Sufi Grave Worshipper Doubt: Call Upon The Angels For Help When Lost In The Desert

The man in the video is a Madkhali Wahhabi, nobody cares what he has to say.

You are allowed to call upon others as means of assistance with the belief that help ultimately comes from Allah alone. As for calling upon the Angels, this is what Imam Ahmed used to do. Imam Shawkani (Who “Salafis” like to selectively quote) believed in the permissibility of seeking help through Angels and righteous Jinns.
 

Omar del Sur

FAKEDEMIC = COMMUNISM
VIP
The man in the video is a Madkhali Wahhabi, nobody cares what he has to say.

You are allowed to call upon others as means of assistance with the belief that help ultimately comes from Allah alone. As for calling upon the Angels, this is what Imam Ahmed used to do. Imam Shawkani (Who “Salafis” like to selectively quote) believed in the permissibility of seeking help through Angels and righteous Jinns.
Quit calling people to shirk.
 

Dawo

Freedom Fighter
VIP
Ibn al-Qayyim writes:

وَمِنْ أَنْوَاعِهِ يعني الشرك طَلَبُ الْحَوَائِجِ مِنَ الْمَوْتَى وَالِاسْتِغَاثَةُ بِهِمْ وَالتَّوَجُّهُ إِلَيْهِمْ وَهَذَا أَصْلُ شِرْكِ الْعَالَمِ فَإِنَّ الْمَيِّتَ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ عَمَلُهُ وَهُوَ لَا يَمْلِكُلِنَفْسِهِ ضَرَّا وَلَا نَفْعًا فَضْلًا عَمَّنِ اسْتَغَاثَ بِهِ وَسَأَلَهُ قَضَاءَ حَاجَتِهِ أَوْ سَأَلَهُ أَنْ يَشْفَعَ لَهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ فِيهَا

Among the types of idolatry are seeking one’s needs from the dead, seeking their aid, and turning to them. This is the origin of idolatry in the world. Indeed, the deeds of the deceased have been put to an end and they have no control for themselves to cause harm or benefit, especially one who seeks their aid and asks them to fulfill their needs or asks them to intercede with Allah for them.

[Source: Madārij al-Sālikīn 1/353]


Ibn Taymiyyah writes:
لَمْ يَقُلْ أَحَدٌ مِنْ عُلَمَاءِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إنَّهُ يُسْتَغَاثُ بِشَيْءِ مِنْ الْمَخْلُوقَاتِ فِي كُلِّ مَا يُسْتَغَاثُ فِيهِ بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى لَا بِنَبِيِّ وَلَا بِمَلَكِ وَلَا بِصَالِحِ وَلَا غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ بَلْهَذَا مِمَّا يُعْلَمُ بِالِاضْطِرَارِ مِنْ دِينِ الْإِسْلَامِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوزُ إطْلَاقُهُ
No one among the Muslim scholars ever said that the aid of created beings should be sought in matters in which the aid of Allah Almighty should be sought, not by a prophet, nor an angel, nor a righteous person, nor anyone else. This is among what must be necessarily known about the religion of Islam, that it is absolutely impermissible.

[Source: Majmū’ al-Fatāwá 1/103]



In another narration, the Prophet said:
إِنَّهُ لا يُسْتَغَاثُ بِى إِنَّما يُسْتَغَاثُ بالله
My aid is not to be sought. Verily, one only seeks the aid of Allah.

Source: Majma’ al-Zawāʼid 10/126 - Book by Sunni Shaafi Scholar Nur Al-Haythami who extracted the Zawa’id from Al-Musnad by Ahmad ibn Hanbal.


Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
لَا يَنْبَغِي لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يَدْعُوَ اللَّهَ إلَّا بِهِ
No one should call upon Allah except by Him.
Source: al-Durr al-Mukhtār 6/396
 

Abdalla

Medical specialist in diagnosing Majeerteentitis
Prof.Dr.Eng.
VIP
The man in the video is a Madkhali Wahhabi, nobody cares what he has to say.

You are allowed to call upon others as means of assistance with the belief that help ultimately comes from Allah alone. As for calling upon the Angels, this is what Imam Ahmed used to do. Imam Shawkani (Who “Salafis” like to selectively quote) believed in the permissibility of seeking help through Angels and righteous Jinns.
Imam Muhammed bin Abdulwahab was right in wiping out the likes of you. Call upon the Angels kulaha, I am this close in making takfir on you. Allah is not deaf for you to call on someone to intercede on your behalf. Nor is Allah not merciful enough to disregard your plea but accept the plea of someone else. May Allah raise the rank of MIAW for every kufr indulging sufi he sent back to his Creator.
 
Interesting video @Omar del Sur but I'd advice you to not watch that guy. He's the head of the Madkhalis in Sudan and if you're not knowledgeable enough he could misguide you on matters related to khuruj and rebellion
 

Omar del Sur

FAKEDEMIC = COMMUNISM
VIP
Interesting video @Omar del Sur but I'd advice you to not watch that guy. He's the head of the Madkhalis in Sudan and if you're not knowledgeable enough he could misguide you on matters related to khuruj and rebellion
look, this whole issue is not that complicated

as I understand it, the basic general view is- we shouldn't rebel against the Muslim ruler unless we have clear-cut proof of him committing apostasy.

I think that is the general teaching amongst the Salafis. Do we actually have any proof that Sheikh Madkhali is teaching "don't rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy"? I'm not willing to join in slandering the scholar without proof.

As for the Sudanese scholar in the video, I think he is a very good scholar and I think if you asked him, I think he and most of the Salafi scholars would say the same thing- don't rebel unless you have clear-cut proof of apostasy.

I think this "Madkhali" thing is like "Wahhabi"- I think it's a myth. I don't think there is any such thing as a Wahhabi or a Madkhali sect. How is Sheikh Madkhali's view any different than the one I mentioned- and if he has some different view, what are his exact words detailing his other position?

Talking about the scholars like this is very serious and there should be proof.
 
Quit calling people to shirk.
Was Imam Shawkani doing shirk according to you? He allows Tawwasul with the Prophet's and the righteous Saints admitted by al-Albani himself.

1618896299312.png

Imam Muhammed bin Abdulwahab was right in wiping out the likes of you. Call upon the Angels kulaha, I am this close in making takfir on you. Allah is not deaf for you to call on someone to intercede on your behalf. Nor is Allah not merciful enough to disregard your plea but accept the plea of someone else. May Allah raise the rank of MIAW for every kufr indulging sufi he sent back to his Creator.
Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed - Rahimuhullah) saying: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way (يا عباد الله دلوني على الطريق), I kept on repeating this until I came back on track. [Imam Baihaqi in Shu’ayb ul Iman, Volume 6, Page No 128, Hadith No. 7697]

Was Imam Ahmed doing Shirk? Are you going to Takfir him?
 

Omar del Sur

FAKEDEMIC = COMMUNISM
VIP
Was Imam Shawkani doing shirk according to you? He allows Tawwasul with the Prophet's and the righteous Saints admitted by al-Albani himself.

View attachment 181051

Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal said that he heard his father (Imam Ahmed - Rahimuhullah) saying: I performed Hajj 5 times, thrice on foot and twice on ride or he said thrice on ride and twice on foot, once when I was on foot I lost my way hence I started to exclaim this: O Allah’s servants show me the way (يا عباد الله دلوني على الطريق), I kept on repeating this until I came back on track. [Imam Baihaqi in Shu’ayb ul Iman, Volume 6, Page No 128, Hadith No. 7697]

Was Imam Ahmed doing Shirk? Are you going to Takfir him?
Look- the religion is based on Quran and Sunnah. For all I know the claims your claim that Imam Ahmed allowed supplicating to jinn- these claims could be bogus.

But even so- the religion is based on Quran and Sunnah. You follow the scholars when they are in accordance with Quran and Sunnah. The bottom line is what Quran and Sunnah say.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
@Omar del Sur

This is more of a warning to you and anyone else accusing muslims of either committing shirk or calling to it. You lack the knowledge and ability to research even the most basic of issues pertaining to the deen yet have the audacity to accuse muslims of shirk.

It's one thing to abstain from things that seem doubtful to you but to claim that those who don't share your view or understanding are guilty of shirk etc is simply astounding and displays your level of kibir.

How can you claim to follow the Quran and Sunnah or even derive rulings when you lack both the knowledge and qualification to do so ? I mean is your understanding that great ? If you were truly following the quran & sunnah as you claim then you would know about the different instances of how the word dua is used in the Quran ?



1618921971121.png

Do not make your calling on (dua )the Messenger in the same manner you call on one another

In surah An Nur(24) ayah 63 Allah instructs the muslims not to make dua to the Prophet the same way as they would for each other. Now the question that needs to be answered is if all dua is worship then why would Allah tell us to make dua to the Prophet, does Allah command shirk here ? The answer is no and no one believes the meaning of dua here refers to worship.

There are other ayat where the word dua and it's variants have been used in the same manner as in the above ayah. Had you pondered over them you would have known the differences when dua is considered as ibadah and when it isn't. Laakin due to your limited understanding and lack of knowledge you simply jump to conclusions and accuse others of engaging in shirk or calling to it.

Imam ahmad as mentioned in the source cited by @Tamir acted on the hadith of seeking help from the slaves of Allah, this fact is even accepted by salafis and you can find it on their websites. This fact alone should make one humble enough to reflect upon their understanding that leads them to accuse fellow muslims of shirk. Imagine trying to claim that a great imam like ahmad didn't know what shirk was but a layman like you does ?

Wallah if indeed you truly followed quran & sunnah you wouldn't accuse muslims of committing shirk so easily in matters that you lack knowledge in.
 

Commander Imam

Somalia united
look, this whole issue is not that complicated

as I understand it, the basic general view is- we shouldn't rebel against the Muslim ruler unless we have clear-cut proof of him committing apostasy.

I think that is the general teaching amongst the Salafis. Do we actually have any proof that Sheikh Madkhali is teaching "don't rebel against the ruler even if he commits apostasy"? I'm not willing to join in slandering the scholar without proof.

As for the Sudanese scholar in the video, I think he is a very good scholar and I think if you asked him, I think he and most of the Salafi scholars would say the same thing- don't rebel unless you have clear-cut proof of apostasy.

I think this "Madkhali" thing is like "Wahhabi"- I think it's a myth. I don't think there is any such thing as a Wahhabi or a Madkhali sect. How is Sheikh Madkhali's view any different than the one I mentioned- and if he has some different view, what are his exact words detailing his other position?

Talking about the scholars like this is very serious and there should be proof.
this is not the only reason for rebellion if the head of the state didn't provide the means of living a respected life for his people while he has the power to do that and steal the money of people. he should be overthrown and is no longer the leader that the Muslim ummah should follow.
 

Dawo

Freedom Fighter
VIP
@Omar del Sur @JalleGeesi @General Shurmajan

Seems like sufis like to lie about sheikh miaw heres a clip of a hanbali scholar who practices tawassul to the prophet.

so it seems sheikh Miaw never denied tawassul to the prophet he just took the makruh (disliked) opinion amongst the earlier scholars.

for us english speakers its easy to get decieved if we don't know arabic, this sheikh just refuted the sufis in one small clip.


 

Dawo

Freedom Fighter
VIP
Its starting to make sense a bit it seems like after watching that video that sufis are liars and distorters.


Why do sufis lie and say sheikh miaw denied tawassul to the prophet completely? the sheikh in the video clearly mentioned in his durar saniyah sheikh miaw never made tawassul haram rather makruh disliked


Furthermore why do they make it seem like its an ijmaa issue and any scholar who dislikes tawassul is a takfiri ?

It seems like that the people sheikh miaw actually fought and made takfir on were NOT practices of tawassul ( its valid how can he fight it) they were practices of actual pure shirk.

Why would he fight practices of tawassul if in his books it states the opinion of tawassul to the prophet is valid and other scholars deemed it makruh and he took the makruh opinion he never called it haram.

now i see why it's so important to know arabic its so easy to be misinformed.
 
Its starting to make sense a bit it seems like after watching that video that sufis are liars and distorters.

Why do sufis lie and say sheikh miaw denied tawassul to the prophet completely? the sheikh in the video clearly mentioned in his durar saniyah sheikh miaw never made tawassul haram rather makruh disliked

Furthermore why do they make it seem like its an ijmaa issue and any scholar who dislikes tawassul is a takfiri ?

It seems like that the people sheikh miaw actually fought and made takfir on were NOT practices of tawassul ( its valid how can he fight it) they were practices of actual pure shirk.

Why would he fight practices of tawassul if in his books it states the opinion of tawassul to the prophet is valid and other scholars deemed it makruh and he took the makruh opinion he never called it haram.

now i see why it's so important to know arabic its so easy to be misinformed.
He pretty much did actually. Not to mention the countless people he slaughtered and made Takfir of whole entire tribes. What nullifies someone’s Islam according to MIAW?

9EC23648-380C-43AB-AE3A-1A40713B11CC.jpeg


MIAW’s son admits that the main reason why they killed Muslims was the issue of seeking intercession:

“If someone - trying to cause [a feeling of] opposition against accepting the truth and submission to it - says:
Your statement and certain assertion that the one who says "O Messenger of Allah, I ask for your intercession" is a polytheist whose blood is to be spilled, necessitates that one affirms the disbelief of the majority of the [Islamic] nation (Umma), especially the later ones [from among them], because their relied upon scholars have said that this is allowed and attacked the one who opposed in this [issue].
I say: This is not necessitated, because that which a statement necessitates is not the statement itself (Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhhab) as it is established and this is just like it‘s not necessary for us to be Mujassima just because we affirm the direction of highness (for Allah ta'ala) as the narration came regarding it.
We say regarding the one who has [already] died: { These were a nation that have passed away } [2:134] and we do not declare anyone to be a disbeliever except the one whom our call to truth has reached and the argument has become obvious to him and the proof has been established upon him and [thereafter] he [still] arrogantly and stubbornly insists [upon doing this] like the majority we fight today:
They insist on this committing of polytheism (Ishrak)
and stay away from fulfilling the obligations and commit major sins and [other] sins.
As for the non-majority: We fight them for supporting the one whose state is like that and are pleased with them and make the group of those mentioned [before] larger and are allied to them, then the ruling of fighting against them applies to them also.” (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/234-235)


They were practices of actual pure shirk.
Brother, this is a Wahhabi fabrication with no historicity. Apart from Wahhabi sources, I don’t think there’s any reference from any scholar at the time of MIAW claiming the people of the Arabian peninsula were upon shirk. MIAW was unanimously condemned as a Khawarij by the scholars of his time and there’s plenty of irrefutable evidence to show. MIAW and his gang of thugs were just massacring and killing innocent people, they takfired whole entire places.

04D866DC-5BDD-4E38-8E39-3F968FCD92D3.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Dawo

Freedom Fighter
VIP
He pretty much did actually. Not to mention the countless people he slaughtered and made Takfir of whole entire tribes. What nullifies someone’s Islam according to MIAW?

View attachment 181246

MIAW’s son admits that the main reason why they killed Muslims was the issue of seeking intercession:

“If someone - trying to cause [a feeling of] opposition against accepting the truth and submission to it - says:
Your statement and certain assertion that the one who says "O Messenger of Allah, I ask for your intercession" is a polytheist whose blood is to be spilled, necessitates that one affirms the disbelief of the majority of the [Islamic] nation (Umma), especially the later ones [from among them], because their relied upon scholars have said that this is allowed and attacked the one who opposed in this [issue].
I say: This is not necessitated, because that which a statement necessitates is not the statement itself (Lazim al-Madhhab laysa bi Madhhab) as it is established and this is just like it‘s not necessary for us to be Mujassima just because we affirm the direction of highness (for Allah ta'ala) as the narration came regarding it.
We say regarding the one who has [already] died: { These were a nation that have passed away } [2:134] and we do not declare anyone to be a disbeliever except the one whom our call to truth has reached and the argument has become obvious to him and the proof has been established upon him and [thereafter] he [still] arrogantly and stubbornly insists [upon doing this] like the majority we fight today:
They insist on this committing of polytheism (Ishrak)
and stay away from fulfilling the obligations and commit major sins and [other] sins.
As for the non-majority: We fight them for supporting the one whose state is like that and are pleased with them and make the group of those mentioned [before] larger and are allied to them, then the ruling of fighting against them applies to them also.” (from al-Durar al-Saniyya 1/234-235)



Brother, this is a Wahhabi fabrication with no historicity. Apart from Wahhabi sources, I don’t think there’s any reference from any scholar at the time of MIAW claiming the people of the Arabian peninsula were upon shirk. MIAW was unanimously condemned as a Khawarij by the scholars of his time and there’s plenty of irrefutable evidence to show. MIAW and his gang of thugs were just massacring and killing innocent people, they takfired whole entire places.

View attachment 181248

You're getting mixed up with tawassul and istighatha.

Tawassul ( Supplicating to Allah through intermediaries)

Isitghatha ( calling upon and seeking the help of other than Allah)

Tawassul we can agree no sheikh permitted it haram not even sheikh miaw the video above i sent is proof.

Some extreme sufis actually believe the prophet and pious scholars have powers over the unseen and that they can change their dunya outcome.. << when they supplicate to them this is istighatha seeking help directly from the dead.

^^ this is the type of shirk the quraysh done, they worshipped their idols alongside allah and thought their idols can change their fate and have knowledge of the unseen.


So clearly isitighatha to the dead is shirk tawassul is not shirk by ijmaa even though scholars dislike tawassul theres only two rulings makruh and halal as the video stated.

Isitighatha to the dead being shirk was never a "wahhabi" ibn rajab, ibn aqeel, ibn khuzaymah many scholars of all four madhab came before sheikh miaw and said the same thing he did.

This topic tawassul/istighatha was debated on twitter couple months ago by some students of knowledge who know arabic they cleared up a lot of misconception.

 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
@Omar del Sur @JalleGeesi @General Shurmajan

Seems like sufis like to lie about sheikh miaw heres a clip of a hanbali scholar who practices tawassul to the prophet.

so it seems sheikh Miaw never denied tawassul to the prophet he just took the makruh (disliked) opinion amongst the earlier scholars.

for us english speakers its easy to get decieved if we don't know arabic, this sheikh just refuted the sufis in one small clip.


Both miaw and his followers only accept tawassul with the living only (they even put conditions here like the one sought intercession from has to be present etc),but seeking tawassul with the deceased including the Prophet is shirk to them and they label anyone doing such an action as a mushrik. They fought and killed the muslims who rejected the najdi dawah on this basis.

The issue here is that you simply haven't read their books only listen to what you're taught without researching nor verifying it. Some of his books have already been translated into english, you just need to read it.


In his kashf as shubuhat (Remover of doubts) this is what miaw had to say about the muslims who sought intercession with the deceased be it the Prophet or any of the righteous muslims etc.


From them is their statement: “We do not associate any partners with Allaah – rather we bear witness that none creates nor provides sustenance nor brings benefit or harm except Allaah alone, having no partner – and that Muhammad sall Allaahu ‘alaiyhi wa sallam does not possess the ability to bring benefit to himself nor harm – let alone ‘Abdul Qaadir or other than him! However... I am a sinner, and the righteous people have a lofty status with Allaah, so it is through them that I ask of Allaah.”

So answer them with what preceded and it is: “That those against whom the Messenger of Allaah sall Allaahu ‘alaiyhi wa sallam fought were people who affirmed what you have just mentioned, and they affirmed that their idols did not have the ability to control anything – and that they (the mushriks) only wanted (to use) their lofty position and their intercession.”


And recite to him that which Allaah has mentioned in His Book and which He has made clear.

So if he says: “These aayaat were revealed with regards to those who worship al asnaam (the idols) – so how can you equate the righteous people with idols? Or how can you equate the prophets with idols?

Then answer him with what has preceded. And if he affirms that the kuffaar (disbelievers) used to testify that all the ruboobeeyah (Lordship) is for Allaah, and that they sought only shafaa’ah (intercession) from the ones that they turned to – but he wishes to distinguish between their action and his action, with what he has mentioned, then mention to him that from the kuffaar were some who would call upon the idols, and some who would call upon the awliyaa (beloved servants of Allaah) about whom Allaah says:

«Those upon whom they call seek a means to Allaah, as to which of them should be the closest.»​

And His Statement, subhaanahu wa ta’aala:

«And when Allaah will say, “O ‘Eesaa ibn Maryam! Did you say to the people, “Take me and my mother as ilah instead of Allaah?”” He will say, “How free from all imperfections are You! It was not for me to say that which I had no right to say! If I had said that then you would certainly have known it. You know what is in my nafs and I do now know what is in Your nafs. Indeed You are the Knower of the Hidden and Unseen.”»​


And say to him, “Do you know that Allaah has declared the person who seeks (the intercession) of the idols to be a kaafir, and He has also declared to be a kaafir the person who seeks (the intercession) of the righteous people, and Allaah’s Messenger fought against them?”

So if he says: “The kuffaar (disbelievers) sought from them - whereas I bear witness that Allaah is the One who brings benefit, and the One who brings harm and the One who controls all the affairs, and I do not seek anything from anyone other than Him, and (that) the righteous people do not have any part in this matter. However, I turn to them and I hope from Allaah for their intercession.”

Then the answer is: “That this is exactly the same as the statement of the kuffaar!” And recite to him His Statement, He the Most High:

«And those who take awliyaa (protector/guardian) besides Him (say), “We worship them only so that they may bring us close to Allaah!”»​


Source: kash shubuhat pg 10-13 link: https://download.ilmussalaf.com/Books/Kashfush-Shubhaat-Eng.pdf


In the above excerpt from kash shubuhat miaw equates the seeking of intercession done by muslims to that of the pagan quraysh. He states that the pagan quraysh had tawheed rububiyyah just like the muslims he makes takfir of and says what the muslims are doing by seeking intercession with the prophet or righteous muslim is exactly the same as that of pagan quraysh.

Meaning the shirk of quraysh was seeking intercession with their idols and they worshipped them on this basis, so the muslim who seeks intercession from either the Prophet etc is in fact worshipping them and they too are considered to be mushriks.



Problems with the above


1. Pagan quraysh didn't have tawheed rububuiyyah ie they didn't single out Allah in His Rububiyyah. They affirmed some of Allah's Rububiyyah to their idols that they worshipped

1619028381140.png

The above qoute is from islamqa (real meaning of tawheed rububiyyah ), even though they claim that mushrikeen affirmed tawheed rububiyyah they conceded the fact that pagans also committed shirk in rububiyyah. Now how is it possible to affirm tawheed and shirk in rububiyyah at the same time ? doesn't shirk not negate tawheed ? They pagan believed that lat uzza and manat idolgods were the daughters of Allah, ascribing offspring to Allah is shirk rububiyyah. They share the same belief as christians who believe that Issa is the son of God. Can we now then say that such pagans have the same belief as muslims regarding tawheed rububiyyah ?
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top