Proposing to a women who prays hut doesn’t cover in hopes of changing her .

Question:

Is it permissible to propose to a woman who prays but does not cover (i.e. she is Mutabarrijah), intending to compel her to wear the Jilbaab after marriage? What is your advice?

Answer:

All the praise is for Allaah the Lord of all that exists. May prayers and peace be upon he whom Allaah sent as a mercy to the creation; upon his family members and companions and his brethren until the Day of Recompense. As to proceed:

It is befitting that the prayer should be a reason for the uprightness of the individual. The Prophet said:

“The first thing which the servant will be called to account for on the Day of Standing is the prayer. If it is sound then the rest of his actions will be sound; if it is corrupt then the rest of his actions will be corrupt.” [1]

The one whom his prayer does not prevent him from lewdness (Al-Fahshaa’) and evil acts (Al-Munkar) then his actions will be deficient. And from Al-Fahshaa’ is At-Tabarruj (not covering or not covering properly). Allaah the Glorified and High has commanded the people to not display their ‘Awraah:

O Children of Adam! Take your adornment (by wearing your clean clothes), while praying. (Al-A’raf 7:31)

And He said:

O Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover yourselves (screen your private parts, etc.) and as an adornment, and the raiment of righteousness, that is better. Such are among the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allaah, that they may remember (i.e. leave falsehood and follow truth). O Children of Adam! Let not Shaytaan (Satan) deceive you, as he got your parents [Adam and Hawwa (Eve)] out of Paradise, stripping them of their raiment, to show them their private parts. Verily, he and Qabîluhu (his soldiers from the Jinn or his tribe) see you from where you cannot see them. Verily, We made the Shayaateen (devils) Auliyâ’ (protectors and helpers) for those who believe not. And when they commit a Fâhisha (evil deed, going round the Ka’bah in naked state, every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, etc.), they say: “We found our fathers doing it, and Allaah has commanded us of it.” Say: “Nay, Allaah never commands of Fâhisha. Do you say of Allaah what you know not? (Al-A’raf 7:26-28)

In the pre-Islamic days of ignorance they would make Tawaaf (around the Ka’bah) naked. So nakedness and uncovering enters into the general meaning of Faahishah. Allaah has commanded the women to cover.

He said:

And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance. (Al-Ahzaab 33:33)

And He, the Most High has said:

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies. (Al-Ahzaab 33:59)

So if this woman does not comply with the legislative texts commanding to cover and she is not reformed by her prayer to abandon Al-Fahshaa’ (lewdness i.e. not covering) and Munkar (evil), then we do not advise proposing to her. We have no doubt that after the man marries her it will be difficult for him to change her to the path that he sees as correct. The scholars have confirmed the principle: Repelling (evil) takes precedence over elevating (the status of someone etc.). Also because leaving (marrying) her today is better than marrying her then divorcing her or seeking annulment (tomorrow) because she won’t comply with his command. More evil that is that which is feared; that he will come to be in agreement with her desires and fall into sharing (in her sin) and be affected by her Fitnah, then become pleased with the Munkar after it becomes something which he deems to be good; and Allaah is beseeched for help.

And the knowledge is with Allaah. The last of our supplications is: All the praise is for Allaah, and may prayers and peace from Allaah be upon Muhammad, his family, companions, and all those who follow them in goodness until the Day of Recompense.

Footnotes:

[1] At-Tabaraanee in Al-Mu’jam Al-Awsat no. 1929; Ad-Diyaa’ Fee Al-Mukhtaar 2/209, from the Hadeeth of Anas ibn Maalik, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Albaanee graded it as Saheeh in As-Silsilah As-Saheehah no. 1358 and in Saheeh Al-Jaami’ no. 2573

Translated By: Raha ibn Donald Batts
Source: http://www.sahab.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=134204

Posted from WordPress for Android

Ruling on wiping over the Kaabah (to seek blessings) Sheikh Saalih AlFawzan

Question:

Ahsanal-Laahu ilaykum. Another questioner says: “Is the du’aa (supplication) in front of the Ka’bah from the places where du’aa is accepted? And what is the ruling on holding and wiping over the covering of the Ka’bah?”

Answer:

Holding and wiping over the covering or the stones of the Ka’bah has no basis [in the religion]. Nothing from the Ka’bah is touched except ar-Rukn al-Yamaanee (the Yemeni Corner) and al-Hajar al-Aswad (the Black Stone); this is touched and the Yemeni Corner is only touched. And the Black Stone is touched and is kissed if possible, or [only] touched or pointed to from far away if he faces it. As for the rest of the Ka’bah, then he should not wipe over or attach himself to anything of it, nor to its door. This is from the khuraafaat (myths or superstitions). Rather, the Ka’bah serves to make Tawaaf around it, to pray towards it and to supplicate near it, without attaching oneself to it or to its covering. He supplicates near it, especially in al-Multazam; what is between the Corner and the door or between the Black Stone and the door. He stands there and supplicates. This is a place where the du’aa is accepted, if Allaah — subhaanahu wa ta’aala — wills and if the supplicating person has a sincere intention. Na’am.

Watch the Video with English Subtitles @ http://wp.me/p2sNCV-1uv

A-The Orthodox Creed – al-Saffarini

A Study of al-Durra al-Mudhiyya fi ‘Aqidat al-Firqa al-Mardhiyya
(The Luminous Pearl on the Doctrine of Pleasure-endowed Sect)
By al-’Allama al-Shaykh Muhammad al-Saffarini al-Hanbali

Allah praise be to Allah, who gifted us to Islam and guided us to the path of His Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam. Surely, without His guidance we would be in complete loss.
May the peace and the blessings of Allah be upon the Prophet, His companions, His family and all those who followed them in righteousness until the Day of Judgement.

Introduction

Before we begin, it is very important to answer an elementary question, and that is: what exactly is Orthodoxy in Islam and how is it determined?

A simple answer would be the answer of the Prophet SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam about the saved sect, that they are upon what the Prophet and his companions were upon.
This is one of the easiest methods of examining the claims of various groups claiming for themselves orthodoxy. For example, it is easy for one to have a brief look at the Mu’tazilite beliefs and realize that it takes root in Greek philosophy and not in the Sunnah.

However, this simplicity sometimes does not work, especially when, for example, certain heretical sects claim a large number of following for themselves, attribute themselves to one or more of the four orthodox schools of Law (fiqh), and in the due course, distorting history in their favour.

This is when it becomes important for a person to know the historical roots and circumstances of each of these sects to be able to discern their claim to orthodoxy.
Currently, since there are two main camps in the Muslim world, the Salafis and the Ash’aris, each of them laying claims to orthodoxy, it is important to briefly mention their history, tracing their roots to their respective origins, and thereby establishing whose claim to orthodoxy is more worthy than the other.

Historical Background

In the beginning of Islam, the Quran and the Sunnah was the ultimate source of Islamic thought on all aspects of human life. Just as fiqh was deeply rooted in, and based on the two legal sources, the Qur’an and the Sunnah, theology too was based on the very same sources without any external influence. This approach was represented by the bulk of the Prophet’s Companions and their successors, who formed to constitute what we know and refer to today as: traditionalism.

The first Islamic century witnessed the emergence of heretical sects such as the Khawarij, the Shi’ah and the Qadariyya (‘Free-Willers’), and the Jahmites, the followers of al-Jahm b. Safwan.

The second Islamic century witnessed the emergence of the Mu’tazilites, under the leadership of Wasil b. ‘Ata. The common story often quoted in the heresiographical works is that during the confusion caused on the status of a sinful person in Islam due to the Khawarij, who expelled one from Islam due to sins, and the Murji’ah, who argued that sins do not affect one’s faith; a person came to al-Hasan al-Basri to enquire about the orthodox position on a sinful person, is he or is he not a Muslim?

Before al-Hasan al-Basri could reply, Wasil b. ‘Ata interjected and claimed: ‘Such a person is not a believer, nor a disbeliever, rather he is of ‘an intermediate rank between the two ranks (of faith and disbelief)’ (al-manzila bayna al-manzilatayn)’ Thus, he was expelled by al-Hasan al-Basri from his gatherings. Wasil b. ‘Ata then began having his own gatherings at a corner of the same Masjid, which prompted al-Hasan al-Basri to say: la qad i’tazalana Wasil (Wasil has withdrawn from us), and were therefore known as the Mu’tazila (lit. those who withdraw).

The Mu’tazili movement marked the emergence of the rationalist movement in Islam for their use of Greek Philosophy, which became known amongst the Salaf as ‘Ilm al-Kalam, and received violent attacks. Thus, there appeared two main theological camps amongst the Muslims, the traditionalist camp that represented the Salafi school, and the rationalist camp that represented advocates of Greek philosophy and rationalism.

The rationalist movement received fierce criticisms from the Salaf for its disregard for the traditions in favour of reason. The movement, however, spearheaded by the Mu’tazilites, did eventually rise to power for two main reasons:

1) They managed to gain acceptance and legitimacy for themselves by adhering to the Hanafi school in fiqh, and thereby, acquiring official posts as judges in Islamic courts. It was much easier for them to join the Hanafi school than the rest due to the school’s inclination to rationalism; whereas the rest of the scholars were ardent followers of the Ahl al-Hadeeth movement, who were always at odds with the Ahl al-Ra’y for their vigorous use of Qiyas, making it impossible for the Mu’tazilites to infiltrate their ranks. It is noteworthy that even amongst the Hanafi school, despite of their struggle, the Mu’tazilites did not receive approval.

2) Their good connections with the ruling ‘Abbasid Caliphate always placed them in a favourable position. For instance, the Mu’tazilite leader, ‘Amr b. ‘Ubayd was a close friend of the ‘Abbasid Caliph Abu Ja’far al-Mansur; Abul-Hudhayl al-’Allaf was the teacher of the Caliph Ma’mun who instigated the period of Mihna of the creation of the Quran against Ahl al-Sunnah; al-Nadham had good relationship with Muhammad b. ‘Ali, one of the ministers under the ‘Abbasid Caliphate; and finally, Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad, the Hanafite jurist was a supreme judge for Caliph al-Mu’tasim.
Hence, the Mu’tazilites were able to influence the Caliphate in instigating an inquisition against Ahl al-Sunnah through out the land, which resulted in scores of scholars acknowledging the creation of the Quran under duress, while the prisons became over crowded with those who refused. The mosques in Egyp had inscriptions written on them: There is no God but Allah, the Lord of the Created Quran.

This period was very critical for it posed a real threat to the very survival of the traditionalist movement, and it was only due to the staunch and heroic resistance demonstrated by Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, that the traditionalist movement won the day, and hence, he was to be known as the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah.

After this humiliating defeat, the rationalist movement began to lose ground and respect amongst the commoners, neither did it enjoy the support it once had prior to Caliph al-Mutawakkil who restored the traditionalist status.
At the same time, there appeared those who sought to reconcile between the traditionalist and the rationalist movement, and that was by championing the traditionalist cause, using the rationalist weaponry.

The first to start this trend was Ibn Kullab. However, his attempt was rendered a failure since Imam Ahmad issued a decree of boycott against him for practising Kalam. Such was also the case with some of the early ascetics and Sufis like al-Muhasibi, who used to have large gatherings of sermons. It only needed one statement from Imam Ahmad to diminish al-Muhasibi’s status, which caused him to die in exile with only a hand full to pray over his funeral. Such was the strength of the traditionalist movement, and the insignificance of the rationalist movement.
Ibn Kullab’s efforts, however, did not go in vain, for there appeared Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari who revived the attempt of reconciling between traditionalism and rationalism.

Abul-Hasan al-Ash’ari was brought up in a prominent Mu’tazilite household under the care of an eminent Mu’tazilite theologian Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i. For forty long years he was nourished on the Mu’tazilite version of Greek philosophy and negative theology, which obviously were to have a lasting effect on his thought.

As to why exactly al-Ash’ari left Mu’tazilism remains obscure, but it is noteworthy that by this stage, the Mu’tazilites were rapidly losing ground, and neither did they enjoy the popular support as did the traditionalist. Perhaps, this could be one of the reasons for al-Ash’ari making a sudden U-turn after forty years, and turning against the rationalist movement.

Al-Ash’aris efforts, like that of Ibn Kullab were also destined to go in vain, at least for a century, for the traditionalist viewed al-Ash’ari with much suspicion, especially for indulging in Kalam. In this regard, al-Ash’ari wrote his final work called al-Ibana and presented it to al-Barbahari al-Hanbali, the leading traditionalist of his time, but the latter rejected it point blank.

After the demise of al-Ash’ari, there remained a few number of scholars who adhered to the Ash’ari school, yet they, far from being prominent, were constantly attacked every now and then by the scholars of the four schools, and often cursed publicly on the pulpits, precisely for employing Kalam in theology. The famous creed authored by the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-Qadir was written and publicly read to endorse the traditionalist beliefs and attack the rationalist movement, including the Mu’tazilites and the Ash’arites.

It was only in the 5th Islamic century when the Nidham al-Mulk, a vizier who favoured the Shafi’is and the Ash’aris, took control and established a network of colleges that became known after him as Nidhamiyya Colleges, that the Ash’arites were finally able to breath and propagate their rationalism freely. A sudden influx of power for the neo-rationalist movement caused many riots in Baghdad between the traditionalist and the rationalists, now being represented by the Ash’arites.

The reason why the Nidhamiyya Colleges worked so well in favour of Ash’arism, is that Nidham al-Mulk had stipulated conditions, making the fiqh lessons to be exclusively Shafi’i. This was a perfect opportunity for the Ash’arites to convince their co-madhabists from the Shafi’i school of Ash’arism. However, their efforts failed due to the opposition they received from the traditionalist Shafi’is, and hence the Ash’ari struggle for recognition moved to Damascus.

In Damascus there appeared two main Ash’arite propagandists, one before Ibn Taymiyya, and the other after. The first one being Ibn ‘Asakir al-Dimashqi, and the other being al-Subki.

Ibn ‘Asakir also made an attempt to gain approval for Ash’arite rationalism from his Shafi’i colleagues, and to this end he wrote his famous defence of Ash’arism called: Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari. In this book he presents a laudatory biography of al-Ash’ari, then lists more than 80 Ash’arite theologians, and finally ends with a section dealing with problematic reports from al-Shafi’i in particular concerning the censure of Kalam. Here, Ibn ‘Asakir is obviously addresses his colleagues from the Shafi’i school and tries convince them that Shafi’i only opposed the Kalam used by the Qadariyya, and not the science of Kalam itself as used by the Ash’arite Mutakallims. This effort by Ibn ‘Asakir was also destined to fail, for the bulk of the Shafi’is remained faithful to traditionalism.

After Ibn ‘Asakir, it was time for Ibn Taymiyya to rock the very foundations of the Ash’ari world, and champion the cause of the traditionalist movement, which was to have a lasting affect for centuries to come. If, on one hand, Shafi’is had Madhab based colleges that were restricted to Shafi’ism, thereby facilitating for the Ash’aris to win approval of their co-Madhabists; there were, on the other hand, Dar al-Hadeeth or Colleges for Traditionist studies that were not restricted to a school of fiqh, and therefore, were attended by followers of the four schools.

This is where Ibn Taymiyya played a pivotal role for he was a professor at Dar al-Hadeeth, where he had access to Shafi’i students such as al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir, al-Mizzi and others. This strengthened the bond between the traditionalist amongst the Shafi’is and the Hanbalis, against their common rationalist enemy, the Ash’arites.
Ibn Taymiyya’s everlasting influence on the Shafi’i traditionalists became an enormous obstacle for the latter Ash’arite propagandists such as al-Subki. Yet, al-Subki was well equipped to take up the challenge, which he did by writing his biographical masterpiece on the Shafi’i scholars, which he called Tabaqat al-Shafi’iyya. This work, like Tabyin of Ibn ‘Asakir, was also aimed at the Shafi’i colleagues, but it was a more clever attempt by far.
Unlike Ibn ‘Asakir’s book title which made a clear reference to al-Ash’ari, al-Subki’s work title was very subtle and therefore appealing to all Shafi’is. In this work, al-Subki’s major obstacles were not the traditionalists foreign to his school, but rather they were the traditionalists from his own school. To this end, he did not spare an opportunity to discredit al-Dhahabi’s status as a great Shafi’i, by attacking him and describing him as a Hanbalite-Hashawite sympathiser.

However, al-Subki’s attacks on al-Dhahabi eventually fired back at him, for the latter Shafi’is did not view these attacks in good light, and often mention in their biographical notes, how kind al-Dhahabi was to his student al-Subki, implying thereby that al-Subki returned his own teacher’s kindness with rebuke. After al-Subki, there were no significant attempts to gain acceptance on part of the Ash’arites, for thereafter, the Shafi’ies kept producing the mutakallims, as well as the traditionists like Ibn Hajr who were often antagonistic to the Mutakallmimun.
Hence, the traditionalists efforts have always been geared it keeping the rationalist Ash’arites out of orthodoxy, whereas the Ash’arite rationalist effort has always focused on gaining acceptance and an entry to orthodoxy.
This shows that Ash’arite claim to orthodoxy is not a matter of dispute amongst the Hanbalis and the Ash’arites alone, rather the Shafi’i school itself was divided as to its legitimacy. Imam Ahmad, on the other hand, was recognised as the ultimate champion of Sunnah, by the traditionalists from the Hanbalis and the Shafi’is without doubt, and by the Ash’arites with concealed hesitance. This is clear from al-Ash’ari’s attempt to gain legitimacy by claiming to be a follower of Imam Ahmad in al-Ibana.

Such a brief look at history helps us define orthodoxy and further identify who have more right to lay claim to orthodoxy, and whether or not Ash’arite claim to orthodoxy has any weight.

Study In Umm Al Qura

Study in Umm Al Qura

http://www.bakkah.net/studying/ummalquraa.htm

Explanation of the Four Rules Regarding Shirk – Shaykh Sālih bin Muhammad Al-Luhaydān [Video|Ar-En Subtitles]

Explanation of the Four Rules Regarding Shirk
Of Imām Muhammad bin ‘Abdul-Wahāb
By Shaykh Sālih bin Muhammad Al-Luhaydān
Translation adapted from Al-Ibaanah Book Publishing

شرح القواعد الأربع
الإسلام محمد بن عبد الوهاب
الشيخ صالح بن محمد اللحيدان

III – Tawassul – Detailed Look at the Narration of Malik al-Dar

Bismillah, wal-hamdulillah was-salatu was-salamu ‘ala Rasulillah.
The incident mentioned in the narration of Malik al Dar happened during the Khilafah of Umar radiyallahu anhu, during the time of drought, and so did the incident of Umar bin al Khattab’s (radiyallahu anhu) tawassul through the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) uncle, Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
I have come across many discussions in regards to this narration, and all of them were concentrating on the “authenticity” of the narration, discussing its chain.
But I have not come across any discussions on the text of the hadith itself, the story,
except for some quotes here and there from some current shaikhs, sited in ahl alhadith forum, and those 2 or 3 points mentioned by those shaikhs led me to research the story of the hadith in classical books of past scholars, and I have found it very interesting and informative.
The things I discovered and read show a totally different understanding of the hadith, than what is understood by many Muslims today including some scholars, it only needs for one to go deep and see where the scholars of the past quoted the narration, in which chapter and what they said before quoting it to understand the real meaning of the hadith.
I will go straight to the points that I have regarding the text and story of this narration of Malik al Dar. After that I will mention some logical arguments in reply to the ones who use this narration as evidence for tawasul that is “asking the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to make duaa to Allah for us AFTER HIS DEATH.
The text of the narration:

It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar’s treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the time of `Umar (his khilafah), whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!””
Scholars’ understanding of this narration
Hafidh Ibn Hajar al Asqalani -rahimahu Allah- in his books “Fath al Bari” (vol 3 pg. 441):
He sites it in chapter “The people asking the Imam to do istisqa’ in times of drought,” in the chapter heading section, in which he quotes ahadith that have relevance to the chapter heading, and that connect it with hadiths that come under that chapter.
Amongst those narrations he mentions the narration of Malik al Dar, and he only quotes part of the narration, he stops at “go to Umar”. He used this as evidence that people ask the imam to do istisqa (ask for rain) for them in times of drought.
He didn’t mention the rest of the hadith because it has nothing to do with the chapter heading, he only quoted what he believed fits the chapters title, for he says at the end of the section, after mentioning this narration:

“From all of this appears the relevance of the chapter heading to the origin of this story“
so, al Hafidh Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah understood from this hadith that the Prophetsallallahu alayhi wa sallam was directing the man to go ask the Imam, during that time (Umar radiyallahu anhu), to do istisqa’ for them.
Hafidh Ibn Kathir -rahimahu Allah-:

He sites it in his book “al Bidayah wan Nihaya ” (vol7 pg.104 ), in which he mentions some narrations, right before he mentions Malik ad Dar’s narration, which explain the meaning of the narration.
The narrations before it are by Sayf Ibn Umar, and in them is the mentioning of Umar radiyallahu anhu, after hearing about the man’s dream (who is said to be Bilal al Harith), asking the people on the minbar if they have seen anything bad from him, and then he tells them about the dream that Bilal saw, so they told him:
“Bilal has spoken the truth, so make istiqatha (seek or ask for help) to Allah, then the Muslims”. So then Umar radiyallahu anhu does istisqa’ through al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.

In the second narration, they said “he found you slow in doing istisqa’, so do istisqa’ for us“, so he did.
(Note: these 2 narrations could be weak, but the point is that al Hafidh Ibn Kathir rahimahu Allah mentioned them right before the narration of Malik, showing what it is about, which shows what he understood it to mean, same as what Ibn Hajar (r A) understood from it).
Shihab adDeen Abdur Rahman bin Askar al Baghdadi al Maliki (d. 732) in his book “Irshad as-Salik ila Ashraf al Masalik fi fiqh al Imam Malik“:
He sited it in chapter of (istisqa’ – asking for rain), in which he said (before siting the narration of Malik al Dar):

“And it is recommended to do istishfa’ (intercession) through righteous/pious people, and ahl al bayt”
Then he quotes the narration that is in sahih al Bukhari, the tawassul of Umar through al Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma), and right after it he says “and Ibn Abi Shayba narrated”, and quotes Malik ad Dar’s narration.
This clearly shows that he used the narration of Malik as evidence for “doing istishfa’ through ahl al bayt”, for al Abbas ra was the uncle f the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the dream the man saw, was guiding him to ask Umar to do istisqa’ for the people, in which he did, through al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
Ala’ ad Deen Ali al Mutaqi al Hindi al Burhan Furi (d. 975) in his book “Kanz al Ummal“:
He sites it in chapter of (salat al Istisqa’ – prayer for rain), and Umar radiyallahu anhu prayer salat al istisqa’ when he made tawassul through Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu, thus both narrations are connected to each other, as shown in the previous points.
Conclusion: That the story of Malik al Dar’s narration is connected to the hadith about Umar’s tawassul through al Abbas, all leading to doing istisqa’ through the living, and not through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death.

Narrations with an addition.
There are narrations of the same story, with an addition, if they are authentic (the authenticiy is not known to me so far), they would give very strong support to the understanding of the above scholars.
and it also shows what the scholars who sited the narrations believed the narration to mean.

Imam Ibn Abd al Bar al Maliki in his book “al Isti’ab fi ma’rifat al As-hab”:

The people suffered a drought during the time of ‘Umar (his khilafah), whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and said:”O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished,” after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: “Go to ‘Umar and tell him to do istisqa’ (ask Allah for rain) for the people, and that they will be watered. And tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” So, the man went and told ‘Umar, and Umar cried and said “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”

Ahmad Abdullah at Tabari (d. 694 ) in his book “ar Riyadh an Nadhirah fi Manaqib al Ashara”:

Anas bin Malik narrated:
The people suffered drought during Umar’s time, whereupon a man came to teh grave of the Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and said: “O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your community, for verily they have but perished,”, he said so the Messenger of Allah came to him in a dream and told him “Go to ‘Umar then tell him to do istisqa’ (ask Allah for rain) for the people, and that they will be watered. And tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!” So, the man went and told ‘Umar, and Umar cried and said “O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!”. narrated by al Baghawi in al fada’il and Abu Umar.
Logical Arguments

The ones who use this hadith for this type of tawassul say that Umar radiyallahu anhu did not rebuke the man who did istisqa’ at the grave.
Reply: There is no clear evidence in the hadith indicating that the man told Umar of him going to the grave, but clearly he did tell him of the dream, telling him the message of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
so to say that he told him about his istisqa’ at the grave is an assumption, and we can’t use assumptions as evidence.

It didn’t rain until after Umar radiyallahu anhu made istisqa’ by al Abbas radiyallahu anhum.
If the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was capable or had permission to do du’aa to Allah after his death, when asked by others, then it would have rained immediately after the man asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam at his grave, but it didn’t until after Umar’s istisqa’ through the duaa of Al Abbas radiyallahu anhu.
This shows that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, was guiding the man to ask the Umar to do istisqa’ and not him, hinting to Umar by saying to him “be clever!“, and when Umar did istisqa’ by al Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma) it immediately rained..

If going to the grave of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to ask him to make duaa to Allah was permissable, Umar radiyallahu anhu would have done that when wanting to do istisqa’ instead of doing it through the uncle of the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, who was alive, and Umar’s (r.a) saying “we used to make tawassul through your Prophet’s duaa, and now we do tawassul through the uncle of your Prophet…”, indicates that they don’t make tawassul through the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) duaa after his death, and only when he was alive, or else why would he say “we used to”?

If what the man did (wether it was Bilal ibn al Harith radiyallahu anhu or someone else) was correct\permissable, then:

Why didn’t any of the scholars I quoted mention the narration in a chapter titled (tawassul by the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) or some title indicating that the narration is EVIDENCE for permissibility of that type of tawassul?
Instead they title the chapter in which the narration is in (salat al istisqa’- the man didn’t do salat al Istisqa’ at the grave, only did duaa, while Umar rA did salat al istisqa) , (The people asking the Imam to do istisqa’ in times of drought), he didn’t say “intercession through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam”, wouldn’t it be more important to point out the permissibility of tawassul through the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death, which is stronger than doing tawassul through the righteous and ahl al bayt?
Instead they ignored that part , showing no importance to it at all.
So if they believed that the narration indicates the permissibility of such a tawassul, why didn’t they at least hint to it by the chapter title or a comment like they did to show that it meant to do intercession through saliheen and ahl al bayt, and ask the imam to do istisqa?

What was the point of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam telling Umar r.A “be clever“?

If the man told Umar that he went to the grave, and then told him about the dream, why would Umar do salat al istisqa’ when the man already asked the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to do istisqa’ and he told him that they will be watered?
Isn’t the istisqa’ of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam sufficient?

If the action of the man was correct (to ask the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to do istisqa), and the Prophet S.A.W answered his request, then why didn’t it rain immediately after the dream, and instead came down immediately after al Abbas’s (radiyallahu anhu) duaa?
Who is higher in status, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or his uncle?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 438 other followers

%d bloggers like this: