Types of Tawassul

Tawassul is of three types:

1) Permissible Tawassul; seeking nearness to Allah through means that have basis in the Shari’ah. Such as, for one to directly address Allah saying: O Allah, I ask You by Your Names and Attributes; my good deeds; or the supplication of such and such righteous person.

2) Bida’i Tawassul; seeking nearness to Allah through means that have no basis in the Shari’ah. Such as, for one to directly address Allah saying: O Allah, I ask you by the right of your Prophet, or an angel, or a saint etc. This type of tawassul is a point of contention amongst the scholars, and the difference is a legitimate one, which does not require censure.

3) Shirki Tawassul: seeking nearness to Allah through means that have no basis in the Shari’a, while addressing other than Allah. Such as saying: O Prophet, forgive me. O ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani help me, etc.

Since the first type of Tawassul is agreed upon, we will discuss the other two types of Tawassul, its legitimacy in Islam, and Ibn Taymiyya’s and the Hanbali position on these issues in particular.

1) Bida’i Tawassul

Bida’i tawassul is, as al-‘Allama Hasan al-Shatti al-Dimashqi al-Hanbali says while commenting on Matalib Ulin-Nuha, quoting Ibn ‘al-Imad al-Hanbali: ‘Tawassul through the righteous is for one to say: O Allah! I make tawassul to you through your Prophet Muhammad SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, or someone else, that you fulfil my need’

Take note, that the tawassul referred to here involves directly calling upon Allah and addressing Him alone, by the right of His creation. It does not involve calling upon anyone other than Allah, for that will be dealt with later on.

This type of Tawassul is differed over amongst the scholars, including the Hanbalis.

Some scholars, including Ibn Qudama allow this type of Tawassul, while other scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyya do not allow it.

The issue of tawassul is linked to swearing an oath by the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam.

Most of the scholars prohibit one from doing so, including a number of prominent Hanbalis, such as Ibn Qudama, Shams al-Din al-Maqdisi, Ibn Munajja, Ibn Taymiyya and others.

Most of the Hanbalis, however, allow one to swear an oath by the Prophet only, and this opinion is from the mufradat of the Madhab – meaning, no other Madhab holds this opinion but the Hanbali Madhab.

Those who favour this opinion argue that i) there is an explicit text from Imam Ahmad concerning this, and ii) since the Prophet is part of la ilaha illallah, it implies that when one swears by the Prophet, it is as if he is swearing by Allah, and therefore, the oath is enacted, the violation of which obligates kaffara (expiation).

Based on Imam Ahmad’s narration on swearing an oath by the Prophet, Imam Ahmad also opined that it is permissible to make tawassul through the Prophet – asking Allah directly by the right of the Prophet (and not asking the prophet).

However, in another narration, Imam Ahmad does not allow one to swear by the Prophet. Hence, it could be deduced from this narration that tawassul through the right of the Prophet is not allowed. This is known as al-riwaya al-mukharraja in the Madhab; and hence, two narrations from Imam Ahmad concerning tawassul; riwaya mutalaqa and riwaya mukharraja

This is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyya, mentioned in all the major post-Ibn Taymiyya mu’tamad (reliable) books for fatwa.

Is Tawassul through the Prophet the Hanbali Madhab?

Firstly, hardly any of the Hanbali books before Ibn Taymiyya, deal with the topic of tawassul through the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, bar al-Samurri in his al-Mustaw’ib. Ibn Qudama fails to discuss it in any of his works, as well as Majd Ibn Taymiyya (Sheikh al-Islam’s grandfather) in his Muharrar. These two are known as the ‘two Sheikhs’ of the Madhab, and whatever they agree on is the Madhab. It seems both of them agreed not to even mention the topic of tawassul through the Prophet, let alone categorise it as the Madhab, wajh or even ihtimal (refer to the thread ‘Hanbali vs Salafi’ for the meaning of these terms).

Al-Mardawi, who authored his voluminous al-Insaf to determine what is or isn’t the Madhab mentions the issue of tawassul through the Prophet, without declaring it as the Madhab.

Secondly, the latter Hanbali scholars have two main methodologies of determining what is the Madhab. The easiest and the most common of them is by comparing between the two mu’atamad (reliable) works; i) al-Iqna’ and ii) al-Muntaha

Whatever al-Iqna’ and al-Muntaha agree on is the Madhab. When they differ, then whatever Ghayat al-Muntaha deems correct is the Madhab.

Now, al-Iqna’ mentions tawassul through the Prophet, while al-Muntaha remains silent and leaves the issue out completely.

Then Ghayat al-Muntaha, following al-Muntaha, also leaves the issue of tawassul out and gives no mention.

This further highlights that tawassul through the Prophet is not the madhab.

Furthermore, I do not know of a Hanbali who declared it to be the mu’tamad position in the Madhab, and if it was a mu’tamad position, al-Mardawi should have stated so, and if not, then it should have been stated in Ghayat al-Muntaha.

With respect to Ibn Qudama quoting al-‘Utbi’s narration in al-Mughni, then there are a few points we should bear in mind:

1) Ibn Qudama does not mention the narration as an evidence, but only as a citation, which is why he says: ‘yurwa’ – it has been narrated, indicating that the narration is weak, and therefore, not suitable as an evidence.

2) The ‘Utbi narration is not an evidence from what we know of Usul al-Fiqh, for evidence is what the Prophet said, did, or agreed to. The ‘Utbi incident – even if we were to assume it authentic – would have no bearing at all with respect to fiqh.

3) The narration does not – anywhere – indicate that ‘Utbi was making du’a to the Prophet. All it says is (as Shibli translated – emphasis is mine):

And it is narrated from al-`Utbi who said, ‘I was sitting at the grave of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) when a Bedouin approached and said, ‘Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. I have heard that Allah says {And if when they wronged themselves, they came to you and repented to Allah and the Messenger seeks their pardon they would have found Allah All-Forgiving and Most Merciful.} So I have come to you penitent for my sins seeking your intercession to my Lord.’ 

He does not say to the Prophet: ‘O Prophet, forgive me’, for that would be Shirk.

He simply did what he thinks he is told to do in the verse: ‘they came to you and repented to Allah’.

It is like a person coming to the Black Stone saying: I have come to you, seeking forgiveness of my sins. Meaning, he is not seeking forgiveness from the stone, or calling upon the stone to help. He is merely expressing his emotions, while seeking forgiveness from Allah alone.

As far as addressing the Prophet directly and asking him for help is concerned, then it will be covered in detail in the next section.

What I would like to emphasise here is that this type of tawassul through the Prophet, as Ibn al-‘Imad defines, is where difference of opinion is allowed and respected, even if some believe that it may lead to Shirk.
Hence, I would end this section with the following words of al-Imam al-Mujaddid, Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Hanbali al-Najdi:

Regarding their statement with respect to al-Istisqa (praying for seeking rain): ‘There is no harm in making tawassul through the righteous’ and Ahmad’s statement: ‘tawassul is only allowed through the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam’, while they all say: ‘Istighatha (seeking aid) from the creation is not allowed’, then the difference (between the two is very clear, and it is irrelevant to what we are concerned with.

For some scholars to allow tawassul through the righteous, or for some to restrict it to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, while majority of the scholars forbidding and disliking it; these issues are from fiqhi issues. Even though the correct opinion in our view is the majority opinion that it is disliked, we still do not censure one who practises it (tawassul), for there is no censuring in issues of ijtihad.

However, our censure of one who calls upon the creation, is greater than the censure of one who calls upon Allah Ta’ala (alone); for he travels to the grave beseeching, next to al-Sheikh ‘Abd al-Qadir or others, seeking the alleviation of calamites, aiding the grief-stricken, attaining the desirables; where is this all from one who calls upon Allah, purifying His religion for Him, not calling upon anyone besides Allah, except that he says in his supplication: I ask you by Your Prophet, messengers, or the righteous servants, or travels to Ma’ruf’s grave or others’ to supplicate there, yet only supplicates to Allah, purifying the religion for Him, how is this relevant to what concerns us here?

(Fatawa wa masa’il al-Sheikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab page 41)

2) Shirki TawassulShirki Tawassul is for one to address someone other than Allah and ask him for forgiveness, or a need, etc. Such as for one to say: O Prophet of mercy, I make tawassul through you. Please fulfil my need.Such type of Tawassul is not only forbidden and Shirk, which takes one beyond the pale of Islam.

In that regard, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya says in rebuttal of al-Bakri (the other Bakri, obviously not OBM!):

‘Asking the dead or one absent, be he a prophet or anything else, is from them evil forbidden acts by the consensus of the Muslims… This is known by necessity from the religion of the Muslims, for none of them (the Companions) would ever say – when faced with difficulty or need – to the dead: ‘O Sayyadi so-and-so! I am in your protection, fulfil my need! As some of these Mushriks say to those whom they call from the dead and the absent’

Ibn Taymiyya also says in his rebuttal of al-Akhna’i:
‘Whoever calls upon other than Allah, or makes Hajj to other than Allah is also a Mushrik – to his words – The objective here (is to establish) that these Mushriks who take those buried in their graves as intermediaries, are in fact taking them as associates, just as the idol worshippers take their idols as associates, call upon them and seek their intercession’

Ibn al-Jawzi in Talbis Iblis quotes Abul-Wafa Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali saying that those who call upon other than Allah and ask the dead for their needs are Kuffar.

Ibn al-Subki, a bitter enemy of Ibn Taymiyya who refuted him in the issue of Tawassul Bida’i says: ‘(by seeking aid)… we are not asking other than Allah, nor are we calling upon anyone but Him. Hence, the one asked in such invocations is Allah alone who has no partners, while the one on whose behalf the question is made varies. This does not necessitate Shirk, or asking other than Allah. Likewise, asking by the virtue of the Prophet, is not actually asking the Prophet (directly), rather it is asking Allah (directly), by the virtue of the Prophet’. Meaning, if one were to ask the Prophet directly, it would be, not doubt, Shirk with Allah.

Mullah ‘Ali al-Qari al-Hanafi says commenting on Hadeeth about the worst of sins where the Prophet said: ‘To make a rival unto Allah, while He created you’; Al-Qari says: ‘Meaning: To make someone his equal in your invocation and worship’

The Hanbalis have unanimously agreed that making du’a to anyone other than Allah is an act of Shirk and apostasy.

Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali says in al-Furu’, quoting Ibn Taymiyya: ‘If one takes between himself and Allah intermediaries, depending on them, supplicating to them and asking them (he is an apostate)’. He then follows this with the letter ‘Ayn, a symbol of Ijma’, meaning consensus amongst the four schools.

It states in al-Iqna’ in the chapter of apostasy: ‘He (Ibn Taymiyya) said: If one takes between himself and Allah intermediaries, depending on them, supplicating to them and asking them (he is an apostate), by consensus’

Mansur al-Buhuti al-Hanbali says commenting on the above statement: ‘Meaning, he disbelieves, because that is like the actions of idol worshippers who would say: We only worship them so that they bring us closer to Allah

The similar rulings are found in al-Insaf of al-Mardawi, Ghayat al-Muntaha of Mar’i b. Yusuf, and in its Sharh by al-Ruhaybani.

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami al-Shafi’i, a detractor of Ibn Taymiyya also mentions this consensus, agreeing with it, in his work al-I’lam bi qawati’ al-Islam.

Not to mention that the Quran is full of explicit verses condemning the Mushriks for calling upon other than Allah, which is why Sh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab said: The one who has the Quran, evidences are already established against him.
Here arises an important question: If one calls upon the Prophet, believing that the response will be from Allah, which brother Shibli considers Tawassul bida’i, is he also guilty of Shirk?

The answer to that is:

Firstly, The Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – made takfeer of the pagans for merely calling upon other than Allah, even though they explicitly declared that Allah is the only Lord, the Creator, the Provider.

This is reflected in the following verse:

‘Say: Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth? Or who controls hearing and sight and who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living and who arranges [every] matter? They will say: Allah. So say: Then will you not fear Him?’

As it is clear that although the pagans believed that Allah is the only provider, they still called upon their idols, claiming that they are merely their intercessors.

Similarly, Allah said of the pagans: ‘Most of them do not believe in Allah, except that they associate partners unto Him’

al-Tabari says in his tafseer: Their belief in Allah is their saying: Allah is our Creator, our Provider, who gives us death and gives us life; while their Shirk is to attribute partners unto Allah in His worship and invocation.

Secondly, when the Hanbali scholars and others explicitly stated the apostasy of the one who calls upon other than Allah, they do not differentiate between one who does so believing the response would come from Allah, and one who does so believing the response would come from the creation.

To differentiate between the two only first appeared after the Da’wah of Sheikh Miuhammd b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab. The advocates of this idea were simply seeking justification for one to call upon others besides Allah. Hence, they argued that when one says: ‘O Sidi ‘Abd al-Qadir, help me!’ He is in reality addressing Allah, while mentioning ‘Abd al-Qadir only allegorically, because he believes in his heart that the response will only come from Allah.

In response, we say that the statement: ‘O so-and-so, help me!’ is Sarih al-Kufr – an explicit statement of Kufr, which does not accommodate Majaz. Just like the word Talaq, is an explicit statement of divorce, and if one says it to his wife even in jest, his wife is divorced. He cannot claim: I only intended it allegorically, whereas my intention was not to divorce her. Similarly, when one makes a statement of clear-cut apostasy, such as: O Sidi fulan, help me! He becomes an apostate, and his claim that he intended something else would be of no use to him.

Conclusion
1) Tawassul bida’i involves calling upon Allah alone, while asking Him by Prophets and the righteous, etc. The issue is of legitimate difference of opinion, where we should respect each others’ views. The permissibility of this type of Tawassul is not the mu’tamad (reliable opinion) in the Hanbali Madhab.

2) Tawassul Shirki involves calling upon other than Allah, irrespective of one’s belief whether the response comes from Allah or not. This type of tawassul is Shirk by consensus of the scholars, for du’a is an act of worship, which should not be directed to anyone but Allah.

3) This should highlight to us all the dangers of speaking in Allah’s religion without knowledge. I remember Sheikh ‘Ali al-Tamimi – may Allah hasten his release – in his Sharh of Wasitiyya mentioned Ibn al-Qayyim’s opinion, based on a Quranic verse (qul innama harrama rabbi al-fawahish…) that speaking about Allah without knowledge is worse than Shirk.

Someone asked: we all know Shirk to be the worst of sins, how can then, speaking about Allah without knowledge be worse than Shirk? His response was that every Shirk is a result of speaking about Allah without knowledge.

Q&A

I found the following from an article which supports tawassul :

`Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi said in his book al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456): The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one’s supplication (du`a) to use as means a pious person, and it is said that IT IS DESIRABLE (MUSTAHABB).

Yes, this is stated in nearly all Hanbali manuals.

This quote itself is taken out of context which is why it becomes problematic.

If placed in its context, it makes sense.

The Hanbali jurists discuss this in the chapter on Istisqa (prayer for seeking rain), saying that it is mustahab to make tawassul through the righteous people, as Umar did with ‘Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle. All the examples the Hanbalis scholars bring for this type of tawassul are of the permissible tawassul, which involves making tawassul through the du’a of a living righteous person.

This is why they discuss the tawassul through the Prophet separately, after having allowed tawassul through the righteous.

If tawassul through the righteous meant the bida’i tawassul, there would be no need to discuss tawassul through the Prophet, because he is from the righteous, nay, the leader of them all!

Moreover, even those of the Hanbalis who allow tawassul, they only allow it through the Prophet (with the exception of Ibn ‘Aqil).

This being another reason why tawassul through the righteous in their manuals refers to tawassul through the dua of living righteous people.

—

Just so that we do not lose focus, I would like to remind us all that the main focus of this discussion is addressing the Prophet directly in a supplication, such as:

i) O Prophet! Increase my Rizq and alleviate from me a calamity. This is Shirk according to the consensus.

ii) O Prophet! Ask Allah to increase my Rizq. This is Shirk according to Ibn Taymiyya and overwhelming majority of the scholars, and a blameworthy bid’a and a door to Shirk for the few of the modern day scholars I have come across. They all, however, agree that it should be avoided at all costs.

As for the issue of Tawassul through the Prophet, which is to say: O Allah! I ask you by your Prophet, then I think we will all agree with what Sheikh Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab said, that the issue is of a fiqhi difference, a matter of Ijtihad, where a person is not censured for following a different opinion. Since we tolerate our difference on this issue, there would be no need to discuss it in this thread.

—

اللّهم أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد، يا محمد، إني أتَشَفَّع بك في ردّ بَصَرى‏.‏ اللّهم شَفِّع نبيك في‏
“O Allâh, I ask of you and turn to you by means of your Prophet Muhammad. O Muhammad, I seek your intercession in returning my sight. O Allâh, may your Prophet intercede for me.”

Some understand the statement: ‘Muhammad, I seek your intercession’, to mean: ‘O Muhammad, intercede for me’

Whereas, the statement is akin to saying: ‘O Black Stone, I have come seeking forgiveness for my sins’, while he is clearly not seeking forgiveness from the stone. Rather from Allah alone.

Hence, the sentence: ‘Muhammad, I seek your intercession’ is Khabari and not Inshai[1]

This is why the blind man actually turns to Allah and makes his statement in Inshai form: ‘O Allah! Accept your Prophet’s intercession on my behalf!’, and does not say: O Prophet, please intercede for me, because the Prophet was away from him, and could not even hear him.

Another thing to note is that it happened when the Prophet was alive. He came to the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam – to make dua to Allah that he cures his sight, which is as we said, absolutely permissible, even though the Prophet said: If you have patience, it would be better for you.

When he insisted that he wanted the Prophet to call upon Allah on his behalf, the Prophet told him to go home, make wudu and pray, and then call upon Allah alone, asking Him alone to accept the intercession of His Prophet, knowing that the Prophet is making du’a for him.

Hence, this evidence, not only that it is not at all an evidence for calling upon other than Allah seeking their intercession; rather it is not even proof enough for tawassul bida’i; even then, I insist that it is a matter of Khilaf.

It seem that according to the late shaykh this form of tawassul which the Hanbalis seem to permit also “leads to shirk” and that this is the position of the “majority” of scholars.

Is this perhaps an example of a difference in understanding between the salafees and the hanbalees?

1) Hanbalis do not seem to permit Tawassul. Some Hanbalis do and some don’t. As I have already mentioned previously, I know of no Hanbali who declared that this type of tawassul is in fact the correct position on the Madhab. The two latter books for Fatwa differed, and the merger between the two books, Ghayat al-Muntaha, dropped the issue out altogether.

2) Yes, it is a gate way to Shirk, and in that sense it could be classified as a creedal issue. However, the issue in and of itself, as Sh Muhammad b.’Abd al-Wahhab said is of a fiqhi difference.

3) Hanbalis have been referring to themselves as Salafis before Sh Ibn Baz or Sh al-Albani became prominent. Two examples: the Qadhi of Qatar and even Muhammad Jamil al-Shatti, the Damascan Hanbali and the author of Mukhtasar Tabaqat al-Hanabila; none of them were from Najd. Hence, to claim that Salafis have a different understanding to that of the Hanbalis is an odd question to begin with.

 i think one difference we could point out is that the people of shirk had no daleel for their opinion that their idols could hear. they were calling upon rocks and things

Well, the dead being able to hear or not does not make much difference, for even if we believe they can hear, we still do not have any proof to suggest that they can become our intercessors with Allah, by listening to our call, and then calling upon Allah on our behalf. Hence, for one to take them his intercessors without proof, is like the pagans taking the angels, martyrs or the prophets as intercessors with Allah.

also, another difference is that they were doing acts of worship to these people as well as asking them to ask Allaah for things. so its kind of a jumbled shirk they had going on.

Very good point. This is why the pagans were criticised categorically for making du’a to other than Allah, and for taking intercessors between themselves and Allah, and both acts were considered Shirk.

with this situation there are actual texts that could be miscontrewed and understood to mean that the dead can hear in general. and also the texts mentioned in this thread about musaa (AS) praying in his grave and the prophets being alive. so i think its worth giving a muslim the benefit of the doubt if he is at the prophet’s grave asking in a voice loud enough for a live person to hear

What is established for the Prophets, is also established for non-Prophets, such as being alive in the grave, praying, or even returning Salam. Yet, the Ummah is unanimous that taking people as intercessors with Allah is Shirk, and the Quranic verse is clear cut in that regard. Whether or not a person should be excused for ignorance (if this is what you mean), then that is another topic.

another thing i wanted to point out is that i have read narrations from the salaf in which people told someone who was dying to give salaams to so and so

Well, it is already established that one a Muslim gives Salam to his dead brother, his soul is returned so that he may respond to his Salam. Again, this is not an evidence that the dead is an intercessor with Allah. This idea is the making of the pagans, quote like the pagans of the old.

Remember, all people of misguidance have misconceptions and they all have misconstrued proofs, including the old pagans. Yes, they might not have a proof from the revelation, but they still believed their objects of worship to be righteous people who are closer to Allah. Point being, based on this evidence of theirs, be it textual or rational, they made such people as intercessors between themselves and Allah, without Allah giving them the permission to do so. On this account alone they were condemned as pagans.

The modern pagans also take the Prophet as an intercessor between themselves and Allah, while they have no proof, neither textual nor rational, that Allah has given the Prophet the permission to intercede for them or not.

It is evident that the man came to the grave in order for nabi saw to make dua on his behalf (whihc is shirk according to some as you yourself have stated). the clues in the narration whihc indicate that the man sought nabi saw dua are:

1) the ayat mentions that the messenger seeks their pardon
2) the man came to seek the messenger’s intercession

so it seems that your argument that it is like coming to balck stone to express his emotions isnt accurate.

Firstly, no scholar I know of has declared the narration of ‘Utbi to be suitable as an evidencein Shari’a, not even those who support tawassul; and indeed, as Ibn Qudama himself indicates, the narration is NOT suitable as an evidence for anything in fiqh.

Secondly, ‘Utbi died more than 200 years after Hijra and all his narration suggest is that an unknown Bedouin came to the Prophet’s grave and said: I came to you seeking forgiveness and your intercession; ‘Utbi then saw a dream in which the Prophet told him to catch up with the Bedouin and tell his he has been forgiven. To my knowledge, by the consensus of the four traditional Sunni schools, dreams do not play any part, and have absolutely no significance with respect to Islamic legislation.

Thirdly, for arguments sake, if we were to dismiss the above two points, all the narration proves is that the Bedouin came to the Prophet’s grave, seeking forgiveness from Allah and seeking intercession of the Prophet.

There is nothing wrong with going to the Prophet’s grave and seeking Allah’s forgives by addressing Allah directly, and likewise, there is nothing wrong with seeking the Prophet’s intercession by addressing Allah directly. Just as asking the Prophet for forgiveness is Shirk – by agreement, asking the Prophet for his intercession is also Shirk by agreement.

Please note that I differentiated between seeking the Prophet’s intercession in this world, and addressing the Prophet directly and asking him for his intercession.

How to seek the Prophet’s intercession in this world? We seek his intercession as he taught us to when he said: whoever says La ilaaha illallah sincerely from his heart, my intercession becomes binding upon him. Similar of his statements are found with respect to one who sends prayers and blessings upon the Prophet. This is how we seek the Prophet’s intercession in this world. If you wish, you may even say: O Allah! Grant me the Prophet’s intercession on the Day of Resurrection.

What is regarded to be Shirk is for one to ask the Prophet directly and ask him for his intercession, for this is not only Shirk according to some scholars, Allah has already given his explicit verdict in His book as we all now know.

Fourthly, this is exactly how the Hanbalis have understood seeking the Prophet’s intercession at his grave.

It states in Kashaf al-Qina’ the Sharh of al-Iqna’ in Hanbali fiqh, that when one visits the Prophet’s grave he gives him Salam and sends prayers upon him, and then says to Allah: “O Allah! You have said, and your saying is the truth: ‘And if when they wronged themselves, they came to you and repented to Allah and the Messenger seeks their pardon they would have found Allah All-Forgiving and Most Merciful.’

I have come to you (O Prophet) seeking forgiveness for my sins, and seeking your intercession with your Lord.

Hence, I ask You, O Lord! To grant me Your forgiveness, as You granted the one who comes to him (the prophet) during his life.

O Allah! Make him (the prophet) the first of the intercessors, the most successful of petitioners, and the most noble of the first and the last, with Your Mercy, O Merciful of those who show mercy.

He then makes du’a for his parents, his siblings and the rest of the Muslims.’ – End of quote from Kashaf

Fifthly, the entire issue of tawassul in the Hanbali books of fiqh is dealt with in Kitab al-Istisqa (Prayer for Seeking Rain), and not in Kitab al-Hajj. If asking the Prophet for his intercession had anything to do with the Madhab, they would have mentioned it – in Kitab al-Istisqa – as a riwaya, wajh or an ihtimal, as they mentioned Imam Ahmad’s statement to al-Marrudhi. The Hanbali jurists only mention this dubious narration of al-‘Utbi with respect to visitation of the Prophet’s grave, which is only found in Kitab al-Hajj. They do not mention this narration to even hint at asking the Prophet for his intercession.

Sixthly, the Hanbali jurists only mention this narration when one is giving Salams to the Prophet, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, before he has actually started making du’a. This is why the Hanbali jurists say that after giving Salams to the three, one should i) turn away from the grave, ii) face the Qibla, and iii) then make du’a to Allah alone. Meaning, the du’a does not even begin, unless and until the person turns away from the Prophet and faces the Qibla.

Seventhly, the Hanbali jurists clearly state that one should not raise his voice at the Prophet’s grave. If this is the case, how is the Prophet supposed to hear someone’s request for intercession, unless we are now to believe that the Prophet is al-Samee, who hears everything, which would be Shirk in Allah’s Lordship according to all.

Lastly, Ibn al-Qayyim says in Madarij al-Salikin (1/332):
“From the forms (of Shirk): Requesting the dead for needs, seeking their aid and turning to them.

This is the basis for Shirk in the world. This is because the actions of the dead have ceased. He is not able to harm or benefit himself, let alone the one who seeks his aid, or asks him to fulfil his need, or asks him to intercede for him with Allah, for this is from his ignorance with respect to the intercessor and the one interceded for, as has preceded. This is because he (the intercessor) is not able to intercede for him with Allah, except with His permission. Allah did not make his ‘seeking aid’ and petitioning, a cause for Allah’s permission to be granted. The only cause that grants Allah’s permission (for intercession) is the perfection of Tawheed. Yet, this Mushrik comes along, with a cause that only prevents Allah’s permission (for intercession)!”

This should, at least, show that asking the Prophet for intercession being Shirk is not a ‘wahhabi’ invention. How could it be when Allah is classified this act to be Shirk and further ordered the Prophet to fight the pagans for this very Shirk? And if the Quran is not a Hujjah (proof) for someone, then could there possibly be any other proof to satisfy him? 

As regards to the narration of Malik al-Dar:

1) Some scholars have declared Malik al-Dar to be majhul (unknown). The first critic to declare him as ‘known’, to my knowledge al-Khattabi who died 388 after Hijra. So we are talking about nearly three centuries in which Malik al-Dar remains unknown. Some of the post al-Khattabi critics also declared him unknown, and amongst them al-Mundhiri.

2) Even if we go by the argument that Malik al-Dar is known and trustworthy, we still do not know the person who came to the grave, saw the dream and related it to ‘Umar. This is because Malik al-Dar must have heard this incident from someone else, and that someone still remains unknown.

3) For argument’s sake, if we were to believe that that someone is known and reliable, then the narration does not mention that the one he saw in the dream was the Prophet. All the narration states is: ‘He came to the man, and it was said to him, go to ‘Umar…’, meaning it is not clear who exactly came to the man in his dream, and the word ‘it was said to him, go to ‘Umar…’ clearly indicates that it was someone other than the Prophet. This is further substantiated by the narration in Ibn Abi Shayba which states: ‘a person was brought to the man, and it was said, go to ‘Umar…’, i.e. in passive form, clearly indicating that it was not the Prophet whom he saw.

4) The narration states that this unknown ‘man came to ‘Umar and informed him of this’. It does not state what was exactly stated to ‘Umar. Was it just that dream he was told? Or was he also told that he asked the Prophet to ask Allah for rain?

5) Bearing point 4 in mind, ‘Umar could not have approved or disapproved of that anonymous person asking the Prophet to ask Allah for rain.

6) To further substantiate point 5, ‘Umar simply stated: ‘O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!’. Meaning, he neither approved, nor disapproved of the anonymous person’s action, most probably because he did not even know it happened. Especially when it is authentically proven from ‘Umar that he sought tawassul through the Prophet’s uncle ‘Abbas for exactly the same reason. If ‘Umar approved such a practise, he would not have made tawassul through the Prophet’s uncle, rather he would have gone directly to the Prophet’s grave, especially when people’s lives and livelihood is being affected due to draught. At least, this is what is implied from his words: ‘O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!’

Hence, the narration, even if it is authentic up to Malik al-Dar as it has been suggested that Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar consider the chain to be authentic, it does not prove anything; and yes, there is no harm in authenticating the chain up to Malik al-Dar. For the problem only arises with the person who told Malik al-Dar this incident who remains majhul – unknown.

This is only from the sanad point of view. From the text point of view, as I have stated above, the narration does not show Umar’s approval or disapproval of the anonymous person’s action.

As for why scholars would mention this narration without any criticism? It depends on the methodology a scholar takes when compiling his Hadeeth work. Most of the Hadeeth compilers job is to simply collect Ahadeeth with connected chains irrespective of what the matn states. This is all sorts of odd and dubious narrations are found in Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d and other works, including the infamous Satanic Verses, and other narrations where a Sahabi is reportedly insulting another Sahabi.

The problem with those who are not aware of the reasons why the scholars of Hadeeth mention such narrations, is that they simply look at these collections, find these absurd narrations and say: Look at these so-called Sunni traditionists narrating such obscene and blasphemous narrations. They then use this as an excuse to discredit traditions altogether. All because they assumed that the compiler who narrated such narrations, only did so because he approved of them.

[1]Khabr is the logical predicate i.e. an utterance in the realm of being proved true or false. For example: “This is a glass of water”. This statement could be described as true or false.

Inshaa is the logical non-predicate i.e. an utterance not in the realm of being proved true or false . For example: “Yo! Gimme a glass of water!” This statement cannot be described as true or false.

Questions such as: ‘Who are you?’, or orders such as: ‘O Prophet! Intercede for me!’ is regarded to be insha, which cannot be described as true and false.

My argument is: When the blind man said: ‘I seek your intercession’, his statement was not Insha’i, meaning, he was not asking the Prophet to intercede.

Rather, he was merely stating that he is seeking the Prophet’s intercession, in Khabari form which could be considered true or false.