Bismillah, praise be to Allah the lord of the worlds the creator of benefit and harm, may Allah increase the rank of Prophet Muhammad and protect his nation from which he fears for i, ameen.

Ibn Taymiyah declared that going to the grave to make du^a’ there is an ugly innovation.  Al-Buhutiyy, the author of “Kashshaf-ul-Qina^”, said reporting about the author of “al-Furu^”: Our shaykh- meaning Ibn Taymiyah- said: one’s going to the grave for du^a’ hoping for its fulfillment there is an innovation and not something by which one seeks a better status from Allah by the agreement of the a’immah.  The author of “al-Furu^” is Shams-ud-Din Ibn Muflih, al-Hanbaliyy and one of Ibn Taymiyah’s students.  In another place in “Kashshaf-ul-Qina^”, he said: The shaykh- meaning Ibn Taymiyah- said: By the agreement of the a’immah, it is prohibited to perform Tawaf around other than al-Bayt-ul-^Atiq (al-Ka^bah), then he said: They agreed that he does not kiss it or rub his body with it; it is of the shirk. He said: Allah does not forgive the shirk even if it was the smaller shirk.  This is the statement which al-Buhutiyy reported about him.  In the folds of these words is accusing Abu Ayyub al-‘Ansariyy, about whom it was confirmed that he placed his forehead on the grave of the Prophet, of kufr.  Marwan Ibn al-Hakam saw him and held his neck.  Abu Ayyub turned his face towards him. Marwan went away.  Abu Ayyub said: I did not come to the stone. I came to the Messenger of Allah.  I heard the Messenger of Allah say: Do not weep for al-‘Islam if the qualified people were in charge, but weep for it if it was under the charge of the unqualified.  Al-Hakim related it in “al-Mustadrak” and said it is sahih.  Ath-Thahabiyy agreed to his authentication. If putting the face on the grave was not objected to by any of the Companions, what would Ibn Taymiyah say?  Would he accuse Abu Ayyub of kufr or what would he do? Then what would he do with the statement of Imam Ahmad reported by his son ^Abdullah, which was mentioned previously in other than this article, that he said about kissing and touching the minbar and grave of the Prophet seeking the blessing and a better status from Allah: No objection to that.

Al-Buhutiyy said in “Kashshaf-ul-Qina^”: Ibrahim al-Harbiyy said: It is mustahabb (liked) to kiss the chamber of the Prophet, sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam.  Then al-Buhutiyy said: No objection to one’s touching it (the grave) with one’s hand.

Then he reported the words of Ibn Taymiyah: Rubbing one’s body with, performing Salah at, and going to the grave (of the Prophet) believing that performing du^a’ there is better than elsewhere, or committing a nathr (oath) for it or the like, the shaykh -meaning Ibn Taymiyah- said: This is not of the Religion of the Muslims, but is of what has been initiated of the ugly innovations which are of the branches of shirk. In “al-‘Ikhtiyarat”, Ibn Taymiyah said: The Salaf and a’immah agreed that whoever says salam to the Prophet or other prophets and righteous people does not rub his body with the grave or kiss it. They agreed that he does not hold or kiss except the Black Stone. The Yamaniyy Rukn is held, but correctly is not kissed. Then in response to Ibn Taymiyah, al-Buhutiyy said: I said: But Ibrahim al-Harbiyy said: It is mustahabb (liked) to kiss the chamber of the Prophet. Al-Buhutiyy is a Hanbaliyy (follower of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal), but when he knew of the incorrectness of Ibn Taymiyah’s words, he repelled his words, thereby refuting Ibn Taymiyah’s claim about the agreement of the Salaf to prohibit the kissing of the grave.  He did not catch Ibn Taymiyah; he died after the year 1000 A.H.

In “Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah”: Abu Bakr- meaning Ibn Abi Shaybah- told us; he said: Zayd Ibn Habbab told us; he said: Abu Mawdudah told me; he said: Yazid Ibn ^Abd-il-Malik Ibn Qasit told me; he said: I saw a group of the Companions of the Prophet if the Masjid was free for them, they stood up and went to the free rummanah (knob) of the minbar, rubbed it, and made du^a’. He said: and I saw Yazid do that.

Some followers of Ibn Hanbal, like Abul-Faraj Ibn al-Jawziyy and his Shaykh Ibn ^Aqil declared that it is makruh (disliked) to go to the grave for du^a’.  However, they did not prohibit it.  No one of the Salaf and Khalaf prohibited it.  What was cited about some scholars is the karahah (disliking) and not the tahrim (prohibiting).  However, Ibn Taymiyah’s pen trespassed the limits; he deviated from the truth to accusing the Muslims of kufr for that.  Whoever tracked the biographies of the muhaddithun and ^ulama’ finds in a lot of them that a fulan of the scholars of Hadith or the righteous was buried in a certain town; he is visited and the du^a’ is fulfilled there.  Among that is what Hafiz Ibn ^Asakir mentioned in the biography of Hafiz ^Abd-ul-Ghafir Ibn Isma^il al-Farisiyy.  He said: He was buried in Naysabur and his grave is visited and the du^a’ is fulfilled there.  It was mentioned previously that Ibrahim al-Harbiyy said:: The grave of Ma^ruf is the tested antidote.  This was mentioned in “Tarikh Baghdad” by Hafiz al-Baghdadiyy. In his book “al-Hisn-ul-Hasin” and its summary “^Uddat-ul-Hisn-il-Hasin”, Hafiz, Muhaddith, the Shaykh of the Qurra’ (Reciters of al-Qur’an) Shams-ud-Din Ibn al-Jazariyy mentioned that the graves of the righteous are among the places of having the du^a’ fulfilled.  He came after Ibn Taymiyah and was a study mate of Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-^Asqalaniyy.

How does Ibn Taymiyah rule that this matter, which is mutawatir [A mutawatir Hadith is one related by a large number of Muslims in a way which was impossible for them to have agreed to lie about it, from the beginning of the chain of relators to the end. They have seen or heard what they related and it was true, i.e., not misconstrued.  (The number of mutawatir Ahadith is around fifty.)] among the Muslims, is shirk. Praise to You Allah; this is a foul fabrication.

By this, it is clear that Ibn Taymiyah attributed the opinion of his which he desires to the a’immah and claimed their agreement upon it without any proof. Let this be known to those who took Ibn Taymiyah’s saying and ruled with kufr upon those who visited the grave of the Messenger and others for performing du^a’ there, that visiting the grave with this intention is shirk.  Let them be warned against it and let them quit the blind imitation.  The truth of the matter is what as-Subkiyy said: It is preferred to perform the tawassul by the Prophet and no one of the Salaf or Khalaf objected to it, except Ibn Taymiyah; he said what no scholar before him had said.

Their citation of ^Umar’s cutting the tree of Bay^at-ur-Ridwan to support their prohibiting the tabarruk by the graves of the anbiya’ and salihin is of no value. It is interpreted as that ^Umar was worried that there will come a time when people would worship the tree. He did not mean to prohibit the tabarruk with the traces of the Messenger.  Had it been like what they thought, his son ^Abdullah would not have come to the tree of samur, under which the Messenger used to sit, seeking the tabarruk. He used to water it so that it does not dry out. Ibn Hibban related it and said it is sahih. There is no doubt that ^Abdullah understood his father’s biography more than Ibn Taymiyah and his followers did.

We challenge whoever is fanatic about Ibn Taymiyah to bring forth a sahih report from the Salaf or Khalaf prohibiting visiting the grave of the Prophet for tabarruk or the tawassul by him in his life or after his death. They will not find it. That is why Ibn Kathir disagreed with his shaykh Ibn Taymiyah in the issue of tawassul. However, he followed him in the issue of divorce and was tortured for that.  Ibn Kathir declared in his Tafsir with the liking of tawassul by the Prophet after his death and asking help by him. He mentioned it in his history book “al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah” in the biography of ^Umar Ibn al-Khattab.

As for their prohibiting the travel to visit the grave of the Prophet, inferrring from the Hadith [related by al-Bukhariyy]: There is no extra merit in packing luggage except to three masajid (mosques): al-Masjid-ul-Haram, al-Masjid-ul-‘Aqsa, and my Masjid (Masjid-ur-Rasul), the answer is the following: No one of the Salaf understood what Ibn Taymiyah understood. Visiting the grave of the Messenger is sunnah whether with or without traveling as for the residents of al-Madinah.  The Hanabilah stated, as others did, that the visit to the grave of the Prophet is sunnah, whether or not one meant to do it with traveling.

The meaning of the Hadith which the Salaf and Khalaf understood is: There is no extra merit in traveling to pray in a masjid except traveling to those three masajid, because the reward of Salah in them is multiplied up to 100,000 times in al-Masjid-ul-Haram, to 1000 times in Masjid-ur-Rasul, and to 500 times in al-Masjid-ul-‘Aqsa. What is meant by the Hadith is: The traveling to perform Salah.  This is shown by what Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal related in his “Musnad” from the route of Shahr Ibn Hawshab, from the marfu^ Hadith of Abu Sa^id: Animals should not be ridden to a masjid in which Salah is sought, except to al-Masjid-ul-Haram, al-Masjid-ul-Aqsa, and my Masjid (al-Masjid-un-Nabawiyy). Hafiz Ibn Hajar said that this Hadith is a hasan Hadith, and it shows the meaning of the previous Hadith.  Explaining the Hadith with another Hadith is better than the perversion of Ibn Taymiyah. In his Alfiyyah (Poem of about one-thousand lines) of the Mustalah of Hadith, al-^Iraqiyy said: The best way to explain a text (ayah or Hadith) is by another text (ayah or Hadith).

What felled Ibn Taymiyah in this perversion is his ill-understanding.  He is as Hafiz Waliyy-ud-Din al-^Iraqiyy said about him: His knowledge is greater than his mind.  He mentioned that in his book “Al-‘Ajwibat-ul-Mardiyyah ^alal-‘As’ilat-il-Makkiyyah”, which was mentioned previously.