Wahhbi creed is clear cut about those who seek tawassul through the “dead” by calling upon them. Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s Nawaaqid ul-Islaam [the factors in which Wahhabis claim nullify a person’s Islam], p. 308 where Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab said:
The Wahhabi cult teaches that calling unto [du’a] to other than Allah is worship, and they misuse the hadeeth which says “du’a is worship”, so when any Sunni Muslim is caught saying “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ ” at his grave, he is then automatically accused of worshipping the Prophet ﷺ by calling unto him, thus deemed a mushrik [a pagan] for doing so.
Without any doubt, one is accused of calling unto other than Allah ﷺ and deemed a Kaafir. To demonstrate this point further then let us return to the statement of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s book Nawaaqid ul-Islam, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab said in point number two:
The Sahaabah addressed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ respectfully by saying “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ”, “Yaa RasulAllah ﷺ” and why? Take note of the following Qur’anic passage from Surah an-Nur [24] ayah 63:
Wahhabis make a distinction here. They argue that when the Messenger ﷺ was alive, then its permissible to call upon him [du’a] using the vocative noun “Yaa” but now he is “dead”, calling unto him [du’a] is now considered as worship, thus calling unto the Messenger ﷺ is nothing but pure shirk [i.e. idolatry].
So according to Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, to yad’u-hum [to call upon them] by saying “Ya RasulAllah” is indeed an act that is considered by the Wahhabi’s to take one out of the fold of Islam whether you are doing tawssaul, asking for Shifaa’a or istighathah. This can be further seen by the fact Wahhabi scholar Bilal Phillips wrote in his book Fundamentals of Tawheed p. 27-28:
However the big burning question here is this the stance of Muslim orthodoxy? Is this the position that the scholars of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’a hold? Do the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah believe that it is an act of idolatry to address the Prophet ﷺ in his grave?
According to Tafseer Ibn Katheer Surah an-Nisa [4] ayah 64 it is not shirk to call upon [du’a] the Messenger ﷺ whilst he is in his grave.
Before we go to Tafseer Ibn Katheer and look at the evidence [scans available] I would like to mention that this cannot be found in the ‘Arabic versions, nor is it translated in the Dar us-Salaam versions that are published by any Wahhabi publisher. It is purposefully whitewashed for the very reason that it defies the Wahhabi creed and they cannot have that as prove against them.
So what they have done is they have put out “Saheeh Tafseer Ibn Katheer”, but when they say “Saheeh” they do not mean authentic, they mean that they have corrected Ibn Katheer’s tafseer as they deemed that what he mentioned was dalaalah [misguidance].
This is one of the many reasons many new converts remain blind to the tricks of the Wahhabi organization. I have tried to tell them they are being deceived and they need to learn ‘Arabic so they can analyze these things for themselves, but I find that many Wahhabi converts are too huffed up with pride and are too far gone to even sincerely speak too. The once sincere conversation soon turns sour.
However, it is my challenge to them to study the following in ‘Arabic and then turn to the Dar us-Salaam and ask themselves why do Wahhabis keep white washing Sunni texts which clearly display evidences against their own creed?
Let us now quote from Tafseer Ibn Katheer:
There is no doubt to the authenticity of this narration used by Ibn Kathher as Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi also included this is his al-Mughni, vol. 3, pp. 599-601,
The Shaafi Master, Imaam Nawawi also included this narration in his book al-Adhkaar pp. 218-221,
The Maaliki Master Qadi Iyaad also documented this is his classical text Ash-Shifaa’a and other countless Imaams from the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah have used this as an evidence as seeking a need.
For example, the great relied upon Hanbali scholar Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi wrote in his al-Wasiyyah
You will also be able to find this hadeeth in Sunan at-tirmidhi and Ibn Maajah, Imaam Suyuti classified this hadeeth as saheeh in his al-Jami us-Saghir hadeeth no. 1279; and again Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal testifies to this hadeeth in his Mansik: Kash-Shaaf ul-Qinaa, vol. 2, pp. 70-73.
Now this is the interesting part, we can see from the above reference that Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal allowed tawassul through the Prophet by addressing the Prophet ﷺ in his grave with the vocative noun “Yaa” as in “Yaa Muhammad” or “Yaa RasulAllah”. However, look what the Wahhabi scholar Albani had to say about this in the book Tawassul: Seeking a means of nearness to Allah By Nasir ud-Deen Albani, Al-Hidaayah publising. -p. 38:
Therefore not only does Albani demonstrate to us that Wahhabis are on a different path than Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal but it also demonstrates to us that the deeper implications reflect the Khawwaarij theology at work by differing from the Imaams of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Albani’s statement therefore reflects nothing but bad opinion towards the Imaam. Especially given the fact that he describes Imaam Ahmad’s ijtihaad regarding this issue as a “blind opinion”.
Wahhabi’s should take special attention to what Imaam Tahaawi has to say in his al-Aqeedah ut-Tahaawiyah:
This is exactly what Muslims do when we make tawassul through the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. We “call unto them” addressing him ﷺ with the vocative particle [harf an-nidaa] “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ . Wahhabis need an ‘Arabic lesson in al-Munaada .
The Wahhabi cult teaches that calling unto [du’a] to other than Allah is worship, and they misuse the hadeeth which says “du’a is worship”, so when any Sunni Muslim is caught saying “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ ” at his grave, he is then automatically accused of worshipping the Prophet ﷺ by calling unto him, thus deemed a mushrik [a pagan] for doing so.
Without any doubt, one is accused of calling unto other than Allah ﷺ and deemed a Kaafir. To demonstrate this point further then let us return to the statement of Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab’s book Nawaaqid ul-Islam, Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab said in point number two:
Now take special note that Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab used the imperfect verb “yad’u-hum” meaning “they are calling or will call upon them” this verb derives from the same root as du’a which simply means to call upon see p. 282 of the Hans Wehr ‘Arabic dictionary.
The Sahaabah addressed the Messenger of Allah ﷺ respectfully by saying “Yaa Muhammad ﷺ”, “Yaa RasulAllah ﷺ” and why? Take note of the following Qur’anic passage from Surah an-Nur [24] ayah 63:
Meaning address the Prophet ﷺ respectfully! This is why they used “Yaa RasulAllah” in his very lifetime out of respect. But more importantly also notice that the Allah used the word du’a!
Wahhabis make a distinction here. They argue that when the Messenger ﷺ was alive, then its permissible to call upon him [du’a] using the vocative noun “Yaa” but now he is “dead”, calling unto him [du’a] is now considered as worship, thus calling unto the Messenger ﷺ is nothing but pure shirk [i.e. idolatry].
So according to Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab, to yad’u-hum [to call upon them] by saying “Ya RasulAllah” is indeed an act that is considered by the Wahhabi’s to take one out of the fold of Islam whether you are doing tawssaul, asking for Shifaa’a or istighathah. This can be further seen by the fact Wahhabi scholar Bilal Phillips wrote in his book Fundamentals of Tawheed p. 27-28:
It is then clear that Wahhabis deem such tawaasul as calling upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by directly addressing him “Yaa RasulAllah” as major shirk, regardless if we are asking for help, or for them to supplicate to Allah for us.
However the big burning question here is this the stance of Muslim orthodoxy? Is this the position that the scholars of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’a hold? Do the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah believe that it is an act of idolatry to address the Prophet ﷺ in his grave?
According to Tafseer Ibn Katheer Surah an-Nisa [4] ayah 64 it is not shirk to call upon [du’a] the Messenger ﷺ whilst he is in his grave.
Before we go to Tafseer Ibn Katheer and look at the evidence [scans available] I would like to mention that this cannot be found in the ‘Arabic versions, nor is it translated in the Dar us-Salaam versions that are published by any Wahhabi publisher. It is purposefully whitewashed for the very reason that it defies the Wahhabi creed and they cannot have that as prove against them.
So what they have done is they have put out “Saheeh Tafseer Ibn Katheer”, but when they say “Saheeh” they do not mean authentic, they mean that they have corrected Ibn Katheer’s tafseer as they deemed that what he mentioned was dalaalah [misguidance].
This is one of the many reasons many new converts remain blind to the tricks of the Wahhabi organization. I have tried to tell them they are being deceived and they need to learn ‘Arabic so they can analyze these things for themselves, but I find that many Wahhabi converts are too huffed up with pride and are too far gone to even sincerely speak too. The once sincere conversation soon turns sour.
However, it is my challenge to them to study the following in ‘Arabic and then turn to the Dar us-Salaam and ask themselves why do Wahhabis keep white washing Sunni texts which clearly display evidences against their own creed?
Let us now quote from Tafseer Ibn Katheer:
Before my readership starts calling me a misleading Barelwi prentending to be a Hanbali, let us look to the Hanbali scholars and see what they have to offer.
There is no doubt to the authenticity of this narration used by Ibn Kathher as Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi also included this is his al-Mughni, vol. 3, pp. 599-601,
The Shaafi Master, Imaam Nawawi also included this narration in his book al-Adhkaar pp. 218-221,
The Maaliki Master Qadi Iyaad also documented this is his classical text Ash-Shifaa’a and other countless Imaams from the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah have used this as an evidence as seeking a need.
For example, the great relied upon Hanbali scholar Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdasi wrote in his al-Wasiyyah
Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen then says after quoting this du’a
Imaam Muwaffaq ud-Deen Ibn Qudaamah’s work al-Wassiyah has been translated by Abu Ja’far al-Hanbali and is available for people to read here: and it has also been translated by Aisha Bewly.
You will also be able to find this hadeeth in Sunan at-tirmidhi and Ibn Maajah, Imaam Suyuti classified this hadeeth as saheeh in his al-Jami us-Saghir hadeeth no. 1279; and again Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal testifies to this hadeeth in his Mansik: Kash-Shaaf ul-Qinaa, vol. 2, pp. 70-73.
Now this is the interesting part, we can see from the above reference that Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal allowed tawassul through the Prophet by addressing the Prophet ﷺ in his grave with the vocative noun “Yaa” as in “Yaa Muhammad” or “Yaa RasulAllah”. However, look what the Wahhabi scholar Albani had to say about this in the book Tawassul: Seeking a means of nearness to Allah By Nasir ud-Deen Albani, Al-Hidaayah publising. -p. 38:
Notice carefully how Albani used the pronoun “We” distinctly to differ from Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal. Imaam Tahaawi and other great scholars of Islamic creed only used the pronoun “we” in reference to the Ahlus-Sunnah wal jamaa’ah and their methodlogy.
Therefore not only does Albani demonstrate to us that Wahhabis are on a different path than Imaam Ahmad Bin Hanbal but it also demonstrates to us that the deeper implications reflect the Khawwaarij theology at work by differing from the Imaams of the Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah. Albani’s statement therefore reflects nothing but bad opinion towards the Imaam. Especially given the fact that he describes Imaam Ahmad’s ijtihaad regarding this issue as a “blind opinion”.
Wahhabi’s should take special attention to what Imaam Tahaawi has to say in his al-Aqeedah ut-Tahaawiyah:
In other words, the whole Wahhabi madh-hab is flawed as it teaches that every scholar, common Muslim, dog cat and mouse is a Kaafir, and the whole world is on the path of idolatry all except for them.
