extraordinary reward" that doesn't make sense (at least to my understanding).

2. Not every tom, dick and harry hadith (even if its graded sahih) in Sunni or Shi'a hadith make any sense. Many of them are nothing but fabrications.

3. Wajibat vs Mustahabat (obligatory vs recommended):

# Surprisingly there are rewards specify in books of ahadith both in Sunni and Shi'a ahadith whose rewards are far greater than rewards of some Wajibat amal. For example, we read in Sunni book, an authentic hadith from Imam Hussain himself, that whoever weep for the ahl al-bayt, al-Jannah is sure for him


# The only thing understood is if you fail to do Wajibat amal, there is retribution which is not in Mustahabat. Reward of both could be same in daraja. The rationality behind this is Allah does not want to bore us with too many amal therefore, some were specified to be Wajibat which are just enough for success here in duniya and akhira. But that doesn't mean their reward should be highest.

* A good example is reward for Tahajjud - it is said that one could be raised to maqam Mahmud. Five daily prayer cannot give that. Yet Tahajjud is just mustahab.


Therefore, in my humble opinion, many ahadith on the Ziyarat to Imam Hussain's Qabr could fall in one of those 3 highlighted points. So, don't be terrify with its magnificent reward.

I quoted narrations about visiting grave of the grandson of the Prophet (SAW) as an obligatory act, not only so, it is stated that it is more rewarding than performing hajj which is categorically stated in the Qur'an and even hajj should be abandoned, a pillar of Islam, and you are here theorizing?! Even the tahajjud you mentioned is it not mentioned in the Qur'an?! Would your tahajjud be looked at first on the day of judgement?! Is it a key to paradise?! Do you have all the details of the rewards associated with the 5 daily prayers to start doing your comparison?!

So tell us, where is visiting Hussein's (ra) grave mentioned in the Qur'an?! Where is visiting his grave obligatory?! Why don't we have such rewards associated with visiting the grave of the Prophet (SAW)?! Is Hussein's grave greater than that of the Prophet (SAW)?! If no, where are the narrations stating the rewards for visiting the Prophet's grave?!

Empiree:
First all, it seems we are talking about istighatha here. The verse with respect to that will continue to function till Qiyamah. As for going to the graves and beseeching the prophet or awliya Allah, this can be done with or without going there in the first place. And there seems to be slight difference btw istighatha and waseela. These two will function till Qiyamah. Now, i understand sending salaam on the prophet. No muslim worship the prophet at his grave. If nabi said his grave would not be center of worship, it is exactly that. Today, people troop his grave and beseech Allah for help through him. This is what Albaqir is saying. So my question is, if nabi said his grave would not be center of worship, are those people who beseech Allah at his grave worship the prophet?. That would be counterproductive.

Bro, at the bold, it seems contradictory, do you beseech the prophet (SAW) and awliya Allah, or you beseech Allah (SWT) through the the Prophet (SAW) and awliya?! You also said with regards to beseeching the Prophet (SAW) and the awliya, you do not need to visit their graves, then does it mean they are all hearing?!

What I believe to be reasonable, putting the warnings of the Prophet into proper perspective, is to just follow what the Prophet (SAW) taught us with regards to visiting graves.

Empiree:

Furthermore, even whenever muslims (sufi in particular) send salaam on the prophet outside of obligatory salat like group dhikr, tazkiyah, zawiya etc, some muslims still criticize them. So at what point is salaam on the prophet (saw) that does not conform with their ideology is agreed upon?. They criticize going to his grave. They criticize sending salaam on him(saw) that is different from their way. They criticize all salawat except solati Ibrahimiyah. So what is left exactly?

Lol, I believe the major issue is the exaggerations and activities that are not sanctioned in the shari'ah being carried out by some extreme sufis...

Empiree:

Also, if travelling from Makkah to Medina to visit his grave which is miles apart, then, that's TRAVELLING. This refutes the guy's claim that we can not travel for ziyara to his grave. Thats exactly what hujjaj do unless you can establish evidence from nabi himself that visit to his grave is part and obligatory act of Haj. I will like to have that proof please.

Actually the intention is to visit the Mosque, and since the graves are there then they can visit

Empiree:

We are not supposed to worship at the grave. Ziyara to the grave as define by nabi(saw) himself is in itself not act of worship but act of reflection. And this practice existed pre-islamic era. There is difference btw saying "Ya Allah, bless me with righteous child by the virtue of your prophet muhammad" and "Ya rosulallah, bless me a with righteous child. The former is directly seeking help from Allah through his noble prophet(saw). This is tawassul(waseela) and sahaba did this at his grave. According to our salafi brothers, 'follow the sunnah and sunnah of khulafa rashideen". Hence, khulafa did this practice. This is sahih. So seeking help really is not act of worship even if done at the grave. It only becomes act of worship if, only if worshiper believes in his heart that the one in the grave has power to provide independent of Allah. This is a matter of aqeedah in the heart really. So the former is allowed but the later amounts to shirk. We can not accuse fellow muslim of mushrik unless otherwise stated. Even from the explanation of sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen(ra) shows grave visit is not essentially act of worship. He emphasized intention in his comment on this.

Of course, that is why I brought up the reason as established by the Prophet (SAW) the reason for visiting graves. Allah (SWT) asked us to travel the land and reflect, but when it has to do with worship, then there is the need to employ caution, and learn what is legislated and what is not. There is a difference of opinion with tawassul using the (status of) Prophet (SAW),and it is disliked by the majority...

Empiree:

Lastly, as for the prophet not knowing what's going on after him, that seems to be apparent contradiction but in reality it is not. "my life is good for you, my death is good for you" . This is in two parts. The first part is about the status and meaning of the first hadith. The second part reconciles the apparent contradiction with the second hadith by contextualizing the latter through its variant wordings.


The Prophet said, upon him blessings and peace: “My life is an immense good for you: you bring up new matters and new matters are brought up for you. My death, also, is an immense good for you: your actions will be shown to me; if I see goodness I shall praise Allâh and if I see evil I shall ask forgiveness of Him for you.” (H.ayâtî khayrun lakum tuh.dithûna wa yuh.dathu lakum wa-wafâtî khayrun lakum tu`rad.u a`mâlukum `alayya famâ ra’aytu min khayrin h.amidtu Allâha wa-mâ ra’aytu min sharrin istaghfartu Allâha lakum.)

Narrated from Ibn Mas`ûd by al-Bazzâr in his Musnad (5:308-309 §1925) with a sound chain of trustworthy narrators as stated by:

1. al-Suyût.î in Manâhil al-S.afâ (p. 31 § and al-Khas.â’is. al-Kubrâ (2:281),

2. al-Haythamî in Majma` al-Zawa’id (9:24 §91),

3. al-Zarqânî in Sharh. al-Muwat.t.a’ (1:97) and his commentary on al-Qast.allânî’s Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya.

This narration is weak, and has many faults, you can read about it Here

As I had presented the narration which is corroborated by the verse of the Qur'an about Isa (AS) with regards to the fact that these Prophets (AS) do not know what we do after they had left this world, so this above narration is suspect, even if we probe further, we are over 1.2 billion, how are these our deeds presented to the Prophet (SAW)?! Is this not trying to start giving attributes of Allah (SWT) to the Prophet (SAW)?!

Empiree:

But if you ask for my personal opinion or what i do basically in regard to this?. I will tell you i do nothing beyond sending salaam on the prophet in any manner deem fit. I also beseech Allah's help through his nabi like saying "ola anobi" for instance. That's all. I dont do crazy this at the graves. I am yet to visit one actually. I am hoping to do that in sha Allah. However, as portray in yoruba movies where woman goes to the grave of her husband and say things like '(my husband) look down on us and your children. protect us, let us live good life bla bla bla". This is out of it. A muslim should desist from this. This is what mushrikun of makkah did. They believe whatever is in the grave is capable of doing things without Allah's permission. This is not waseela.

@Bold, the fact is that there is no help the dead can do for the living, on the contrary we are the ones to be praying for them as it is authentically established in the sunnah. The best way to seek waseelah is through Allah (SWT) and His beautiful names, our good deeds, and seeking righteous living individuals to make dua' for us, beyond these, as already mentioned, using the Prophet (SAW) has difference of opinion, but majority of scholars dislike it. Personally, I prefer calling on Allah (SWT) and using His most beautiful names, after all Allah (SWT) says: "Say: "Call upon Allah, or call upon Rahman: by whatever name ye call upon Him, (it is well): for to Him belong the Most Beautiful Names." (Q17:110) and "Call on me, I would respond to you." (Q40:60)

sino:


Bro, at the bold, it seems contradictory, do you beseech the prophet (SAW) and awliya Allah, or you beseech Allah (SWT) through the the Prophet (SAW) and awliya?! You also said with regards to beseeching the Prophet (SAW) and the awliya, you do not need to visit their graves, then does it mean they are all hearing?!

Sorry, it is THROUGH. My thought writes faster than my pen But i think i set it right later in my post.

What I believe to be reasonable, putting the warnings of the Prophet into proper perspective, is to just follow what the Prophet (SAW) taught us with regards to visiting graves.

Very simple bro. There are other evidences that he (saw) thought to visit/tawasul. Today, it seems some condemned visit to the grave of nabi with intention of that alone. This is strange to me. Now they condemn tawassul/waseela too. So basically they are trying to eradicate it altogether. No evidence against visiting the graves for that purpose only. There are evidences we can make journey to visit. We all may not like it. But this is different entirely. We talking about dalil here. There is no restriction to visiting during or outside of Hajj

Lol, I believe the major issue is the exaggerations and activities that are not sanctioned in the shari'ah being carried out by some extreme sufis...

indeed, thats one issue noted

Of course, that is why I brought up the reason as established by the Prophet (SAW) the reason for visiting graves. Allah (SWT) asked us to travel the land and reflect, but when it has to do with worship, then there is the need to employ caution, and learn what is legislated and what is not. There is a difference of opinion with tawassul using the (status of) Prophet (SAW),and it is disliked by the majority...

majority?. I hope you know tawasul/waseela is what we termed "ola anobi" in yorubaland. That's for short. "Olohun, mo fe ko ile. mo fe ra motor, mo fe ni lari, fun mi ni iyawo alalubarika ni ola anobi muhammad(saw)" This is waseela(tawasul) and it is valid. There is no better tawasul than that of the prophet. You think our deeds worth it?. Our deed is greater than the prophet even if done sincerely?. Absolutely not. The best of tawasul is nabi himself. We see this indirectly in the Qur'an and sunnah. Remember ayah "Laqodijakun rosulu". Remember solati ibrahimiyah made fard in salat?. what do you think we are doing?. The Aimmah made is fard to send salaam on the prophet as precondition for our acceptance of salat even though we know it is not necessarily fard. So i dont get where "majority" are against using nabi in this regard. So solati ibrahimiyah we recite in salat is waseela just like zakat is waseela for Ramadan.

We read these things everyday but we just read over it mechanically. We dont ponder that much. The best of waseela is nabi.

sino:

Dead blow?! "AlBaqir eyan Mayweather" Which authentic sanad?! The one you conjured?! It is a fabrication, just like that of Al Utbi, I just can't understand why you guys like to support your claims with fabricated stories...

"Its related from Abu Sadiq (ra) that Imam Ali (ra) said: "Three days after burying the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) arab did came and did throw himself on the grave of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), took the earth and throw it on his head. He said: "Ya Rasulallah! (Peace Be Upon Him) You did speak and we did hear, you learned from Allah and we did learn from you. Between those things which Allah did send you, is following: (4:64) I am the one, which is a sinner and now I did came to you, so that you may ask for me." After that a call from the grave did came: "Theres no doubt, you are forgiven!" [Tafsir al-Qurtubi, al-Jami li Ahkam al-Quran Volume 006, Page No. 439, Under the Verse, 4:64]

Comment: From this athar some people claim that this was the aqeeda of Imam al Qurtubi, but that is false because the narration is fabrication and no where al-Qurtubi authenticated it.


Scholars on this narration:

• 1. Muttaqi al Hindi quoted this naration in Kanzul Ummal and said:

(ad-Dahabi) said in al Mughni: al Haytam bin Adi al Taai is Matrook (rejected). [Kanz ul Ummal 4322]

• 2. as-Suyuti mentioned this narration in Jaam`e al Ahadeeth and said:

It is mentioned in al Mughni: al Haytam bin Adi al Taai is rejected. [Jaam`e al Ahadeeth 31/241]

• 3. Imam Ibn Abdul Hadi said

Some liars have even raised the chain to Alee bin Abee Taalib (as-Saarim al Munkee pg.246)

on page 247 he says
This story mentioned from al Arabi is not evidence, its chain is Dark”(end)
Source

# See desperation to bring the athar down Like I said the athar is a dead blow to your Ibn Taymiyyah/wahabist aqeedah.


First, there is nowhere al-Qurtubi faulted the athar. So also was his predecessor, Ibn Kathir.

Second, it is a sheer lie from wherever you copied it that Ali Mutaqi al-Hindi faulted the athar by pointing to Dhahabi. I have attached the scan page of his Kanz al-ummal documenting the athar.

Third, Imam Bayhaqi (in Shu‘ab-ul-Imaan (Volume no: 3, Page no:495-496, Hadith No#4178) gives another authentic sanad to the athar. See the scan page attached (last two pics)

This is the reason Ibn Kathir as weird as his Ibn Taymiyyah aqeedah was could not cast fault to the athar rather have to submit that it is: narrated by "JAMAAH (GROUP OF
SCHOLARS)" while considering it to be Hikayat al "mashur
(famous). HE DID NOT GIVE ANY JARH

Fourth, Imam Suyuti never faulted the athar; in fact he quoted Imam al-Bayhaqi

sino:

Also the Prophet (SAW) said:

'Aa'ishah and 'Abd-Allaah ibn 'Abbaas said: "When (death) approached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he started to cover his face with a cloak of his. When he became distressed he lifted it from his face and said, "May Allaah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they have taken the graves of their Prophets as places of worship." [The narrator said:] he was warning against doing what they did." (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 425; Muslim, 531).

# This kind of bogus hadith is laughable. Grave of which Prophets did the Jews and Christians at the time of Nabi Muhammad in Hijaz took as a place of worship? Not even as far as Jerusalem.

* The greatest Prophet of the Jews was Musa, and that of the Christian was Jesus Christ. Qur'an only mentions the later was taken as God/son of God.

# Besides, no Muslim whether Sunni, Shia or Sufi has ever taken grave as a place of worship. If you have seen one with reasonable evidence, kindly submit it.

sino:


I quoted narrations about visiting grave of the grandson of the Prophet (SAW) as an obligatory act, not only so, it is stated that it is more rewarding than performing hajj which is categorically stated in the Qur'an and even hajj should be abandoned, a pillar of Islam, and you are here theorizing?! Even the tahajjud you mentioned is it not mentioned in the Qur'an?! Would your tahajjud be looked at first on the day of judgement?! Is it a key to paradise?! Do you have all the details of the rewards associated with the 5 daily prayers to start doing your comparison?!

# Sometimes out of no reasonable submission, you labour around what is not necessary. I have given you 3 points with differences between wahjibat and Mustahabat. Those are reasonable enough. Take it or continue giving stories.

sino:

So tell us, where is visiting Hussein's (ra) grave mentioned in the Qur'an?! Where is visiting his grave obligatory?! Why don't we have such rewards associated with visiting the grave of the Prophet (SAW)?! Is Hussein's grave greater than that of the Prophet (SAW)?! If no, where are the narrations stating the rewards for visiting the Prophet's grave?!

# You sound like unreasonable Christians who used to say Muhammad's parents names were not mentioned in the Qur'an, or Jesus name was mentioned more than Muhammad.

For a fact, Hussein died 30+ years after revelation was completed So, why would such thing be reveal in the Qur'an?!

# The news of Hussein death was rather brought to Nabi by several angels some of whom Nabi never saw before.

# And like I said earlier, to show the importance of the blessed land Hussein's blood will be spilled, Jubril gave the blessed soil to the Prophet which he kept dearly.

# Ziyarat to Qabr whether that of Nabi or Imam Ali or Imam Hussain or the Aimmah buried at Jannatil Baqi, it is Mustahabat and their reward is super high. Any hadith that claimed it to be wahjib is nothing but exaggeration or lie.

# Ziyarat to Nabi's Qabr is like visiting him while alive. That alone is a superabundant blessing. Many of your Sunni ulama (except the insignificant wahabis) have repeatedly defend this reward as stated in hadiths.

To the Ibn Taymiyyun ( the sino, Rashduct4luv, iamgenius and the rest)

# Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah:


Malik ad-Dar i.e. treasurer of Umar (RA) relates: The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of Umar (Ibn-ul-
Khattab). Then a man walked up to the grave of Prophet and said: O Messenger of Allah! ask for rain from Allah for your Ummah who is in dire straits. Then he saw the Prophet (SAW) in dream. The Prophet (SAW) 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). He 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.


Source: Al-Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Volume 011, Page No. 118, Hadith No. 32538


# Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani:

Ibn Abu Shaybah transmitted it with a " SOUND CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION" the narration from Abi Salih as Samaan
from Malik al Dar the treasurer of Umar (ra) that : The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of 'Umar
(Ibn al-Khattab). Then a man walked up to the Prophet's grave and said, "O Messenger of Allah, please ask for rain from Allah for your Ummah who is in dire straits." Then he saw the Prophet (SAW) in dream… till the end of hadith. Sayf narrates in his Fatuh, the one who saw the dream was Bilal bin Harith al Mazni who was one of the sahaba.

Source: Fath ul Bari : Volume No.2, Page No. 495



Note : Sheik Nasir ud-din Albani tried his best to prove that " Malik ad-Dar and Abu Salih as-Samaan" present in the sanad of this hadith are unknown narrators (majhul).

To the contrary, his flaws are exposed:

* Imam Ibn Sa'ad said: “Malik ad-Dar was a slave freed by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab. He reported traditions from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and ‘Umar, and Abu Salih Samman reported traditions from him. He was "WELL KNOWN (MAROOF)"

Source: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra Volume 006, Page No. 12, Narrator No. 1423

* Imam Ibn Hibban has attested to the trustworthiness and credibility of Malik ad-Dar : Imam Ibn Hibban Said: Malik bin
‘Iyad ad-Dar He has taken traditions from Umar Faroq, and Abu Saleh al-Samman, and He was a slave freed by ‘Umar
bin al-Khattab.

Source: Kitab uth-Thiqat Volume 005, Page No. 384

* Imam al-Dhahabi said about Malik ad-Dar, He (Malik ad-Dar) was a slave freed by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, He has taken traditions from Abu Bakar as-Siddiq.

Source: Tajrid Asma' al-Sahabah, by Imam Dhahabi, Volume 002, Page No. 44

* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also in al-Isabah fi tamyiz-is-sahabah - Ibn Hajr, Volume 006, Page No. 164, #8350

# Imam al-Hakim documents:

It is attributed to Dawud bin Abu Salih. He says: one day Marwan came and he saw that a man was lying down with his mouth turned close to the Prophet’s grave. Then he (Marwan) said to him, “Do you know what are you doing?”

When he moved towards him, he saw that it was Abu Ayyub al-Ansari . (In reply) he said, “Yes (I know) I have come to the Messenger of Allah (s) and not to a stone. I have heard it from the Messenger of God (s) not to cry over religion when its guardian is competent. Yes, shed tears over religion when its guardian is incompetent.


Sources:

# Imam Hakim declared it "Sahih" while Imam Dhahabi "AGREED" with him [Al-Mustadrak 4:520, Hadith # 8571]

# Ahmad bin Hambal with a sound chain of transmission in his Musnad Volume 005: Hadith Number 422; Hakim, al-
Mustadrak Volume 004: Hadith Number 515

Above hadith with another chain by Imam Tabrani

# Tabrani, Book : Ma'jam Al Ausath, Volume : 1, Page : 94, Hadith number : 284

AlBaqir:



# See desperation to bring the athar down Like I said the athar is a dead blow to your Ibn Taymiyyah/wahabist aqeedah.

You are still not proving anything, as in you have not proved zilch! In your shi'a world, an unknown Arab, and dreams are were you establish your creed abi?! That is if, for argument sake, the hikayah is authentic!

AlBaqir:

First, there is nowhere al-Qurtubi faulted the athar. So also was his predecessor, Ibn Kathir.

Did they authenticate it? Did Ibn Kathir and Qurtubi use this narration to support this creed you follow?! Can you please provide the evidence for us to see?!

AlBaqir:

Second, it is a sheer lie from wherever you copied it that Ali Mutaqi al-Hindi faulted the athar by pointing to Dhahabi. I have attached the scan page of his Kanz al-ummal documenting the athar.

Now this is desperation, in your screenshot, it is stated there that "it is said in Al Mughniy, al Haytam bin Adi al Taai is Matrook (rejected)" and if Arabic is a problem, in the translation I presented, Ad Dhaabi is in parentheses! Oga u no sabi what that means ni? Na wa o

AlBaqir:

Third, Imam Bayhaqi (in Shu‘ab-ul-Imaan (Volume no: 3, Page no:495-496, Hadith No#4178) gives another authentic sanad to the athar. See the scan page attached (last two pics)

Lol, yeah another one, but authentic chain does not mean authentic story na, have you forgotten ni?! But the first narration in Qurtubi says this Arab man came 3 days after the death of the Prophet ( SAW ) while the one you are presenting now says the man came for hajj?! By the way, I requested you intimate us how only these Beduine, unknown individuals are the ones who knew about this creed while Ali (ra) and the rest of the companions were ignorant?!

AlBaqir:

This is the reason Ibn Kathir as weird as his Ibn Taymiyyah aqeedah was could not cast fault to the athar rather have to submit that it is: narrated by "JAMAAH (GROUP OF
SCHOLARS)" while considering it to be Hikayat al "mashur
(famous). HE DID NOT GIVE ANY JARH

Fourth, Imam Suyuti never faulted the athar; in fact he quoted Imam al-Bayhaqi

Lol, abeg tell us that he authenticated it or that this was also his belief, or just keep mute! I wonder why you no bring screenshot of the referenced book?!

Why you come skip the last scholar in my list?!

Well, I'll still repeat, even if the story is authenticated, it is what it, a story, and if we can't find evidences from the Qur'an, or the authentic statements of the Prophet in matters of legislated creed, you are just following your desires!

AlBaqir:

# This kind of bogus hadith is laughable. Grave of which Prophets did the Jews and Christians at the time of Nabi Muhammad in Hijaz took as a place of worship? Not even as far as Jerusalem.

* The greatest Prophet of the Jews was Musa, and that of the Christian was Jesus Christ. Qur'an only mentions the later was taken as God/son of God.

# Besides, no Muslim whether Sunni, Shia or Sufi has ever taken grave as a place of worship. If you have seen one with reasonable evidence, kindly submit it.

Of course it is bogus to you, when it speaks against your creed! First, who says the Prophet ( SAW ) was talking about the Jews and Christians living in Hijaz or those of his time?! Let me help you a little, the Qur'an says Jews take Uzair as son of God, using your thinking, we should say that the verse is bogus and laughable?! Anyway, just to give you a hint:

".....Karaite source. The famous Karaite ascetic and polemicist (and missionary)  Sahl Ben Matzliah HaCohen (910–990):
Translation:

How can I keep silent when Jews follow the custom of idolaters? They sit among graves of saintly persons and spend nights among tombstones, while they seek favors from dead men, saying, “Oh Jose the Galilean, grant me a cure!” or “Vouchsafe me a child!” They light lamps at the graves of saints and burn incense upon the brick altars before them and tie bowknots to the palmtree bearing the name of the saint as a charm for all kinds of diseases. They perform pilgrimage rites over the grave of these dead saints and make vows to them and appeal and pray to them to grant their requests. (Quoted in Nemoy, Leon, Karaite Anthology pp. 115-16)

This quite depicts what you are calling to, nay, what you practice when you go on pilgrimage to the tombs of Hussein (ra) and the likes....

sino

Your desperation is limitless. Again, show us a single reference either from the Qur'an or Bible or Jewish book of history where we can establish that Jews and Christian ever took the graves of their past Prophet as worship places. Which Prophet?. Simple as that, unfortunately you are here citing Saint Jose's grave. Was Saint Jose a Prophet of either of Jews or Christians? Saint Jose ko, Saint Matthew ni.

# Please try your stunt again later.

AlBaqir:
sino

Your desperation is limitless. Again, show us a single reference either from the Qur'an or Bible or Jewish book of history where we can establish that Jews and Christian ever took the graves of their past Prophet as worship places. Which Prophet?. Simple as that, unfortunately you are here citing Saint Jose's grave. Was Saint Jose a Prophet of either of Jews or Christians? Saint Jose ko, Saint Matthew ni.

# Please try your stunt again later.

Firstly why not try and refute my example from the Qur'an, since you want to claim the narration is bogus, I challenge you to use the same reasoning to address this ayah (the bold) in the Qur'an:

"The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" (Q9:30)

Secondly, the quote in my post is a hint, it shows that the Jews (some of them or a sect) indeed took graves as places of worship, although it is categorically forbidden in Judaism as well as in Christianity.

Thirdly, because you are very parochial in your thinking, you didn't know that there is another narration which did not only state Prophets...

Narrated that he heard the Prophet (peace be upon him), five days before his death, saying, “I, before Allah, disown having taken anyone of you as a Khalil (close friend), for Allah has taken me as a Khalil as He took Ibrahim (Abraham) as a Khalil. Were I to have taken anyone from among my Ummah (nation) as a Khalil, I would have taken Abu Bakr as a Khalil. Beware! Those who came before you used to take the graves of their Prophets and righteous people as places of worship. Do not take graves as places of worship; I forbid you to do that.” (Sahih Muslim, no. 532)

If I can show you that they took the graves of righteous people (saints) as places of worship, what then would stop them, if they knew the grave site of their prophets, from taking such sites as a place of worship?!

Fourthly, I didn't even talk about the Christians, for it is obvious that they even worship their Prophet, Isa (as).

Fifthly, it is very pathetic that you would be asking such questions, have you forgotten we are talking about the Prophet (SAW) who gets inspired with regards to the past stories of previous prophets?! I asked you to show me were the Prophet (SAW) was talking about the Jews and Christians of hijaz?! Did the narration not indicate that it was about "those who came before you"?!

Finally, you don't say nonsense because you want to disagree with me, you should learn to apply wisdom, and learn more about the religion with respect to revealed/inspired text such as the Qur'an and the authentic hadiths

AlBaqir:


# Sometimes out of no reasonable submission, you labour around what is not necessary. I have given you 3 points with differences between wahjibat and Mustahabat. Those are reasonable enough. Take it or continue giving stories.

Tell us were deeds not mentioned in the Qur'an or in any authentic narrations from the blessed mouth of the Prophet (SAW) are then automatically having huge rewards than obligatory deeds which happens to be a pillar of the religion?!

AlBaqir:

# You sound like unreasonable Christians who used to say Muhammad's parents names were not mentioned in the Qur'an, or Jesus name was mentioned more than Muhammad.

For a fact, Hussein died 30+ years after revelation was completed So, why would such thing be reveal in the Qur'an?!

IF it is not mentioned in the Qur'an or by the Prophet (SAW), then it is not part of Islam! I am talking about pilgrimage to the graves of these Imams, and the speculated rewards associated with it!

AlBaqir:

# The news of Hussein death was rather brought to Nabi by several angels some of whom Nabi never saw before.

# And like I said earlier, to show the importance of the blessed land Hussein's blood will be spilled, Jubril gave the blessed soil to the Prophet which he kept dearly.

This is just pure story, so the Prophet (SAW) forgot to tell us the rewards associated with visiting his grandson's grave, or even his grave because...?!

AlBaqir:

# Ziyarat to Qabr whether that of Nabi or Imam Ali or Imam Hussain or the Aimmah buried at Jannatil Baqi, it is Mustahabat and their reward is super high. Any hadith that claimed it to be wahjib is nothing but exaggeration or lie.

Any reward not mentioned in the Qur'an or from the blessed mouth of the Prophet (SAW) is pure lie! Of course claiming it is wajib is just nonsense, but I am surprised that a respectable shi'a site can include such narrations to claim merits of visiting the graves of these Imams...

AlBaqir:

# Ziyarat to Nabi's Qabr is like visiting him while alive. That alone is a superabundant blessing. Many of your Sunni ulama (except the insignificant wahabis) have repeatedly defend this reward as stated in hadiths.

Is it the stories from a Bedouin Arab, or from unknown individuals that you are talking about?! I like the bold, since you have brought Qur'an 4:64 as one of your evidences, shall I also add the verse 65...

"But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they make you a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them, and then do not find any straightness in their hearts as to what you have decided and submit with entire submission." (Q4:65)

So I ask, when would you start taking your disputes and disagreements to the grave of the Prophet (SAW)?! Since it is the same as when he (SAW) was alive, is he going to appear to you in real life or you would have to go back home and dream?!

sino:

Firstly why not try and refute my example from the Qur'an, since you want to claim the narration is bogus, I challenge you to use the same reasoning to address this ayah (the bold) in the Qur'an:

"The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" (Q9:30)

# There is NOTHING to refute because you brought NOTHING. You are only being stubborn and labouring to defend nothing. And here you trying to use analogy yet you failed woefully in it.

Qur'an is clear as per ayah above. Your bogus Bukhari hadith is exposed. We challenge you to name just one prophet each which Jew and Christian took their GRAVE to worship. Here you are sweating. Must you defend nothing?

# Here's Qur'an talking about Ashabul Kahf and what believers after them did:

Surah Al-Kahf, Verse 21:


And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them that they might know that Allah's promise is true and that as for the hour there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them-- their Lord best knows them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We will certainly raise a MASJID over them.

# A masjid over the dead servant of Allah?! Allahuma Akbar.

There are Islamic historian who submit that the holy Makkah - Masjid al-haram house several Prophets of Allah as their graves. Even if you reject it, will you reject that ayah above? Or was Allah condemning those believers in remembering the Ashabul kahf ni?


# Repeatedly on this thread we continue to submit to you from sahabah to your various salaf (tabi'in and ulama of the past) who used to do Ziyarat not only to the grave of Nabi Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wa ahli) but also graves of those whom they considered awliya. Do me a favour label them all MUSHRIQUN and grave worshippers before I will take you serious.

# From that topic, to save face, you jump like a mountain goat to reward of Ziyarat to Karbala. We offer you explanation.

# Now to a bogus Bukhari/Muslim hadith.

* Please it is not by force to reply as I can see your obsessions to reply. If you don't have clear evidence and logical deductions, STOP QUOTING ME PLEASE!

Perhaps bro. Empiree can continue with your fruitless obsessions to reply. Pardon me for using strong words. I just discovered you are not ready to discuss gentlemanly.

Khuda Nighador (God protect you).

AlBaqir:
To the Ibn Taymiyyun ( the sino, Rashduct4luv, iamgenius and the rest)

# Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah:


Malik ad-Dar i.e. treasurer of Umar (RA) relates: The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of Umar (Ibn-ul-
Khattab). Then a man walked up to the grave of Prophet and said: O Messenger of Allah! ask for rain from Allah for your Ummah who is in dire straits. Then he saw the Prophet (SAW) in dream. The Prophet (SAW) 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). He 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.


Source: Al-Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Volume 011, Page No. 118, Hadith No. 32538


# Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani:

Ibn Abu Shaybah transmitted it with a " SOUND CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION" the narration from Abi Salih as Samaan
from Malik al Dar the treasurer of Umar (ra) that : The people were gripped by famine during the tenure of 'Umar
(Ibn al-Khattab). Then a man walked up to the Prophet's grave and said, "O Messenger of Allah, please ask for rain from Allah for your Ummah who is in dire straits." Then he saw the Prophet (SAW) in dream… till the end of hadith. Sayf narrates in his Fatuh, the one who saw the dream was Bilal bin Harith al Mazni who was one of the sahaba.

Source: Fath ul Bari : Volume No.2, Page No. 495



Note : Sheik Nasir ud-din Albani tried his best to prove that " Malik ad-Dar and Abu Salih as-Samaan" present in the sanad of this hadith are unknown narrators (majhul).

To the contrary, his flaws are exposed:

* Imam Ibn Sa'ad said: “Malik ad-Dar was a slave freed by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab. He reported traditions from Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and ‘Umar, and Abu Salih Samman reported traditions from him. He was "WELL KNOWN (MAROOF)"

Source: Ibn Sa‘d, at-Tabaqat-ul-kubra Volume 006, Page No. 12, Narrator No. 1423

* Imam Ibn Hibban has attested to the trustworthiness and credibility of Malik ad-Dar : Imam Ibn Hibban Said: Malik bin
‘Iyad ad-Dar He has taken traditions from Umar Faroq, and Abu Saleh al-Samman, and He was a slave freed by ‘Umar
bin al-Khattab.

Source: Kitab uth-Thiqat Volume 005, Page No. 384

* Imam al-Dhahabi said about Malik ad-Dar, He (Malik ad-Dar) was a slave freed by ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, He has taken traditions from Abu Bakar as-Siddiq.

Source: Tajrid Asma' al-Sahabah, by Imam Dhahabi, Volume 002, Page No. 44

* Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also in al-Isabah fi tamyiz-is-sahabah - Ibn Hajr, Volume 006, Page No. 164, #8350

Well you have brought this narration before I think, but it is still not evidence, the unknown man saw in a dream were the Prophet (SAW) instructed him to go and meet Umar (ra), but what is established from KNOWN companions of the Prophet (SAW) during drought is the following:

Narrated Anas: Whenever drought threatened them, 'umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain." And so it would rain. (BukhariBook #17, Hadith #123)

I'm not even going to disturb myself on the authenticity of the narration, that is a waste of my time, just inform us how the sahabas after the incidence of the unknown man, started trooping to the grave of the Prophet (SAW) to seek his interventions abi, they never had needs ni?!

AlBaqir:


# There is NOTHING to refute because you brought NOTHING. You are only being stubborn and labouring to defend nothing. And here you trying to use analogy yet you failed woefully in it.

Qur'an is clear as per ayah above. Your bogus Bukhari hadith is exposed. We challenge you to name just one prophet each which Jew and Christian took their GRAVE to worship. Here you are sweating. Must you defend nothing?

# Here's Qur'an talking about Ashabul Kahf and what believers after them did:

Surah Al-Kahf, Verse 21:


And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them that they might know that Allah's promise is true and that as for the hour there is no doubt about it. When they disputed among themselves about their affair and said: Erect an edifice over them-- their Lord best knows them. Those who prevailed in their affair said: We will certainly raise a MASJID over them.

# A masjid over the dead servant of Allah?! Allahuma Akbar.

There are Islamic historian who submit that the holy Makkah - Masjid al-haram house several Prophets of Allah as their graves. Even if you reject it, will you reject that ayah above? Or was Allah condemning those believers in remembering the Ashabul kahf ni?


# Repeatedly on this thread we continue to submit to you from sahabah to your various salaf (tabi'in and ulama of the past) who used to do Ziyarat not only to the grave of Nabi Muhammad (salallahu alayhi wa ahli) but also graves of those whom they considered awliya. Do me a favour label them all MUSHRIQUN and grave worshippers before I will take you serious.

# From that topic, to save face, you jump like a mountain goat to reward of Ziyarat to Karbala. We offer you explanation.

# Now to a bogus Bukhari/Muslim hadith.

* Please it is not by force to reply as I can see your obsessions to reply. If you don't have clear evidence and logical deductions, STOP QUOTING ME PLEASE!

Perhaps bro. Empiree can continue with your fruitless obsessions to reply. Pardon me for using strong words. I just discovered you are not ready to discuss gentlemanly.

Khuda Nighador (God protect you).

I could sense you trembling just by the challenge, so in order to safe face, you just started rambling and ranting...This is very hilarious...

I had just advised you to always apply wisdom, and try to learn what revealed text says, but nope, it seems grave worship is just so appealing to you...So the verse about the companions of the cave is evidence to build mosque over graves?! Subhanallah! Then you now went further to quote a historian and speculations....Is this how you reach understanding of your creed?! This is beyond pathetic! That is how you quoted the saying of the Queen of Sheba as what Allah (SWT) says...Is it that difficult to differentiate when Allah (SWT) is relating a story and what the characters in the story are saying from Allah's legislation of what to do and not to do?! Did the Prophet (SAW) say the verse gives permission to build Mosques over graves?!

If you are too slow to learn, Allah (SWT) says: "And the mosques are Allah's, therefore call not upon any one with Allah" (Q72:18)

When you start building Mosques over graves, are they for Allah (SWT) alone then?! So you would stand over Prophets (and by extention, your Imams) to observe your prayers when it is prohibited to even seat on graves?! Is that showing respect to these individuals?! Why don't you think before typing sef?!

I see you cannot give response to my queries and challenges, so you want to run away, no problem, this is a public forum, you don't need to become emotional when you have been exposed as a caller to what was not prescribed in the Qur'an nor was ever taught by the best of mankind (SAW). Na dreams, and fabricated stories are your evidences, and you claim to follow the Prophet (SAW)?!

Verily falsehood has no foot to stand on....

Empiree:
Sorry, it is THROUGH. My thought writes faster than my pen But i think i set it right later in my post.

Okay bro, I just wanted clarification.

Empiree:

Very simple bro. There are other evidences that he (saw) thought to visit/tawasul. Today, it seems some condemned visit to the grave of nabi with intention of that alone. This is strange to me. Now they condemn tawassul/waseela too. So basically they are trying to eradicate it altogether. No evidence against visiting the graves for that purpose only. There are evidences we can make journey to visit. We all may not like it. But this is different entirely. We talking about dalil here. There is no restriction to visiting during or outside of Hajj

I hope the evidences you are talking about is not the ones already presented here?! If you want to visit the Prophet's grave for tawasul, then you are not following the Prophet (SAW), why? The Prophet didn't teach us to perform tawasul at his grave, nor did any of the great companions, including Ali (ra) perform such at his (SAW) grave!

Empiree:

majority?. I hope you know tawasul/waseela is what we termed "ola anobi" in yorubaland. That's for short. "Olohun, mo fe ko ile. mo fe ra motor, mo fe ni lari, fun mi ni iyawo alalubarika ni ola anobi muhammad(saw)" This is waseela(tawasul) and it is valid. There is no better tawasul than that of the prophet. You think our deeds worth it?. Our deed is greater than the prophet even if done sincerely?. Absolutely not. The best of tawasul is nabi himself. We see this indirectly in the Qur'an and sunnah. Remember ayah "Laqodijakun rosulu". Remember solati ibrahimiyah made fard in salat?. what do you think we are doing?. The Aimmah made is fard to send salaam on the prophet as precondition for our acceptance of salat even though we know it is not necessarily fard. So i dont get where "majority" are against using nabi in this regard. So solati ibrahimiyah we recite in salat is waseela just like zakat is waseela for Ramadan.

We read these things everyday but we just read over it mechanically. We dont ponder that much. The best of waseela is nabi.

How can you say the best of tawassul is nabi himself or there is no better tawasul than that of the Prophet (SAW)?! Who gave nabi the status, the honour, and everything?! Allah (SWT) says call on me, use my beautiful names, and yet you overlook that and say nabi is the best of tawassul?! You claim your deeds are not worthy, but Allah (SWT) never gave us the permission to call on him through his dead prophets or the righteous slaves, also, the Prophet (SAW) never taught his companions, all his life, to use his name in their dua's as a waseelah, so where do we get this type of tawassul from?!

Let me just bring two quotes that I believe explains my stand:

" Al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Note that the majority of scholars are of the view that what is meant by waseelah here is drawing close to Allaah by obeying His commands and avoiding that which He has forbidden, in accordance with the teachings brought by Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), doing that sincerely for the sake of Allaah alone, because this is the only path that leads to the pleasure of Allaah and attaining what is with Him and what is good in this world and in the Hereafter.

The basic meaning of the word waseelah is a path that brings one near to something. Here it means righteous deeds, according to scholarly consensus, because there is no other way of drawing close to Allaah apart from following the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Based on this, there are many verses which explain the meaning of waseelah, such as the following (interpretation of the meaning):

"And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it)"[al-Hashr 59:7]

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): 'If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me'"[Aal 'Imraan 3:31]

"Say: Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger"[al-Noor 24:54]

And there are other similar verses.

It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas that what is meant by waseelah is need.

Based on this, the words narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas, "Seek with Him al-waseelah" mean, seek your needs from Allaah, for He alone is the one who is able to meet them. This is further explained by the verses in which Allaah says

"Verily, those whom you worship besides Allaah have no power to give you provision, so seek your provision from Allaah (Alone), and worship Him (Alone)"[al-'Ankaboot 29:17]

"and ask Allaah of His Bounty"[al-Nisa' 4:32]

And by the hadeeth: "If you ask, then ask of Allaah."

....The correct view concerning the meaning of waseelah is that of the majority of scholars, that it means drawing closer to Allaah by worshipping Him alone, in accordance with the teachings of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The tafseer of Ibn 'Abbaas comes under this heading, because calling upon Allaah (du'aa') and praying humbly to Him when asking for one's needs is one of the greatest forms of worship which is waseelah or seeking to draw closer to Him and attain His pleasure and mercy.

From this it may be understood that what many of the heretics and followers of ignorant men who claim to be Sufis say, which is that what is meant by waseelah in the verse is the Shaykh who has the power of mediation between him and his Lord, is ignorance, blindness and obvious misguidance; it is toying with the Book of Allaah. Taking intermediaries is the essence of the kufr of the kaafirs, as Allaah clearly stated when He said concerning them

"[They say:] We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah"[al-Zumar 39:3]

"and they say: 'These are our intercessors with Allaah.' Say: 'Do you inform Allaah of that which He knows not in the heavens and on the earth?' Glorified and Exalted is He above all that which they associate as partners (with Him)!"[Yoonus 10:18]

Every one who is accountable must understand that the way to attain the pleasure of Allaah and His Paradise and His mercy is to follow His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whoever deviates from that has gone astray from the straight path.

"It will not be in accordance with your desires (Muslims), nor those of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof"[al-Nisa'4:123]

The meaning of waseelah that we have explained here is also the meaning in the verse where Allaah says

"Those whom they call upon desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allaah) as to which of them should be the nearest"[al-Isra' 17:57]

Another meaning of waseelah is the status in Paradise which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us to ask Allaah to grant to him, and we hope that Allaah will give it to him, because only one person will be entitled to it, and he hoped that he would be the one[Adwa' al-Bayaan, 2/86-88]

Source


Jalal ud din Suyooti in his work :الأمر بالاتباع والنهي عن الابتداع السيوطي -
Under the Chapter تعظيم الأماكن التي لا تستحق التعظيم (Veneration of those places which are not applicable for veneration)

First he replied those who say that our prayers are accepted at these places or graves or shrines etc He replied by saying:

Kuffar pray in front of Idols and with the Wasilah of Idols and their prayers are Accepted ,then Rain comes to them, Help comes to them , Afiyah comes to them as Allah says (in Bani Israeel:20) On each these as well as those We bestow from the bounties of your Lord. And the bounties of your Lord can never be forbidden [Page 124 with the tehqeeq of Shaykh Mashoor bin Hasan aal Salmaan publihed by 0101 ه / 0991 م ، دار ابن القيم للنشر والتوزيع ، الدمام ، ط 0 ]

On page 139 he said:

[b]For Verily visiting the graves with the intention that our prayers will be accepted is not allowed and it is closer to Haraam. Sahaaba faced so many difficulties after the death of Prophet (peace be upon him) (for example) drought came to them,........ so Why didn't they come to the grave of Prophet of Allah? Why didn't they request him (peace be upon him) for rain? Why they didn't call at his grave?

Prophet (SAW) is the highest of the creation in the sight of Allah In fact at the time of drought OMAR (Ra) went to Eid GAH with Abbas RA and asked him to pray for rain (prayer of istesqa see Sahih bukhari for detailed athar). They never prayed near grave of Prophet (peace be upon him). O Muslim If You are follower of Allah like your Salaf as Saleh were so follow them, do Research of Correct Tauheed, Do not Worship other then Allah, Do not Make Partners of Allah. As Allah Commanded (Therefore worship Me.) and Allah says (So whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord.'')[/b] (end)

Source, the same as above.

^^^

* The verse you quoted is talking about mushrikun of Makkah. They offered their sacrifices to and called on thier so called intermediaries directly. Quran itself affirmed this in the same verse you quoted.


* MUslims on the other hand used whoever they believe was pious. Their du'a goes directly to Allah and they used the pious man or awliya or the prophet as a means. So there is distinction here and it is not compulsory either. It is mustahab. Albaqir already posted evidences. And i have told you that unless you believe that saying "ola anobi" is shirk", then you gonna have to proof that. I don't need to go back to this. Omo ti won ba fi ola baba re be ti ko gbo, omo ale ni. So i can say to someone "mo fi ola baba re be e". I use your father (dont mean yours) to intermediate.


* Another example i gave was solati Ibrahimiya after at-tahiya. What do you think we are doing?. If prophet(saw) did not teach such waseela, why did Aimmah made it obligatory to recite solati Ibrahimmiya as precondition in obligatory salat?. Think about it.



* And why did you put Allah in the creation here bro?. When i said Nabi(saw) is the best of tawasul, i was talking about creation. He is the best of tawassul in this sense. Why did you put Allah in here?.


* I do not argue using our so called deeds but do we have any good deeds now free of conditions?. You can hardly see that today. Everyone including govt does "good deeds" on condition(s).

Now, let's take karama sheikh Kamaldeen Al Adabi(ra) for instance. That was really good deed he used to ask for rain. Why didnt those sahaba use thier deeds for rain instead of going to Ibn Abbas(ra)?. Was Sheikh Kamal(ra) greater than them?. Did they not have a good deed to beseech Allah with?.

We have got to the point today where if anyone claims to have good deeds, we gonna have to scrutinize him or her bcus most likely such deeds are not done with ikhlas. Therefore, in this sense, waseela through nabi(saw) is the best.


It is similar to when nabi(saw) taught us At-tahiyah, where it says "assalamu alaika ayyuhannabiyu". Some scholars today tried to change it bcuz in their mindset, since nabi(saw) is dead, we are not supposed to say "assalamu alaika ayyuhannabiyu" bcuz this only makes valid sense when he(saw) was alive. After he is dead, we not supposed to say that according to those scholars. We asked, at what point did the nabi(saw) said the phrase should be changed?. They consider it 'shirk' to say the phrase bcuz nabi is not present. So the same thing applies to tawasul and istighatha.

Intermediation is not shirk. It is only mustahab. Even Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab did not consider it shirk. He only said it is 'makruh'.

Intermediation (waseela/tawassul or means) is not aqeeda issue at all.

Empiree:
^^^

* The verse you quoted is talking about mushrikun of Makkah. They offered their sacrifices to and called on thier so called intermediaries directly. Quran itself affirmed this in the same verse you quoted.


* MUslims on the other hand used whoever they believe was pious. Their du'a goes directly to Allah and they used the pious man or awliya or the prophet as a means. So there is distinction here and it is not compulsory either. It is mustahab. Albaqir already posted evidences. And i have told you that unless you believe that saying "ola anobi" is shirk", then you gonna have to proof that. I don't need to go back to this. Omo ti won ba fi ola baba re be ti ko gbo, omo ale ni. So i can say to someone "mo fi ola baba re be e". I use your father (dont mean yours) to intermediate.

What the idolaters do (sacrifices, and calling, etc) is called worship, note that dua'a is also worship, so the idolaters give excuses that, no o, they are only seeking means to Allah (SWT), and you also are saying the same thing. Mind you, there are a lot of evidences that shows that people call on these awliya, Imams and even the Prophet (SAW) directly amd seek help, and claim they are only seeking means to Allah (SWT)... Were is it stated that it is mustahab to seek means through the prophets and awliyah? Alb.aqir brought no substantive evidence, it shouldn't be difficult to find evidences if this is mustahab, the Prophet (SAW) taught a lot of dua's, mention one of this dua's that uses the Prophet (SAW) as a means, not only that, by extension, from the sahabas that is known, including the ahl-l-bayt, who uses the "ola anobi" in their dua's, and please, it should be authentic.

It should be noted that I am not against seeking means to Allah (SWT) through known pious people who are alive by asking them to pray to Allah (SWT) on your behalf, for that is established in the sunnah.

Empiree:

* Another example i gave was solati Ibrahimiya after at-tahiya. What do you think we are doing?. If prophet(saw) did not teach such waseela, why did Aimmah made it obligatory to recite solati Ibrahimmiya as precondition in obligatory salat?. Think about it.

The content of the solat does not suggest waseelah, we are basically asking Allah (SWT) to send His Blessings on these Prophets, this is established in the Qur'an and the sunnah.

Empiree:

* And why did you put Allah in the creation here bro?. When i said Nabi(saw) is the best of tawasul, i was talking about creation. He is the best of tawassul in this sense. Why did you put Allah in here?.

Then you should have made it clear, you were responding to a post I had stated using Allah (SWT) beautiful names, automatically, I would think you are neglecting that.

Empiree:

* I do not argue using our so called deeds but do we have any good deeds now free of conditions?. You can hardly see that today. Everyone including govt does "good deeds" on condition(s).

If you can't use your good deeds, then use Allah's beautiful names. When you say "ola anobi" I asked before, who gave "anobi" the "ola"?! Is it not "ola olohun ti o n be lara anobi ni"?! Why not ask Allah for his "ola" directly, so there wouldn't be issues, when it is obvious people go to the extreme, just like the Christians calling on Isa (AS) and seeking help and eventually calling him god?!

Empiree:

Now, let's take karama sheikh Kamaldeen Al Adabi(ra) for instance. That was really good deed he used to ask for rain. Why didnt those sahaba use thier deeds for rain instead of going to Ibn Abbas(ra)?. Was Sheikh Kamal(ra) greater than them?. Did they not have a good deed to beseech Allah with?.

Umar (ra) went to Abbas (ra) who was alive, and asked that he pray to Allah (SWT) for rain, Abbas (ra) did not call on the Prophet (SAW) as a means to Allah, he didn't say "ola anobi" and in Umar's statement, he also prayed to Allah (SWT) for rain, that is what is established, ask Allah directly or ask a righteous person who are alive to ask Allah on your behalf. Why didn't they go to the grave of the Prophet (SAW)?! And what gives the status of righteousness (and karama) if not your deeds?!

Empiree:

We have got to the point today where if anyone claims to have good deeds, we gonna have to scrutinize him or her bcus most likely such deeds are not done with ikhlas. Therefore, in this sense, waseela through nabi(saw) is the best.

That is why I keep asking for authentic evidence from the Qur'an, from the mouth of the Prophet (SAW) and the examples of his companions that we should seek this type of waseelah through him is legislated, especially now that he is not alive.

Empiree:

It is similar to when nabi(saw) taught us At-tahiyah, where it says "assalamu alaika ayyuhannabiyu". Some scholars today tried to change it bcuz in their mindset, since nabi(saw) is dead, we are not supposed to say "assalamu alaika ayyuhannabiyu" bcuz this only makes valid sense when he(saw) was alive. After he is dead, we not supposed to say that according to those scholars. We asked, at what point did the nabi(saw) said the phrase should be changed?. They consider it 'shirk' to say the phrase bcuz nabi is not present. So the same thing applies to tawasul and istighatha.

Intermediation is not shirk. It is only mustahab. Even Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab did not consider it shirk. He only said it is 'makruh'.

Intermediation (waseela/tawassul or means) is not aqeeda issue at all.

The issue of At-tahiyah did not start recently, but it is not an issue here, and it is not an evidence for using the Prophet (SAW) as a waseelah. This is an issue of aqeedah, because it is about worship! It becomes shirk when you start calling on the Prophet (SAW) or Imams and awliyah and seeking help. This was never the practice of the righteous predecessors. I had already pointed out that using "ola anobi" is disliked by majority of scholars and some say it is bid'ah because there happens to be no authentic evidence for this in the shari'ah.

This is what Allah (SWT) told the Prophet (SAW) to tell the people when he was alive:

"Say, "I hold not for myself [the power of] benefit or harm, except what Allah has willed. And if I knew the unseen, I could have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me. I am not except a warner and a bringer of good tidings to a people who believe." (Q7:188)

If the life and death of the Prophet (SAW) are the same, then in the light of the above verse, we should always direct our dua's to Allah (SWT) alone and seek a means to Him by following the teachings of the best of mankind!

I would implore you to bring evidence that it is mustahab to seek means to Allah (SWT) through the Prophet (SAW), according to who and based on what?! Thank you.

This argument has been around for donkey years. No Ulama ever considered tawasul of nabi(saw) to be shirk. It is what yoruba people consider "Ola Anobi". So you people saying all those ulama in nigeria, our babas were upon shirk for saying ola anobi?. I found that strange. Till today, majority still say that. Meanwhile, Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab never considered it shirk but makruh and he never had problem with making du'a using status or glory of nabi(saw). His problem is calling upon the dead directly which is wrong and which is understood.

It is always best to avoid going to graves of awliya and ask them for things especially with the way young people are going about it. People always abuse. However, muslims do tawasul at the prophet's grave in medina during Haj. So are you saying it is shirk when nabi already said his grave would not be place of worship. And the reason Ulama especially in nigeria say 'ola anobi' is by many of his virtues, birth, lineage, his status before Allah. etc. Nabi didnt need to say that.

Read Ibn Abdul Wahhab's note in the attachment.

Empiree:
This argument has been around for donkey years. No Ulama ever considered tawasul of nabi(saw) to be shirk. It is what yoruba people consider "Ola Anobi". So you people saying all those ulama in nigeria, our babas were upon shirk for saying ola anobi?. I found that strange. Till today, majority still say that. Meanwhile, Sheikh Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab never considered ist shirk but makruh and he never had problem with making du'a using status or glory of nabi(saw). His problem is calling upon the dead directly which is wrong and which is understood.

It is always best to avoid going to graves of awliya and ask them for things especially with the way young people are going about it. People always abuse. However, muslims do tawasul at the prophet's grave in medina during Haj. So are you saying it is shirk when nabi already said his grave would not be place of worship. And the reason Ulama especially in nigeria say 'ola anobi' is by many of his virtues, birth, lineage, his status before Allah. etc. Nabi didnt need to say that.

Read Ibn Abdul Wahhab's note in the attachment.

Bro, we are actually saying the same thing. I never said "ola anobi" is shrik, read my responses again. What brought us here is the ideology that we should "travel" to graves, and do tawasul, and by extension, istigatha (seeking help)...this is contrary to the Qur'an and what the Prophet (SAW) taught the companions.

People go to the graves of Imams and awliyahs and say Ya Hussein, Ya Sheikh fulan etc. even Ya Muhammad and claim they are doing tawasul. This is not permissible in Islam and it is Shirk! This is were I brought the issue of shirk.

With respect to "ola anobi" please read the following:

Imam Mahmud Al-Alusi said in his "Ruh ul-Ma'ani" in Tafsir of the verse "Seek Wasilah to Him" (Maidah: 35)

…And after (saying) all this, I do not see any wrong in Tawassul to Allah with status (Jah) of the Prophet (saw) alive or dead, and what is meant by "Jah" returns to attributes from attributes of Allah... so the meaning of the saying of the one who say: "Allah, I do Tawassul with status of Your Prophet (saw) that you fulfill my need" will be: "Allah, make Your love for him as a Wasilah in fulfilling my need". And there is no difference between this and your saying: "Allah, I do Tawassul with Your Mercy that you do this and that", as the meaning is also: "Allah make your Mercy as a Wasilah for me in this action" and I do not see any wrong in swearing upon Allah with status of him (saw) in this meaning, and the kalam in Hurmah is same as kalam in Jah, and this does not come in tawassul and Iqsam with dhat at all.

Yes, the Tawassul with Jah (status) and Hurmah (dignity) did not come from any of the Sahabah. Maybe this is because they were fearing that people found in their minds something (confusing), as they left Tawassul with idols, and then pure Imams coming after them followed them (in not doing Tawassul with Jah). And the Prophet (saw) left the destruction of the Ka'bah and its building on the foundations of Ibrahim (aley salam) as people were close from time of Kufr as it is established in the "Sahih".

And what we mentioned, it is only to prevent difficulty for people (who do Tawassul with Jah) and running away from the claim of their misguidance, as some people claim... and the best for us are reported du'a that come in the Book and the detailed Sunnah because it is not hidden for people of fairness that what Allah taught him, what the Messenger (saw) (taught), what the Sahabah did, and what people after them accepted fully is better, more complete, more beneficial and more secure...

Source

I believe our Babas do understand this with respect to first bold in red, that is why I was pointing out to you that "ola olohun ti n be lara anobi". And as rightly pointed by the scholar, this cannot be found in teachings of the Prophet (SAW) or the deeds of his companions. This is the point I want us to consider and not just overlook.

^^^

Yup, thats the way they understood it. That's the way i understand it. ola anobi, ola this and that still go back to Allah. This is what i called was mustahab earlier. That's not calling on the prophet. Again, we simply have people who gone overboard.

As for Ya rasulullah, allow me to bring opinion of Dr. Bilal Philips. He said if you have the intention that nabi (saw) will provide your need when you say 'Ya rasulullah', then there is problem of calling upon him. But merely saying "Ya rasulullah salam alaika" doesn't involve calling upon him. The same is true of saying Ya sheikh fulan if it is not about calling upon them at all. May Allah ease our affairs

Empiree:
^^^

Yup, thats the way they understood it. That's the way i understand it. ola anobi, ola this and that still go back to Allah. This is what i called was mustahab earlier. That's not calling on the prophet. Again, we simply have people who gone overboard.

As for Ya rasulullah, allow me to bring opinion of Dr. Bilal Philips. He said if you have the intention that nabi (saw) will provide your need when you say 'Ya rasulullah', then there is problem of calling upon him. But merely saying "Ya rasulullah salam alaika" doesn't involve calling upon him. The same is true of saying Ya sheikh fulan if it is not about calling upon them at all. May Allah ease our affairs

I don't think mustahab can be used for this practice, since the Prophet (SAW) and the companions never did such.

The danger in this practice especially for the laymen is what we have found in people going overboard. It is wiser and safer to stick with the sunnah. Allahuma ameen to your prayer.

sino:


I don't think mustahab can be used for this practice, since the Prophet (SAW) and the companions never did such.

The danger in this practice especially for the laymen is what we have found in people going overboard. It is wiser and safer to stick with the sunnah. Allahuma ameen to your prayer.

Remember it is the same as saying ola alubarika anobi, ola inna ataina etc. These all refer back to Allah. So waseela in itself is mustahab whether through good deeds or not. Yoruba is a very rich language like Arabic. We have word or phrases that can not be perfectly worded in english or perfectly understood in english without being misunderstood. It makes perfect sense in yoruba language when we say Ola anobi, ola makkah mukarama, ola medinat mnawara, ola sura yasin, ola alubarika baba wa sheikh fulan etc. We understand this without exaggeration. But translation to english becomes problematic to some when we say for instance "through the glory of muhammad". Sounds ridiculous to some.

Again, i repeat, there is no waseela greater than using nabi (alaiy salatu wasalam). There are lots of hypocrisy in 'good deeds' today. The reason ulama use the prophet is by bringing together all his virtues: birth, mujiza, his life etc. We see in many ahadith used by some that some sahaba would seek blessing from nabi's belongings. Some drank from his blood seeking barakat etc. All these and more are what brought about using his personality. He did not have to say that. Matter of fact, when a sahaba drank his blood, it is said that those who drank from his blood (after hijama) would not be in fire of Hell. Unfortunately some disregard this type of ahadith. And also dont forget how Quran and sunnah emphasized "love of nabi". This is also pointing to his personality. In the process, some muslims show extreme love or 'bida love' but i dont really see anything that limits love anyways. Some people have no knowledge but upon hearing nabi's name, they can't help but bust in tears. This alone could win them Janna. Love of the prophet is beyond text. Love of the prophet is doing salatu ala nabi even while you are on top of your wife. It is allowed to use him for as long as we avoid two things: Calling him God or son of God. Anything aside these, no problem. This is what gave birth to solati like fatih etc.

Empiree:
Remember it is the same as saying ola alubarika anobi, ola inna ataina etc. These all refer back to Allah. So waseela in itself is mustahab whether through good deeds or not. Yoruba is a very rich language like Arabic. We have word or phrases that can not be perfectly worded in english or perfectly understood in english without being misunderstood. It makes perfect sense in yoruba language when we say Ola anobi, ola makkah mukarama, ola medinat mnawara, ola sura yasin, ola alubarika baba wa sheikh fulan etc. We understand this without exaggeration. But translation to english becomes problematic to some when we say for instance "through the glory of muhammad". Sounds ridiculous to some.

Again, i repeat, there is no waseela greater than using nabi (alaiy salatu wasalam). There are lots of hypocrisy in 'good deeds' today. The reason ulama use the prophet is by bringing together all his virtues: birth, mujiza, his life etc. We see in many ahadith used by some that some sahaba would seek blessing from nabi's belongings. Some drank from his blood seeking barakat etc. All these and more are what brought about using his personality. He did not have to say that. Matter of fact, when a sahaba drank his blood, it is said that those who drank from his blood (after hijama) would not be in fire of Hell. Unfortunately some disregard this type of ahadith. And also dont forget how Quran and sunnah emphasized "love of nabi". This is also pointing to his personality. In the process, some muslims show extreme love or 'bida love' but i dont really see anything that limits love anyways. Some people have no knowledge but upon hearing nabi's name, they can't help but bust in tears. This alone could win them Janna. Love of the prophet is beyond text. Love of the prophet is doing salatu ala nabi even while you are on top of your wife. It is allowed to use him for as long as we avoid two things: Calling him God or son of God. Anything aside these, no problem. This is what gave birth to solati like fatih etc.

The two bold seems to contradict each other. When you say "there is no waseela greater than using nabi (SAW)" you are invariably neglecting that it goes back to Allah (SWT). From my quote, the Imam stated in his opinion that, "and what is meant by "Jah" returns to attributes from attributes of Allah... so the meaning of the saying of the one who say: "Allah, I do Tawassul with status of Your Prophet (saw) that you fulfill my need" will be: "Allah, make Your love for him as a Wasilah in fulfilling my need". And there is no difference between this and your saying: "Allah, I do Tawassul with Your Mercy that you do this and that", as the meaning is also: "Allah make your Mercy as a Wasilah for me in this action"

If you understand the above, you would realize that the best form of tawasul is using the names and attributes of Allah (SWT) and your sincere good deeds and not using Nabi (SAW). And the reality is that, if you take ten Muslims (who practice this tawasul) and ask them to explain "ola anobi" I doubt if all ten would refer it back to the attribute of Allah (SWT), what would likely be said is what you have stated "all his virtues: birth, mujiza, his life etc." and therein is the Problem!

With regards to love of the Prophet (SAW), thank God you mentioned the Qur'an talked about this...

Allah (SWT) says in the Qur'an:

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): 'If you (really) love Allaah, then follow me'"[so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." [Aal 'Imraan 3:31]

If we want to claim love, then following the Prophet (SAW) sincerely is the only way we can show this love, not going contrary to his legislation. Allah (SWT) clearly defines what love fundamentally means in the above verse, which is "to follow". The Prophet (SAW) went to the grave, taught us what to say there, warned us about worship therein, he (SAW) taught us du'a, and we cannot find this form of waseelah, nor did he command us to use him as such, so why would you want to do what he never did nor recommend?! Remember, this is an act of worship.

Abeg, doing asalatu while on your wife does not show love for the Prophet (SAW) (I kind of find it insulting), you (and I don't mean empiree) should rather perform the recommended dhikr, as well as pay attention to your wife and her needs during this period!

@sino,

With respect to Nisai 64 and Maida 35, especially the former, do you have evidence from QUR'AN and sunnah that restricted the ayah to when nabi (p) was alive or Hadith that categorically shelves the ayah till Qiyamah?. I think that's opinion of some ulama not necessarily sahaba or nabi (saw). The ayah as far so am concerned is functional everyday till Qiyamah. Sheikh Rabiu Adebayo said something about it in his lecture how ulama of a country considered the practice of the ayah after nabi constitutes shirk. After they reached conclusion banning istighatha, Allah sent hurricane to shatter the country for their disobedience.

He said, "do you think you know better than Him who revealed the ayah?. Did he tell you it is invalid after Anobi is gone?".


This is important thing to think about. Now look at these attachments from Hanafi argument on the issue. They have point. Remember, you can only refute them properly by bringing evidence that restricted the ayah or shelves it.

Empiree:
@sino,

With respect to Nisai 64 and Maida 35, especially the former, do you have evidence from QUR'AN and sunnah that restricted the ayah to when nabi (p) was alive or Hadith that categorically shelves the ayah till Qiyamah?. I think that's opinion of some ulama not necessarily sahaba or nabi (saw). The ayah as far so am concerned is functional everyday till Qiyamah. Sheikh Rabiu Adebayo said something about it in his lecture how ulama of a country considered the practice of the ayah after nabi constitutes shirk. After they reached conclusion banning istighatha, Allah sent hurricane to shatter the country for their disobedience.

He said, "do you think you know better than Him who revealed the ayah?. Did he tell you it is invalid after Anobi is gone?".


This is important thing to think about. Now look at these attachments from Hanafi argument on the issue. They have point. Remember, you can only refute them properly by bringing evidence that restricted the ayah or shelves it.

First let's look at the preceding verses and subsequent verse of Nisai 64 to get some insight:

"And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger," you see the hypocrites turning away from you in aversion.

So how [will it be] when disaster strikes them because of what their hands have put forth and then they come to you swearing by Allah, "We intended nothing but good conduct and accommodation."

Those are the ones of whom Allah knows what is in their hearts, so turn away from them but admonish them and speak to them a far-reaching word.

And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allah . And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muhammad], and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Accepting of repentance and Merciful.

But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. (Q 4: 61-65)

Reading through the above verses, it is clear that Allah (SWT) was talking about hypocrites, this is corroborated by tafsir. Why this should be the proper understanding is the fact that we cannot find any of the companions using this verse to mean what you claim, are you saying they do not understand the verse?!

Secondly, the verse 65 states making the Prophet (SAW) a judge in their dispute, so the question is, should we also start taking our dispute to the grave of the Prophet (SAW)?! And how do we establish "and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission"?! This clearly restrict the verses to when the Prophet (SAW) was alive.

The Hanafi argument stems from the same narration already presented that is fabricated....

It is established from Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) with regards to waseelah as follows:


"Quotes below are taken from Shaykh Shams Af-Afghani’s “Juhud Ulema Hanafiyah”:

Al-Hasakafi said in “Durul Mukhtar”, Fasl fil Bay’: “And in “Tatar Khaniyah”…, from Abu Yusuf from Abu Hanifah: “One should not invoke Allah except with Himself, and the Du’a permitted in it and prescribed is what is taken from His Saying : “And for Allah are beautiful Names, invoke with them” (A’raf, 180), and this saying is Makruh (forbidden): “Bi Haqq of Your Prophets or Nabi or Awliya…”

Ibn Abideen As Shamee said in explanation of “except with Himself” : “Meaning with His essence (dhat), His attributes and His names”

So if it is not restriction of Tawassul to Allah’s essence, attributes and Names then what is it?

Allamah Rustami said about words of Abu Hanifah quoted above: “Know that in this saying (of Abu Hanifah) there is restriction to Tawassul of Tawassul Ismi in du’a to Names of Allah and His attributes. And the condition of these Muqalids is that they leave the saying of their Imam, and follow their desire without knowledge…and our Shaykh (Ar-Ribati) Al-Fadil Al-Allamah Al-Adeeb, gathering rational knowledge and that of texts, one of the senior Hanafi in refuting Quburiyah, has some important words in taking a proof from this saying of Imam Abu Hanifah, and he quoted sayings of Hanafi scholars cutting the backs of the Quburiyah…” (“Tibyan” p 182 of Rustami, see also “Kawakib Ad-Duriyah fi Tahqiq Al-Wasilah Ash-Shar’iyah” p 125 of Ar-Ribati Al Hanafi”

About the Ayah “Seek Wasilah to Him”, Hanafi scholars said in Tafsir “Seek Qurbah (proximity) of Allah with actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Abu Layth Samarqandi, one of the big Hanafi scholar said about this Ayah : “Meaning seek Qurbah (proximity) and nobility with good deeds”

Abu Su’ud Al ‘Imadi al-Hanafi said in its Tafsir : “It is Fa’eelatun with meaning what we do Tawassul with to Allah from actions of obedience and leaving sins”

Also An-Nasafi mentioned in “Madariku Tanzil” that Tawassul as been used to “What we do Tawassul with to Allah with actions of good and leaving sins”

May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his companions, his household and those who follow them"

Source

^^^

Both sides of the arguments made valid points. However, i know how ridiculous it sounds if someone goes to nabi's grave to ask Allah for forgiveness as highlighted in Nisai 64. It doesn't sound reasonable. I get that. But then, it is not about how we feel. It about revelation and fact. Remember that Quran can not be translated. I have come to realise that. It may only be explained. Hence, Allah knows exactly what He revealed.

Another problem with analysis you presented is that you are saying the ayah was valid when nabi(saw) was alive. Since his passing to great beyond, the ayah is redundant and will only be active again in Qiyamah (when nabi intercedes for us). This in itself also sounds ridiculous. I do not believe any ayah of Quran is redundant. They continue to function till eternity. Although, i didnt grow up with this kind of practice where people go to grave even to say salaam and offer du'a needless to say ask Allah for help through wali or prophet. My position is, this is optional and higher level of Iman not for every Tom.

I have read some scholars before posting this and it is clear that Ulama always differed on this issue from ourstart. Everyone picks up what suits them from their favorites scholar. The first approach in my sincere opinion is safer and better for laymen and low iman. Second approach is rather left with waalrrasikhoona fee alAAilmi {3:7} and i totally disagree with it being Haram as some said. If it is haram now, it is always haram. Haram is haram. Haram doesn't change. Allah knows perfectly well the secret knowledge and secret relationship btw Himself and His messanger, Muhammad(saw). We already read evidences in various ahadith about personality of the prophet made physical and spiritual impact in the lives of the people in his time. This doesn't mean worshipping personality. Far as I am concern, i have absolutely no problem with the use of "ola anobi", ola alubarika anobi, ola ina atoina, ola yasin, ola makkah mukarama, ola medinat tul munawara etc.These are not problems for me at all. See, the same way you people see waseela of nabi(saw) aboherent and shirk is the same way Quraniyoon see sending salawat on the prophet in salat after attahiyat. They said it shirk becus salat is only devoted to Allah. That's their understanding too. Now this bring us back to reciting salat Ibrahimiyah in obligatory salat. To you, it is just sending blessings on the prophet and you dont believe it has anything to do with waseela meanwhile, it is recommended in the Hanafi madhab. The Maliki madhab does not recognize it as even being recommended. The Shafii's and Hanbali's consider it compulsory.. I am only interested in Shafii's and Hanbali's. If they consider it obligatory, the implication is that, it becomes precondition for acceptance of our obligatory salat. As for me growing up as a child, we (family) never recited any durood in obligatory salat but dua and dhikr, and we followed Maliki madhab largely in nigeria. I started reciting it in salat since i became independent.

Let me end with these and of course more like them are available.


Allaama Ibn Qayyim in his book al-Jami` al-Fareed, page 493, comments on the following hadith of Ibn 'Abbas (r):


"in the time before the Prophet (saws) the Jews of Khaybar were fighting with the Ghatfaan tribe. When the battle ended the Jews were defeated. They prayed to Allah asking Him, 'for the sake of Muhammad (bi haqqi Muhammad), the Prophet whom you are sending in the last days, make us defeat this tribe." When they met again with Ghatfaan they defeated them. Allah mentioned that event in the Qur'an when He said: "From of old they had prayed for victory against the unbelievers" (Baqara, 89), which means they [the Jews] were asking for your sake, O Muhammad, to defeat the unbelievers."



Hafidh Ibn Taymiyyah writes: When Adam (Alay hissalaam) made a mistake, he made Du'a like this: ' O Allah forgive my mistake with the Waseela of Muhammad, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace).Allah asked the Prophet Adam peace be upon him, (rhetorically) how he knew about Muhammad, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace) ["Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya vol. 2 page 150" also Tareekh Ibn Kathir in Story of Adam]



Du'a was even made with the Waseela of our Prophet [May Allah bless Him and grant Him peace] when he was a child.


Ibn Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab Najdi states, when our Prophet Muhammad, (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), was a child, rain had not fallen upon Makkah for a long period of time. His Uncle Abu Talib, prayed for rain through the Waseela of our Prophet (Sallallahu’alihi wa sallam.)

“Mukhtasar Seeratur Rasul, By Ibn Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab al Najdi”



http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/ibntay12.html
https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/islam/general-islamic-topics/236079-waseela-through-the-prophet-and-pouis


this is great video (few mins)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFezsaQnzhk

iamgenius:


Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Do not make your houses graves, and do not make my grave a place of festivity. But invoke blessings on me, for your blessings reach me wherever you may be.

The Wahhabi Takfiri fanatics heavily rely on the hadith of Abu Hurairah. And these hadiths are highly disputable and controversial and can be contradicted by other authentic hadith in the same Sunni sources. Why the confusion?

Look at the above hadith which says we shouldn't make our houses graves. Yet, the Prophet (s) himself was buried in his own house. Not only that, the two idols of Quraysh, Abu Bakr and Umar, who are demigods to Sunnis generally, chose to be buried in a house too, right beside the Prophet (s). And that house was the one Aisha lived in.

Most times in passing takfir, the wahhabis judge the intentions of those who visit graves and call it "grave worship" or brand it "shirk". Yet, they become wiser to believe and understand that when we as Muslims, generally face the Qiblah, or do tawaf, we aren't worshiping the Kaabah. And our intentions are vindicated. Takfir is just an essential pillar of wahhabism. And sadly, this pillar aims at other Muslims who reject Wahhabi extremism and terror. Wahhabism means dividing Islam and branding Muslims " kuffar". We all know what the Prophet (s) said about a Muslim who brands another Muslim a kafir. The former becomes the kafir.

SHIA / SHITE ARE KUFAR..
they are Elder brother of Sufi
... while ashairah is their youngest brother..


they are all KuFaR