Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Side Comments on al-Taqiyya

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

A Wahhabi contributor mentiond:

Taqqiyah means to pretend by doing or saying exactly the opposite of what you believe or feel

Not a correct definition. It does not necessarily have to be in exact opposite, though it might be so in some cases. al-Taqiyya is primarily concealing the belief. You might want to refresh your memory by reading my original article in which I mentioned the definition of al-Taqiyya as

"Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings,opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury."

e.g. to pretend to be nice while cursing the person in the heart without a present danger (al-Kafi fi alFrua’, Vol. 3, pp. 188-9).

Again you are scrupulously quoting from a 33-page booklet written by "Saeed Ismaeel". The minimum amount of decency requires you to mention this since you did not directly looked up the above tradition. I doubt even Saeed Ismaeel (your mentor) has also touched al-Kafi. He got them from the books of "Ihsan Ilahi Zahir”and "Muhammad Manzoor Nomani", etc. I have read the books of these individuals from cover to cover. What I have found was malicious misquotations or quoting the traditions out of context. Sometimes they do not even bother themselves to quote the tradition (even partially) similar to above.

We do not have any authentic tradition which sates you may apply al-Taqiyya without present or future danger. If you think otherwise, please quote a tradition which explicitly states the above. These are all interpretation of your mentors from the traditions. No tradition explicitly states as such.

The danger might be present of later in time. Also the danger might be for oneself our for another person related to you. As such, the Imam may conceal some information from his own followers, if he knows that if they do that they will be trapped into the hand of officials.

In fact, I have seen some Wahhabis, to mock Shi’a in the concept of Taqiyya, refer to a tradition in Usul Kafi and partially quote it out of context in order to misrepresent the concept of Taqiyya for the Sunni brothers. The correct translation of the tradition that they refer to, is as follows:

Usul Kafi, Tradition #195:

Zurarah said: I asked Abu Ja’far (as) a question, for which the Imam gave me an answer. Afterwards another person came to the Imam and asked him the same question but Imam gave him a different answer.

Again, a third person came and asked Imam the same question to which Imam gave an answer which was still different from mine and the second person. When the two had left, I asked "O son of Prophet, two of your followers from Iraq asked you a question and you gave them two different answers.”Hearing this, the Imam replied, "O Zurarah, these different answers are in our own interests and they contribute to the stability of both (me and my followers). (In such severe moments) if all of you present a unite stand, it will enable the people (opponents and rulers) to verify the allegiance of yours to us and this will endanger and shorten the life of you (Shi’ites) as well as the life of ours."

I have seen these Wahhabis that they quote the first part of the tradition and drop the explanation of Imam to show that Imam applied al-Taqiyya two his own followers with no reason. From the tradition, it is not clear what exactly the question of those followers was. However the clarification of the Imam at the end implies that the question was related to some social and political actions which were planted by the ruler of the time in order to identify and trap the Shi’ites. This is exactly what al-Taqiyya is used for. Note that the Imam is emphasizing that he is preserving the life of his followers as well as the Ahlul-Bayt.

Another example is explained by another tradition where the Imam attended the funeral prayer of one of the officials who was a hypocrite form Umayad Government, in order to fool the authorities which would cause to decrease the prosecution of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers. These kinds of diplomacies were widely used even by Prophet (S) himself.

Have you ever thought why Prophet applied al-Taqiyya and did not disclose his mission for the first three years of his prophethood? It was because, if he have done that, Islam would have been destroyed from the very beginning.

The specific purpose of Taqqiyah is the "preservation of Islam and the Shii school of thought; if the people had not resorted to it, our school of thought would have been destroyed"

If the Prophet applied al-Taqiyya for the first three years of his prophethood, and concealed his mission, then why not Shi’a do that to escape the prosecutions of so-called Islamic governors? Was the Prophet a coward? Or he wanted to preserve Islam from being destroyed?

Also let me give you another example from another prophet who concealed his belief. Qur’an states that: Moses (as) with the order of Allah, assigned Haroon (as) as his successor (Caliph) and left his people to him, to go to Miqaat (appointment with Allah) for a total of forty days. After leaving of Moses, all his companions (except very few) turned against Haroon, and were deceived by Sameri, and became worshipers of a golden calf. (See Qur’an 7:142, 20:90-97, 20:83-88).

When Moses (as) came back from Miqaat he was very angry since Allah had informed him that his community went astray during his absence. Moses came and started questioning his brother Haroon, that why he did not take action to prevent this corruption. Qur’an states that Haroon replied:

"(O’ Moses) people did oppress me and they were about to kill me.”(Qur’an 7:150).

If you believe in Haroon as a true prophet of God, you do not allow yourself to call him coward. Or do you think that Aaron was a Shi’a? In fact, he was a Shi’a (follower) of Prophet Moses (as). It was his duty to save his life, though it appears that Wahhabis think he should have killed himself.

As Ibn Taymiyyah said, the verse 3:28 about Taqiyyah is applicable in the case of a non-believer only under special cases, e.g., a Muslim cannot apply it against a Muslim.

A so-called Muslim who prosecute an innocent person, is not any better than a non-Muslim. If you look around the world, from Saudi Arabia, to Iraq, to Afghanistan,... the majority of those who prosecute Muslims call themselves Muslims too. If you look at the History also, they majority of Muslim rulers who called themselves Muslims and Khalifa, were oppressors and tyrant (like Umayad and Abbasid Caliphs). Are you suggesting that we should not safeguard our lives from those tyrants who label themselves as Muslims?

Moreover, by his above saying, Ibn Taymiyyah did not accept Sahih Muslim as authentic, or else Ibn Taymiyyah has rejected the testimony of Prophet (S). Even the Prophet (S) himself practiced al-Taqiyya in a manner of diplomacy that served to advance good relations among the people.

The tradition from Sahih Muslim which I mentioned in my article talks about Muslims. In the case that there is a dispute between two Muslims to such extent that it is considered as an eminent danger, and if nothing else works, it is permitted to twist the words in order to make the reconciliation. You see, there always exists a requirement of an eminent DANGER for al-Taqiyya. For instance, the danger of divorce for a Muslim couple who have a dispute. The commentary of the tradition talks about Muslims too.

Verse 16:106 is applicable only when a Muslim faces a situation smilar to a situation of the great Companion Ammar when he had to choose between dying under torture like his parents or pretending to be an unbeliever hy tongue These cases are not the basic rule but only exceptions

This a basic rule, otherwise Allah would not have mentioned it in Qur’an in a number of verses.

Could you ever trust a Muslim if this were the case?

If a Muslim is not in danger he should not apply al-Taqiyya, the same way that I do not apply al-Taqiyya behind this terminal. But if I were in a country like Saudi Arabia, then I would have practiced it.

If a person considers that Iying about Allah, His Prophet (pbuh) and the Muslims to serve his biased and misguided goals as an essential part of his bliefs, can we trust him? Surely not. But who said so?

The verse (3:28) is not only an exception but also a restricted exception. Not only is it forbidden to be used against Muslims but it also does not give permission to lie to others. What it means is that if you oppose certain behaviors and you are in a situation where condemnation would endanger Islam or Muslim community you can keep silent but you must avoid Iying. (ibn Taymiyah, Minhaj, Vol. p. 213 and ibn Kathir, Tafseer).

Again, the saying of your "clergymen”such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Kathir is clearly in contradiction with Qur’an where Allah stated:

"Any one who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion while his heart remaining firm in faith... (Qur’an 16:106)

As you see, Qur’an states "uttering unbelief". This does not mean keeping silent. Uttering means either saying or acting something in contrary to belief. What lie is bigger than uttering unbelief?

Also, if the most authentic Sunni collections of Hadith such as Sahih al- Bukhari and Sahih Muslim advocate al-Taqiyya, then why do Wahhabis insist to the contrary? Is this not a sign of pure hypocrisy by itself?

Khums (one Fifth)

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

We read in the Holy Qur’an:

Know that whatever of a thing you acquire, a fifth of it is for Allah, for the Messenger, for the near relative, and the orphans and the needy and they way farer (Qur’an 8:41)

Thus Khums (literally one fifth of gain) should go to six people:

1- Allah

2- His Messenger

3- The near relative of the Messenger (Ahlul-Bayt)

4- Orphan

5. needy

6. the person who has fallen away from his home-town (and has no money to comeback to his own place).

The portion of Allah goes to His Messenger to be spent for the path of Allah. After the Prophet passed away, and at the time of the first 11 Imams, the first 3 portions used to go to the Imam of Ahlul-Bayt to be spent in the path of Allah.

Now that we have no access to Imam Mahdi (as), a religious scholar will receive the first three portions (which will be half of total Khums) who will spend it on behalf of Allah, His Messenger, and his Ahlul-Bayt in the path of Allah (like spending it on the theological schools or any other things that they feel necessary in religious matters). also, if the scholar does not have any source of income and all his effort is for the religion, he can only spend a portion of what he receives as Khums for his ordinary expenses which could provide him an average or below average lifestyle. The scholar does NOT have to be the descendants of the Prophet (S) to be entitled to receive Khums.

As for the last three portions, it doesn’t go to a scholar. It can be directly spent on the needy people who should be, of course, the descendants of the Prophet (S). Note that it is forbidden to give Zakat (another religious tax which both Shi’a and Sunnis pay) and charity to the descendants of the Prophet. Thus Zakat revenues and charities go to those needy who are NOT the descendants of the prophet, while half of the Khums goes to those needy people who are the descendants of the Prophet.

One should also note that during the history of Islam till now, the descendants of the prophet were being prosecuted every where and were deprived of their rights. Also a minority among Muslims continue to pay Khums (i.e., only Shi’a follow this Sunnah of the Prophet). In other words, only 20% of all Muslims pay Khums which heavily decreases the amount of what the needy descendants of Prophet get from Khums (=20%”1/2”1/5=2%) when it is compared with the amount that needy people who are not the descendants of the Prophet get through Zakat from all Muslims (2.5%) plus

all the charities which could be much more than 2.5%. In the verse of Khums mentioned above "ghanimtum”has been used which has been translated as ‘you acquire’. As explained above, it means, ‘certain items which a person acquires as wealth’. What are these certain items?

According to the hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt Imams, the items that are eligible for Khums are seven, and they are

the profit or the surplus of income

the legitimate wealth which is mixed with the illegitimate wealth

mines and minerals

the precious stones obtained from sea by diving

treasures

the land which a dhimmi kafir buys from a muslim

the spoils of war.

However there are some people who interpret the word ghanimtum as ‘whatever of a thing that you acquire as spoils of war’, thus confining the obligation of khums to the spoils of war only. The interpretation is based on ignorance of

“the Arabic langauage

“the history of khums

“the Islamic laws

“and the interpretation of the Qur’an

Please bear in mind that the word ghanimtum has been derived from al- ghanimah.

The Meaning Of The Word Ghanimtum

The famous Arabic dictionary of al-Munjid (Father Louis Maluf of Beirut) states, al-ghanim and al-ghanimah means

“what is taken from the fighting enemies by force

“all earnings generally

Furthermore the saying "al-ghunm bil ghurm”means that profit stands against expenses, i.e, the owner is the sole proprieter of the profit and nobody shares it with him, therefore only he bears all the expenses and risk. For the readers satisfaction, they are also encouraged to look up dictionaries like Lisan al-Arab and al-Qamus.

This implies that in the Arabic langauge ‘ al-ghanimah ‘ has two meanings, one is the spoils of war, and the other is profit. The above quoted proverb also proves profit is not an uncommon meaning. When a word in the Qur’an can interpreted in more than one way, it is incumbent upon the muslims to seek guidance from the Holy Prophet (S) and the Ahl al-Bayt.

The History Of Khums

Khums is one of those things which were introduced by Abdul Muttalib (ra) the grandfather of the Prophet (S), and it continued in Islam when it was revealed in Qur’an. Acting upon a command of God given to him in his dream, when Abdul Muttalib rediscovered the well of Zamzam, he found in it many valuable things that were buried in it very remote past by the Ismailites when they feared that their enemies would usurp them. When Abdul Muttalib found that buried treasure, he gave away one fifth (literally khums) in the way of God and kept the remaining four fifth to himself.

Then it became a custom in his family to and after the Hijrah of the Prophet (S) the same system was incorporated in Islam. Thus the first khums was not given from the spoils of war, but from a buried treasure (which is one of the seven items eligible for khums).

The Islamic Laws

Not a single Islamic school confines the meaning of ghanimah to the spoils of war. In addition to the spoils of war the following items are subjected to khums

“minerals: eligible in the Hanafi and the Shi’a

“buried treasure: eligible for all the muslims.

As already mentioned earlier, the interpretation of the Qur’an must be based on the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt. The word ghanimah in the verse under discussion has been clearly interpreted as "the earned profit”(al- fa’idatul muktasabah) by our Imams.

Some Sunni References:

To conclude, we can say that the word ghanima was never treated as being confined to the spoils of war by any Islamic school; and as far as our Imams are concerned, it meant many things besides the spoils of war right from the day of Imam ‘Ali (peace be upon him), as many authentic traditions show.

What has been quoted above is substantiated from the practice of the Holy Prophet (S) as well. For example when the Prophet (S) sent Amr bin Hazm to Yemen, he wrote instructions in which, among many other things, he says ‘ to gather khums of Allah from the gains (of Yemenis).

Please refer to

“Ibn Khaldun, Tarikh Volume 2 part II p54 (Beirut 1971)

“Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wan Nihayah Volume 5 p76-77 (Beirut 1966)

“Ibn Hisham, Sirah Volume 4 p179 (Beirut 1975)

And when the tribe of Bani Kilal of Yemen sent Khums to the Prophet, the later acknowledges it by saying, ‘ Your messenger has returned and you have paid the khums of Allah from the gains (al-ghanaim). ‘ Please refer to

“Abu Ubayd, al-Amwal p13 (Beirut 1981)

“al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak Volume 1 p395 (Hyderabad 1340 A.H)

“Jafar Murtada al-Amili, al-Sahih fi Sirat al-Nabi Volume 3 p309 (Qum 1983)

It is very interesting to note that the Bani Kilal obeyed Prophet’s order and sent the khums of gains to him while no war had taken place between the muslims and the un-believers. This is a clear indication that khums was not restricted by the Prophet (S) to the Spoils of War!

The importance given by the Prophet (S) to the issue of Khums can also be seen in his advice to the delegation of Bani Abdul Qays. It seems that Bani Abdul Qays (which was a branch of Rabiah) was not a very strong tribe. More over in order to travel to Medina, they had to cross an area inhabited by the Muzar tribe, which was against the muslims. Consequently, the Bani Abdul Qays could not travel safely to Medina except during the months in which war fare was forbidden according to the Arab custom.

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.327 (pages 212-213)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

The delegates of the tribe of Abdul Qais came and said: `O Allah’s Apostle! We are from the tribe of Rabia and between us and you stand stand the infidels of the tribe of Mudar, so we cannot come to you except in the Haram Months. So please order us some instructions that we may apply it to ourselves and also invite our people left behind us to observe as well. ‘ The Prophet (S) said: `I order you to do four (4) things and forbid you to do four (4): I order you to believe in Allah, that is, to testify that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah (the Prophet (S) pointed with his hand) ; to offer prayers perfectly, to pay Zakat, to fast the month of Ramadhan, and to

pay the Khums.

Considering the facts that they travelled in the haram months (when the war fare) was forbidden, the circumstances of the Bani Abdul Qays who were weak and small in numbers (evident from their travelling in the haram months), it leaves no room for interpreting the application of khums in the above hadith on the spoils of war exclusively! Please refer for the above hadith to

“Sahih Bukhari Volume 4 pp 212-213 (Beirut)

“Abu Ubayd, al-Amwal p13 (Beirut 1981)

More On Khums

The following discussion is taken from Dr. al-Tijani’s book, "Ma’a al- Sadeeqeen -- With The Truthful Ones,", pp 149-153. Moreover, I used a Fiqh book based on the teachings of al-Khumeini for some of the details. I also added my own remarks for purposes of clarity.

To begin with, we must quote the Book of Allah (SWT):

"And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire, a fifth share is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to near relatives, orphans, the needy, and the wayfarer,--if ye do believe in Allah and in the revelation We sent down to our Servant.....(Qur’an 8:41)"

The above verse is a clear injunction by Allah (SWT), the Creator of the Universe, to give out a fifth (Khums) of our wealth in the way of Allah (SWT) to the needy, orphans, etc....

Let’s continue...

The Prophet (S) said: "I command you to do four things: To believe in Allah (SWT); to establish prayer; to pay Zakat; to fast Ramadan; and to pay the fifth of all the booty that you acquire for

the sake of Allah (SWT)”

Sunni reference: Shahih al-Bukhari, v4, p44.

Now, the problem with the interpretation of the text is that the word "Ghaneema -- Booty”is interpreted by the Sunnis as that wealth collected as part of a war. That is not an accurate interpretation of the Arabic word. The Semitic languages, which Arabic belongs to, are based on the verb form, not the noun form. As such, the translation of the word "Ghaneema”is not all that accurate when the word "booty”is used.

The Shi’a, in conformity with Allah’s (SWT) and His (SWT) Messenger’s (S) orders, pay 20% (a fifth) of their wealth at the end of every year. In addition, the grammatical usage of the word "Ghaneema”in Arabic, as the Shi’a translate it, means that certain things that a believer acquires by way of a profit from a legitimate business deal or otherwise, is considered a "Ghaneema,”and becomes subject to the laws and regulations thereof.

Of course there are exclusions. Actually, the Khums is only applicable in the following areas: First, anything extracted from the earth like gold, silver, metal, oil, and other natural elements is subject to the Khums. The minimum value of that which is extracted from the earth is 20 "dinars", and one "dinar”is equal to 3.45 grams gold in value. If that minimum is not met, then the Khums is not required. Second, anything by way of hidden treasures, if it meets the minimum value requirements, is also subject to the Khums. Third, anything extracted from the ocean like pearls, coral, etc..., if it meets the minimum value of 1 dinar, not 20, is also subject to the Khums. Fourth, any excess wealth that has remained for one year untouched is also subject to the Khums. Exclusions to the Khums include, but are not limited to, gifts, prizes, inheritance, a woman’s dowry, etc...

The details of the Khums are “very “involved, and it is almost always necessary to seek the advice of a Mujtahid before the Khums is taken out. The Sunnis have rejected that, EVEN though it is in the Book of Allah (SWT). Furthermore, it is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari, v2, pp 136-137 that the Prophet (S) stated that any wealth that was buried under the ground in the Days of Ignorance (Ayam al-Jahiliyah) is subject to al- Khums. Moreover, Ibn Abbas, the most trusted narrator of hadith in the eyes of the Sunnis, said that pearls extracted from the ocean are subject to the Khums also.

It is apparent, that the Khums is NOT restricted to a booty from a war, as the Sunnis claim; rather, it extends to all of the above issues. If a truly Sunni Islamic nation was to be established, it would fall short of fulfilling its financial obligations because it depends on the Zakat only, which is only 2.5% of one’s wealth. Realistically speaking, can an Islamic nation, as the Sunnis contend, survive on 2.5% a year from the Muslim Ummah? Can it truly build an infrastructure that would support the masses? Can it build hospitals, schools, highways, etc...? No, it cannot, because 2.5% is not enough, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The Khums also serves another very important purpose in the current Shiite community. It helps the Mujtahids maintain an independence and separation from the political implications which will happen if a religious scholar becomes dependent on the government for his bread and butter. That is extremely important. The Sunnis scholars in Muslim countries receive their salaries from the government, which means that they cannot utter a word of objection to the policies of the ruler because their source of income will be threatened. The Shiite scholars, on the other hand, receive NO funding from the government. This way, they are free to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of justice for the community.

Now, for those wondering how the Shi’a treat the Zakat, then follow along. The Zakat, according to Shiite jurisprudence (Fiqh), is only applicable to the following categories: cattle (camels, cows, sheep, and goats), silver, gold, dates, raisins, wheat, and barley.

It should be noted however that although Zakat is not mandatory on other items the same way that Khumus is, to the Shi’a it is still encouraged (mustahab) to give out Zakat on things other than the above mentioned items - in a similar way to how Sunnis apply Zakat (i.e. 2.5%).

The details on Zakat are not as complicated as the Khums, but there are still details to be addressed. For example, was the land from whence the wheat was harvested, irrigated by rain water or regular water? In addition, there is a minimum bracket for the number of cattle that has to be met for the Zakat to be applicable. If you want details, let me know, I will be more than happy to provide them.

There is also the Zakat al-Fitr, which is paid on the first day after the month of fasting, Ramadan, ends.

In conclusion, I appeal to your sense of justice, objectivity, and fear of Allah (SWT) to recognize that the Shi’a are THE followers of Islam as it should be implemented. The Sunni legists have changed many aspects of the religion of Allah (SWT), and I am not here to trash them; but be fair and judge the Shi’a objectively. Don’t we follow the Qur’an better than ANYBODY else? Don’t we follow the custom of the Prophet (S) to the letter?

Don’t we use reason to explain our belief, rather than being blind followers? Don’t we...........?

Wassalam.

Tawassul (Resorting to Intermediary)

بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

Some people claim that asking for help to other than god is polytheism. Such people should never go to doctor when they becomes sick because this is polytheism (shirk)! Their going to doctor is a type of seeking a help from a specialist even though they do not say by their tongue that they are getting help from the doctor. Acting shirk is enough.

Also they should not ask any question from anyone or request anything from any one because all these are shirk. Furthermore, they shouldn’t eat any food because they should not help themselves by any other than God!

If they say that we do all these because Allah told us to do so, then based on their own doctrine Allah is also polytheist (Mushrik). Na’udhu Billah! Here is what they are missing: If we get help from any body, we do it with the understanding that he by his own can not help us. He can not benefit us unless Allah wishes to.

If one calls Prophet Muhammad (S) or Imam ‘Ali (as) for help, he is, in fact, calling Allah for help through intermediary of the Prophet or the Imams, and he does that with the understanding that the Prophet or the Imams doe not have any independent power, but rather what they have (which many others lack) is that they have credit in front of Allah and that Allah does not put down their requests if they pray to Allah on my behalf. Imam ‘Ali and all the martyrs are alive as Qur’an clearly testifies, though they are not on the earth. So please do not treat them as dead. Allah states in Qur’an:

Think not of those who are martyred in the way of Allah as dead. Nay! They are living, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.”(Qur’an 3:169)

In fact all of our Imams except Imam Mahdi were martyred either by sword or by poison. Moreover, there are quite strong proofs in both Shi’a and Sunni that the Prophet himself was also poisoned by a Jew in the battle of Khaibar, and the poison slowly worked on his body till it finally killed him. I just bring two traditions from Sahih al-Bukhari:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.551

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a (cooked) sheep containing poison, was given as a present to Allah’s Apostle. Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.713

... Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

So they should not be called dead since they are alive according to Qur’an. Thus we can make Tawassul to them the same way that the Shi’a of Moses made

Tawassul to Moses:

"And he (Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his Shi’a and the other being his enemy, and the one who was of his Shi’a cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy”(Qur’an 28:15)

Two things which distinguishes Tawassul and Shirk should be noted here.

First, we do not believe that the Prophet and Imams have any independent power from Allah. Second, Allah is the one who assigned the intermediate. The idol worshipers used a wrong intermediate, and that was another reason why it was condemned. Moreover, the idol worshippers believed that the idols can cause harm or render a benefit.

Muslims are monotheists and they know that only Allah can cause harm or render a benefit. But calling the Prophet and Imams with the understanding that they could only be an intermediary to Allah, is not polytheism. All Muslims agreed on this point from the time of the Prophet (S) up to the present day, except Wahhabis. They contradict all Muslims with their new creed and accused Muslims of blasphemy; they never let any body touch the blessed grave of Prophet (S).

The Holy Qur’an further supports intermediary for approaching toward Allah where it states:

"O’ you who believe! Be mindful (of your duties) to Allah, and seek the means of approaching toward Him.”(Qur’an 5:35)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ

آمَنُوا

اتَّقُوا

اللَّـهَ

وَابْتَغُوا

إِلَيْهِ

الْوَسِيلَةَ

..

Qur’an tells us that there exists a means of approaching "al-Wasilah”for us in each era, which is different than Allah and we should seek him if we want to approach toward Allah. In fact, both Tawassul and Wasilah are from the same root. When we make Tawassul, it means that we seek the Mercy of Allah by resorting to a connection who was more obedient toward Allah and, as a result, Allah answers his/her prayers faster than us. Allah may forgive us for the credit and the honor of that man/woman. It is true every where that doing a job (specially if it is asking for a big courtesy) without any connection is difficult or might be impossible. Approving such a courtesy needs credit, and the one without it should resort to the one who has the credit and the connection. This credit has been acquired by absolute obedience of Allah. Nonetheless, approving any intercession still depends on Allah:

"Who can intercedes with Him except the cases that He permits?”(Qur’an 2:255)

"They (i.e., prophets and Imams) do not say anything until He orders, and they act (in all things) by His command. He knows what is before them and what is behind them and they (i.e., those saints) offer no intercession except for anyone whom Allah accepts, and they are in awe and reverence of His (glory).”(Qur’an 21:27-28)

As you see there are exceptions. Some specific people can intercede with Allah by His permission. But this is not granted to every people. Now, I would like to give also more references from Sunni Hadith collections in this regard. The first reference is on the Tawassul of Ibn Abbas (ra) to Imam ‘Ali (as). Please note that Ibn Abbas spoke the following words after the martyrdom of Imam ‘Ali. Thus he did ask for intermediary of what you called a dead person.

"When the death time of Abdullah Ibn Abbas (ra) approached, he said: `O Allah! I seek to approach toward you by means of Wilayah (accepting the mastery) of ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib.’“

Sunni References:

- Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p662, Tradition #1129

- al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v3, p167

- Manaqib Ahmad

لما حضرت عبد الله ابن عباس الوفاة قال: اللَّهم إني أتقربُ إليك بولاية علي ابن أبي طالب

Please note that Ibn Abbas died in 68/687 which was 28 years after the martyrdom of Imam ‘Ali (as). If resorting (Tawassul) to a dead was considered association (shirk), then Ibn Abbas would not dare to say so, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal would not have recorded it.

As for resorting to alive, al-Bukhari reported that Umar used make Tawassul to al-Abbas for rain:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 5.59

Narrated Anas:

Whenever there was drought, ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab used to ask Allah for rain through Al-’Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib, saying, "O Allah! We used to request our Prophet to ask You for rain, and You would give us. Now we request the uncle of our Prophet to ask You for rain, so give us rain.”And they would be given rain."

Another related question is that: Is kissing the grave of the Prophet Shirk (association)? Is honoring the belongings of Prophet association?

Sahih al-Bukhari tells us it is NOT Shirk:

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 1.373

Narrated Abu Juhaifa:

I saw Allah’s Apostle in a red leather tent and I saw Bilal taking the remaining water with which the Prophet had performed ablution. I saw the people taking the utilized water impatiently and whoever got some of it rubbed it on his body and those who could not get any took the moisture from the others’ hands.

Then I saw Bilal carrying an ‘Anza (a spear-headed stick) which he planted in the ground. The Prophet came out tucking up his red cloak, and led the people in prayer and offered two Rakat (facing the Ka’ba) taking ‘Anza as a Sutra for his prayer. I saw the people and animals passing in front of him beyond the ‘Anza.

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 7.750

Narrated Abu Juhaifa:

I came to the Prophet while he was inside a red leather tent, and I saw Bilal taking the remaining water of the ablution of the Prophet, and the people were taking of that water and rubbing it on their

faces; and whoever could not get anything of it, would share the moisture of the hand of his companion (and then rub it on his face).

As we see, the great companions were honoring the drop of water which had touched the Prophet (S).

Sayyid Sharafuddin, a famous Shi’a scholar, went on pilgrimage to the House of Allah during the reign of King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud. He was one of those who were invited to the King’s palace to celebrate the Eid of al- Adh’ha. When his turn came to shake the King’s hand, he presented a leather bound Qur’an to the King. The King took the Qur’an and placed it on his forehead and then kissed it.

Sayyid Sharafuddin said: "O’ King! why do you kiss and glorify the cover which is made of a goat’s skin?!”The king answered: "I meant to glorify the Holy Qur’an, not the goat’s skin.”Sayyid Sharafuddin said: "Well said O’ King! We do the same when we kiss the window or the door of the Prophet’s Chamber, we know that it is made of iron, and could not harm or render a benefit, but we mean what is behind the iron and wood, we mean to respect the Messenger of Allah in the same way as you meant with the Qur’an when you kissed its goat’s skin cover.”

The audience was impressed by his speech and said: "You are right.”The King was forced to allow the pilgrims to ask for blessings from the Prophet’s relics, until the order was reversed by the successor of that King.

The issue is not that they are afraid of people associating others with Allah, rather, it is a political issue based on antagonizing Muslims in order to consolidate their own power and authority over Muslims, and history is the witness to what they have done.

Evidence for Tawassul by a Sunni Writer

From: mas@cadence.com (Masud Khan)

Date: 3 Jul 1994 22:55:34 GMT

There has been a lot of discussion about intercession recently, and a few ill-informed people have issued "fatawa’s”condeming the practice as "shirk". If, as some individuals say, tawassul is "shirk”then from from the evidence available it seems that The Prophet (pbuh) taught a man to commit "shirk”and so did the Rightly Guided Khalifa ‘Uthman ibn Affan! (May Allah be our refuge from such thoughts).

wa’asalaam

Mas’ud

Tawassul - Supplicating Allah Through And Intermediary

Definition: Supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, or a name or attribute of Allah Most High. Yusuf Rifa’i: I here want to convey the position, attested to by compelling legal evidence, of the orthodox majority of Sunni Muslim on the subject of supplicating Allah through an intermidiary (tawassul), and so I say (and Allah alone gives success) that since there is no disagreement among scholars that supplicating Allah through an intermediary is in principle legally valid, the discussion of it’s details merely concerns derived rulings that involve interschool differences, unrelated to questions of belief or unbelief, monotheism or associating partners with Allah (shirk); the sphere of the question being limited to permissibility or impermissibility, and its ruling being that it is either lawful or unlawful. There is no difference among groups of Muslims in their consensus on the permissibilty of three types of supplicating Allah through an intermediary (tawassul):

1 tawassul through a living righteous person to Allah Most High, as in the Hadith of the blind man with the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as we shall explain;

2 the tawassul of a living person to Allah Most High through his own good deeds, as in the hadith of the three people trapped in a cave by a great stone, a hadith related by Imam Bukhari in his Sahih (Ref: vol 3 no 418); 3 and the tawassul of a person to Allah Most High through His entity (dhat), names, attributes, and so forth.

Since the legality of these types is agreed upon there is no reason to set forth the evidence for them. The only area of disagreement is supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a righteous dead person. The majority of the orthodox Sunni community hold that it is lawful, and have supporting hadith evidence, of which we will content ourselves with the hadith of the Blind Man, since it is the central pivot upon which the discussion turns.

The Hadith Of The Blind Man

Tirmidhi relates, through his chain of narrators from ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, "I’ve been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me.”The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak’as of prayer, and then say:

“‘O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight (and in another version: "for my need , that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me").’"

The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) added, "And if there is some need, do the same."

Scholars of Sacred Law infer from this hadith the recommended character of the need, in which someone in need of something from Allah Most High performs such a prayer and then turns to Allah with this supplications together with other suitable supplications, traditional or otherwise, according to the need and how the person feels. The express content of the hadith proves the legal validity of tawassul through a living person (as the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was a alive at the time).

It implicitly proves the validity of tawassul through a deceased one as well, since tawassul through a living or dead person is not through a physical body or through a life or death, but rather through the positive meaning (ma`na tayyib) attached to the person in both life and death. The body is but the vehicle that carries that significance, which requires that the person be respected whether alive or dead; for the words "O (Ya) Muhammad”are an address to someone physically absent - in which state the living and the dead are alike - an address to the meaning, dear to Allah, that is connected with his spirit, a meaning that is the ground of tawassul, be it through a living or a dead person.

The Hadith Of The Man In Need

Moreover, Tabarani, in his al-Mu`jam al-saghir, reports a hadith from ‘Uthman ibn Hanayf that a man repeatedly visited ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (Allah be well pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but ‘Uthman paid no attention to him or his need.

The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter - this being after the death of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar - so ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and were learned in the religion of Allah said: "Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak’as of prayer therein, and say,

“‘O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I turn through you to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,’

"and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you (to the caliph ‘Uthman)."

So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan and seated him next to him on a cushion. ‘Uthman asked, "What do you need?”and the man mentioned what he wanted, and ‘Uthman accomplished it for him and then said, "I hadn’t remembered your need until just now,”adding, "Whenever you need something, just mention it.”Then the man departed, met ‘Uthman ibn Hunayf, and said to him, "May Allah reward you! He didn’t see to my need or pay any attention to me until you spoke with him.”‘Uthman ibn Hunayf replied, "By Allah, I didn’t speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and complain to him of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said, ‘Can you not bear it?’ and the man replied, ‘O messenger of Allah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is great hardship for me.’ The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told him, ‘Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak’as of prayer and make these supplications.’ “Ibn Hunafy went on, "By Allah, we didn’t part company or speak long before the man returned to us as if nothing had ever been wrong with him."

This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead. The account has been classed as rigorously authenticated (Sahih) by Bayhaqi, Mundhiri, and Haytami.

(Muhammad Hamid - a leading Hanafi scholar of this century:) As for calling upon (nida’) the righteous (when they are physically absent, as in the words "O (Ya) Muhammad”in the above hadiths), tawassul to Allah Most High through them is permissable, the supplication (du’a) being to Allah Most Glorious, and there is much evidence for its permissibility.

Those who call on them intending tawassul cannot be blamed. As for someone who believes that those called upon can cause effects, benefit, or harm, which they create or cause to exist as Allah does, such a person is an idolator who has left Islam - Allah be our refuge! This then,and a certain person has written an article that tawassul to Allah Most High through the righteous is unlawful, while the overwhelming majority of scholars hold it permissable, and the evidence that the writer uses to corroborate his view point is devoid of anything that demonstrates what he is trying to prove.

In declaring tawassul permissable, we are not hovering on the brink of idolatory (shirk) or coming anywhere near it, for the conviction that Allah Most High alone has influence over anything, outwardly, is a conviction that flows through us like our very lifeblood. If tawassul were idolatory (shirk), or if there were any suspicion of idolatory in it, the Prophet (Allah Most High bless him and give him peace) would not have taught it to the blind man when the latter asked him to supplicate Allah for him, though in fact he did teach him to make tawassul to Allah through him. And the notion that tawassul was permissible only during the lifetime of the person through whom it is done but not after his death is unsupported by any viable foundation from Sacred Law (Rudud ‘ala abatil wa rasa’il al- Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid).

Mostly taken from "Reliance of the Traveller”(Umdat as-Salik) by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (b. 702/1302 d. 769/1368) translated by Noah Ha Mim Keller.