Calling upon other than Allah

[Mental Possibility]

In his book Al-Adabu-l-Mufrad, Al-Bukhaariyy mentioned the permissibility of calling on the Prophet after his death by saying, 'Yaa Muhammad', and that is against the creed of the Wahhaabiyyah, for to them it is shirk. Also, Ibnu-s-Sunniyy narrated it in his book ^Amalu-l-Yawmi wa-l-Laylah. Al-Bukhariyy's quote is:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ قَالَ: خَدِرَتْ رِجْلُ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: اذْكُرْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ، فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ
"Abuw Nu^aym told us: Sufyaan told us from Abuw Ishaaq from ^Abdu-r-Rahmaan Ibn Sa^d, that he said, 'Ibn ^Umar's leg got the 'khadar', so a man said to him, 'Mention the name of the most beloved of people to you', and so he said, 'Yaa Muhammad'."

Ibn Taymiyah also narrated this in his book Al-Kalimu-t-Tayyib, and his quote therein is:
عن الهيثم بن حنش قال: كنا عند عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما، فخدرت رجله فقال له رجل: اذكر أحب الناس إليك، فقال: يا محمد، فكأنما نشط من عقال
"From Al-Haytham Ibn Janash that he said, 'We were with ^Abdullaah Ibn ^Umar, may Allaah accept his and his father's deeds, when his leg was inflicted with the 'khadar'. A man said to him, 'Mention the most beloved of people to you', and so he said, 'Yaa Muhammad', and it was as if he was untied from a knot'."

This was also narrated by the shaykh of the reciters, Haafidh Ibnu-l-Jazariyy in two of his books, as well as by the Zaydiyy Shiite who is reliable to the Wahhaabiyyah, Ash-Shawkaaniyy, and by Ibnu-l-Ja^d.

Our Shaykh says:
"What took place from ^Abullaah Ibn ^Umar is 'istighaathah (seeking help)' of the Messenger of Allaah by the expression, 'Yaa Muhammad', and to the Wahhaabiyyah, this, i.e. seeking his help after his death, is blasphemy. So what would the Wahhaabiyyah do? Will they retract their opinion of charging with blasphemy whoever calls out 'Yaa Muhammad', or will they disown Ibn Taymiyah, who is the shaykh of Islaam according to them? O, what an exposure! He is their imaam from whom Ibn ^Abdi-l-Wahhaab took some of his ideas with which he opposes the Muslims. According to their creed, in this case they have charged Ibn Taymiyah with blasphemy, for he has deemed what according to them is an act of shirk as something good. If one of them said, 'Ibn Taymiyah narrated it from the route of a narrator upon whom there is difference in opinion,' it is said to them, 'Merely narrating it in his book is evidence that he deems it good, whether he considers it authentic or not.' This is because the one who narrates what is invalid in his book without warning from it is a caller to that thing. Also, Al-Albaaniyy's attempt to weaken this athar has no consideration, for Al-Albaaniyy has been barred from the level of 'hifdh' which is a condition for authenticating (tashiyh) and weakening (tad^iyf) according to the people of hadiyth.

In one of his sessions he confessed that he was not a muhaddith of memorization, and in fact said, 'I am a book muhaddith.' This was after a Syrian lawyer asked him, 'O, teacher, you are a muhaddith?' He said, 'Yes.' He (the lawyer) said, 'List for us (from memory) ten hadiyths with their chains of narration.' Al-Albaaniyy answered, 'No, I am a book muhaddith.' Then the lawyer responded, 'Then I am able to do that.' By that he embarrassed Al-Albaaniyy. So let him and his imitators know that their authenticating and weakening is futile according to the guidelines of the people of hadiyth, and it has no consideration. Let them repent to Allaah. If showing-off is what lead them to that, showing-off is a major sin."

[Mental Possibility]

Nahw lesson:

The 'munaadaa' , literally: 'the called one', and grammatically: 'the vocative case', is in essence a direct object (maf^uwl bih). This is because had one said, "يا عبد الله (O ^Abdallaah)", it is as if he said "أدعو عبد الله (I call ^Abdallaah)." The verb (أدعو 'I call') is omitted, and the particle (يا 'O') took its place. Calling is a feature of the Arabic language, and any langua
ge, and the wahhabis have claimed that if it is done for anyone who is NOT ALIVE, or who is ABSENT from the setting, then that is an act of blasphemy.

It is not documented that the Arabs understood that when one dies, calling him takes on a new meaning to include worship, so not only is this bad idea not from the people of the Religion, it is not from the people of the language.

There are a number of particles used for it: Its most famous is (يا 'Yaa'), like 'Yaa Zayd (O, Zayd)'. With it, you can call the close and the far, the one who is present and the one who is not present. Among them is (أ 'A'), like: 'AZayd!'; 'O Zayd!', if he is close, and there are others...

It has many cases and branches. One of those branches is the special munaadaa called "al-mustaghaathu bih (one whose help is sought)." It has facets and details that are not directly related to this discussion, nor easily translated. In his grammar book, the explanation of QaTrun-Nadaa, Ibn Hishaam, may Allaah have mercy upon him, defined this specific 'munaadaa' as:
وَهُوَ كل اسْم نُودي ليخلص من شدَّة أَو يعين على دفع مشقة
'Every name that is called (out) for being relieved of something harsh, or for assistance in repelling difficulty'. Like to say
(يا زيدا) "Yaa Zaydaa (O Zayd!)"

The only particle used for this type is (يا "yaa"), which means, 'O'.
What the wahhabis have called blasphemy was done by the Companion Ibn ^Umar, when he said, "Yaa MuHammad," after the death of the Prophet, and then his leg was cured. They are cornered like a mouse in the clutches of a cat when you mention that Ibn Taymiyah copied that incident in his book, "the Good Words".

The manduwb, which can mean, 'the one who is whined over or cried about', is another type of 'munaadaa'. It is done by usually using the particle 'وا (waa)', but validly using the particle 'يا (yaa)', if it does not lead to being confused with the regular munaadaa.

For example, if one had a headache, he could say "وا رأساه (waa ra'saah)"; 'O (my) head', or if he suffered from a calamity he could say " وا مصيبتاه (waa musiybataah)"; 'O, the calamity!'

This is a type of munaadaa, and according to the wahhabis, if you call anyone who is not alive you have fallen into shirk. How do they charge the Companions and the Followers in the army at the time of Abuw Bakr's rule, whose chant was:
وَامُحَمَّدَاهُ 'waa MuHammadaah
"O MuHammad (as a munaadaa manduwb)!"?

Damned, they stay silent and slink back into the shadows, because the sun is out, but they keep their convictions despite that they know the references are there. They would sooner accuse the Companion of shirk.

[Mental Possibility]

I think by now the issue is clear. worship is a concept that one must understand well, because if one gets sick in this issue, he will take foul beliefs, such as believing the the Prophet loses his status after death, that the Companions have done acts of shirk, that the Muslims at large are mushriks. It also leads to making takfir on the Prophets, like the previous status about Prophet Adam. It a
lso leads to accusing the Prophet of shirk, because Muhammad benefited from Moses after Moses' death.

Therefore, if it were said, "Does not the hadiyth:
إِذَا مَاتَ الإنْسَانُ انْقَطَعَ عَمَلُهُ إِلاَّ مِنْ ثَلاثٍ
"If the person died, his deeds are cut off, except for three..."
have evidence that the dead does not benefit?"

The answer is that this hadiyth:
إِذَا مَاتَ الإنْسَانُ انْقَطَعَ عَمَلُهُ إِلاَّ مِنْ ثَلاثٍ
صَدَقةٍ جَاريَةٍ ، أَوْ عِلْمٍ يُنْتَفَعُ بِهِ ، أَوْ وَلَدٍ صَالِحٍ يَدْعُو لَهُ
"If the person died, his deeds are cut off, except for three: A lasting charity, knowledge that continues to benefit, or a pious child that supplicates for him,"
does not mean that the he who died does not benefit others, it proves that the deeds of accountability that increase his reward stop, except for what is mentioned. It is not impossible that the dead can benefit others after his death.

Among what proves that is the hadiyth about the night ascension into the skies that Moses said to the Prophet:
ارجع إلى ربك فسله التخفيف
"Go back and ask your Lord for reduction."
This is in reference to the fact that the Prophet ﷺ was originally ordered with 50 prayers per day for his nation. Moses told the Prophet to seek a reduction, and thus it was reduced to five daily prayers. This is a great benefit for the nation of Muhammad from Moses after his death by thousands of years. According to the wahhabi way, it should have been said to Moses, "Do not benefit, for you have died."

You can see that their wrong belief disables then from putting all the pieces of this case together. It's not just the belief in tajsiym that made him a monster, it was this ill belief about worship that made him a night stalker...

[Mental Possibility]

For effectively repelling the fallacies of the wahhabis, you must learn to stay focused. one of their strongest methods is EVASION and DISTRACTION.

they are asked: is it permissible to seek help from someone after his death?

they will most likely say, 'No, this is shirk'.

say to them, "then all of the people will commit shirk on judgment day when they go to Adam asking for his help, and then
to Noah, and then to Abraham, then to Moses, then to Jesus and then finally to Muhammad?" Over and over again, they will be committing shirk, and the prophets will be encouraging that when they tell the people to go to the other prophet and ask for his help after he has already died?

they will say, "No silly, they will be alive at that time; resurrected back to life."

So repeat the Question: then it is permissible to seek help from someone after his death? aren't they seeking help from those prophets after their deaths?

Here they will refuse to say yes, even though the answer is 'yes'. They are cornered in this case because their fundamentals are wrong. asking or seeking help in itself is not worship, even if the one being sought has died.

We believe that the Prophets and the waliyys still benefit after their deaths by their blessings, not by them creating anything. They believe that the Prophets and waliyys have no benefit after death, which is against the hadith:
حَيَاتِي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُحَدِّثُونَ وَيُحَدَّثُ لَكُمْ , وَوَفَاتِي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُعْرَضُ عَلَيَّ أَعْمَالُكُمْ , فَمَا كَانَ مِنْ حَسَنٍ حَمِدْتُ اللَّهَ عَلَيْهِ , وَمَا كَانَ مِنْ سَيِّئٍ اسْتَغْفَرْتُ اللَّهَ لَكُمْ
"My life is good for you because things happen to you and I get revelation about the judgment of your deeds. My death is good for you, because your deeds are displayed to me. If I see good I praise Allah, and if I see bad then I ask Allah for forgiveness for you." narrated by Al-Bazzar, authenticated in majma^ az-zawaa'id

[Mental Possibility]

So here is the heart of the issue. the wahhabis have wrongly defined ^ibaadah (worship), and this misunderstanding poisoned their creeds. they became infected with something that makes them reject the hadiths no matter the cost- as long as the result complies with their convictions, instead of their convictions complying with the religious proof.

They defined worship as: calling upon someone, seeking help from someone, fearing someone, being hopeful of something from someone, glorifying someone, etc. None of that is worship.

^Ibaadah (worship) is defined by the linguists as:
غَايةُ الخُضُوعِ الخُشُوع
the extremity in humbleness and humility",
الطاعة مع الخضوع
the obedience with the (ultimate) humility. Ibn Athiyr said, "3Ibaadah in the language is the obedience with the submission." Also, Al-Fayyuwmiyy, one of the famous linguists said in Al-Misbaah
وهي الانقياد والخضوع
"...it is the submission and the humility."

All of these expressions go back to the same meaning. therefore:

1. the angels prostrated to Adam, and the brothers of Yusuf prostrated to Yusuf, and this was not worship of those people. you prostrate to Allah and it is worship of Allah.
2. you seek a persons help, and this is not worship. you seek Allah's help, and it is worship
3. you seek refuge with a man and it is not worship, you seek refuge with Allah it is worship
4. You call upon a person, it is not worship. You call upon Allah, it is worship.
5. You fight for your honor or for money, it is not worship. You fight the sake of Allah, it is worship.
6. You eat to fulfill your desire or hunger, it is not worship. You eat to gain strength to obey God, it is worship

etc, etc, etc...

If you mix these issues up, it will sicken your heart and make you accuse others of what they did not do, and make you forbid others from what is not forbidden... it may lead you to become a hooligan who desecrates graves for fun- or even a MURDERER...

[Mental Possibility]

Be mindful here, brothers and sisters. its not our point to say, 'we seek from the dead' or 'we call on the dead'.

Our point is to say, 'we believe in the religious evidence'. if it is confirmed from the companions that they called on the prophet in his absence and after his death, that they sought blessings from his traces, that they sought his help after his death...if this is all confirmed- and it is- then we put our opinions to the side and we take what came. THIS is the point. it is on this principle that you dispute with those people who destroy the graves and kill the muslims. if they could have they would have destroyed the prophet's grave too!!

[Mental Possibility]

The wahhabis said that there is no tawassul by the Prophet or the waliyy who is absent; far away, or has died, because in all of those cases, they cannot hear. This is a fallacy that is refuted by the religious evidence, for it is religiously valid that they would hear. We understand this matter like we understand the hadith that is deemed authentic by HaafiDH ibn Hajar, that Ibn ^Abbaas said:

قَامَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ عَلَى الْحَجَرِ فَقَالَ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْحَجُّ فَأَسْمَعَ مَنْ فِي أَصْلَابِ الرِّجَالِ وَأَرْحَامِ النِّسَاءِ فَأَجَابَهُ مَنْ آمَنَ وَمَنْ كَانَ سَبَقَ فِي عِلْمِ اللَّهِ أَنَّهُ يَحُجُّ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ لَبَّيْكَ اللَّهُمَّ لَبَّيْكَ


"Abraham stood on the stone and said (i.e. called out), 'O people, Hajj has been made ordained upon you.' He made those who were in the spines of their fathers and the wombs of their mothers hear. Whoever was a believer responded to him, as well as those whom Allah knew eternally that they would perform Hajj, by saying, 'labbaykallaahumma labbaak (We obey You gain and again, O Allah)'."

Those who are in the spines of their fathers are only reproductive fluid. He made them hear, and they responded. How is that? Allahu A3lam.

Therefore, the creed of the wahhabis, that the one who is far or the one is not alive cannot hear, is a deviant creed. The Angels question the person in his grave. The Prophet told us to say salaam to the dead, the Companion Bilal Ibnul-Haarith went to the grave of the Prophet and said 'Yaa Rasoolallaah, seek the rain for your nation, they are perishing'. ^Umar called out to Saariyah in another country and told the army to take cover by the mountain, and they heard him and did it and defeated the enemy, Ibn ^Umar said 'Yaa Muhammad' after the Prophets death and his leg was cured. The Prophets are alive in their graves praying. Adam made tawassul by the Propet before he was created. Yusuf used the blessing of his shirt- which is a creation- and did not merely ask Allah, the Prophet made tawassul by his footsteps...

[Mental Possibility]

The truth is that denying tawassul, which is seeking to benefit or to ward of harm by a prophet, waliyy or something of merit, as well as denying making tabarruk, which is seeking the blessings from the traces of a Prophet or a waliyy, is deviance and against the creed of the Muslims and all of the Prophets. Do you know the real reason no one said anything to Bilaal Ibnul-Haarith when he went to t
he grave and said, "O Messenger of Allah, seek the rain for your nation, surely they are perishing."? Its because they did not have the creed of Ibn Taymiyah and the wahhabis, the so called salafis. The first to deviate in this issue was Ibn Taymiyah. The Salaf believed in tawassul even by one who is absent or has died.

Also among his deviations is that he said in seven of his books that there are types of things that beginningless with Allah, which is shirk. This is easily found- I could actually post some of it (and i did when debating with bassam), but i'm trying not to make this too long...

Among what he said in his own authoring was that Hell will end, and that was after he documented in another book that the Muslims have charged Jahm Ibn Safwaan with blasphemy for saying that Paradise and Hell ends. He therefore is judged with the judgement of his brother, Jahm. Ibnul-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah reported this from him also, and agreed with him.

This is a little bit of what he said, but it is clear for the laymen and does not lead much clarification. Notice that the wahhabis never bring this up. They cannot win a discussion in this issue, so they never bring it up. They burry it behind the reports of those who praised him, and hide the truth, like the Jews hid what was in the Torah.

Ibn Taymiyah's fame and knowledge doesn't excuse him from these blasphemies that are easily found in his books. He does not have immunity because of his memory. In fact, the scholars who knew of his case said about him, "His knowledge is greater than his mind." this means that that he could not comprehend all that he memorized. It is a dispraise, not a praise. Some people have 'Dalla ^an ^ilm (gone astray with knowledge)'.

If Abdullah al-Harariyy said Hellfire will end, they would say, look, he said Hellfire will end. If Ibn Taymiyah says it, they say, "You can't speak against the shaykh." If anyone calls on the Prophet after his death, they say he committed shirk. If Ibn Taymiyah puts it in a book called 'the good words' they say, "Well, what he meant was..."

[Mental Possibility]

The wahhabis think they have cornered us by asking: If making tawassul after the Prophet's death were permissible, why did ^Umar abandon it and make tawassul by the Prophet's uncle, Al-^Abbaas instead? As for my postings here on facebook, I havent avoided the answer because I don't have one. I avoided it, because I was waiting for them to answer my questions that they were avoiding. Now, brother a
nd sisters, take the answer and smack a wahhabi with it so he can stop talking:

1. Abandoning something does not mean that the abandoned thing is haram.
2. If they understood the hadith in the first place, they would have noticed that the Prophet's uncle answered their question. He said, "O Allah, the people are directing their supplication by me because of my status to Your Prophet." He did not say, "because the Prophet died."

This is the continuation of the story of Bilal Ibnul-Harith, who sought help at the grave of the Prophet. He went to ^Umar, told him about the dream he saw, and in the end, ^Umar and the people made tawassul by the Prophet's uncle, al-^Abbaas, may Allah accept their deeds. There is no evidence in the hadith that tawassul by the Prophet after his death is forbidden.

[Mental Possibility]

Here's another question we received: as salaamualaium, I may have missed your answer for this but my question is why would one need to call on other than Allah? other than it being a good thing?

answer: wa ^alaykum salaam. I did give the answer for this, and it is still a great question.

one does not NEED to do that, rather, it is an option that Allah made permissible for the slaves, that helps them reach their goals. Ta
wassul is EXACTLY like taking medicine, drinking water, or locking your door. in all of those cases, you use a creation to reach your goal. Although we believe firmly that Allah can cure us without medicine, quench our thirst without water, and protect our assets without a lock, the people- even the deniers of tawassul- rely on these creations all the time. this does not contradict the fact that one is hoping that ALLAH creates for him- BY WAY of these creations- the quench, the cure, and the protection. He does not worship the water, medicine or lock by depending on them and seeking help or seeking benefit from them, although they are not alive. Rather, this is what is normal; that results come from reasons. When one asks Allah by a Prophet or a waliyy, he is taking them as a means to reach his goal, just like the water or the lock, not as gods besides Allah, so understand that this is the fallacy of Ibn Taymiyah and the wahhabis. they confused the people about this clear difference. When the three men were trapped in the cave, they made tawassul by their deeds, one by one, until the boulder moved enough for them to escape. they could have just asked Allah, but they sought a means to reach an end, and it worked. this is why the Prophet taught us to say, "O Allah, I ask you by those who ask you, and by these footsteps of mine," and why he personally taught the blind man to say within his dua, 'O Muhammad, surely I direct myself by you to my Lord in my need.'

We, as sunnis, believe that seeking help from the pious is not worshiping them, even after their deaths- because the evidence proves that- and this is no different from seeking it from the living, because in BOTH cases, Allah creates the help.

What blinded those deniers is that they only believe in what is outward and normal; a living human who moves around and walks and talks. They do not believe in the ghayb (unseen) completely, like we do, that's why they have no attachment to the waliyys or their karaamahs-even while alive, so forget about after death, and they do not care for prophets after they die. To them, after death, the Prophets and waliyys are no better than sticks or rocks- and they actually say that. Their religion is different from ours.

Calling someone close by could get you the help you need, by drawing their attention to you and then by them aiding or sending aid, even if by only making dua for you- and that is only by the creating of Allah, because the Prophet taught us that if all of the creation gathered to give you what Allah did not will, they will be unable, and if they gathered to prevent you from what Allah willed to reach you, they will not be able. Likewise is the case for he who is far, and he who is alive and he who has died. They can all help by the will of Allah, by whatever way Allah willed. That's why Bilal Ibnul-Haarith did what he did at the grave, and why Ibn ^Umar called on the Prophet after his death and got his leg cured, and why ^Uthmaan Ibn Hunayf taught someone the dua that the Prophet taught the blind man after the Prophet's death, and no one had a problem with this until Ibn Taymniyah.

The one who doesnt do it is not sinful, but he is missing out on a permissible and rewardable benefit, but he cannot discredit it, or else he will be discrediting a valid, confirmed religious practice, a practice taught by the Prophets and the Companions of the Prophet.