Estimated Reading Time: 1 hour and 8 minutes
This is a topic that pertains to a very specific matter, which can be combined with other topics despite their differences. It concerns a specific deed known as an innovation that is neither mentioned in the Qur’an nor in Saheeh hadith. Furthermore, it is not found within the practices of the Sahaabah. While there are some weak (da’eefah) ahaadeeth surrounding it, some fuqahaa’ (jurists) have deemed it permissible or even encouraged. Others believe that it is not something one is allowed to do. Without a doubt, the strongest opinion — as mentioned by many scholars like shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and the three generations of the al-Aloosi family (grandfather, father, and son) — is that it is incorrect to do so. As-Sahsawani, one of the major scholars in India, along with other scholars, have shared this sentiment. The four well-known imams neither discussed it nor mentioned it as obligatory or encouraged. It was also not mentioned during the times of the Sahaabah, Taabi’een, or Atbaa’ at-Taabi’een.
However, due to the weak ahaadeeth and some practices of later scholars and jurists, it became a topic of discussion among the scholars, sparking debates over its permissibility. This matter gained prominence again after the spread of Sufism in the Islamic world, largely because of exaggerated veneration of the graves of the Awliyaa’ which led to various forms of shirk, innovations, and major sins.
The complexity of this issue was exacerbated when some of the scholars discussed it without providing clear context or definitions, making it challenging to discern their actual stance. Some even used ambiguous terminologies, further clouding the matter. The situation became even more convoluted when certain scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah professed beliefs that no previous scholars had ever mentioned, claiming that this was major shirk (shirk akbar). This assertion is undoubtedly a mistake, and there are reasons for how this misinterpretation occurred.
This specific matter is referred to in Arabic as:
سئال الميت الدعاء عند قبره
This translates to: Asking the deceased for supplication at his grave. In other words, it involves requesting the deceased to make du’aa’ while one stands beside their grave.
If one has not previously heard lectures about 'aqeedah, especially concerning Tawheed al-'Ibaadah and Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah, and has never read about these topics, then I strongly advise against reading further. These subjects cannot be comprehended without foundational knowledge. What was said before is a brief overview of the complexity of these matters, the diverse opinions that have emerged, and the reasons why they were unclear to some scholars, particularly regarding their rulings. Even if we were to assume that its practice was permitted, it would be important to know where its limit is to avoid unintentionally committing major shirk.
Before delving into the details, I will begin with a few introductory remarks to help one understand and categorize the various points, discern the principles they involve, and determine the framework needed for a better comprehension. This approach ensures that one neither underestimates the importance of the matter nor overestimates it, including the assessments of those who may not have judged its rulings correctly.
Among the preliminary points I will discuss is the recognition that scholars from Ahlus-Sunnah, in general and with some exceptions, should not be presumed to possess knowledge comparable to that of the Sahaabah, Taabi'een, Atbaa' at-Taabi'een, or the renowned imams in fiqh. A sign of the approaching Day of Judgment, as mentioned in ahaadeeth, is the prevalence of ignorance and the decline of knowledge. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Be patient till you meet your Lord, for no time will come upon you but the time following it will be worse than it.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (7068).
Overall, one should not expect or rely on things improving beyond how they were before. However, it is possible for things to get better in some places and during some periods. Yes, it can happen. This is supported by certain texts, including the following ahaadeeth:
Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Prophethood (meaning himself) will remain among you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will lift it whenever he wills to lift it. Then there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood, it will remain among you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will lift it whenever He wills to lift it. Afterwards, there will be an oppressive hereditary rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will lift it whenever He wills to lift it. Then, there will be a tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will lift it whenever He wills to lift it. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood." Then, Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "Then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) kept silent." Narrated by Ahmad. There is another narration from a Sahaabi with an addition which mentions ‘at-Tawaagheet.’ Narrated by Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah.
The second hadith that proves it, concerning the victorious group, where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "A group from my Ummah will continue to uphold the command of Allah; those who let them down or oppose them will not harm them until the command of Allah comes, and they will be dominant over the people.” Narrated by Muslim. There are other varying narrations that also conveys in similar wordings.
The third authentic hadith where the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “At the beginning of every century Allah will send to this Ummah someone who will renew its religious understanding.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (4291); classed as saheeh by as-Sakhkhaawi in al-Maqaasid al-Hasanah (149) and by al-Albaani in as-Silsilah as-Saheehah (599). Scholars also mentioned that it can be a group of individuals or it can be one.
What I would like to point out is that when we speak of scholars from Ahlus-Sunnah, or the trustworthy scholars, we should not assume they are infallible. It is possible that they might make serious mistakes, even on some topics of ‘aqeedah. This was mentioned by three imams: ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabi, and ibn al-’Izz al-Hanafi. They have observed that most scholars from Ahlus-Sunnah of earlier generations have been influenced by branches of innovation. They cited examples such as al-Jahmiyyah, ar-Raafidhah, al-Khawaarij, al-Murji’ah, al-Qadariyyah, al-Jabriyyah, etc. What does this mean? It does not imply that a scholar from Ahlus-Sunnah adheres to the foundational beliefs of these sects. Rather, a scholar may unknowingly align with them on certain innovative aspects within the branches to such an extent that, despite a serious mistake, one should not categorize them as adherents to those sects.
This concept is illustrated by a hadith in which a Sahaabi said to another, “O son of a black woman.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) responded by saying, “In you there is jaahiliyyah” – i.e., one of the characteristics of jaahiliyyah. In another narration, "You are a man who still retains some jaahiliyyah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5531) and Muslim (316). The Sahaabi was not characterized by this behavior; it occurred in a moment of anger.
Furthermore, supporting this point is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “There are four characteristics, whoever has them all is a pure hypocrite, and whoever has one of them has one of the characteristics of hypocrisy, until he gives it up: when he is entrusted with something he betrays that trust, when he speaks he lies, when he makes a covenant he breaks it, and when he disputes he resorts to obscene speech.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (54) and Muslim (58).
These are foundational evidences supporting the statements of ibn Taymiyyah, adh-Dhahabi, and ibn al-’Izz al-Hanafi.
One of the major foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is to praise an individual for their good deeds (الحسنات) and to dissociate oneself from the bad (السيئات). If someone has more good deeds (hasanaat) than bad (sayyi’aat), then the good is given greater consideration. This is why scholars, in general, have never completely discredited other scholars for their mistakes. They reject their errors while maintaining respect for them. Those who cannot uphold this principle are typically from sects like al-Khawaarij, al-Mu’tazilah, and al-Murji’ah. Why is this? For instance, despite al-Murji’ah being on the opposite spectrum from al-Khawaarij, they view faith (eemaan) as binary; one either possesses complete faith or none at all. In this day and age, we see a similar stance among the Madaakhilah, who categorize people as either entirely clean or as innovators, etc. The Madaakhilah are known to exaggerate in the issue of tabdee’ (تبديع), that is, declaring others as innovators.
Before I present my point, I will introduce some concepts. Misunderstandings have occurred within the Ummah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)—and by Ummah, I mean all Muslims, whether they are considered innovators or not. In some cases, people understand these concepts and their meanings clearly, as with the concept of salah. In contrast, the concept of al-ilaah (الإله) has, unfortunately, led to misunderstandings among some Muslims due to theological rhetoric (علم الكلام) and Sufism, especially in relation to the phrase: Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah. The Qur’an, Hadith, and the Arabic language clarify that al-Ilaah means the one who is worshipped. Hence, early scholars like imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari, imam of the Mufassireen, explained "laa ilaaha ill-Allaah" in his tafseer as "No deity rightfully deserving of worship, fit for divinity, except Allah, to whom these attributes belong." However, due to theological rhetoric and Sufism, some have interpreted al-Ilaah to mean Rabb (Lord), even though Allah Himself has differentiated between the two in Surah an-Naas. Of course, one cannot truly be Ilaah unless one is ar-Rabb, as Allah is. Many laypeople, influenced by theological rhetoric and Sufism, have a lacking interpretation, even though they acknowledge that one must not associate partners with Allah in worship; they do not realize that this is part of the meaning of Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah. Such misunderstandings do occur. Here, I am not suggesting that these are recognized or accepted differences of opinion; rather, they are gravely incorrect and false. Acceptable differences of opinion among the fuqahaa’ (jurists), however, do exist in cases such as the interpretation of "ثلاثة قروء" (three periods) e.g. what it exactly denotes.
In our case, a similar misunderstanding has occurred concerning "Asking the deceased for supplication at his grave," a practice that has come to be known as at-Tawassul. Although the concept of at-Tawassul encompasses many aspects and is mentioned in the Qur’an, the accuracy of this particular interpretation is questionable. We will discuss these points, which are crucial, and, insha’Allah, we will initially address the various matters identified as at-Tawassul. This approach will provide an overview and clarify whether we are discussing all related issues or only specific ones.
Certain actions are regarded as major shirk in themselves and thus are among the factors that nullify Islam. In such instances, it is irrelevant whether the individual believes in another Rabb or holds to a false 'aqeedah. Conversely, an act that is considered minor shirk (shirk asghar) cannot be treated as one of the nullifiers of Islam in the same way as other major sins, unless it is accompanied by shirk in the individual's belief. For example, swearing an oath by anything other than the name of Allah, such as by the Prophet, al-Ka’bah or another creation, constitutes minor shirk. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), “Whoever swears an oath by anything other than Allah has committed shirk.” This was narrated by Abu Dawood (3251) and at-Tirmidhi (1535), who said, "This hadith is hasan," and it was authenticated by al-Albaani in "Irwaa’ al-Ghaleel" (8/189). Scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah agree that this is minor shirk. However, what if someone swears falsely by Allah’s Name but refrains from lying when swearing by something other than Allah? This suggests they revere and fear the creation more than Allah, which is undeniably major shirk. In our discussion, it is this type we are addressing. It is not major shirk by nature but rather minor shirk that could lead to major shirk (ذريعة إلى الشرك الأكبر). Nevertheless, when it is linked to specific false beliefs, it then becomes major shirk.
In some cases, among the early Ahlus-Sunnah, there was no debate; the matter was clear. There was either consensus (ijmaa’) on the issue or no disagreement about it. However, disagreements among certain individuals or many scholars may arise over time. The opinions of the earlier generations of scholars hold more weight in such matters. Disagreements that emerge after their era are generally not given consideration. These later opinions are undoubtedly weaker, unrecognized, and not accepted. For example, concerning the Khawaarij, the question is whether their innovation is considered disbelief (بدعة مكفرة) or simply a sin and disobedience of Allah (fisq). The first generation never labeled their innovation as disbelief, but this view emerged during the time of imam al-Bukhaari and imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari. Their view of it being disbelief is without question weak and not accepted.
Regarding our discussion on “asking the deceased for supplication at his grave,” this issue is similar. Those who hold the contrary opinion claim it is encouraged (mustahabb). To say it is encouraged implies that it was stated and practiced previously. If it were an acceptable practice in Shariah, to be carried out in various ways, the prime example would involve going to the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) grave and asking him for du’aa’. The key question is how widespread this practice was. According to authentic narrations (ahaadeeth as-saheehah), such a practice has never been done. On the contrary, authentic narrations suggest the opposite, which we will discuss later, insha’Allah. Unfortunately, weak narrations may appear at first glance to support it. One factor confirming their weakness is that this practice is not known to have been performed by the Sahaabah, Taabi’een, and Atbaa’ at-Taabi’een, nor by the four well-known imams, although it occurred much later within those four madhhabs. Mistakes of this kind can happen. The Salaf have cautioned against “زلة العالم,” meaning that even a major, trustworthy scholar can make a serious error.
In the Islamic context, there can be concepts that have ambiguous meanings, so it’s important to clarify what one intends or means by them. If it remains ambiguous to the person one is discussing with, it’s crucial to use other clear concepts to avoid misunderstanding. An example of this is when the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) wanted to make the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) pay attention to what they were saying, they would say “راعنا” (Râ‘ina). At that time, the Jews had their own concept, attributing a negative meaning to it. They observed its use by the Sahaabah and would misuse it when addressing the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), intending by it a derogatory sense. Allah then revealed that the Sahaabah should avoid these ambiguous terms:
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تَقُولُوا۟ رَٰعِنَا وَقُولُوا۟ ٱنظُرْنَا وَٱسْمَعُوا۟ ۗ وَلِلْكَـٰفِرِينَ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌۭ
”O you who believe! Say not (to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم) Râ‘ina but say Unẓurnā (make us understand) and hear. And for the disbelievers there is a painful torment.” (Al-Baqarah 2:104)
(Read Tafseer ibn Katheer)
This issue is also what the Mutakallimeen (theologians of rhetoric) are mostly criticized for. This is similar to what the innovators do, as imam Ahmad said, “They speak with ambiguous speech and deceive the ignorant among the people with what they confuse them with.” (Relevant)
Unfortunately, the concept of at-Tawassul is another instance of this issue. In the Qur’an, the concept of al-Waseelah (cf. Surah al-Israa’ 17:57) has its apparent meaning. Then misguided people have introduced and attached strange and unfounded meanings to it. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to define and explain these concepts before delving into the topic.
This is the final introduction. Ambiguity can arise not only in concepts but also in the speaker's intent. It is crucial to understand what the speaker truly means by their words. That's why scholars have emphasized the importance of requesting details, definitions, and explanations, a practice known as (تفصيل). Similarly, they stress the need to provide details for matters that require them to avoid misunderstandings.
This applies to seeking a fatwa (religious ruling) as well. If a question is posed in general terms, the enquirer's judgment may be ambiguous, preventing the mufti from giving a direct answer. The mufti must then ask for more details to ascertain the questioner’s exact situation or to prompt the questioner to clarify what they are precisely referring to. This process is known as (الاستفصال).
That's why scholars, such as shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, have underscored that if someone makes a statement that appears to relate to disbelief, one cannot label them a disbeliever, nor should one interpret their statement in such a way that it leads to declaring them a disbeliever. Doubt cannot take the place of certainty. When one is certain that an individual is a Muslim, one cannot judge them to have nullified their Islam based on a doubtful matter. I mention this principle because there have been instances where it was unclear what exactly an individual stated—whether it was entirely different or constituted major shirk.
These introductions are crucial, which is why they are presented at the outset. When we delve into the topic and its details, there will be no need to reiterate these introductions. One must be aware of them to understand how they relate to the different topics under discussion.
Insha'Allah, the following will discuss at-Tawassul and other matters in more detail.
First and foremost, we are going to talk about at-Tawassul as a concept and what it relates to. At-Tawassul is something Allah mentioned in the Qur’an:
أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ يَبْتَغُونَ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمُ ٱلْوَسِيلَةَ أَيُّهُمْ أَقْرَبُ وَيَرْجُونَ رَحْمَتَهُۥ وَيَخَافُونَ عَذَابَهُۥٓ ۚ إِنَّ عَذَابَ رَبِّكَ كَانَ مَحْذُورًۭا
”Those whom they invoke seek means of access to their Lord, [striving as to] which of them would be nearest, and they hope for His mercy and fear His punishment. Indeed, the punishment of your Lord is ever feared.” (Al-Israa’ 17:57)
In this context, Allah praises those who seek al-Waseelah to Him. The details can be read in the Tafseer for a further understanding of this Ayah. Another Ayah:
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱبْتَغُوٓا۟ إِلَيْهِ ٱلْوَسِيلَةَ وَجَـٰهِدُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِهِۦ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ
”O you who have believed, fear Allāh and seek the means [of nearness] to Him and strive in His cause that you may succeed.” (Al-Maa’idah 5:35)
In this context, Allah also praises those who seek al-Waseelah to Him.
So, what is al-Waseelah? Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), the interpreter of the Qur’an (ترجمان القرآن), said that it is (القربة), i.e., to come closer to Allah. (cf. Tafseer at-Tabari, Surah al-Israa’ 17:57) Those who said include, Mujaahid, al-Hasan al-Basri, ‘Abdullah ibn Katheer, as-Suddee, ibn Zayd and others. Imam Qataadah said, “Draw closer to Him through His obedience and acting in what pleases Him.” So, it pertains to being obedient to Allah. How is one obedient to Allah? By following the Qur’an and Sunnah. Imam ibn Katheer said: “And what these imams have said, there is no disagreement among the mufassireen regarding it.” Meaning, there is consensus on it among the scholars of tafseer. So, whatever pertains to obedience to Allah, it falls under the category of al-Waseelah, including du’aa’. Ad-Du’aa’ can have many forms; some are accepted in the Shari’ah, and other forms are not. Asking Allah directly is the essence of monotheism, the essence of worship to Allah. As the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Du’aa’ is worship.” Narrated by Ahmad in al-Musnad (18352) and al-Bukhaari in al-Adab al-Mufrad (714). This is al-Waseelah to Allah, meaning Tawassul to Allah. Asking Allah by mentioning His Beautiful Names is also acceptable al-Waseelah or Tawassul in Islam. Making du’aa’ to Allah by asking Him through one's deeds, as narrated by al-Bukhari (2272) and Muslim (2743), is also a permissible Tawassul. Another permissible Tawassul, which has been practiced by the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, involves coming to a living righteous, religious, and knowledgeable person and asking them to make du’aa’ for you. This is also fine, and some consider it under Tawassul; whether it can be categorized as such or not, needless to say, it’s acceptable and approved in the Shari’ah.
Some who consider themselves Muslims do exactly what the mushrikeen of Quraysh did with their idols. These so-called Muslims perform similar acts towards the graves of the Awliyaa', asking for guidance, health, children, provision (rizq), and all kinds of things that only Allah can grant. Such deeds are acts of Ruboobiyyah; only the Rabb can do this, and Allah has no partners in His Lordship to whom such matters should be directed. The Sufis refer to this as al-Waseelah and Tawassul. This has now become known as an intermediary practice. They liken it to what the mushrikeen of Quraysh did, who also called it al-Waseelah. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah mentioned that this is undoubtedly major shirk. To clarify, it is not just him and his students who hold this belief; later scholars and the Hanbali school of thought have also affirmed this stance, as stated in various Hanbali sources.
I want to emphasize that generally, the Hanbalis do not take everything ibn Taymiyyah says; sometimes they critique him, though always with respect. However, on this specific matter of discussion, they have not criticized him. They accept it as he mentioned that there is ijmaa’ (consensus) on it. Notable imams like al-Bahooti, al-Karmi, and other Hanbalis agree. Ibn Taymiyyah stated, "Whoever makes the angels and the prophets intermediaries, calling upon them, relying on them, and asking them to bring benefits and ward off harms, such as asking them for forgiveness of sins, guidance of hearts, relief of distress, and fulfilling of needs, is considered a disbeliever by the consensus of the Muslims (i.e. among the scholars)." (Source)
Unfortunately, these acts have also been mislabeled as Tawassul. This particular issue of Tawassul that involves shirk is quite complex in our case. Therefore, it’s crucial to differentiate between the two types.
Are there also other practices called Tawassul? Yes, there are. What are they? There is disagreement among Ahlus-Sunnah regarding this type of Tawassul, which involves making du’aa’ to Allah by the virtue of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or by virtue of someone other than him. Who is being asked? Not the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), but Allah. On this issue, imam Abu Haneefah and his student Abu Yoosuf believed it to be impermissible, whereas imam Ahmad held it permissible. Are there ahaadeeth on this matter? Yes, there are, but they are either very weak or have ambiguous wording. There are no clear texts to support this practice in our case. That’s why, for example, ibn Taymiyyah said that no single Sahaabi had done this, and his statement here is accurate when examining the Aathaar (narrations), whether authentic or weak. Ibnul-Qayyim regarded this as an innovation. Shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab considered this a matter of ijtihaad and did not criticize it. It appears that the strongest opinion, as stated by ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim, is that it’s impermissible due to a lack of supporting evidence. However, no one has deemed this an innovation in belief. Perhaps it's an innovation in deed, as ibnul-Qayyim opined. But an innovation in belief? No scholar has classified it as such, although unfortunately, shaykh at-Tuwayjiri and Saalih al-Fawzan have mistakenly done so. Here, they have misclassified what should have been categorized differently. In general, among the major Hanbali scholars, it is said to be permissible, and they follow imam Ahmad on this issue. Thus, ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim are among the few Hanbalis who hold the opposing view. To exaggerate the severity of this issue and deem it catastrophic is, without a doubt, an error. At most, it could be considered an innovation in deed. At the very least, it's a matter of ijtihaad. (A student asked the shaykh: So, one cannot say it’s an innovation in belief?) The shaykh replied: No, it’s a serious mistake to label this as an innovation in belief, without a doubt.
Now, coming to our case, which was also deemed Tawassul: "Asking the deceased for supplication at his grave." The prime example, if considered permissible, would involve going to the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) grave and asking for his du’aa'. What is being requested here? You are not making du’aa' to him or calling upon him; you are asking him to make du’aa' for you to Allah. It is akin to asking a living person in front of you to make du’aa' for you. The difference here is that it is done for the deceased instead of the living. If one were to question whether the deceased can hear, the response would be that there is a recognized disagreement on this issue. Whether the deceased can hear nothing at all or hears to some limited extent is debated. Those who argue the deceased can hear are mistaken, but this is a separate issue altogether. We are only clarifying their perspective for understanding, not for acceptance. Because this understanding is vital, otherwise one cannot reach a correct judgment. As the principle states, "الحكمُ على الشيء فرعٌ عن تصوره," meaning judgment on a matter stems from its perception. This issue, as depicted, is in a gray area; it’s not clear whether it is akin to major shirk, a means to shirk, or if it contains elements of shirk at all. This remains a question.
Before we delve into whether this is the case, let me first state, as mentioned in the beginning, that this is a matter that can lead to shirk. It is minor shirk but not major shirk, so long as certain false beliefs are not included. If such false beliefs are incorporated, then it becomes major shirk. Therefore, it's important to distinguish between its general ruling and its specific ruling when the matter is tied to something else.
I have to first start directly with one of the statements of the contemporary scholars who is considered a major and trustworthy scholar. He is one of the best who has provided a judgment on this matter, directly, briefly, and in detail: Shaykh al-’Allaamah Bakr Abu Zayd. He said in his book “تصحيح الدعاء” on pages 250-251:
In this type, there are two categories:
1) Asking a living person for a dead one who is absent from his grave to supplicate to Allah for him. The Muslims unanimously agree that this type is major shirk (polytheism), and it is akin to the polytheism of the Christians with Mary and her son – peace be upon them – in their supplications, claiming that they know what the servants are doing, according to the Christian claims.
One of the major scholars who gathered textual evidence from the Qur'an and authentic hadith that confirms this is shaykh Muhammad Isma’eel ad-Dahlawi Shaheed in his book “Taqwiyat al-Eemaan”. Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd continues:
2) Asking a living person for a dead one in the presence of his grave to supplicate to Allah for him, like when grave worshippers address the grave saying: "O so-and-so, supplicate to Allah for me for such and such," or "I ask you to supplicate to Allah for me for such and such." The Muslims unanimously agree that this is an innovative intermediary and a means leading to shirk with Allah, and supplicating to the dead instead of Allah and turning hearts away from Allah. However, this type becomes major shirk if the supplicant intends from the grave's occupant to intercede and act as an intermediary in the polytheistic manner, just like the polytheists' practice: "We only worship them so that they may bring us closer to Allah." (cf. Surah az-Zumar 39:3)
It’s very important to distinguish between these two as both are intermediaries, but what makes one an intermediary innovation while the other an intermediary in shirk? I will only briefly point it out here, and later I will discuss the texts of ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim because they have best clarified the matter in question. Intermediary in shirk, which the mushrikeen Quraysh practiced, is explained by scholars as comparing Allah to kings who need ministers; they cannot govern except through these intermediaries. Unfortunately, scholars do not always clearly differentiate between intermediary innovation and intermediary in shirk. What clarifies this is understanding the extent to which kings need their ministers; a king cannot manage his kingdom without them, as they are like his second hand, and he cannot always say no to them. This concept of hidden coercion can exemplify major shirk. Thus, those who ask the deceased for du’aa’ with the belief that Allah cannot say no to them are categorized as engaging in intermediary shirk. If, however, they believe it’s only Allah who decides all matters according to His will and pleasure, and they think the deceased have a higher chance of having their du’aa’ accepted than theirs, this is intermediary innovation.
One thing that clarifies this is not major shirk, unless intermediary shirk is incorporated, where it becomes intermediary innovation—two entirely different cases—is that if it is shirk, then it is shirk whether done for the deceased or the living. It can never be shirk for the deceased and not for the living. Such reasoning does not make sense. It cannot be so for the deceased and done in the same way for the living, and yet no longer be shirk. This is a clear and grave mistake to assume as such. It is intermediary shirk whether done for the living or the deceased. Conversely, no one has ever said that doing so for the living is one of the nullifications of Islam and is shirk. It can never be shirk for the deceased.
To summarize our case: it is about the living asking the deceased whether they could make du’aa’ to Allah, with two conditions: first, he does this right beside and close to the grave, not believing the deceased to be all-hearing and all-knowing; second, he does not engage in shafaa’ah shirkiyyah, intermediary in shirk. This is what the case is all about. There are three opinions concerning this: 1) That it’s permissible, and encouraged under certain circumstances; 2) That it’s innovation; and 3) That it’s major shirk. Among contemporary scholars, these are the three opinions. Those who say that it’s major shirk hold one of the weakest opinions among the three. No single scholar has ever stated this before. This opinion arose around two hundred years ago and not before that. If it were to be considered encouraged, there would be clear and authentic narrations on it, but there are none—only weak narrations exist. Insha’Allah, we will mention those later. Therefore, among the major imams of the first generations, no single one held this opinion; it came much later among a few scholars of hadith and some fuqahaa', then it spread, and the matter grew among the four madhhabs. Not all scholars within these schools agree on it; many still criticize it. The most famous critics are ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim. Hopefully, this clarifies many things in the overview.
After the introduction, and having specified exactly what we will discuss, we will address four topics. First, we will present evidence that the practice in question is undoubtedly incorrect. In the second topic, we will explore why some scholars consider this practice permissible, especially in relation to the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) during Hajj. The third topic will examine the scholars who opined that this was major shirk, which is undoubtedly a clear mistake, and we will delve into the reasons behind their misjudgment and what they may have misunderstood. The fourth topic will discuss why it is incorrect to excessively criticize the mistakes of scholars without considering other types of errors related to the same matter. These matters will, insha'Allah, be the subjects of our next discussion.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), as reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (5666), said to Umm al-Mu'mineen 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) when she complained of her headache, "If that were so while I am alive, I would ask forgiveness for you and pray for you."
Thus, following the principle of [مفهوم المخالفة], which pertains to the implicit text, and [مفهوم الشرط], the conditional aspect, we understand from the Prophet's statement (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "If that were so while I am alive, I would ask forgiveness for you and pray for you," that the converse is implied. In other words, if he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) were not alive, he would not be able to ask Allah for forgiveness and pray for her.
The next evidence concerns actions undertaken during the Khilafahs of ‘Umar ibnul-Khattaab and Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allah be pleased with them both). During their reigns, there were periods of drought with no rain for extended periods, leading Muslims to seek rain. They would perform du’aa’ or salah al-Istisqaa’, asking Allah for rain. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was alive, who was asked for it? The Prophet himself, as evidenced in a well-known hadith in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (1029), where a Bedouin complained about drought and immediate rain followed.
After the Prophet's death (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the question arises: whose du’aa’ is most likely to be accepted? It would have been the Prophet, yet no single Sahaabi did this in their time. This did not occur during the Khilafah of ‘Umar ibnul-Khattaab. ‘Umar ibnul-Khattaab stated that they used to seek Tawassul through the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and now they do so with the paternal uncle of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He then asked al-‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) to make du’aa’ to Allah, i.e., to perform istisqaa’. This was reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari (1010). (Relevant)
A similar incident occurred during the Khilafah of Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan (may Allah be pleased with him), where he asked one of the best Taabi’een in ash-Shaam to perform istisqaa’. Mentioned in [إرواء الغليل] (672).
Imam ash-Shaatibi (may Allah have mercy upon him) mentioned the same principle, echoed by ibn Taymiyyah and earlier scholars like imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. If there's a motivation to do something and it is forsaken without external hindrances, then it's a voluntary omission. Hence, to perform it would be an innovation. This same principle applies to our case, suggesting that performing such actions is an innovation. Therefore, when examining the well-known fuqahaa’ and their primary sources, it becomes clear that none encouraged practices similar to istisqaa’ or during Hajj. Unfortunately, these practices have emerged over time in various schools of thought, where some have falsely claimed that the imams endorsed such actions. However, upon investigating the origins of these statements — much like in the study of hadith, where there are primary sources — we find that we cannot accept information from dubious origins. This approach also applies to the statements of the imams. Consequently, in the four madhhabs, scholars dismiss and reject some alleged statements of the imams, reasoning that these were not in their original teachings or contradicted their foundational principles. This includes statements erroneously attributed to imam Maalik where no such statements are to be found in the primary Maalikiyyah sources.
Just as in hadith studies, where the primary sources are widely recognized as the six books of collections, a similar principle applies to the four madhhabs, each having its own primary sources restricted to the respective madhhab. This raises the question: what led the fuqahaa’ to opine that it was permissible, whether in istisqaa’ or during Hajj, and some even extended this permissibility beyond the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to others? Their basis was an Ayah and three ahaadeeth, including the Ayah in Surah an-Nisaa’ (4:64).
وَمَآ أَرْسَلْنَا مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا لِيُطَاعَ بِإِذْنِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُوٓا۟ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآءُوكَ فَٱسْتَغْفَرُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَٱسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ ٱلرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ تَوَّابًۭا رَّحِيمًۭا
”And We did not send any messenger except to be obeyed by permission of Allāh. And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muḥammad], and asked forgiveness of Allāh and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allāh Accepting of Repentance and Merciful.”
When examining the context of this Ayah, along with the Ayat before and after it, one realizes that it pertains to the period when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was alive. Unfortunately, some fuqahaa’ held the mistaken opinion that its applicability extended beyond his lifetime, believing it was permissible and not forbidden, which is either an innovation, or minor shirk. They argued that the Ayah’s applicability was relevant both during the Prophet's life and after his death (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). However, it contradicts the context of the Ayat, as it is evident that they specifically refer to the time when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was alive.
Further complicating this matter is the hadith known as Hadith al-‘Utbi, as mentioned by imam ibn Katheer in his Tafseer:
A group of scholars, including shaykh Abu Nasr ibn as-Sabbaagh in his book "ash-Shaamil," mentioned the famous story about al-'Utbi. He said: "I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when a Bedouin came and said: 'Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. I heard Allah say:
وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُوا أَنفُسَهُمْ جَاءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُوا اللَّهَ تَوَّابًا رَّحِيمًا
(And if, when they wronged themselves, they had come to you, [O Muḥammad], and asked forgiveness of Allāh and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allāh Accepting of Repentance and Merciful).' I have come to you seeking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord."
[Our shaykh then commented briefly on this by saying that this form of intersession is not the shirk type but an innovation]
Then he began to recite:
"O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth, and from whose fragrance the depth and the heights have become sweet, may I be the ransom for a grave that you inhabit, in it are purity, generosity, and magnanimity."
Then the Bedouin left, and I was overcome by sleep. In my dream, I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who said: 'O al-'Utbi, follow the Bedouin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.'
(Relevant)
This narration is not mentioned among the primary and trustworthy sources of hadith. It resembles the “أحاديث القصاص”, or the stories of the Qussaas (storytellers), who are known for their focus on biographies. The Qussaas, in general, have received praise from the Salaf, but they have also been specifically and collectively criticized and warned against, from the Sahaabah all the way to the Atbaa’ at-Taabi’een. Upon close examination, whether they are praised or criticized depends on their descriptions and characteristics. Since most possess unfavorable characteristics even today, their depiction is predominantly negative, more so than praiseworthy, since the time of the Salaf. They are characterized by their ignorance, lack of knowledge of usool al-fiqh (such as: الناسخ والمنسوخ, العام والخاص, المطلق والمقيد, etc.), and their inability to discern between authentic and weak hadith. These individuals often speak loosely about various biographies without thorough research into their authenticity, alignment with natural laws set by Allah, reasonable coherence, or historical accuracy. Their stories often contain judgments on halal and haram, and fatawa, regardless of whether these are intentional or not, leading to a mix of unreliable information. The Salaf warned against them extensively because their narratives are very appealing to laypeople.
In modern times, although the focus of such storytellers has shifted to more reliable content, such as the biographies of prophets (peace be upon them), many still lack depth in fiqh, fatwa, and principles of jurisprudence. Thus, despite the shift from weak ahaadeeth to more reliable biographical stories, these Qussaas often present unfounded fiqhi stances. This trend is evident among some so-called callers to Islam in the Arabic-speaking world, who have been widely recognized as very misguided and criticized by many scholars. Initially starting as Qussaas, some have become as famous figures, like Tareq as-Suwaidan from Kuwait and Amr Khaled from Egypt. These individuals are well-known, yet they harbor some of the most egregious and catastrophic opinions, bordering on secularist views. They began innocently and gained fame, but eventually, they propagated some of the most unfounded and strange opinions.
In these types of sources, the style of hadith is similar. As both imam ibnul-Jawzi and ibn Taymiyyah; major hadith scholars from the first generation, have mentioned, their statements unequivocally affirm this: when a hadith does not exist in the primary sources of hadith, one should ignore it and regard it as munkar (rejected) and extremely weak. If it were “saheeh”, it would be impossible for it to have been overlooked by all the aforementioned sources.
Is this the “strongest” hadith they use? No. But why did I choose to discuss this one first among their alleged evidence? It's because they associate it with the Ayah in question. Normally, when discussing another's opinion, one should present their strongest evidence first. It's not trustworthy to start with their weakest evidence and end with their strongest. I mention this hadith first because of its association with the Ayah; otherwise, I would have mentioned it last, in contrast to the other two hadiths.
The second hadith is known as Hadith Maalik ad-Daar, which pertains to al-istisqaa'. It has been narrated in Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, a primary source for the statements of the Sahaabah, Taabi'een, and Atbaa' at-Taabi'een. This source is as extensive as Musannaf 'Abdur-Razzaq. The Hadith Maalik ad-Daar states:
People suffered from a drought during the time of ‘Umar. A man came to the Prophet's grave (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and said: “O Messenger of Allah! Pray for rain for your Ummah, for they are perishing.” The man was then visited in his dream, and it was said to him: “Go to Umar...”
(Relevant)
The hadith is authentic up to Abu Saalih as-Sammaan, but there is no indication that the chain of narration is connected between Abu Saalih as-Sammaan and Maalik ad-Daar. Therefore, the isnaad is not entirely saheeh. Assuming it is authentic, 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab did not follow it, as a dream is not a source of Shari’ah. A dream may be considered if it brings good news, but it is not a foundation for Shari’ah. This aligns with the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “True dreams are one of the forty-six parts of prophethood.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6472); Muslim (4201). However, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) didn’t say “the message” [signifying a Shari’ah to be followed]. [Ash-Shaatibi said in ‘الاعتصام’: “… The only benefit of such dreams is in giving glad tidings or warnings specifically, but deriving legal rulings from them is not permissible.”]
The third hadith is known as Hadith ‘Uthmaan ibn Haneef. It was narrated in [المعجم الكبير], and there is another book titled [المعجم الصغير], both are authored by imam at-Tabaraani. The chain of narration extends all the way to Abi Umaamah ibn Sahl ibn Haneef, who narrated it from his uncle, ‘Uthmaan ibn Haneef:
A man, who used to visit ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) for a need of his, complained that ‘Uthmaan would not pay attention to him or look into his need. He met ibn Haneef and complained to him about it. ‘Uthmaan ibn Haneef said to him: “Go to the ablution area, perform ablution, then go to the masjid and pray two units of prayer, then say: O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the Prophet of mercy. O Muhammad, I turn through you to my Lord to fulfill my need.” Then he was to mention his need and said, “Go so that I may go with you.”
The man did as he was told, then went to the door of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him). The doorman came, took his hand, and brought him to ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him), who seated him beside him on the mat and asked, “What is your need?” The man mentioned his need, and ‘Uthmaan fulfilled it. ‘Uthmaan then said, “You did not mention your need until just now. If you have any more needs, mention them.”
The man left and met ‘Uthmaan ibn Haneef and said, “May Allah reward you with good. He did not look into my need nor pay attention to me until you spoke to him on my behalf.” ‘Uthmaan ibn Haneef replied, “By Allah, I did not speak to him, but I witnessed the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when a blind man complained to him about losing his sight.
[Shaykh then briefly commented: From this point on, the hadith is marfoo’, it is known as Hadith ad-Dareer]
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) told him to be patient, but the man said, 'O Messenger of Allah, I have no guide and it is difficult for me.' The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then told him: 'Go to the ablution area, perform ablution, then pray two units, and then make these supplications.'”
The hadith of the blind man, also known as Hadith ad-Dareer [the last hadith], was authenticated as saheeh by imam at-Tabaraani. However, his authentication pertained only to this specific part and not to the entirety of the hadith, particularly not the first part attributed to 'Uthmaan ibn Haneef. Unfortunately, this has led to some misunderstandings and misuse, with the assumption that at-Tabaraani authenticated the whole hadith, including the part about 'Uthmaan ibn Haneef. As for the first part of this hadith, did any major scholars critique it? Yes, imam ad-Daaraqutni classified it as munkar.
Unfortunately, the three ahaadeeth mentioned above are often misused as evidence in various cases. Some people apply them in our case, if they were saheeh, they would be applicable. Others use them to justify asking Allah by the status of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), despite the differing opinions from the Salaf and the renowned fuqahaa’ as previously mentioned. However, employing them as evidence is invalid and incorrect. They are incompatible with each other. Worst of all, grave worshippers and extreme Sufis, who fall into major shirk, misuse these ahaadeeth as justification for their actions for major shirk. May Allah protect us from this. Therefore, when reading refutations in Ahlus-Sunnah books against such misuses of these ahaadeeth, one should be cautious about which opinions they choose to counter.
Insha'Allah, the next topic will discuss certain trustworthy and highly respected scholars who mistakenly believe that our case is permissible and, in some situations, even encouraged, such as during Hajj.
Some books on Hajj mention that when one is in Madinah, it is permissible to visit the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and ask him to intercede with Allah on one’s behalf, such as asking for forgiveness. The names I am about to mention represent only a fraction of those who have written on this topic. However, I will focus on those who are well-known and include those known for opposing major shirk.
Among these scholars are imam an-Nawawi in his book al-Idaah, ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi in his book al-Mughni, ibn Faraj al-Maqdisi in his book Sharh al-Kabeer, ibn Katheer in his Tafseer, al-Bahooti in his book Kash-shaaf al-Qinaa’, al-Qaadhi ‘Iyaad al-Maaliki, ibn ‘Aqeel al-Hanbali, and ash-Shawkani. These scholars consider the act either generally permissible or specifically so during Hajj. Thus, one should exercise caution before labeling this practice as major shirk.
Now, let us address those who mistakenly consider this act as major shirk, a viewpoint that should be seen as an innovation potentially leading to major shirk, or in other words, minor shirk and forbidden. We will explore whether this could indeed be classified as major shirk. If it were so, early scholars would have identified it as such, yet none have. Furthermore, if this practice were saheeh, it would be endorsed by trustworthy sources, not necessarily among the six major hadith collections, but still regarded as primary sources. Examples include at-Tabaraani in his Mu’jam al-Kabeer and as-Sagheer, and Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah. The classification and authenticity of specific hadiths is another discussion, but these works are universally recognized as primary sources by hadith scholars. The clear consideration among scholars and the widespread acceptance of these sources negate the possibility of them endorsing major shirk.
Not only that, those ahaadeeth that are known to exist in sources of books and widely spread while at the same time the hadith doesn’t make really sense and doesn’t conform to the Shari’ah then scholars would have included such ahaadeeth in among the fabricated one’s but those are not there. Or they would have included them in mushkil al-hadith, meaning ahaadeeth that you can get in the first impression that can appear as going against foundations of Shari’ah and such and are explained in their context how they should be understood or interpreted but those ahaadeeth are not included in them to the point they requiring ta’weel. If that’s the case, then it’s impossible for it to be major shirk. It’s also impossible for it to be major shirk since it’s permissible and applies for the living. This point was made by imam Mahmood Shukri al-Aloosi, who was considered an al-'Allaamah in Iraq in his time. He stated in "فتح المنان تتمة منهاج التأسيس ورد صلح الإخوان", on page 291: "It is inherently known that the supplication of worship is the call for what none but Allah can do, and asking for that from either the living or the dead." In other words, if it constitutes shirk akbar, then there is no distinction between whether it is a living person or a deceased one that one asks.
If we inquire about the 'ulama' who are considered to have made this mistake, i.e., deeming this to be major shirk, it is unfortunately the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. They do not differentiate between major shirk and the other form, which is considered an innovation. When we look at the scholars who emerged from this school, the contemporary 'ulama', are they adhering to this specific opinion? Or is there someone who considers there to be something incorrect? The answer is that not everyone among the trustworthy follows this [mistaken] opinion. I will identify those who conform to this [mistaken] opinion: shaykh Muhammad Ibraheem Aal ash-Shaykh, shaykh ibn Baaz, shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan, shaykh Abdullah Ayman[?] [inaudible], shaykh [inaudible] Raashid, shaykh Saalih ‘Abdul-’Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh, shaykh ‘Ali Akhdayr, and shaykh Sulayman al-’Ulwan. All these scholars, unfortunately, consider it to be major shirk. The shuyookh who opposed this position are shaykh ibn ‘Uthaymeen, shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd, shaykh ‘Abdurrahman al-Barraak, and shaykh ‘Abdul-’Azeez at-Tareefi. All of them view it not as major shirk but as something that paves the way to it. They are undoubtedly correct, due to the [evidence-based] arguments previously presented.
Were there 'ulama' before the school of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab who mentioned opinions contrary to theirs? The answer is affirmative. The al-Aloosi family, including the grandfather, father, and son, were all 'ulama' in Iraq. Among the major 'ulama' who came afterward was shaykh Muhammad Basheer as-Sahsawani al-Hind, who, in his book "صيانة الإنسان عن وسوسة الشيخ دحلان", stated that the issue in question was an innovation and not [major] shirk. In this work, he defended shaykh ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab against the criticisms of shaykh Zayni ad-Dahlan.
What are the reasons for this misunderstanding within the school of shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab? There are four reasons:
I will begin with ibn Taymiyyah's statement found in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa. This statement, initially mentioned, was accepted by scholars in the Hanbali madhhab following shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and is cited in their primary sources. However, when it appears in these primary sources, it seems not to have been quoted verbatim. Ibn Taymiyyah may have expressed this statement in various forms across different sources, suggesting the same idea in different words. It appears this particular sentence was quoted without my conducting a thorough investigation. Regardless, it is where shaykhul-Islam discussed supplication, specifically when one asks of someone other than Allah, “من دعاء أو سئال غير الله.” Following this, shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab mistakenly equated "asking" with "supplication." This is primarily because, taken out of context, "سئال" can imply major shirk, but it can also refer to the supplication of worship directed at others besides Allah. In Arabic, this term, within this context, is considered "مجملة" (undetailed), making it incorrect to categorize all forms of "سئال" as major shirk. This distinction necessitates a detailed explanation.
So, is there such a detailed text? The answer is no. Another point of discussion emerges from one of ibn Taymiyyah’s primary texts, "الواسطة بين الحق والخلق," where he categorizes intermediaries into three types. The first relates to the conveyance of the message from Allah to His creation, essential for worship, which is not about worship itself. The second discusses polytheistic intercession, akin to the practices of the kuffaar Quraysh. The third is about asking the living for supplication. It is commonly known among scholars, especially the fuqahaa', that when making categorizations, they rely on "استقراء" (inductive reasoning), a comprehensive collection of evidence that does not exceed the number they have determined. When attempting to classify this issue, it was not placed within the first or second categories, but rather under the category of shirk. The method of "استقراء" (istiqraa'), employed by scholars, can sometimes be complete or incomplete, a point discussed by scholars in the principles of jurisprudence. Therefore, we may consider this issue as either incomplete or as a branch of supplication for the living. Both understandings can serve as grounds for refutation. Additionally, there is substantial evidence confirming that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah does not categorize this as major shirk, but rather as something that leads towards shirk and innovation.
He said in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: The first: to invoke someone other than Allah who is dead or absent, whether they be from the prophets and the righteous or others, saying: "O my lord, so-and-so, help me," or "I seek refuge in you" or "I seek your aid," or "Support me against my enemy," and the like. This is to commit shirk with Allah… The second: to say to the dead or absent from the prophets and the righteous: "Pray to Allah for me," or "Ask your Lord for us" or "Ask Allah for us." Just as the Christians say to Mary and others, so it is also beyond doubt for a scholar that this is not permissible, and it is from the innovations that no one from the Salaf of the Ummah has done. End quote.
Thus, he distinguished between the two. In another source, recently published [relative to the time of recording], "اللمعة في الأجوبة السبعة," shaykhul-Islam stated [from pages 32 to 33]: And if you say: "When he prays to Allah, He answers his prayer in a greater way than if I prayed to Him." This is the (second type), which is that you do not ask him to act nor do you invoke him, but you request him to pray for you, just as you would say to a living person: "Pray for me," and just as the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) would ask the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) to pray for them. This is permissible with the living, as mentioned before, but as for the dead among the prophets and the righteous and others, it has not been legislated for us to say: "Pray for us," or "Ask your Lord for us," and none of the Sahaabah or the Taabi’een, nor any of the imams, have done this, nor commanded it, and no hadith has been transmitted regarding it. Rather, what is established in the authentic texts is that when there was a drought during the time of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) he sought rain through the intercession of al-'Abbaas, saying: "O Allah, we would seek intercession to You with our Prophet and You would send us rain, and now we seek intercession to You with the uncle of our Prophet, so grant us rain." And they were given rain, and they did not go to the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) saying: "O Messenger of Allah! Pray to Allah for us and ask for rain for us," and "We complain to you about what has befallen us," and the like. None of the Sahaabah ever did this; rather, it is an innovation, with no authority from Allah. End quote.
He made the distinction again. In the third source, “الاستغاثة في الرد على البكري,” he mentioned [on page 114]: “The second level: To believe that supplication at his grave is answered or that it is better than supplicating in masaajid and homes, thus intending to visit it for that reason or to pray there; or for the purpose of seeking his intercession for one’s needs. This too is among the reprehensible innovations unanimously agreed upon by the imams of the Muslims and is prohibited, and I am not aware of any dispute regarding this among the imams of the Deen.”
In the fourth source, “قاعدة جليلة في التوسل والوسيلة,” from page 770: “Despite this, we are not to ask this of them, including the prophets and the righteous, even if they are alive in their graves [in this audio recording, the shaykh briefly commented: a life in the grave exists that is not like ours, similar to that of the martyrs], and even if it is assumed that they pray for the living and there are Aathaar to that effect, it is not permissible for anyone to request this from them, and none of the Salaf have done so; because this is a means leading to associating partners with them and worshiping them instead of Allah the Exalted.”
In the fifth source, “الصارم المنكي في الرد على السبكي," which is attributed not to shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah but to his student, on page 265, a statement is presented that actually exists elsewhere in his own works: “A man might perform an act he believes to be good, not knowing it is prohibited, and be rewarded for his good intention, and pardoned for his ignorance. This is a broad topic, and many of the prohibited innovative acts of worship done by some people might bring them some benefit. However, this does not indicate that these acts are sanctioned. Had their harm not outweighed their benefit, they would not have been prohibited. Moreover, the doer might be interpreting it in his own way or be mistaken, and this has been elaborated upon elsewhere. This addresses the first reason for the misunderstanding.”
As for the second reason, it stems from the statements of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim, referenced by the school of ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, regarding "ما لا يقدر عليه إلا الله". On this point, many contemporaries make the mistake of confining the issue to whether the deceased can intercede on behalf of the living. They argue that evidence suggests the deceased cannot hear at all, and there is no proof that they can make du'aa', as it's only mentioned in dreams or Aathaar, but not in the Qur'an or Sunnah. Thus, they conclude that the deceased can perform no action except by Allah, labeling any belief to the contrary as major shirk. This is a serious error. It is worth noting that this misconception is not limited to the Da'wah an-Najdiyyah, but is also prevalent among many in this era who follow this school. The response to that argument is that when one says only Allah can perform a certain action, what is meant is the action of ar-Rabb. The question then arises: despite the fact that the deceased cannot perform certain actions, the living can. Therefore, it's not a case of "no one except Allah can do it."
The third reason, which is important, concerns the definition of intercession. Unfortunately, shaykh Sulayman al-'Ulwan, in relation to our topic, sees no difference between this and what the mushrikeen did in Jaahiliyyah, referring to it as the intercession of shirk. This is undoubtedly a serious error. Ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim have made a distinction between the two. One of the reasons for this misunderstanding is a misinterpretation of the definition of polytheistic intercession, which can be traced back to an example given in the principles of jurisprudence. This example, which compares Allah to kings and ministers, is well-known but insufficient. While it may alert one to the presence of shirk in any form of intercession, it does not adequately distinguish between our case of "asking the deceased for supplication at his grave" and other forms. This has led scholars to fail to see the difference between intermediation and the polytheistic intercession practiced by the kuffaar of Quraysh, considering both to be forms of polytheistic intercession.
We will now talk about the difference between intermediary innovation and polytheistic intermediary. The polytheistic intermediary, what did Allah say about this?
يَوْمَئِذٍ لَّا تَنفَعُ الشَّفَاعَةُ إِلَّا مَنْ أَذِنَ لَهُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ وَرَضِيَ لَهُ قَوْلًا
“That Day, no intercession will benefit except [that of] one to whom the Most Merciful has given permission and has accepted his word.” (TaHa 20:109)
There are two conditions for intercession: the intercessor and the one for whom the intercession is made. Polytheistic intercession contradicts both conditions, being based on two false beliefs: one concerning Allah and the other concerning themselves. Regarding Allah, they harbor misconceptions, viewing Him as a king who needs ministers. This perspective, as we will see later, insha'Allah, implies a misunderstood notion of compulsion. The false belief about themselves is that their supplications will never be accepted, which is why they turn to intermediaries.
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah comments on this in his book [قاعدة عظيمة في الفرق بين عبادات أهل الاسلام والإيمان وعبادات أهل الشرك والنفاق]: “This intercession that the polytheists affirmed was invalidated by the Qur’an in several places. It is the intercession of a creature on behalf of another creature without his permission. For this intercessor becomes a partner to the one interceded with, as he asks him for what he did not intend to do, requiring, to fulfill the right of the intercessor, to do it. Thus, the intercessor, without the permission of the one interceded with, becomes his partner and Allah the Exalted has no partner.”
And he also says in [زيارة القبور والاستنجاد بالمقبور ]: “The intercessor asks him, and he fulfills the need either out of desire or fear, or out of modesty, or affection, or something else. But Allah, the Exalted, does not allow anyone to intercede with Him until He grants permission to the intercessor. So, He does not do except what He wills, and the intercession of the intercessor is by His permission. Thus, the entire matter is up to Him.” He later then said: “It clarifies that the Lord, glorified be He, does what He wills; no one can compel Him to do what He has chosen, just as the intercessor cannot compel the one interceded with.”
Ibnul-Qayyim said in [إغاثة اللهفان في مصايد الشيطان]: “Intercession with His permission is not intercession without Him, nor is the intercessor an intercessor without Him, but an intercessor by His permission. And the difference between the two intercessors is like the difference between a partner and a commanded slave.”
The question arises: Does this concept apply to "asking the deceased for supplication at his grave"? As shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd noted, if this matter is inherently linked to it, then it constitutes major shirk. But what exactly is linked to it? It's the belief, not the deed itself. But what about the deed itself? Is the deed inherently linked to it regardless of intent? The answer is no. However, is there a distinction in the description that becomes apparent in shaykh ibn Taymiyyah’s statement? The answer is decidedly yes. I will present evidence that clarifies this point. Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, in “اللمعة في الأجوبة السبعة,” addresses the motivation behind the erroneous action, namely, "asking the deceased for supplication at his grave." He questions why one would not ask Allah directly instead of engaging in this innovation. This distinction clarifies the difference from polytheistic intercession. He states: “And if you say: ‘When he prays to Allah, His response to his prayer is greater than His response to me when I pray,’ then this is the second category: It is not to ask him to perform an act nor to invoke him, but rather to request that he prays for him. Just as one would say to the living: ‘Pray for me,’ just as the Sahaabah used to request the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to pray for them, this is permissible for the living, as mentioned before. However, regarding the deceased among the prophets, the righteous, and others, it has not been legislated for us to say: ‘Pray for us,’ or ‘Ask your Lord for us,’ or anything similar. No one among the Sahaabah or the Taabi’een did this, nor did any of the imams command it, and no hadith has been transmitted on this matter.” End quote. This highlights the distinction between the two, emphasizing that they cannot be equated.
The fourth reason for misunderstanding between shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his students pertains to a statement that is widespread among contemporary scholars, especially those who have explained "كشف الشبهات." In this work, shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab discussed Ayat that, if posed to the mushrikeen, would reveal their acknowledgment of Allah as the sole Creator, despite their polytheism. The question arises from how these scholars interpret a specific statement: it implies that the kuffaar Quraysh, despite acknowledging Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah, failed to embrace al-Uloohiyyah and thus committed shirk in it. This suggests that one can accept Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah but still fall into shirk through a lack of al-Uloohiyyah. The clarity of this stance within ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab’s school is ambiguous. Despite explanations from those who have elaborated on his work, no explicit statement from shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab confirms this. Conversely, when he discussed the mushrikeen's acknowledgment of Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah, he framed it as conditional, emphasizing that no one but Allah can harm, benefit, or control, thus suggesting a comprehensive understanding of Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah.
Therefore, when considering polytheistic intercession as shirk in al-Uloohiyyah rather than in ar-Ruboobiyyah, an error emerges. This leads to the implication within the school of ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab that the Quraysh had acknowledged Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah but fell into shirk in al-Uloohiyyah. Such statements imply that Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah and al-Uloohiyyah are not inherently interconnected, suggesting it's possible to fulfill one without the other. The critical question then arises: is this interpretation correct? Before answering, we should refer to the statements of ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim regarding polytheistic intercession. Did they categorize it as shirk in al-Uloohiyyah or ar-Ruboobiyyah?
Polytheistic intercession is essentially a belief, not a deed. It concerns the actions attributed to Allah by those holding the belief, based on their false belief in Him. In essence, this discussion belongs more to Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah, but its implications pertain to al-Uloohiyyah. As illustrated in the Qur’an, "We worship them only that they may bring us nearer to Allah" (cf. Az-Zumar 39:3). This reveals that polytheistic intercession and the motivation behind it signify distinct forms of shirk in al-Uloohiyyah and ar-Ruboobiyyah, respectively.
If we refer back to the statements of ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim that I have read before, it becomes evident that the entire discussion revolves around the actions of Allah—those actions that befit Him and align with the concept of intercession as depicted in the Qur'an, as well as those actions that do not befit Him, relating to the erroneous beliefs of the pagan Arabs about Allah. When ibnul-Qayyim addressed this issue, he utilized the term "ar-Rabb" stating, “And the intercessor does not intercede with Him due to the Lord's need for him.” He also mentioned in "Madaarij as-Saalikeen" the following statement:
قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَمْلِكُونَ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَا لَهُمْ فِيهِمَا مِنْ شِرْكٍ وَمَا لَهُ مِنْهُمْ مِنْ ظَهِيرٍ - وَلَا تَنْفَعُ الشَّفَاعَةُ عِنْدَهُ إِلَّا لِمَنْ أَذِنَ لَهُ
Say: (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم to polytheists, pagans) "Call upon those whom you assert (to be associate gods) besides Allâh, they possess not even an atom’s (or a small ant’s) weight either in the heavens or on the earth, nor have they any share in either, nor there is for Him any supporter from among them. Intercession with Him profits not except for him whom He permits. So much so that when fear is banished from their (angels’) hearts, they (angels) say: "What is it that your Lord has said?" They say: "The truth. And He is the Most High, the Most Great." (Saba’ 34:22-23)
The mushrik only takes his deity for what he believes will bring him benefit, and benefit can only come from one who possesses one of these four qualities: either being the owner of what his worshippers want from him, or if not the owner, then a partner to the owner. If he is not a partner, then an assistant to him and a supporter; and if he is neither an assistant nor a supporter, then an intercessor with him. End quote.
Similarly, shaykh ‘Abdurrahman as-Sa’di expressed a comparable thought in his Tafseer, albeit more succinctly.
This is categorized as motivation, which constitutes clear shirk in Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah. Have any scholars mentioned that shirk ar-Ruboobiyyah and shirk al-Uloohiyyah are interconnected in the same way as Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah and Tawheed al-Uloohiyyah are? It doesn't make sense to have one without the other. Among those who have discussed this is Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah in "Majmoo' al-Fatawa," volume 14, page 120, where he stated: “And as for what constitutes disbelief in outward actions, such as prostrating to idols, insulting the Messenger, and the like; it is because it implies internal disbelief.”
Al-Haafidh al-Hakami said in “Ma’aarij al-Qabool,” volume 2, page 475: “The types of Tawheed are inseparable; one cannot exist without the others. Similarly, their opposites are connected, so whoever opposes any type of Tawheed with any form of shirk has committed shirk in the rest.” Then goes on to say: “This implies that committing shirk in Divinity necessitates committing shirk in Lordship, and in the Names and Attributes.”
Many scholars incorrectly assert that Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah can coexist in a person who commits shirk in al-Uloohiyyah, a notion suggested by shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab. This represents a grave error. Tawheed ar-Ruboobiyyah encompasses not only matters of this worldly life but also extends to the Hereafter. Discussions on creation, sustenance, and similar matters relate to our current existence, but they also have implications for the afterlife. Interestingly, when the kuffaar Quraysh committed shirk through their supplication in their time, they believed such practices were limited to this worldly life. However, all mushrikeen engage in this form of shirk, though not all believe in the Hereafter. This stands as a refutation of the four reasons that lead shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his school into significant error, serving also as a refutation of this specific topic.
There's also a statement I neglected to mention earlier, concerning shaykh Saalih ‘Abdul-’Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh. When he was presented with ibn Qudaamah's view that it is commendable (mustahabb) to ask the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to intercede with Allah for forgiveness on one's behalf during Hajj, the shaykh responded rather unexpectedly: "Ibn Qudaamah did not conceptualize the matter correctly." This reaction seems far-fetched and devoid of meaning, unfairly disparaging ibn Qudaamah, the esteemed faqeeh. Contrary to what was suggested, ibn Qudaamah was indeed cognizant of his stance, believing it to be permissible, though he was mistaken. Shaykh Saalih's response stems from his classification of such an act as major shirk, putting him in a precarious position as it indirectly implies that ibn Qudaamah condones major shirk. To extricate himself from this dilemma, he claimed that ibn Qudaamah failed to properly understand the issue, which is, once again, an unusual and implausible explanation.
This specific issue involves shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, his school, and those who opposed his da'wah. He advocated for Tawheed and the eradication of shirk, specifically major shirk, which was prevalent and dominant. Critics of his da’wah wrongly accused him of mistakenly making takfeer against innocent people and fought against them, which is not accurate. Setting aside his comments about the Arabian Peninsula, it's worth noting the views of other scholars like ibnul-Qayyim, Maqrizi, al-Aloosi in Iraq, and ash-Shawkani in Yemen, who all observed widespread shirk in their regions, encompassing both ar-Ruboobiyyah and al-Uloohiyyah.
The contention between ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab's school and his detractors wasn't solely about this issue. Sulayman ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab, the shaykh's brother, exploited this dispute. He authored a book critiquing the shaykh's da'wah, which opponents used as a primary source due to his familial connection. Despite Sulayman's eventual retraction and return, critics continued to reference his book. Sulayman's critique lacked specificity and included misinterpretations of ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim, attributing to them views they did not hold, among other inaccuracies.
In essence, both shaykh ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab and his brother committed significant errors, albeit differently. The shaykh equated shirk with innovation, while his brother erred by downplaying certain practices as minor shirk or innovation without considering them as nullifcations of Islam. The prevalent issue of their time was indeed major shirk. Ibnul-Qayyim previously highlighted the danger of brevity in speech, noting its potential to cause misunderstandings and conflicts.
Now we are at the end, addressing the issue of grave worship and its advocates. When they discuss Tawassul and try to provide evidence for its justification, most are unclear about which form of Tawassul they are referring to: is it the form considered shirk, an innovation, or a matter disputed by scholars? This confusion highlights the importance of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah's approach in his renowned book "قاعدة جليلة في التوسل والوسيلة". He emphasized from the outset the necessity of clarifying ambiguous terms by specifying the intended meaning, identifying possible interpretations, and then making a judgment. This method was precisely how he addressed the issue in his book, applying the same meticulous approach to the matter of "asking".
Then there are some scholars who, regrettably, have fared even worse in their discussions on these matters. They employ specific terms and phrasing that make it challenging to understand precisely what they are addressing—whether it pertains to major shirk, polytheistic intercession, intermediary innovations, or invoking the deceased near their graves. Some of them are very well-known; of the two names I'll mention, one is ibn ‘Aqeel. Ibn ‘Aqeel is known for his strong stance against grave worshippers, labeling them as kuffaar and accusing them of adopting an entirely different religion. This statement of his is widely recognized. Interestingly, his articulation is peculiar, and notably, part of it is in the form of a poem. What does this imply? It means that this is something that can be recited anywhere, which can lead to significant confusion, especially among ordinary Muslims.
In response, some contemporary scholars have taken a step that is correct in principle but incomplete in practice. They attempt to defend these fuqahaa’ by arguing that as long as their statements remain ambiguous, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and not suspect their intentions. After all, suspecting them could lead us to question whether they truly understood the distinction between Tawheed and major shirk, which would be problematic for figures considered to be imams. This line of thinking is valid as long as there are no explicit statements to the contrary. However, it's important to recognize that these individuals have indeed made two mistakes. Firstly, they defended these positions at all costs, even against the categorization of major shirk outlined by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, thereby erring since ibn Taymiyyah's understanding surpasses theirs. Secondly, they posited that we should hold the best opinions of those imams, suggesting that their ambiguous statements are simply a characteristic of Arabic eloquence and not inherently erroneous—despite these positions being fundamentally flawed. This argument overlooks the fact that, even if we were to accept such a defense as valid and permissible, we must not articulate it in ambiguous terms. Knowledge of the Arabic language and its nuances may enable differentiation, but ordinary Muslims are likely to be confused. They might interpret these ambiguous statements as endorsing major shirk, consequently placing the blame not only on themselves. Unfortunately, those who criticize shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul-Wahhab tend to overemphasize their critique while overlooking the significant errors committed by others. They focus solely on the instances of takfeer made by the shaykh, ignoring that takfeer is a judgment within Shari’ah. Is it possible to err in making takfeer while still being excused by Shari’ah in Islam? The response is affirmative, which is illustrated by ‘Umar ibnul-Khattaab’s action when he labeled Haatib Balta’ah a munaafiq and, in other narrations, a kaafir—despite these not being the most reliable accounts. However, this reflects what the term munaafiq implies, i.e., harboring disbelief in one's heart. Haatib Balta’ah’s actions were indeed suspicious and could be interpreted as such, prompting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to inquire about his motives. The Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rebuttal of ‘Umar ibnul-Khattaab confirms that a mistake was made. Nevertheless, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not demand his repentance or label his actions as sinful or similar, which raises an important point: the recognition of a scholar as such. Initially, those who defended the practices of grave worship acknowledged the shaykh as a scholar, seeking explanations from him as they would from any scholar. Yet, as the conflict intensified, they resorted to unfounded criticisms and falsehoods against him. Despite his errors, the shaykh exercised ijtihaad, and, insha'Allah, he will be rewarded for his attempt. While his mistakes should be critiqued and opposed, it is also important not to overlook the errors made by others. Those who did not fall into shirk but instead used ambiguous language also warrant critique.
I will briefly conclude with this matter: "Asking the deceased for supplication at his grave." Both proponents and those who forbid it often refer to it as Tawassul. Note that the correct ruling is obviously that it's forbidden and is an innovation. Could it be labeled differently? It's a question of terminology, as I'm not asserting its correctness without question. When examining various scholars' statements on this subject, some have described it as "استشفاع" (intercession) or "وساطة" (mediation). If one can refer to it as an intermediary innovation, then it can also be termed as innovation in intercession. In hadiths that are classified as weak, the term intercession has been used. Some have referred to it as istighaathah. Typically, when shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah uses this term, he associates it with major shirk. However, critics have categorized istighaathah in some contexts as shirk and in others as not. All these terms could be linked to shirk in some cases and to innovations in others. Agreeing on these terms isn't just a semantic dispute; rather, there is no disagreement on the substance of the matter. Why mention this? It is to clarify that when you encounter different terminology for Tawassul in various sources, you won't be surprised or confused. That is all, and all help is from Allah.
Return to the main page