Gallery

Restoring the Tawheed of the Classical Sunni Scholars: Part 1- Distortions of Neo-Sufis in Convoluting “Visiting the Prophet’s Grave” With Isti’aana and Istighaatha and Traveling To Other Religious Monuments

 

The following material is formatted in an argument and reply method where we represent the argument of a sufi adherent as “Sufi Argument”. The responses in reply to them will be highlighted as “Sunni Response”. The content was a discussion that took place at muslimvillage forums between me and their extremely ignorant sufi/ash’aris. I was eventually banned later on in a different thread on a different topic for a dubious reason that I labelled the Ash’aris as a “cult”. This is after they were unable to respond to anything of repute to the arguments I’ve presented to them in support of the authentic Sunnah.

 

Sufi Argument:

Imam Nawawi states in his al-Idah,

When the pilgrims and those performing the lesser pilgrimage depart from Mecca, they should go towards the direction of the city of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) to visit his grave, for it is the most important of deeds that draws one close and of the most successful endeavors.

 

Sunni Response:

Usual Sufi deception:

1. What this has to do with shirk, I have no idea. Somehow through this document and much of the arguments presented by sufis, they use general information like the above to somehow conclude to a specific reality of somehow proving the alleged validity of calling upon the inhabitants of the grave or to validate traveling to places of religious importance to other than the three places that the Shariah has allowed for the Muslims to travel to, them being Makkah, Madinah, and Baitul-Maqdis.

2. This statement of Imaam an-Nawawee is under the chapters of Hajj and Umra (the lesser pilgrimage) and is thus among the deeds that are highly recommended for the hajjis to do. This has nothing to do with traveling specifically to the graves of the prophets or the pious.

3. No one disputes that visitation to the qabr of rasulullah is an important deed that accrues blessing for their account. Therefore, what this has to do with the sunni vs quboori polemics is like mixing apples with tomatoes, much less oranges. 

 

Sufi Argument:

Ibn Hajar al-Haytami says in commentary of this after affirming the ahadith as sahih and hasan regarding intercession being guaranteed for one who visits the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) grave,

Our companions (i.e. among the Shafi`is) and others have said that it is Sunna for one to intend to draw close by undertaking a journey and praying in the Prophet’s Mosque just as one intends closeness by visitation, as mentioned by the author. This hadith also implies visiting him both in his (Allah bless him and give him peace) life and his death. It includes both men and women be they living afar or near…. So you should contemplate deeply on this tremendous virtue (i.e. of the Prophet’s soul being returned so he can respond to people’s greetings), for him (Allah bless him and give him peace) to respond to the greetings of a Muslim while he (Allah bless him and give him peace) is alive in his grave – like the rest of the Prophets, as indicated in the marfu` report that has been cited….

 

Sunni Response:

1. It is the creed of the Muslims i.e. the salafis, that while sending salaah upon the Nabi, Allah returns his life in order to respond as occurs in the saheeh ahadeeth. 

In the fasl of “At the Grave of the Prophet (salallahi ahlaihi wa salam)” my “salafi” teacher brings forth the following

Abdullah bin Dinaar radhiyallahu anhi said

‘I saw ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar stop at the Prophet’s grave, and he said salaah upon the prophet (salallahu alaihi wa sallam), and Abu Bakr, and Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma)”

Takhreej- Recorded by Maalik in his al-Muwatta with this wording, and also another route by al-Bayhaqi with the wording ‘he stopped at the grave of the Prophet (salallahu alaihi wa sallam) and asked Allah to send salaah and salaam upon him and have him (meaning the prophet) salaams”

Thus to insinuate that the Salafis do not concede to this belief is a typical distortion produced by Sufis for some propaganda points against the people of Allah Subhaanahu.

2. The life of the prophets in the grave is understood in two forms of nomenclature. They are the Ash’ari view and the Sunni view. This is somewhat off topic but is remotely linked to the subject which therefore warrants a comment.

Within Ash’ari dogma, the following is their line of reasoning for likening the life of the prophets after their death to our life on earth.

When they were asked to classify the soul, whether it is a substance which exists by itself, or an accident which subsists in a substance and does not exist by itself; they opted for the soul being an accident, just as life is also an accident in a human body. They said that the qualities of a living being depend on the soul, which is an accident. Hence, when this accident – i.e. the soul – disappears, all the qualities of life also disappear. 

What this belief necessitated is that the Prophet, after his death, is no longer a prophet, because prophethood is an accident, and an accident cannot endure two instances of time. Meaning, Allah regenerates the accidents that subsist in substances, and thereby the entire creation, every moment of time. Therefore, when the substance – i.e. the Prophet – dies, the accidents subsisting in that substance – i.e. life, soul, prophethood, etc – also vanish. 

This belief, regardless of al-Subki’s vigorous denial, lead to Ibn Furak’s death at the hands of the Sunni Seljuk Sultan Mahmud Subuktakin.

Since the belief that the Prophet is no longer a prophet became one of the shameful traits of the Ash’aris, we found the Ash’aris such as al-Qushayri fleeing to the other extreme and affirming that the Prophets are alive, like any of us are and fell short of denying that the Prophets really died. This is so that they can remain faithful to the Aristotelian creed that soul is an accident as well as prophethood, and both of these accidents still exist in the Prophet, because he is alive in his grave like we are.

It is for this reason that Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali records a statement made by Ibnul-Jawzi in his Dhayl Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah the following

Ibn al-Jawzi would often say on the pulpit:

The heretics (the Ash’aris) claim; i) there is none in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur’an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave; ‘your three shameful facets’” 

The Sunni view= what Allah says in the Qur’an

Indeed you will die, and so will they’?

As Ahl al-Sunnah, we believe he is alive, just as we believe the martyrs are alive, for Allah has stated that clearly in the Quran.

Do we say that martyrs are alive as we are? And if they are alive as we are, then by which Shari’a it becomes lawful to marry their ‘widows’, and usurp their wealth by calling it inheritance?

Now, in order to encompass the issue, the people who adopted the ash’ari belief will quote the following two arguments

a. Anas ibn Malik narrates that the Messenger of Allah (alayhi salatu salam) said: “The Prophets are alive in their graves performing Salat”. This was recorded by al-Bayhaqi in his ‘Hayat al-Anbiya’ and Abu Ya’la in his Musnad).

b. Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) states: “Death will never come to the blessed Messenger of Allah (alayhi salatu salam) in his grave, rather he will remain alive, due to the fact that the Prophets remain alive in their graves” (Fath al-Bari, 17/22).

The response to point a, is multi-faceted.

->. Not all of the hufaadh authenticated this riwayaah and haafidh ibnul-Qayyim mentions the defects of the narration in question.

-> Secondly, if the narration was authentic, it would not mean that their life is like the life of ours in this world. Narrations are understood in light of others and no solely isolated on their own merit.

As for praying in the grave, then that is not only applicable to the prophets, but in fact applicable to all.

Al-Tabari in his Tafseer and Ibn Hibban in his Saheeh narrate a Hadeeth with the following chain:

 

حدثنا مجاهد بن موسى والحسن بن محمد قالا ثنا يزيد قال أخبرنا محمد بن عمرو عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة

 

The sanad is well connected and the men are all thiqat, except Muhammad bin ‘Amr bin ‘Alqama who is Saduq whose Ahadeeth are Hasan.

The Hadeeth is long and in the text it states that the angels say to the dead in the grave:

 

أخبرنا عما نسألك فيقول دعوني حتى أصلي فيقول إنك ستفعل

 

Inform us about what we ask you’, he would say: ‘let me first make Salah’. They will say: ‘That you surely will

 So does this mean none of us actually die and that we are all brought back to life in our graves as we are alive in this worldly sense? Rather, the life being referred to here, is in terms of the Barzakh the nature of which we do not know. The same goes for return of the soul to the body for the Prophets and others.

As for the reply to b, then

-> Abu Bakr said to the companions “Whoever used to worship Muhammad, then indeed Muhammad is dead!”

How un-Ash’ari of Abu Bakr!

Conclusion- the view of the ahlu-sunnah is that the life of the prophets and the martyrs is fundamentally the same of the life of all who are in the grave, a life termed as al-Barzaakh, and the life of the prophets and shuhada are given special amenities not given to others among the dead of this world.

How this is related to the subject is that those who adopted the ash’ari view, ipso facto caused them to formulate statements in their rulings reflective of this. There is nothing wrong with the stated speech of Imam al-Haythami according to the wording provided above, I just felt it necessary for the average reader that certain clauses in speech have monumental polemics or scholarly discussions behind them that are not visibly seen to those who read the outward speech of scholars or as we like to say in English, “through the naked eye”.. And this is one reason why I felt the need to touch on this.

 3. Again, as is the case with the previous quote of an-Nawawee, what this statement from al-Haythami has to do with the polemics of shirk between the views of sunnis vs qubooris is beyond me for I have no idea what use this quote from al-Haythami has to the topic between sunnis vs the qubooris.

In essence, it is a red haring just like the quote of Imaam an-Nawawee, a red haring that digresses from the actual topic under discussion. In case one have forgotten, the essence of the topic was

so how is it that people today use this ayah as proof that one can go to prophet’s grave and ask him to pray on their behalf? makes no sense.

The issue here is not about “the validity of going to the prophet’s grave” rather about “what is to be performed at the grave”

Thus far, nothing mentioned by an-Nawawee or al-Haythami, or anyone else for that matter utilized by these quotes does nothing to prove the validity of what sufis deduce with regards to making isti’aana and istighaatha to the prophet exclusively, rather the quotes of those whom he uses actually insinuate directing their dua to Allah.

 

Sufi Argument:

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani after making his argument that “except three Mosques” can only mean “Do not undertake a journey to travel to any MOSQUE” quotes al-Subki as saying,

“This matters has confused some folks. They claimed that undertaking a journey for a visit to other than these three is included in the prohibition. This is a mistake, because the excluder can only be from the genus of the excluded, hence, this hadith means, ‘Do not undertake a journey to a mosque or place for the sake of that place except the tree mentioned.’ Undertaking a journey in pursuit of knowledge or for the sake of visitation is not to that specific place, rather it is to he who is in that specific place. And Allah knows best.

 

Sunni Response:

 Clarifying a False Notion:

The statement of as-Subki is refuted by the companions. While indeed as-Subki relies on a rational basis for his argument, the basis of the religion does at times utilize rational arguments, but precedence is given to actions or statement of the companions if they contradict these principles. Moreoever the reasoning employed by as-Subki here is outrageously flawed.

 With respect to the hadeeth of the prohibition of traveling for religious purposes except to the three masaajid, the traditionalist Ahlu-sunnah have emphasized that their adversaries have made a mistake in insinuating that this hadeeth is only “with regards to masaajid” and thus as-Subki slips into this mistake by stating that this prohibition is only applicable to those things in the same genre of the thing that was originally prohibited i.e. masaajid.

 The traditionalist in response to the above false notion brought forth a saheeh narration from the Musnaad of Imaam Ahmad in which Abu Hurayrah reports

I met Basra ibn Basra al-Ghifari and he said, ‘Where have you come from?’ I said, ‘From turi Saina (Mount Sinai).’ He said, ‘If I had seen you before you left, you would not have gone. I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, “Only make a special journey to three mosques: the mosque of the Haram (Makka), this mosque (Madina), and the mosque of Ilya’ or the Bait al-Maqdis 

So what do we have here? We, the ahlu-sunnah, said in response to the notion of as-Subki that this principle he highlights does not apply in this situation. Why? Because here we have Abu Hurayrah radhiyallahu anhu who specifically applied the ruling of the Messenger of Allah on the prohibition of traveling to other masaajid to this specific situation of Basra bin Basra al-Ghafari in which he went to mount Sinai . And if anyone knows the significance of mount Sinai, it is where it is said to have religious import due to the fact that Prophet Musa received revelation from Mount Sinai. 

Thus, this is one proof as to why the traditionalist orthodox scholars used the prohibition of the hadeeth on traveling to any masaajid to be applied to ALL areas of religious import, and not only masaajid. It is for this reason that the scholars used the principle of

“Laf-dhun Khash-shun Yuraadu bihi al-’Am”

i.e. 

The specific word (construct) when its intended implication is general.

And this riwaaya from the Musnaad of Imaam Ahmad is a clear example of this principle in action.

 

Sufi Argument:

Badr al-Din al-`Ayni states in his sharh of Sahih al-Bukhari,

And al-Rafi’ has reported from the Qadi ibn Kujj who said, ‘According to me, anyone who takes a vow to visit the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) must fulfill it from one angle. According to me, if he takes a vow to visit the grave of someone else, there are two legal angles.’…”

 

Sunni Response: 

Again, we are talking about apples and here you are bringing me some grapes.

The topic under discussion is asking Allah or asking someone else other than Allah, and here you are bringing me a legal issue about visitation to the grave of the prophet and other than the Prophet alaihi salatu salam.

 

Sufi Argument:

And then proceeds to quote a hadith in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad that explicitly states, “It is not fitting for a traveller to undertake a journey to pray in a Mosque unless it is the Masjid al-Haram, Masjid al-`Aqsa or this Masjid of mine.”

Ibn Qudama, author of al-Mughi, said,

It is recommended to visit the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) due to the report of al-Daraqutni with his chain from Ibn `Umar who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Whoever performs the pilgrimage and visits my grave after my passing, then it is as is he has visited me in my life time.”‘… If the one who has never performed hajj before – meaning the one who is not traveling by way of the Levant – then he should not go straight to Medina because I fear for him having an accident on the way. He must first go to Mecca by way of the best and closest route and not get distracted with other things.

 

Sunni Response:

1. I find it amusing that you would actually produce something that actually solidifies the entire basis of my argument and deconstructs the basis of yours. Thank you for this reference, I will use it now to refute the claims your implicating on the discussion, whenever you actually get around talking about apples, which is rare as of now. 

However, more things have to be clarified from the lack of conclusive information you provide. 

Imam Muhammad ibn Abdil Hadi al-Maqdisi said in “Sarim Al-Munki fi Radd ‘ala Subki” about the Hadith collected by Ad-Daraqutni and quoted by Subki in his “Shifa As-Siqam”: Abu Rabi’ Az-Zahrani from Hafs ibn Abi Dawud from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet (saw): “He who performs Hajj and visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life”: 

Know that it is a Hadith on which it is not permissible to base, nor is it suitable to rely on it, because it is a Munkar Hadith, with a dropped Isnad, and none of the Hufaadh authenticated it and none of the Imams based themselves on it, rather they weakened it and criticized it and some of them mentioned it among fabricated Ahadith and reports that are lies.” 

And Muhammad bin Abdul-Hadee mentioned that its narrator Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he is Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Asadi Al-Kufi Al-Bazar Al-Qari Al-Ghadiri though he was an Imam in Qira’ah, but in the field of Hadith he has been weakened by the Ahlul Hadith and some of them accused him of lying. 

 Now, the question is, why are you impugning an imaginary group that your sect has invented called the wahhabis for properly analyzing hadeeth that the Imaams of hadeeth themselves disputed to, except that you are implying that haafidh Ibn Adbul-Haadi, or other than him are also “wahhabis” for somehow agreeing with the “wahhabis”

2. Again, from the above quote, this narration by Ibnul-Qudaamah has nothing to do with making isti’aana to the Prophet alayhi salatu salam. This isyet another case in a series of mixing apples and oranges.

 

Sufi Argument:

I.e. and then visit the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) after he has complete his hajj, since hajj is an obligation and ziyara is from the Sunna.

 

Sunni Response:

Agreed, again, no issue of dispute here as you would like to make it seem. Another one of those apples and oranges.

 

Sufi Argument:

And then mentions the narration of al-Utbi that is famous and clearly is citing it as a PROOF for what he is saying. This is the same narration of al-`Utbi that the Wahhabis consider to be shirk because it entails speaking to the Prophet (Allah him and give him peace) directly (which for some reason is okay when one is giving greetings) and asking him for forgiveness according to the verse that started this thread.

 

Sunni Response:

Clarifying the Ignorance of Some Sufis:

1. Ah, you must be referring to this

 

( 2748 ) فَصْلٌ : وَيُسْتَحَبُّ زِيَارَةُ قَبْرِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ؛ لِمَا رَوَى الدَّارَقُطْنِيّ ، بِإِسْنَادِهِ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : { مَنْ حَجَّ ، فَزَارَ قَبْرِي بَعْدَ وَفَاتِي ، فَكَأَنَّمَا زَارَنِي فِي حَيَاتِي } .

وَفِي رِوَايَةٍ : { مَنْ زَارَ قَبْرِي وَجَبَتْ لَهُ شَفَاعَتِي } .

رَوَاهُ بِاللَّفْظِ الْأَوَّلِ سَعِيدٌ .

حَدَّثَنَا حَفْصُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ ، عَنْ لَيْثٍ عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ ، عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ .

وَقَالَ أَحْمَدُ ، فِي رِوَايَةِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ قُسَيْطٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : { مَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ يُسَلِّمُ عَلَيَّ عِنْدَ قَبْرِي ، إلَّا رَدَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيَّ رُوحِيِّ ، حَتَّى أَرُدَّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامَ } : وَإِذَا حَجَّ الَّذِي لَمْ يَحُجَّ قَطُّ – يَعْنِي مِنْ غَيْرِ طَرِيقِ الشَّامِ – لَا يَأْخُذُ عَلَى طَرِيقِ الْمَدِينَةِ ، لِأَنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَحْدُثَ بِهِ حَدَثٌ ، فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَقْصِدَ مَكَّةَ مِنْ أَقْصَرِ الطُّرُقِ ، وَلَا يَتَشَاغَلَ بِغَيْرِهِ .

وَيُرْوَى عَنْ الْعُتْبِيِّ ، قَالَ : كُنْت جَالِسًا عِنْدَ قَبْرِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَجَاءَ أَعْرَابِيٌّ ، فَقَالَ : السَّلَامُ عَلَيْك يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ، سَمِعْت اللَّهَ يَقُولُ : { وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمْ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا } .

وَقَدْ جِئْتُك مُسْتَغْفِرًا لِذَنْبِي ، مُسْتَشْفِعًا بِك إلَى رَبِّي ، ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ يَقُولُ : يَا خَيْرَ مَنْ دُفِنَتْ بِالْقَاعِ أَعْظُمُهُ فَطَابَ مِنْ طِيبِهِنَّ الْقَاعُ وَالْأَكَمُ نَفْسِي الْفِدَاءُ لِقَبْرِ أَنْتَ سَاكِنُهُ فِيهِ الْعَفَافُ وَفِيهِ الْجُودُ وَالْكَرَمُ ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ الْأَعْرَابِيُّ ، فَحَمَلَتْنِي عَيْنِي ، فَنِمْت ، فَرَأَيْت النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي النَّوْمِ ، فَقَالَ : يَا عُتْبِيُّ ، الْحَقْ الْأَعْرَابِيَّ ، فَبَشِّرْهُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ غَفَرَ لَهُ .

وَيُسْتَحَبُّ لِمَنْ دَخَلَ الْمَسْجِدَ أَنْ يُقَدِّمَ

  

Don’t worry, I didn’t use shaykh google, I searched al-Mughni myself. The narration your speaking of is in red. I took the liberty to quote the entire chapter.

Interestingly, I found this under Kitaabul-Hajj under the issue of visitation to the grave of the prophet salallahu alaihi wa sallam. 

 

2. I guess it is true, hadeeth is not something for which sufis are reliable in for if Imaam an-Nawawee highlights the following for sufis

This is so because of their non-possession of the skills employed by the people of hadith, and hence, error creeps into their reports without their knowledge and they tend to relate inaccurate reports not suspecting them to be false.

Then it would entail something even greater when it comes to mustalahul-hadeeth as opposed to merely narrating them.

What is this ignorance? 

A.) Ibn Qudama does not mention the narration as an evidence, but only as a citation, which is why he says: ‘yurwa’ – it has been narrated, indicating that the narration is weak, and therefore, not suitable as an evidence. This is how the hufaadh behave with reports that are at least spurious and of little to no value. This is the format of the traditionalist understanding of hadeeth oration. Of course you would not have known this considering your lack of affinity for anything orthodox except for the bridle attachment your party claims to have with our own Imaams like an-Nawawee or Ibn Hajr or Ibnul-Qudaamah for that matter.

 B.) The ‘Utbi narration is not an evidence from what we know of in Usul al-Fiqh, for evidence is what the Prophet said, did, or agreed to. The ‘Utbi incident – even if we were to assume it authentic – would have no bearing at all with respect to fiqh. Hence, that is why Ibnul-Qudamah placed it secondary AFTER the primary references he cites in the entire chapter I had to paste above from my search of al-Mughni.

 C.) The narration does not – anywhere – indicate that ‘Utbi was making du’a to the Prophet. All it says is:

And it is narrated from al-`Utbi who said, ‘I was sitting at the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) when a Bedouin approached and said, ‘Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. I have heard that Allah says {And if when they wronged themselves, they came to you and repented to Allah and the Messenger seeks their pardon they would have found Allah All-Forgiving and Most Merciful.} So I have come to you penitent for my sins seeking your intercession to my Lord.’

 He does not say to the Prophet: ‘O Prophet, forgive me’, for that would be Shirk.

 He simply did what he thinks he is told to do in the verse: ‘they came to you and repented to Allah’.

 It is like a person coming to the Black Stone saying: I have come to you, seeking forgiveness of my sins. Meaning, he is not seeking forgiveness from the stone, or calling upon the stone to help. He is merely expressing his emotions, while seeking forgiveness from Allah alone.

 But of course the problem of modern day sufism is the format of deducing understandings of Islamic works, whether it be the Qur’an, hadeeth, or other than that.

 3. Another false notion of pseudo sufis is their newly concocted doctrine which delineates an awkward principle that no one ever spoke about and that is the idea that “silence of a scholar on a narration entails acceptance” as if these scholars are the prophet of Allah.

 This is noted in your statement

Sufi quote:

and clearly is citing it as a PROOF for what he is saying

Thus, the underlying assumption here is that the one who relays something ipso facto approves of its content. This is the problem for which Sufis fail to contextualize matters. This oration is mentioned one time by Ibnul-Qudaamah in his al-Mughni. What is al-Mughni? To clarify for the readers, al-Mughni is a scholastic work FOR scholars. In other words, the book was not written or intended for the entire nation of Muslims en masse to utilize for their own personal fiqh. So how is this contextualized. Since it is specifically written for the advanced students on the verge of scholardome, they have already been trained in the etiquette’s of hadeeth sciences as well as fiqh sciences and other sciences. 

 Thus, when the advanced and learned comes across the information cited by Ibnul-Qudaamah, they by default understand that “this is something that was narrated on the topic” thereby signifying that what was quoted is not fundamental but something that can be classed into the entire spectrum of the subject, that is all.

Unfortunately, these subtleties escape people like yourself and the generality of Sufi propagandist and get all worked up and become lost in the ocean of what they are searching for in order to advance their own agenda and fall into many slips in the process, the irony of which is that I am the one being classed as “all over the place”. ajeeb

 

Sufi Argument:

Ibn Qudama, author of al-Sharh al-Kabir, stated,

When he is finished with the pilgrimage, it is recommended to visit the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) as well as the graves of his two companions

 

Sunni Response: 

Again, of no pertinent value here. What does this have to do with anything for which the entire sufi sect implicates heresy on ahlu-sunnah.

 

Sufi Argument:

He then mentions what he deems the best thing to state when greeting the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace), PATTERNED upon the narration of al-`Utbi and enjoins the visitor to quote the verse, “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them…” and then say,

So I come to you seeking forgiveness for my sins, seeking intercession through you unto my Lord….

Sunni Response

Oh really. I didn’t find this at all. I wonder where you can find this claim of yours. Maybe from Sharh al-Kabir, but you have no way of verifying.. Here is what I have found from Ibnul-Qudaamah

He says after making mention of the narration of al-‘Utbi, the following

 

وَقَدْ جِئْتُك مُسْتَغْفِرًا لِذَنْبِي ، مُسْتَشْفِعًا بِك إلَى رَبِّي

 

i.e. 

And I come to You (Allah) (seeking) forgiveness of my sins, and seeking your intercession to my Lord.

Sufis who might not know Arabic correctly might confuse the wording لِذَنْبِي literally “li dhanbi i.e. from my sins” as ‘li Nabi” i.e. to the prophet. It may be this misreading that they are confusing the actual words of Ibnul-Qudaamah to imply that the one who is “seeking forgiveness” is to ask the prophet directly. IF this is the case, then it seems that Sufis are as horrible as they are in Arabic and its sciences as they are in hadeeth. 

Whether or not sufis grasp the Arabic or not is not a bone of contention. The bone of contention here is that this is a du’a that one says to Allah while approaching the grave of the Prophet alayhi salatu salam according to the wording of Ibnul-Qudamaah who was highlighting the subject.

 

Sufi Argument:

Al-Buhuti, the author of Kashhaf al-Qina says,

And when he has complete his pilgrimage, it is recommended for him to visit the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and the graves of his two companions, Abu Bakr and `Umar, due to the Hadith of al-Daraqunti from Ibn `Umar [that we already mentioned in Ibn Qudama’s quote].

 

Sunni Response

Again, useless information if we have already conceded to the above and for which has nothing to do with the essence of the polemics in question. It should be noted oh sunni, that this is the usual convolution of mixing apples and oranges whereby they’ll bring forth the simple, general, and accepted issue of visiting the Prophet’s grave with the shirk of making isti’aana and istighaatha to the grave dwellers.

This sufi then quotes Ibn Nasrullah on a related point who said,

 

Sufi Argument:

The recommendation to visit the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) implies that it is recommended to undertake a journey to it as well. This is because one’s visit for the pilgrimate is after the Hajj and it is not possible without undertaking a journey – so this is clear and explicit to under take a journey to visit him. (Allah bless him and give him peace).

 

Sunni Response:

1. The mode of argument used by ibn Nasrullah is flawed because even though a journey towards the masjid an-Nabawi is after the hajj, it is still encompassed as among the three acceptable places to travel for religious intent, and thus the ulema deduced that the grave of the prophet, while there, should be visited. Thus, the argument here as cited by Ibn Nasrullah is of no actual value here considering that we already have permission to travel to the Masjid an-Nabawi.

2. Based on your wording, the issue they were talking about is “undertaking a journey to the grave of the prophet”, which has nothing to do with the polemics of shirk that remains the essence of this thread.

Thus again, you have brought forth another orange to the apples we are discussing.

 

Sufi Argument:

Majd al-Din al-Fayruzabadi states, after affirming that the Hanbalis, Shafi`is and Hanafis all consider it to be recommended to visit the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including if it means “journeying with one’s animal”, states about the Malikis

As for the Malikis, Qadi `Iyad mentioned consensus from them upon this. In the book Tadhiab al-Matalib of `Abd al-Haqq al-Saqali, he mentions that Shaykh Abu Imran al-Mailiki said that visiting the grave of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is obligatory. `Abd al-Haqq commented on his words saying, “Meaning the obligatory sunnas.” In the words of al-`Abdi al-Maliki in his explanation of al-Risala, “Walking to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) is better than the Ka`ba and Jerusalem.”

 

Sunni Response:

I really have to ask, what does this have to do with the topic. The topic is about validation of calling to the grave dwellers

 

Sufi Argument:

Most of the expressions used by the jurists of the schools imply undertaking a journey to visit, for they believed it to be recommend for the pilgrim to pay a visit after his Hajj. From the necessary implications of that is undertaking a journey. As for visiting itself, the proofs for it are numerous. And the proofs, is the words of the Exalted, “If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they woul dhave found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” There is no doubt that he (Allah bless him and give him peace) is alive and that the deeds of his Umma are presented to him.”

 

Sunni Response:

1. The necessary implication of undertaking a journey is a useless deduction in the wake of evidential reports concerning the validity of undertaking a journey to Masjid an-Nabawi anyway. 

 2. The Messenger of Allah is indeed presented with our deeds by the angels and other realities for which we have come to know from his revelation, but has nothing to do with him being alive as we are alive, which again goes back to the kalam based deductions of the Ash’aris with regards to their commitment to Aristotelian antics as was highlighted above.

 3. the sabab (reason) of the ayaah he uses is actually with regards to the munafiqeen who have oppressed themselves and anyone can read the tafseer of Ibn Katheer or any other tafseer to find this out. While indeed we acknowledge that ayaat that pertain to munafiqeen can be applied to Muslims, this ayaah itself does not fulfill this reality. Thus while we are allowed or even recommended to do so based on the views of the scholars, to obligate this is something else entirely and based on a loooooooooong stretch of deduction.

 

Sufi Argument:

I believe you get the gist. And returning to the original post, here is an Arabic linguistic, author of the famous al-Qamus al-Muhit, citing the verse as his primary proof for the merit of visiting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) after his death. A verse which also enjoins people to ask the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) forgiveness with the expectation that he (Allah bless him and give him peace) will ask Allah to forgive one through that act of humility.

 

Sunni Response:

I do get the gist, and along with it your deception, or rather the deception for which you acquired through blindly believing what was given to you.

 The ayaah of Allah does not enjoin people to ask the forgiveness of the prophet salallahu alaihi wa sallam. This is what the ayaah of Allah actually says

 

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ 

i.e.

And only if, when they were unjust to themselves 

جَآءُوكَ

Had come to you (meaning Muhammad)

 

فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللَّهَ 

And begged for Allah’s forgiveness

 

وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ 

And the Messenger asked forgiveness for them

 

Allah’s words, nor does the English give any indication that the creation is commanded to ask another created being something for which Allah claims is the sole proprietor of its distribution i.e. forgiveness. 

Since “wastaghrifa” ends with the ‘iraab of nasb (fathah) then the one implied doing the act is “arasoolu” and thus it is the messenger that is seeking forgiveness for them, and not that they are asking the prophet for forgiveness.

 

Sufi Argument:

The larger point is that those who accept the hadith regarding visitation, as well as the hadith of the blind man and al-`Ubti – which numerous authorities have authenticated

 

You mean have “in-authenticated”. Most of the traditionalist hufaadh remarked that the riwaaya is extremely weak of no use. Again, this goes back to the newly concocted theories of your pseudo sufi school that came up with the idea that mere citation of a narration entails acceptance and more dangerously, authentication (tawtheeq) which no one on the planet in the entire Muslim scholarship has outlined

 

Sufi Argument:

– consider it permissible and praiseworthy to make tawassul through the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) du’a, as numerous hadith which groups of scholars have authenticated establish that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) can hear and make du`a in his grave.

 

Sunni Response:

1. The Muslim i.e. the salafis have understood and affirmed that the prophet can make du’a in his grave and are presented with our deeds and that his soul is returned to his body in order to respond. We already know this. 

2. again, remarking on the fact that some scholars conceded to the idea that making tawassul to the prophet is acceptable is not what those accused of being “wahhabis” have charged the “sufis’ with in regards to shirk. As I said before, most of the traditionalists viewed this opinion of tawassul through the prophet as a bid’i tawassul, and not a tawassul that entails shirk because of the fact that those scholars whom you are using as evidene specifically mentioned the fact that Allah is the one being asked. To add the cherry on top of this, I quote the Imaam and Mujaddid Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali

 

Regarding their statement with respect to al-Istisqa (praying for seeking rain): ‘There is no harm in making tawassul through the righteous’ and Ahmad’s statement: ‘tawassul is only allowed through the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam’, while they all say: ‘Istighatha (seeking aid) from the creation is not allowed’, then the difference (between the two is very clear, and it is irrelevant to what we are concerned with.

For some scholars to allow tawassul through the righteous, or for some to restrict it to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, while majority of the scholars forbidding and disliking it; these issues are from fiqhi issues. Even though the correct opinion in our view is the majority opinion that it is disliked, we still do not censure one who practices it (tawassul), for there is no censuring in issues of ijtihad.

However, our censure of one who calls upon the creation, is greater than the censure of one who calls upon Allah Ta’ala (alone); for he travels to the grave beseeching, next to al-Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir or others, seeking the alleviation of calamities, aiding the grief-stricken, attaining the desirables; where is this all from one who calls upon Allah, purifying His religion for Him, not calling upon anyone besides Allah, except that he says in his supplication: I ask you by Your Prophet, messengers, or the righteous servants, or travels to Ma’ruf’s grave or others’ to supplicate there, yet only supplicates to Allah, purifying the religion for Him, how is this relevant to what concerns us here?

(Fatawa wa masa’il al-Sheikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab page 41)

 Indeed a powerful and insightful question the shaykh brings. It is as if these bags of apples and oranges were just as relevant in the time of the Shaykh rahmatullahi alayh as they are now. I feel as the shaykh feels. How is the statements that you bring relevant to what concerns us concerning this topic. Don’t answer this. The purpose here is that certain people are making apples out of oranges, which does nothing except to befuddle the truth from a birds eye view, and expose the ignorance of pseudo scholardome that pervades modern day sufism.

 

Sufi Argument:

The fact that al-Albaani (Allah have mercy upon him) considered these hadith (i.e. the “Hadith of the Blind Man” and “al-`Utbi’s narration”) to be weak and that Ibn Taymiyyah considered the hadith of visitation to be weak makes it an issue of ikhtilaf and FIQH, not tawhid and shirk.

 

Sunni Response:

thank you for proving my point. The reason why we all viewed this as an ikhtilaaf in fiqh is precisely because it was Allah who was ultimately being summoned in the du’a, for had it been other than Allah Subhaanahu who was summoned in the du’a, then the issue would have transferred from fiqh to aqeedah, and from bida, to shirk. I don’t know how many times this can be articulated for you in order to grasp the matter. 

 Furthermore, al-Albanee did not consider the narration of al-Utbi as weak, rather he considered the riwaayah reported by Uthman bin Hunayf as authentic.

 

Sufi Argument:

The textual basis exists, through numerous hadith and there is no basis for declaring it shirk other than an invented principle that defies logic and reason.

 

Sunni Response:

The only thing that defies logic and reason is absurd sufi and or ash’ari deductions of sunni textual reports in order to solidify ideological fallacies unfathomable to the Imaams whom their statements are inadvertently being used for the promotion of asking other than Allah for which they themselves are free from. 

 

Sufi Argument:

If asking the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) for du’a during his life was permissible, it is illogical to consider such an action to be shirk.

 

Sunni Response:

That is because asking forgiveness for someone while alive is not shirk, in fact it was commanded to seek your forgiveness if I have wronged you. However, once you are dead, it is impermissible for me to ask you for that forgiveness. If that is illogical, then I am happy to be in the company of the illogical as our companions were when they refrained from seeking tawassul through the prophet during the drought and sought to make istiqsaa through the tawassul of al-Abbass thereby opting for someone else because of the fact that the prophet was no longer with them.

 The companions are a guide for those who are Muslims and their way is the ONLY way for which Allah sanctioned and as Imam Maalik stated 

nothing will rectify the latter part of this ummah except with what rectified the first part of this ummah”

 Thus I concede to the “illogic” of the companions, as you put it.

 

Sufi Argument:

If we acknowledge it is invalid after his death, the most that can be said is that it is impermissible. Claiming it is shirk and then make takfir upon scores of people is fanaticism, unsupported by any proof.

 

Sunni Argument:

Apparently, you have no brain, for Allah Himself is being charged with fanaticism here. We only claim shirk for which Allah and His messenger have proclaimed shirk. Sufis, or some of you as not all of you are alike, are the only ones in the Muslim nation who somehow find it normal to defy the Muslim view of shirk which is

if Allah and His messenger have declared it shirk, then it is shirk“. Your group, on the other hand has opted that

If Allah and His Messenger has declared shirk, it is not necessarily shirk

There is no evolution to shirk as Sufi propagandist would have us believe. Whatever was declared to be shirk in the Qur’an and Sunnah will always remain shirk and the implication of it is not removed on false premises like the utterance of the shahaadatayn. The Shahaadatayn removes “shirk” and does not accommodate it. Therefore, the one who accommodates shirk under specious arguments has not fulfilled the basis of laa ilaaha illallah. This is similar to the topic of sihr (sorcery,magic). The one who utters the shahadatayn is intrinsically incapable of being a sorcerer or involved in sorcery. A magician is intrinsically is incapable of being a Muslim. Thus the one who claims to be a Muslim and is involved with sorcery has invalidated their claim to Islam. They are either a Muslim or a Kaahin (sorcerer). Likewise one is either a Muslim or a mushrik.