He never did. Ibn Taymiyyah called it Bida`a Shirkiyyah, a innovated way of polytheism. Istigatha is a practice of shirk if its not done to Allah alone. Istigatha is asking for help, do you deem anything higher then Allah that you call upon it ? If you do, know that you are a mushrik by the consensus of ahlul sunnah.

@@AlMulk21 please spare me your consensus of Sunnis bull!, it's the Najdi, Muhammad ibn AbdulWahhab who deemed it Shirk, even though his role model ibn Taymiyah only deemed it Shirk if you asked Allah through the Awliyah. And was OK by him if you mentioned the Prophets. Please go and check with your wahabi so called sheiks. What you people don't understand is that there is nothing wrong with asking Allah by the best of creations, of course knowing that Allah is the creator of all things. P. S the Hadith of the Trapped men of the cave supplicted to Allah by their good deeds.

@@warababeser1 So we can call upon other then allah ? congratulations, you're officially a kafir. You will be with Abu Jahl and Abu Lahab in Jahannam for rejecting Tawheed, pure worship of Allah. The prophet is free from you mushrik. You will be from the people who will be asked if now messenger came to you Surah Mulk 8.

@@warababeser1 Verily, the places of worship are ONLY for Allah, so dont call anyone besides him. What you just explained is what the Mushrikeen of Quraysh did, your religious forefathers. You're are repeating what they said when they were asked to stop worship them. Surah Zumar 3: We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah. Surah al Fatiha 5: Only you we worship and only you we ask for help. Bukhari 3453: May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets. Its a consensus. You people know that you are upon falsehood, yet you reject tawheed but still claim Islam for you. If not even Quran and Sunnah help you, you know that you are doomed. Your hearts are sealed. May Allah guide you people of falsehood.

@@AlMulk21 look, don't over work your self. What you quoted is in regards to actual worship of other's than Allah. What's wrong with asking Allah by his best of creations like the Prophets. If you ask Allah for something and you add to the supplication "I ask you by the Prophets". Now no ones saying this is the only way of supplication, or the best of Supplication. But don't call those who practice it as kaffirs. There are Hadiths where the Prophet taught Sahaba's to supplicate to Allah by the Prophet. And the Wahabi's acknowledged these Hadith's, but nullified the process citing that it is only permissible as long as the Prophet was Alive. Which is ridiculous. Because the status of the Prophet did not diminish after his death! Look go and check with ur so called sheikhs, even ibn Taymiyah permitted istighatha through the Prophet and deemed it Shirk through the Awliyah. Which also doesn't make sense. Then the Wahabi's decided to deem it Shirk all together.

It is insane barelvi allow it People are in between major haram or shirk And they allow it 😢

@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273let’s see what the Ulema say about it insha Allah and if you declare the same Hukm upon them. Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhadith Dhelvi (Rahimuhullah), who came from Arabia to subcontinent in order to spread the knowledge of hadith, he is respected highly by all Muslims (including Ghair Muqalideen) , he says: I wish my intellect was owned by people who reject beseeching for help from Awliya, so what do they understand from it? What we understand is that the one making dua is dependent upon Allah, and he makes dua to Allah, asks Him for his Hajah and presents the Wasila of Allah’s friend , he says: O Allah, the blessings which you have bestowed upon this friend of yours, please grant me something through his wasila, as you are the best of givers, the second case is that one calls out (nida) the Wali and makes him Mukhatib and says: "O Slave of Allah, O Allah’s friend, do my Shaf’aat and make this dua to Allah that he grants me my need" Hence the one who grants and the one who fulfills the need (in both cases) is “ONLY ALLAH” , the man in-between is just an intercessor , whereas the Qadir, Fa’il, one who brings about change is only Allah [Sharah al Mishkaat, Ash’atul Lamaat, Volume No. 3, Page No. 401] imam Al Ramli says the following Question: That which occurs amongst the general public who when in distress call out Ya Sheikh Fulan and Ya Rasul Ullah and other such things in seeking help (Istighatha) from the Prophets, the saints, Ulama and upright people. Is this allowed or not? Do the Messengers/Prophets/Saints/righteous/Mashaikh have the capability to help others... Answer: Istighatha i.e. Seeking Help from the Prophets and Messengers, the Saints, Ulama and upright people is “PERMITTED” after their passing away. The messengers, prophets and saints have (power to) help after their passing away because their miracles do not become abolished after their deaths. The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying and also performing hajj as it has been mentioned in many ahadith. Therefore the help from them shall be a miracle from them, the martyrs are also alive which is proven that they have been seen openly killing the disbelievers. Now regarding Awliya then this is a Karamat from them, the people of truth believe that this happens from (the hands) of awliya both with their intention and without it. Having a change in outer aspects of things is brought forward by Allah through them. The Dalil for this is that these things are possible and their occurrence is not something impossible, for example the story of Maryam (a.s) and how the provision came to her from Allah as is stated in Quran and the incident of Abu Bakr (ra) with his guests as is present in Sahih, the Nile flowing to its full due to letter of Umar (ra) plus him also seeing right from his mimbar in madina, the army approaching (Sariya ra) and he exclaiming to the leader: “Ya Sariyatul Jabal (i.e. O Sariya turn to the mountain)” i.e. warning him about the enemy behind the mountain and Sariya (ra) even heard him though he was so far that it would take 2 months of travel. Also Khalid bin Walid (ra) drinking poison but it not harming him. The matters which generally go against the norm have for sure occurred from the hands of Sahaba, Tabiyeen, and those later to come. It cannot be possible to deny this fact because when we take this as a whole then they reach the level of Tawatur (i.e. definitely known reality).Hence what is possible as a miracle from Prophet is also possible as Karamah from a Saint, there is no difference between the two except for the fact that former is shown as a challenge [Fatawa al Ramli Sheikh ul Islam Imam al- Subki said: It should be known that Tawassul, "ASKING FOR HELP" and intercession through the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in the court of Allah is not only allowed but is "RECOMMENDED" It being Legal and recommended is a known fact for everyone who has understanding of deen, this is a deed of Prophets/Messengers, the salaf-as-Saliheen, the Ulama and general public of Muslims, none of them denied it nor in any time these deeds were called as bad except for when Ibn Taymiyyah (came in picture) and he started to reject them, his sayings made the weak get into confusion/dilemma, he did such a Bidah which nobody before him had done... [Imam Taqi ud din as-Subki - Rahimuhulllah in his magnificent work called Shifa us Siqaam fi Ziyaratil Khayr il Anaam, Page No. 357

They don't just permit it rather they claim it's recommended

Don’t you know they’re experts on Quran and sunnah

​@@hammadsiddiqui8421I hate biddah omg

He provided Hadith on tawassul from jame Tirmidi #3570 and tabraani Mujam ul kabeer Al tabraani: Hadith 8232

@@syedasadullah7462 The hadith in which the prophet was ALIVE and not dead. The man even asked him the prophet to do dua. So the described way of tawassul is by the dua of a righteous person who is ALIVE.

Sheikh Abdul Haqq Muhadith Dhelvi (Rahimuhullah), who came from Arabia to subcontinent in order to spread the knowledge of hadith, he is respected highly by all Muslims (including Ghair Muqalideen) , he says: I wish my intellect was owned by people who reject beseeching for help from Awliya, so what do they understand from it? What we understand is that the one making dua is dependent upon Allah, and he makes dua to Allah, asks Him for his Hajah and presents the Wasila of Allah’s friend , he says: O Allah, the blessings which you have bestowed upon this friend of yours, please grant me something through his wasila, as you are the best of givers, the second case is that one calls out (nida) the Wali and makes him Mukhatib and says: "O Slave of Allah, O Allah’s friend, do my Shaf’aat and make this dua to Allah that he grants me my need" Hence the one who grants and the one who fulfills the need (in both cases) is “ONLY ALLAH” , the man in-between is just an intercessor , whereas the Qadir, Fa’il, one who brings about change is only Allah [Sharah al Mishkaat, Ash’atul Lamaat, Volume No. 3, Page No. 401] Imam Shams ud-din Al Ramli (Rahimuhullah) on Istighatha سئل ) عما يقع من العامة من قولهم عند الشدائد يا شيخ فلان يا رسول الله ونحو ذلك من الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والمرسلين والأولياء والعلماء والصالحين فهل ذلك جائز أم لا وهل للرسل والأنبياء والأولياء والصالحين والمشايخ إغاثة بعد موتهم وماذا يرجح ذلك ؟ فأجاب ) بأن الاستغاثة بالأنبياء والمرسلين والأولياء والعلماء والصالحين جائزة وللرسل والأنبياء والأولياء والصالحين إغاثة بعد موتهم ؛ لأن معجزة الأنبياء وكرامات الأولياء لا تنقطع بموتهم . أما الأنبياء فلأنهم أحياء في قبورهم يصلون ويحجون كما وردت به الأخبار وتكون الإغاثة منهم معجزة لهم . والشهداء أيضا أحياء شوهدوا نهارا جهارا يقاتلون الكفار . وأما الأولياء فهي كرامة لهم فإن أهل الحق على أنه يقع من الأولياء بقصد وبغير قصد أمور خارقة للعادة يجريها الله تعالى بسببهم والدليل على جوازها أنها أمور ممكنة لا يلزم من جواز وقوعها محال وكل ما هذا شأنه فهو جائز الوقوع وعلى الوقوع قصة مريم ورزقها الآتي من عند الله على ما نطق به التنزيل وقصة أبي بكر ، وأضيافه كما في الصحيح وجريان النيل بكتاب عمر ورؤيته وهو على المنبر بالمدينة جيشه بنهاوند حتى قال لأمير الجيش يا سارية الجبل محذرا له من وراء الجبل لكمين العدو هناك ، وسماع سارية كلامه وبينهما مسافة شهرين ، وشرب خالد السم من غير تضرر به . وقد جرت خوارق على أيدي الصحابة والتابعين ومن بعدهم لا يمكن إنكارها لتواتر مجموعها ، وبالجملة ما جاز أن يكون معجزة لنبي جاز أن يكون كرامة لولي لا فارق بينهما إلا التحدي Question: That which occurs amongst the general public who when in distress call out Ya Sheikh Fulan and Ya Rasul Ullah and other such things in seeking help (Istighatha) from the Prophets, the saints, Ulama and upright people. Is this allowed or not? Do the Messengers/Prophets/Saints/righteous/Mashaikh have the capability to help others... Answer: Istighatha i.e. Seeking Help from the Prophets and Messengers, the Saints, Ulama and upright people is “PERMITTED” after their passing away. The messengers, prophets and saints have (power to) help after their passing away because their miracles do not become abolished after their deaths. The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying and also performing hajj as it has been mentioned in many ahadith. Therefore the help from them shall be a miracle from them, the martyrs are also alive which is proven that they have been seen openly killing the disbelievers. Now regarding Awliya then this is a Karamat from them, the people of truth believe that this happens from (the hands) of awliya both with their intention and without it. Having a change in outer aspects of things is brought forward by Allah through them. The Dalil for this is that these things are possible and their occurrence is not something impossible, for example the story of Maryam (a.s) and how the provision came to her from Allah as is stated in Quran and the incident of Abu Bakr (ra) with his guests as is present in Sahih, the Nile flowing to its full due to letter of Umar (ra) plus him also seeing right from his mimbar in madina, the army approaching (Sariya ra) and he exclaiming to the leader: “Ya Sariyatul Jabal (i.e. O Sariya turn to the mountain)” i.e. warning him about the enemy behind the mountain and Sariya (ra) even heard him though he was so far that it would take 2 months of travel. Also Khalid bin Walid (ra) drinking poison but it not harming him. The matters which generally go against the norm have for sure occurred from the hands of Sahaba, Tabiyeen, and those later to come. It cannot be possible to deny this fact because when we take this as a whole then they reach the level of Tawatur (i.e. definitely known reality).Hence what is possible as a miracle from Prophet is also possible as Karamah from a Saint, there is no difference between the two except for the fact that former is shown as a challenge [Fatawa al Ramli] Sheikh ul Islam Imam al-Subki (rah) Let us see the Introduction of this magnificent scholar, the real Sheikh ul Islam of his time. Imam Jalal ud-din Suyuti (rah) said about Imam al Subki: الإمام الفقيه المحدث الحافظ المفسر الأصولي النحوي اللغوي الأديب المجتهد تقي الدين أبو الحسن علي بن عبد الكافي بن علي بن تمام بن يوسف بن موسى بن تمام بن حامد بن يحيى بن عمر بن عثمان بن علي بن سوار بن سليم. شيخ الإسلام إمام العصر Translation: Al-Imam, Al-Faqih, Al-Muhadith, Al-Hafidh, Al-Mufasir, Al-Asooli, Al-Nahwi, Al-Laghwi, Al-Adeeb, Al-Mujtahid "Taqi ud-din Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Abdul Kafi bin Ali bin Tamaam bin Yusuf bin Musa bin Tamam bin Hamid bin Yahya bin Umar bin Uthman bin Ali bin Sawwar bin Saleem "SHEIKH UL ISLAM AND THE IMAM OF HIS TIME" [Tabaqat al Hufaadh (1/525)] Sheikh ul Islam Imam al- Subki said: It should be known that Tawassul, "ASKING FOR HELP" and intercession through the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in the court of Allah is not only allowed but is "RECOMMENDED" It being Legal and recommended is a known fact for everyone who has understanding of deen, this is a deed of Prophets/Messengers, the salaf-as-Saliheen, the Ulama and general public of Muslims, none of them denied it nor in any time these deeds were called as bad except for when Ibn Taymiyyah (came in picture) and he started to reject them, his sayings made the weak get into confusion/dilemma, he did such a Bidah which nobody before him had done... [Imam Taqi ud din as-Subki - Rahimuhulllah in his magnificent work called Shifa us Siqaam fi Ziyaratil Khayr il Anaam, Page No. 357

Aastagfirullah

@@programferris1018 vahabi can't understand it. study about thavassul & Isthigasa.

you must be crazy cz its not make any sense ask Allah directly not trough someone in between

@@noufalbinzainudheen5633 "vohabi extremism"

mushrik

Even if this is mostly true it's not right to generalize my friend. Rather we should guide our brothers and make dua for them

You missed the overzealous Atheists.... 🤣

@@traditional-sunni-kerala6745 Yeah, some of them, in my case I give a 10 percent chance that there is a god

he’s husayni

Husayni AND Hasani

The post is intended to promote the same view. also ".......where they have no other way" to satisfy one's inner conscience and intellect. :)

Consider these arguments during the time of sahabas, that if you consult one scholar then you cannot consult any other.... ;)

@@traditional-sunni-kerala6745 - wrong comparison. The Sahaba learned directly from rasulullah salallahu alayhiwasallam so ANY Sahabi can be followed. The 4 madhabs used DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES which if mixed together would result in nullification of wudhu from 1 madhab or nullification of salah from another madhab.

@@mikhan5191 so what is the problem if wudu according to shafii madhab and Nikah according to Hanafi madhab?

Look brother, you’re presenting one side of the argument. You cannot do inkaar in topics where there is massive difference of opinion. I agree many scholars have said it is not allowed but others have said it is. The reasoning of both sides is very technical so you cannot force one opinion. Some scholars say you cannot do it at all. Others say it is completely fine. Others say you can only do it in some situations and not others. You cannot do inkaar is such matters because the general population is free to follow whatever view they feel fits them best. If you think one view is stronger then Alhamdulillah, follow it. But you cannot come here imposing you view on others but giving hang picked quotes. For example, I can easily do what you did: According to Abu Fath al-Harawi, the opinion of the majority of the Shafi’i is that the layman has no madhab. You can find this in Zarkashi’s Bahr al-Muheet, volume 8, page 373. In fact the whole chapter on Taqleed that Zarkashi brings shows you the spectrum of difference of opinion in this matter. This is why ibn Salah also brings this as a valid opinion: “Does the layman have a Madhab or not?” The first opinion: He does not have a madhab because the madhab is for the one who knows its evidences. Therefore, he can seek a Fatwa from whoever he wishes amongst the Shafi’is or Hanafis or others.” [Adab al-Mufti wal mustafti, volume 1, page 161] Zarkashi (Shafi’i) quoting a Hanafi opinion: “The third opinion is: If it becomes overwhelming to his thinking that some topics are stronger in another Madhab, then in that topic he can do taqlid of that Madhab. This is the opinion of Imaam al-Quduri al-Hanafi.” [Bahr al-Muheet, Zarkashi, Volume 8, page 375] Ibn ‘Aabideen (Hanafi): “As for praying one day upon one Madhab and praying another day upon a different one then the layman should not be prevented from that. This is because there is some academic dispute in the call that there is unanimous agreement in this matter because a difference has indeed been narrated. So it is permissible to follow the one who calls for its permissibility. Like what ‘Allaamah al-Shurunbulaali states in al-‘Iqdi al-Fareed.” [Ibn ‘Abideen, Al-Dar al-mukhtaar, volume 1, Page 75] Ibn Hamaam (Hanafi): Yes, if he (the Fatwa seeker) is told all of them (the opinions) and he chooses the one he thinks is correct in his heart - then that is most appropriate. There is nothing to be taken into account from what the layman thinks is correct or wrong in his heart about the rulings. So accordingly, if he seeks a Fatwa from two jurists or Mujtahids and they give him differing answers, it is most appropriate for him to take from what his heart is more inclined towards. [Fath al-Qadeer, volume 7, page 257] Khateeb al-Baghdaadi (Shafi’i): “Al-Zubairi was asked about a layman who is given two different Fatwa’s, should he do Taqleed? He answered saying, “We say: God Willing, there are two ways to look at this. Firstly, if the layman is intelligent and his understanding in complete in the sense that he comprehends and understands matters when they are explained to him, then it is upon him to ask both parties of their Madhab and their proofs. Then he should take the view that has the stronger proof according to him. And if his intelligence is not lacking but his understanding is not complete (to comprehend the matter) then he should do Taqleed of the view that is more virtuous according to him.” It had also been said that he can take whatever view he wishes from the Muftis. And this opinion is the correct opinion (according to Khateeb al-Baghdaadi) because he is not from the people of Ijtihaad and it is upon him to turn to the opinion of a trustworthy scholar and he has done that and that is sufficient as an obligation for him.” [Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, al-Faqeeh wal mutafaqqih, volume 2, page 428] Al-Desuqi (Maliki): “In mixing matters between two Madhabs (talfeeq) in one act of worship, there are two approaches: (One) That is is not allowed which is the approach chosen by the Masaariwah. (Two) That it is permissible which is the approach of the Morrocons and it is stronger opinion.” [Sharh al-Kabeer, Volume 1, Page 20] Ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam (Shafi’i): Regarding the person who does Taqleed of one of the Imaams and then intends to do Taqleed of someone else, is that allowed for him? There is a difference of opinion in this matter. We have chosen a detailed opinion. If the Madhab that he is intending to transition to is one that will demolish (another) ruling, then he is not allowed to transition to it. However, if it they are two approaches which are related then it is allowed for him to do Taqlid and to transition. This is because the Companions never prevented people from doing this until the advent of the four Madhabs. If it was false to do so then they would have prevented them. Similarly it not obligatory to do Taqlid of that which is best (in preference) even if it is something more appropriate because if it was, then why would the people during the time of the Companions and Tabi’een do Taqlid of other remaining less preferential matters without prevention. In fact there is an elaborate number of them doing Taqlid of lesser preferences and also that which is best (in preference). [al-Qawa’id, volume 2, page 158] Ruhaybaani (Hanbali): And indeed more than one have said: “It is not necessary upon the layman to follow one specific Madhab. Just how it was not necessary in the first generation of this Ummah. The view that I go towards and choose is: The opinion that it is permissible to do Taqlid in Talfiq (picking between the Madhabs). Not out of following that itself because the one who follows concessions because has committed corruption. But rather, where it happens out of coincidence. Especially for the general people where they have no other way. So if a person does Wudu and wipes a portion of his head doing Taqlid of Shafi’i then his Wudu is correct, no doubt. After that, if he touches his penis doing Taqlid of Abu Hanifa then that is permissible because the Wudu with this Taqlid is correct and touching the privates does not invalidate Wudu according to Abu Hanifa. So if this person does Taqlid of him (Abu Hanifa) in something that is not cancelling (his Wudu) out but according to Shafi’i it is, then his Wudu will still last because of his Taqlid of Abu Hanifah. And this is the purpose/benefit of Taqlid. [Mataalib awlaa al-naha fi Sharh ghayaatu al-muntaha, Volume 1, Page 391] And there are endless other scholars because there is no winning this debate! So let the people do as they wish in this regard and do not become forceful or harsh in this matter. This deen is vast so do not try to constrict that which Allah and His Messenger and the Companions have not. This is why the official fatwa of Daar al-Iftaa Misriyyah (backed by al-Azhar) is permissibility of doing talfeeq.

@@mikhan5191 in addition to the above, the companion’s comparison is most definitely fitting here. Because many times a Companion would act by a hadith that was abrogated according to another or it was in the wrong context according to another. We know of many instances where Abu Hurayrah or Ibn ‘Umar would act upon a hadith which Aisha negates. We know of many instances where ibn Abbas or ibn Mas’ud differ in some matters. We don’t have a full list of all their differings and the principles they employed. We know that Abu Hurairah would see it mandatory to do wudu by all things touched by fire whilst ibn Abbas did not. This is because different companions understood and employed hadith differently. We know of instances that some companions understood some hadith to be abrogated whilst others didn’t. We know of instances where one narrator was enough for some companions but others would require more proof and ask if anyone else had also heard that hadith. This is all differences in Usul. We know different companions understood different verses differently because the Prophet did not give them full explanations on some topics. We know this from Bukhari 5588 where Umar says “I wish the Prophet had explained to us three matters definitively before passing away: how much a grandfather can inherit, the inheritance distribution or a deceased person who leaves no father or sons, and also the different types of riba.” We also know there were even some differences in matters like whether the Prophet’s isra wal mi’raj was by body or soul. Companions like Mu’aawiyah, Aisha and tabi’een like Hasan al-Basri felt it was by the soul. We also know that some companions said that the Prophet saw Allah on the mi’raaj with his literal eyes whereas Aisha negates this. So this all shows a lot of differences in matters of Usul as well as some minor belief matters too. It shows a difference in how they took from both Qur’an and Hadith (in matters other than main tenets of faith). And the 4 schools are just an extension of this very same thing. Don’t you think that if the Companions all had the same principles, then the 4 schools would too? Otherwise you’re saying that we as muslims lost the principles the companions employed. Or you’re saying that these principles are caught between the 4 schools which by definition would mean that no one school yields all the principles and hence we do need to mix between them to capture the principles of the Companions. In either case, the point is that we can definitely use the Companions as an example here which is why many scholars use them to say that it is permissible for the layman to choose between the Madhabs. I understand why you follow your opinion as I used to be of that opinion too. But both camps have their proofs so there’s no point arguing over this as many scholars have put forth their arguments and this debate is a very technical one and no camp has an overwhelming hujjah to force their side into the winning team.

The fact that you think that no other scholars back this tells you a lot too. The official Fatwa o Daar al-Ifta Misriyyah (backed by al-Azhar) is that it is permissible to do talfeeq and pick/choose from any madhab as long as layman thinks, according to his limited understanding, that its the stronger opinion. This is also the view chosen by Scholars such as ibn Burhan and Khateeb al-Baghdaadi amongst the Shafi’iyyah, of ibn ‘Aabideen, Ahmad al-Quduri and ibn Hammaam amongst the Hanafiyyah and many other scholars. You can find these discussions in the Usul al-Fiqh books of Qarafi, Zarkashi, Desuqi, Shawkaani, Aamidi, and many others who have noted a massive difference of opinion in this matter amongst the classical jurists in the Sunni school. So the real question is, what are you on about when you say “other scholars are not backing up what this speaker is saying.” Seems you are either very uneducated in this topic or you only know of one group of scholars who have never taught you about the diversity in this regard because they want their followers to not be educated about it.

Yes. atheists can't really propose god given rights, any sort of objective rights for that matter.

@@traditional-sunni-kerala6745 Actually atheists can propose objective rights, atheists can believe in more or less anything that is not based on theistic deities. Just not the absolute god given kind of objective rights. Objective does not mean absolute.

Then what about on the opinion of Shaikh Asrar Rashid?

@@traditional-sunni-kerala6745 Sheikh Asrar position seems to be more inline with traditional scholars since centuries... for the layman follow only one madhab..