Talk:Tawassul

Why Tawassul?

In my opinion, the practise of Tawassul today is no different from what the Meccans did at the time of Prophet Muhammad(saws). The Meccans worshipped Idols as a sort of Intermediary, not as a direct means to have their prayers answered. but didn't the Prophet come to stop people from this?? Not only are many muslims today justifying their actions thru' weak hadith, but they are also going against the Qur'an in this matter. May Allah guide us all.

Salams! Wikipedia is a not an Islamic forum. It's not the place to discuss Fiqh matters. It's in the interest of maintaining an encyclopaedia to accurately mention the details and the history of the practice. It will be hard to communicate with you if you don't use a username. Please consider registering yourself on the site if you wish to do any serious editing. --Nkv 07:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Supplicating to Prophet to intercede after his death is Prohibited

Quran clearly expresses that these type of Dua or tawassul are not permitted and which were the custom of polytheist.

قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُم مِّن دُونِهِ فَلَا يَمْلِكُونَ كَشْفَ الضُّرِّ عَنكُمْ وَلَا تَحْوِيلًا

Say, “Call upon those you claim besides Him. They have no power to relieve your adversity, nor can they change it.” (Quran Israa 56).

Ibn Jareer Al Tabari quoted from Ibn Abbas in the commentary of the verse No. 56 of chapter Israa

عن ابن عباس، قوله ( قُلِ ادْعُوا الَّذِينَ زَعَمْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِهِ فَلا يَمْلِكُونَ كَشْفَ الضُّرِّ عَنْكُمْ وَلا تَحْوِيلا ) قال: كان أهل الشرك يقولون: نعبد الملائكة وعُزَيرا، وهم الذين يدعون، يعني الملائكة والمسيح وعُزيرا.

From Ibn Abbas, Allah said, "Invoke those you have claimed [as gods] besides Him, for they do not possess the [ability for] removal of adversity from you or [for its] transfer [to someone else], he said, The polytheists use to say that we worship the angels and uzair and they were supplicating, means Angels, Jesus and Uzair”. (Tabari, Israa 56).

Faqrudeen Razi said:

وهذه الأشياء التي يعبدونها وهي الملائكة والجن والمسيح وعزير لا يقدرون على كشف الضر ولا على تحصيل النفع 

“These things which they are worshipping, they are, Angels, Jin Jesus and Uzair are incapable of removing the evil and bringing good” (Razi,Israa 56). This verse clearly expresses the incapability of the prophets, righteous people and Angels to answer our supplication. They cannot neither relieve the problem nor change it. So the incapability of supplicated is mentioned as the main reason for the prohibition of supplication.

Polytheists say those righteous people are interceding for us near Allah. Allah says:

وَيَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ وَلَا يَنفَعُهُمْ وَيَقُولُونَ هَٰؤُلَاءِ شُفَعَاؤُنَا عِندَ اللَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَتُنَبِّئُونَ اللَّهَ بِمَا لَا يَعْلَمُ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَلَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ

"And they worship other than Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, These are our intercessors with Allah. Say, "Do you inform Allah of something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?" Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him”. (Quraan, Younus 18).

Faqruddeen Raazi compares the polytheists act with the people who intercedes with the Grave and righteous people in these days.

أنهم وضعوا هذه الأصنام والأوثان على صور أنبيائهم وأكابرهم ، وزعموا أنهم متى اشتغلوا بعبادة هذه التماثيل ، فإن أولئك الأكابر تكون شفعاء لهم عند الله تعالى ، ونظيره في هذا الزمان اشتغال كثير من الخلق بتعظيم قبور الأكابر ، على اعتقاد أنهم إذا عظموا قبورهم فإنهم يكونون شفعاء لهم عند الله

“They kept the idols in the shape of Prophets and great ones. They thought whenever they are engaged in the worship of idols, those great people become intercede for them near Allah. Similar deeds in recent time is that many involved in respecting the graves of great ones believing that if they respect their graves, they will become interceders for them near Allah” (Razi, Younus 18)

Our prophet also explains that he is incapable of knowing or witnessing after his demise; and he is only witness for whom he was among them and after his death Allah is the observer and witness. Ibn Katheer in his commentary of Verse No. 117 of Chapter Maaida, quoted Aboodawood Al Tayalisi’s record, reported from Ibn Abbas as Prophet PBUH said regarding the happenings in the day of Judgment:

فيقال : إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك . فأقول كما قال العبد الصالح : ( وكنت عليهم شهيدا ما دمت فيهم فلما توفيتني كنت أنت الرقيب عليهم وأنت على كل شيء شهيد إن تعذبهم فإنهم عبادك وإن تغفر لهم فإنك أنت العزيز الحكيم ) فيقال : إن هؤلاء لم يزالوا مرتدين على أعقابهم منذ فارقتهم

Prophet PBUH will be told” You don’t know what they have done after you. Then I will say as the righteous slave (Jesus) said that I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness. If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise. Then he is told that they have become apostate since you depart them.” (Ibn Katheer, Maaida 117)

In one occasion Prophet PBUH asked Abdullah ibn Masood to read Quran to listen. When he reached the verse No. 41 of Chapter Al Nisa

فَكَيْفَ إِذَا جِئْنَا مِن كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ بِشَهِيدٍ وَجِئْنَا بِكَ عَلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ شَهِيدًا

“So how [will it be] when We bring from every nation a witness and we bring you, [O Muhammad] against these [people] as a witness?”(Quran, Al Nisaa 41) Imam Tabari reported as Rasool SA said:

فكيف إذا جئنا منْ كل أمة بشهيد وجئنا بك على هؤلاء شهيدًا "، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنْتَ أَنْتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنْتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ .

“When you make me die, you are the Observer and you are the witness on everything” (Tabari, Al Nisa 41).

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: شهيدًا عليهم ما دمت فيهم، فإذا توفيتني كنت أنت الرقيبَ عليهم، وأنتَ على كل شيء شهيد

Prophet PBUH said “I am witness on them as long as I am with them, when you make me die, you are the Observer and you are the witness on everything”(Tabari, Al Nisa 41).

Maqreezi Al Sahfee says, explaining the visiting the grave that the grave visits are of three types among the people “Visiting the grave and praying for the dead, this is as per Islamic rules and prophetic tradition; Visiting grave and praying to/through them, this is polytheism in worship and Visiting grave and praying to the one in the grave himself, this is the shirk in lordship”. (Thadreeju thouheed).

Hajjawi Al Hanbali said in his book Al Iqnaa in the chapter the rules of Apostasy

جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا

“Make mediators between Allah and himself and depend on them and supplicate to them and ask them (will make him Apostate) by consensus of the Scholars”(Al Iqnaa)

Mansoor al Buhooti Al Hanbali Said:

  جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم إجماعا  أي كفر لأن ذلك كفعل عابدي الأصنام قائلين

“Make mediators between Allah and himself and depend on them and supplicate to them and ask them by consensus of the Scholars means Apostasy, because it is similar to the idol worshipers doing (Kashaaf al Iqanaa)

Ibn Muflih Hanbali in Furoo had given the same ruling

 جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يتوكل عليهم ويدعوهم ويسألهم قال جماعة: أو سجد لشمس أو قمر

“Make mediators between Allah and himself and depend on them and supplicate to them and ask them (will make him Apostate), the Scholars told or prostrate to Sun or Moon” (Furoo).

Ibn Abdil Hadi Al Hanbali Said that the making the aim of visiting (grave) and asking the dead and types of that on Allah, or receiving the answer for the supplication in such places; this is never become among the deed of anyone of the people of Successors nor the Disciples (of Prophet PBUH), nor their true followers (Sarimul Munki).

None among the four imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafee and Ahmad nor their students supplicated to Prophet PBUH to intercede for them. So the supplication to intercede after the death of Prophets and Righteous people were the way of polytheist and prohibited in Islam. Ahmad Pavilion (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Ahmad Pavilion (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ahmad Pavilion: Do you have any third-party reliable sources for the changes you are making? In your edit, I only see citations directly to religious primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If there are published, reputable scholars making the arguments that you are putting forth, you can include them with attribution, but otherwise you are simply stating your own opinions, which is considered original research and should be removed. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@PohranicniStraze: All interpretations of primary source Quran are provided from eminent sunni Scholars like Imam Razi, Imam Tabari and Imam Ibn Katheer. Scholarly opinions are provided from Imam Ibn Aqeel Imam Ibn Al Jouzi, Imam Maqreezi and Imam Hajjawi. The information are supported by these exegesis and scholarly opinions. Your comments are not correct since All exegesis and opinions are from the eminent and indisputable sunni scholars. If any scholarly unsupported arguments from my side you can remove. otherwise not fair to remove the information.Ahmad Pavilion (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, he is flooding article with one-sided biased negative POV which is making the whole article look like criticism of Tawassul. ScholarM (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass edits

Please do not make such large changes without discussing. It's a fact that Tawassul was first declared an innovation by Ibn Tamiya. It's also a fact that it is the Salafi group that challenges it most often today. I'm reverting some of the changes you have made. --Nkv 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not true, the disagreement on the legality of tawassul dates back much earlier, and did not start with Ibn Taymiyya. There are extant records of legal arguments between Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and his students, with the Imam arguing for it and the students arguing against it. --jahangirhasan 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive changes

Please don't change the entire article without discussing it. --Nkv 14:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tawassul is exactly in accordance with our Lord's Will.Intercessory prayer is the kind of thing He responds to and not our selfish needs.He disregards legality or doctrine and cannot be put into a box!We all try to define Him, but we will always fail!He has no boundaries in space or time!He truly is Infinite!

Merge

The article on Waseela is equivalent to this. I think they should be merged. I have included my opinions and comments in detail at Talk:Waseelah.--Nkv 17:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, they need to be merged, and they are so now. It will take some time to clean it up, but you know... it needs to be done.--Striver 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy. This is going to take a while :). I've (for starters) removed the Deobandi view of Tawassul. I don't think there's much sense in putting a single groups view in such detail on an article. I've also removed the conclusion section. Other changes that I think need to be put forward are the facts that all the Hadith analysis in the article is by Shaykh Albani who is a Salafi authority and therefore reflects mostly their viewpoint. Other viewpoints need to be added to balance the article. It's a little skewed as of now. What dost thou think? --Nkv 04:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its gona take some wiok... I agree with you that all that info would give the deobandis undue weight. But the correct thing is not to delet them, accoding to NPOV and FORK, we need to creat Deobandi view of Tawassul.

Well, I'm not too sure. What's the deal with the Deobandis and Tawassul? We would end up having x view of Tawassul for all muslim groups x. I don't think it deserves more than a passing mention in a paragraph. Something like... 'Groups like the Deobandis hold such and such views on Tawassul. Others like the Barelvis hold this etc.'. --Nkv 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea about Deobandis and tawasull, its just my inclusive vein that hates to dich info on the baisis of "no space", when we have unlimited of space. Have you seen how many "Jesus" related articles they are? If there is something to say, then lets say it, if all that is to be said would take 100 articles, then lets have 100 articles. Is there some rule that states "there should only be a article per topic"? In fact, no, WP:NPOV and WP:FORK expres that things are to be breaken out when they get to big, they do not say that they should be deleted. Comments? --Striver 19:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any idea what their viewpoints are. I just feel that leaving a large section in the main article about them looks like an unsightly wart. They're not significant enough to warrant a section in an article which is not related to them. On the other hand, since we have infinite space, why not have an article about them? I don't expect it will get into the highest read articles on wikipedia lists but it can't do any harm. Ibn Saeed has already moved it to a separate section. --Nkv 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

as for the conclusion part, isn't it better to refrase it, NPOV and move it rather delete it? After all, the goal is to present all information, right? --Striver 15:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguably yes. However, look at the paragraph under the conclusion section. 'It has been seen that there are three permissible types of Tawassul, and making Du’aa by means of the honor or position of the righteous is not one of them. Rather, this type of Tawassul that is followed is an innovation. It has been clearly condemned by Imam Abu Haneefah.'. It doesn't seem to add any value. Sounds more like the concluding paragraph of a piece of original research rather than an encyclopaedic article. What do you think? --Nkv 16:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Im actaly ashemd to admitt that i have not even bothered to read the entire article. Let me put it this way: If that is only a duplication of information provided earlier in the article, then lets get ridd of it.-striver

Definition

The defintion "Supplicating Allah by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or Attribute of Allah Most High" is by no means a "sufi" one. It's from the Reliance_of_the_traveller which is a translation of a classic work of Shafi'i Fiqh and which has been approved of as being conformant with the beliefs of the orthodox Sunni community by the Al-Azhar university. Unless it can be substantiated otherwise, I think that's the definition that should appear at the top of the article. --Nkv 04:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Azhar University is not a proof in itself. The proof's are used from Quran and Sunnah. If it is out of that, then it is not considered an islamic definition. There is no need for 2 definitions.

Anyone can interpret the Quran in a way that's conducive to their opinions. A book endorsed by a university that's reputed to be a traditional Islamic institution is a reasonable citation. An unsourced interpretation of the Quran is not. Provide sources of scholarship from a certain school of thought and state that this is their opinion. "If it is out of that" is unsubstantiated. As long as the definitions disagree, please leave them both in there. If you think it's a "sufi" definition, please provide sources as to why. --Nkv 09:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hadith analysis

I notice that the hadith are analysed and interpreted by Nasiruddin Albani who is primarily a Salafi scholar. I think this is worth mentioning. --Nkv 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of Imam Abu Hanifa on Tawassul

I have edited this section. The current one was only the opinion of scholars of a certain school (Salafi from what I understand). The traditional viewpoint was not discussed. I have added that along with references and removed the excerpts from the cited work of reference by Nasiruddin Albani. --Nkv 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Salafis do believe in Tawassul

Major mistakes and fabrications have been made in the writeup, taking it to the point of alleging, that the Salafis view "the practice to be equivalent to polytheism."

Rather, it becomes clear upon proper research, that the Salafis do believe in the correct Islamic Tawassul, and they reject the forbidden Tawassul.

The correct form of Tawassul being, a person seeking to approach Allaah through His Names and Attributes, the believers asking one another to make du’aa’ for one another, a person seeking to draw close to Allaah through righteous deeds...

The forbidden type of Tawassul being a person calling upon a dead person.

Please see:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=3297&dgn=4 http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=979&dgn=4

Thanks for your comments. I shall edit the article to reflect the Salafi view that the form of Tawassul practiced by traditional muslims (through the blessing of a dead/alive person) is prohibited and that they approve of the method of asking another to make Dua. The blanket statement that "Salafis are opposed to Tawassul" needs elaboration. I shall also add notes on what kinds of Tawassul the Salafis consider prohibited and otherwise. --Nkv 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, lies and fabrications are asserted upon Ibn Taymiya and Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab in the writeup, devoid of references.

I shall find and cite and sources for the statements that refer to Ibn Taymiya and Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab. Thanks. --Nkv 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

8.1

"Tawassul has been endorsed and practised by traditional muslims since the time of the prophet himself. All the founders of the major Sunni Madhabs practised it."

This should definitely be sourced. Ackie00 05:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hadith of the blind man is the basis of Tawassul (as practiced by the traditional muslims). It's a Hadith and so something since the time of the Prophet himself. The link to the chapter of the reliance of the traveller has analysis on the strength of the hadith transmission chain. --Nkv 10:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand this, just that it would be nice to see some quotes from Imam Malik, Hanbal etc. Ackie00 01:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing merged content

All the content that was merged in from Waseelah was lifted wholesale from [1]. I don't know what the copyright status of that site is but it's probably not GFDL. I have added that as a link to the criticism of Tawassul section. User:Ibn Saeed has apparently just wikified the content of the site and dropped it on wikipedia. I have noticed other such edits made by him (eg. Deobandi) so perhaps some advice is necessary. --Nkv 08:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Majorly POV

I was really quite shocked at the amount of point of view that this article contains. For example, the very opening sentence:

Tawassul is an Islamic religious practice in which a prayer is offered to Allah through an intermediary.

Is not the belief of all Muslims or even all Sunnis. The article further goes on to claim that there is a camp that supports tawassul and a camp that "opposes" tawasul. I can't speak for the Shi'a and we may need a knowledgeable Shi'a editor on here for their viewpoint, but NO Sunnis oppose tawassul that's absolutely ridiculous. In fact, even the external links that are supposedly "Against Tawassul" are not against tawassul; they are against certain types of tawassul. It's not just a mirepresentation of certain viewpoints; it's the outright invention of viewpoints not held by any group within Islam.
As for the claim that scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah held tawassul to be innovation, this is a great mistake from people who haven't actually read his works, as the man never declared tawassul to be an innovation; he opposed certain kinds. Also, this business of "Salafis say this, traditional Muslims say that" needs to stop because that's point of view. Salafis consider themselves to be traditional Muslims, and right or wrong articles should not take sides as to who is more "traditional" than the other. Man, this needs a lot of work. MezzoMezzo 17:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable content

A lot of unsourced or poorly sourced content has been inserted into this article. The compendium of the USC-MSA, which in its own right is reliable, is also formed of quotes from Quraan and hadeeth which are primary sources; they are open to contention and debate amongst schools of thought so it is not very appropriate to use them as a basis for the article. Secondary sources are always better.
Regarding the section for views, there was little to know sourcing for it. Wikipedia is also no a forum for debate; some Muslim groups have different views and readers of Wikipedia should be left to make their own decisions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BBC References

Neutral Content with authentic sites such as BBC is Insserted.Hope to Improve it.Msoamu (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Is BBC considered to be neutral and authentic?Mhhossein (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

False POV claim

I ask MezzMezzo and any other participant or bypasser to show me any POV I introduced in my recent edits! Thanks Yusayr (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading information rectified

Some editors in this article refered to the Fatwa Commitee based in Saudi Arabia -which they did not mention- is followed by Muslims world over. This is very badly constracted and not neutral. The reality is that this fatwa house is a Saudi Arabia fatwa house. Yes there are many followers all over the world, but there are also many fatwas house in every other arab country which is followed by many Muslims in the world. So I corrected the misleading info and here I am citing examples of other Fatwa houses: Qatar Fatwa Commitee, Kuweit Fatwa Commitee, Syrian Fatwa Commitee, Egypt Fatwa Commitee, Jordan Fatwa Commitee, Oman Fatwa Commitee; there a lot. Imagine how misleading that editor can be intentionally or not, his/her edits must be reviewed. Yusayr (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add the supreme council for Fatwa in Morocco. When Moroccans for instance seek the ruling on an issue, the address to local Imam in the neighberhoud who gets trained and refers to this government organization. So sayying the Saudi Fatwa council is followed by Muslims world over was again very misleading and dangerous in the making of erred opinions of people who rely on Wikipedia in their life and studies. Yusayr (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Doctored reference rectified

The pharse that was listed in this article summarizing the Saudi Fatwa council verdict on Tawassul (intercession) is I quote: The Permanent Committee based in Saudi Arabia... held the view that many of these recent practices of Tawassul by non-mainstream groups can lead to Shirk'. Here is the text of the Fatwa from the sourse

Question:

Seeking rescue (al-Istighaathah) through the Prophets, the Pious Friends (of Allaah, the Awliyaa), and the Righteous in their life or after their death in order to remove harm or to bring about good, and similarly making Tawassul through them in both situations (of their being alive or dead), in order to fulfil ones needs and wants - is that permissible or not? Answer:

As for seeking rescue from the dead, from the Prophets and other than them, it is not permissible and it is from the Major Shirk. As for seeking rescue from the one who is alive and present (in the vicinity), and seeking rescue from him in that which he is capable of, then there is no harm in that, due to the saying of Allaah, the Sublime, "The man of his (own) party asked him (fastaghaathahu) for help against his foe" (al-Qasas 28:15). As for Tawassul through the living or the dead, from the Prophets or other than them, by way of their physical essences, or their honour, or their right, then it is not permissible. It is from the innovations, and the means that lead towards Shirk.

So the reference says it is a form of Shirk -infidelity- and it leads to Shirk. The editor doctored the expression it leads and twisted it to may lead to Shirk. The editor also associated the verdict -Fatwa- which was regarding Tawassul to be a Fatwa regarding some forms of Tawassul when sayying these recent practices knowing that the article is not about(these recent practices) which the editor did not define. The editor some how referes to some non-mainstream groups which the Fatwa does not even refer to. All this edition is questionable and needs to be removed. Yusayr (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We really need to organize these statements, for both sides it seems kinda excessive, we should just mention the groups which disagree with it (and perhaps use the statements as an example). In the end, what does a ruling in Saudi Arabia or Morocco mean to the majority of the world's Muslims, especially in countries that already have a tradition firmly set within Tawassul (North Africa, Pakistan, India) or where it is virtually non-existent (Saudi Arabia). --Enzuru 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the follow up. I think there are more than needed references to make it fair enough to say Muslims in General agree with idea except the Wahabi School of thought. Yusayr (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But yet we still have this: "Sunni Muslims traditionally have believed that seeking intercession by invoking other than Allah or with the dead is forbidden within Islam, similarly pointing to the Qur'an in explanation of this." This doesn't strike me as correct, I thought tawassul was even popular in Arab countries before the rise of Salafism. Especially in the holy cities. --Enzuru 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done some research on this practice in the past and focused on Twassul popularity in many Arab countries + Iran and Turkey. I was really surprized to find out that Tawassul was a deeply rooted tradition. I am just giving you here a few of the well known realities of Tawassul that are diplayed in both the cultural life, the Music and in history.

• Morocco: Take for example Saint Idris I, Saint Abdeslam ibn Mchich Alami, Saint Harrak etc the tomb of which is a mean of Tawassul and prayers.
• Algeria: Saint Abd al-Qadir whome for example Cheb Khaled (musician) has a song called Lord Abd al-Qadir where he says : Oh Abd al-Qadir heal my situation!
• Tunisia: Sidi Mansour is mentioned as an intercessor and a father in several not only old, but modern nowaday singers works like Saber Rebaï.
• Egypt: The tomb of Zaynab bint Ali is one of abundant exapmles.
• Iraq: Tomb of Imam Ali, Karbala for Shiites and many other tombs for Sunnis like that of Basri where you can see Twassul in display.
• Iran: Imam Reza tomb and the tomb of Abdelazim and a lot of other.
• Turkey: with tomb of Habib and even two tombs of well known Jesus companions where Muslims as weel as non Muslims visit for Tawassul. Aljazeera had a documentary on this issue which I may look for in their archive see if I can get it.

As every body knows, If we add to this the Suffi influence in East Asian Muslims as those Muslims converted first to Suffism through trade and at least half of Pakistan and most Indian Muslims. I believe that to say Tawassul was one day refused by traditional Muslims becomes an unproven thesis. If I am allowed to cite some primary sources on Tawassul, one may be more surprized of the popularity of the practice since early days of Islam even in Arabia and up untill the revolution where Ibn Abdelwahab participated. Because, although Ibn Taymiya al Harrani was against Tawassul, he was always considered an extreemist scholar and he views only gained grownd after Wahabi school of thought became the official religion of the Saudi Arabian government. Yusayr (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NIzari Ismaeili and Tawassul

Wow, wonderful research. Thank you so much. With this kind of information we can display the traditional Muslim opinion much better. Just a note to add to your research, from my knowledge, Nizari do not do tawassul because of the emphasis on the Hadhir Imam. --Enzuru 18:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact true to say Nizaris appear to be what you think. I mean there may be no Nizari visiting a tomb to call on the Imam for help; at least we can not see that in pictures such as the case in Karbala for example or to see a Nizari singing about an Imam and calling on him for help such as many Iranian and North African Muslim singers do. But I have to disagree with you. My opinion is that Tawassul is found in the heart of Nizari and every other Shiite school of thought. I base on the following ideas:

• 1-Take for example the believe ,that no Nizari can deny, which is the fact that an Imam is necessary to be on earth, if not it will be trembled and the world would end. If one believes that an Imam is necessary at all times for the earth to hold together, then I do not see a greater and more explicit Tawassul than this. The intercession is right there.

• 2-Take the holy suplication the following holy supplication where I made Tawassul in bold:

In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful. O Apostle, deliver (to the people), what has been revealed to thee from thy Lord; and if thou did not do so, then thou hast not delivered His Message, and Allah will protect thee from the people. There is no deity except Allah, the Ever-Living, the Eternal. There is no deity except Allah, the Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth, the Evident: There is no deity except Allah, the Sovereign, the Ultimate Truth, the Certainty: There is no deity except Allah. the Lord of the Day of Judgment: There is no hero except 'Ali. there is no sword except his sword. Seek at the time of difficulties, the help of your Lord, the present living Shah Karim al-Husayni.

• 3-Take this supplication from prayer reciting:

O Allah, forgive us our sins, and give us our bread, and have mercy upon us, in the name of Thy closest Messengers and Thy holy Imams, and in the name of our Lord and our Imam, Shah Karim al-Husayni.

This is only my poor knowledge about the Nizari Shia and if one digs deeper, Tawassul will be a surprizing element that exists everywhere in Islam even in the Wahabi school of thought as they started deviding Tawassul into different kinds for what I call sectarian distinctiveness purposes Yusayr (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You're somewhat correct, however I think you're misunderstanding the nature of Imamate in Nizari Ismailism and Nizari metaphysics. Aside from the Pir (as Muhammad was) who leads one to the Imam (as Muhammad led to Ali), the Imam himself is the manifestation of Allah, who is reality, (but not a manifestation of the Godhead) so asking Him is asking Allah Himself. Anything close to tawassul would only be found in the relation of the Pir to the believer, and I think that even in Nizari metaphysics could not be counted upon as tawassul because of the panentheistic nature of the faith. --Enzuru 05:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the intersting info. At least we agree on the fact that (from non-metaphysical stand point) Tawassul in the form of using Imams dead -Like Ali Ibn Abi Talib- or alive -such as the Agha Khan- in the prayers or Duaa to get near by Allah exists in Nizari culture; if not the school of thought itself. I said culture because the school of though may include the methaphysics. However, Tawassul is an expression. Methaphysics may have a different interpretaion to it. Take the Sufi culture as an example. The Murid in some Dhikr formula depending on the Tariqa says (and here I have chosen one all of them do say which is) :Madad Madad Ya Rasulallah..(support, suport, Oh messenger of Allah). This is a clear expression of Tawassul. However, in the Sufi school of thought, when we talk about methaphisics, we find this: -and excuse my transation as you can refer to the text here: Sayyid Muhammad Harrak, the Ibn Arabi of Morocco Says his famous Panentheistic poem part of which is :

He (god) by going forwards became the last of all

and he by going backwards became the first of all

By him, to him and from him features got unified

To Him, from him and by him features got separated

This is -in methaphisics- no different to me that the Nizari school of thought. The idea is the same: Nizaris say Imam is the manifestation of God as you said. Sufis say the universe itself as a hole with all its featrures -mazaaher- is a manifestation of God. In fact this the heart of Panentheism. My question is that does this drop the reality of saying that Sufis use Tawassul? If not, than it does not drop the reality of saying that Nizaris use Tawassul. I agree that in Kalam, academic realities have different meanings Yusayr (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I still can't agree that Nizari necessarily even do tawassul, because even outside of metaphysics, the Imam is God who is reality, while in some Sufi metaphysics God is simply reality without being specially manifested in the form of an individual. However you still actually make a very good point, but, while every semi-educated Nizari Ismaili is aware of panentheism and understands that their goal is the destruction of the self (nafs), in Sufism you have a large range of opinions, which is why I specifically brought up Nizari Ismailism and did not mention Sufism, which is very vast in scope, especially in regards to metaphysics. Some Sufism certainly doesn't fall under panentheism, while other modes of Sufism does. I would go as far as to claim, though please correct me, that most Sufi groups, especially ones closer to the mainstream, do not fall under panentheism, and if they claim it, seem to claim something much more closer to Wahdat ul-Wujud as has become popular in Twelver Shi'a Islam with the rise of Khomeini, which itself isn't necessarily panentheistic, though some also take it to be that way too. --Enzuru 07:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but I however see some your statements incnsistent and please correct me if I am wrong. Take what you said above  : the Imam himself is the manifestation of Allah, who is reality, (but not a manifestation of the Godhead) vs what you said above as well: the Imam is God who is reality. This way you have made an entity being a manifest of God equal to its being God. You also made God not united with its manifestation and used Godhead, and yet in the 2 nd statement you made both united. Yusayr (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I used incorrect terminology, I am very sorry forgive me for the confusion. There is the Godhead, that is the portion of God that exists beyond reality. The Godhead created God, which is reality, which is the Imam. We are within the Imam, because the Imam is reality, and reality is God. I should not have used the word manifestation, I am sorry again. We become one with the Imam, with God, with reality, when we destroy the nafs. --Enzuru 18:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, disussion page is for mistakes, I enjoy exchanging ideas with you. Can I ask you for the source of what you say. Example: Teaching of Imam (sourced), prayer or Duaa text or the like! Thanks Yusayr (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In Ismailism unlike the Twelver, the Imams do not teach, because they are the point we seek to reach, the destination. Instead, there are positions like the Da'i al-Mutlaq, the Pir, and the Hujjat who teach us the faith. In Nizari thought, the Pir is the Divine Knowledge, which is basically the position the Imamate holds to Twelvers. So, I can link you sources that go through what various hujjats and pirs and so forth have said. Note though, as for primary sources, what Nizari Ismailism has left are the Ginans, since many primary Arabic and Persian sources were destroyed with the destruction of Alamut and have been pieced together more recently through secular scholarship. You brought up the difference between being something, and being the manifestation of something. I have to explore this in Ismailism to give you a decisive answer, but I may not find out for a while. Because of the panentheistic nature of the faith, as well as the decisive Ismaili distinction of zahir, batin, and haqiqat I will refrain from the term manifestation, in a haqiqat context. In the meantime, here is an interesting article with some information from Aga Khan III. --Enzuru 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have refered to link provided with article from Agha Shah III - a man whom I respect-. I only find it interesting to see that the Imam -the God according to some- or the Part of God -according to other- uses books like : تفسير البيضاوي (أنوار التنزيل وأسرار التأويل) to explain a verse in the Quran. Also using some Twelver Shiite Hadith books like al Kitab al-Kafi to cite some historic events. What would some one think if Muhamad who says he is a prophet relies on the Bible and the Hindu Uponishad to explain the devine talk! I just can not decode why would a God Imam use two references the followers of each of them discredit the other! Yusayr (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the apparent, zahir, nature of reality. Many people get stuck on this, and this is because we believe only a few can ever progress beyond the apparent nature of reality. For example, one interview with the Aga Khan IV shortly after he ascended to the Imamate, he claims he knows only English, French, and a splattering of Urdu. We both know that the Imam in Shi'i thought (excluding Zaidi), knows the language of everything that has a soul. The Imam's farmans through the ages have made this clear. If he spoke in every single language and started miracles, he could probably get much more followers, but Ismailism is not nor has ever been about that, nor has Islam ever been, and this is detailed in the Qur'an. Ismailism is as we view it, the pure unadulterated soul of Islam, the end of the path and journey, when one realizes what is apparent, zahir is not important, nor the meaning of the zahir, the batini, is important. Some interpret this path to be through reincarnation many Ismaili believe it to be done in a single lifetime. What is important is the haqiqat, the Imam himself, who however he chooses to portray himself in this zahir state, is Allah, the reality of the universe. In Nizari Ismaili theology, the Qiyamah has already happened: it happened when Imam Hasan II abolished shariah and all individuals were no longer impeded by anything, nothing as between them and the Imam. --Enzuru 03:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. In Kalam, like I mentiond before, academic realities may be meaningless or trans-meaningful. So Imagine in a Batiniyya school of thought namely where -as you said- Sharia is abolished. I can conclude that if Sharia is abolished by Alqaim Bi Amrillah al Faatimi that all Ismaeli religious behaviors become out of the cyrcle of the Sharia including what we may see as Tawassul which they see not, what we see as fasting which they -Ismaeli- see not and so on. So yes, If we are to state that they do Tawassul, it should be clearly indicated that Ismaelis are believed to do Tawassul by who ever sees it like that. But I'd rather not go there because they should speak for themselves on this. The thing which can not be source authenticated. Yusayr (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New Sunni scholars

I have added Some other Sunni scholars in the sunni View and has tried to make rich the haeding as the Practice is very well Known and practiced among dominanat Majority of Sunni Muslims. Other editors please remove salafi line from the heading as it is not traditionally sunni. it is New Line of thinking.Msoamu (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tawassul or Waseela ?

Do these two word represent the same thing? I think they do.--Inayity (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent removals

I have removed websites as sources of information as they are highly unreliable and most of them are just plain POV sites with no use. I have also removed the mention of Shafa'ah as that has a separate article. I have no Idea who was the great scholar who had the bright Idea to include one of the most prominent Shia scholars of the last century Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i in the Quranist section. I was even more amazed when another bright scholar added him back again after reverting me. Perhaps these two guys have intimate knowledge of Tabataba'i which no one else in the world has got? Otherwise they are just disrupting and misrepresenting sources. If someone is going to debate about websites being reliable, please go through the Reliable Sources noticeboard first, otherwise the blanket policy applies. If someone wants to include the discussion of Shafa'ah in this article, he will be first required to provide rationale for a merge etc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles we can use prominent Shia scholars to explain Shia viewpoint. Therefor, whatever which has reference to Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i's work is acceptable. Please, pay attention to the policies and guidelines and read the discussions which led to this decision.([2])--Seyyed(t-c) 06:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

There are some points for FreeatlastChitchat:

1. Your disruptive behavior through out the project made you make a promise to slakr; "I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing." The promise which you violated on several occasions.
2. Yeah you did remove some dubious (but not proven to be unreliable sources), but you've ruined several other reliable sources such as; The Shi'ite Religion: A History of Islam in Persia and Irak by Dwight M. Donaldson, Islamic Concept of Intermediation (Tawassul) by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Sharh al-Mawahib al-ladunniyah by Muhammad al-Zurqani and Al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyyah by Ibn Juzayy etc.
3. Instead of using a "colorful language" please explain why you removed "Qura'nist view" section?

As I said before many many times, FreeatlastChitchat is not capable of evaluating Islam related sources and is deliberately ruining the project by such behaviors. Mhhossein (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: "Qura'nist view" only constitues of Tabataba'i view, therefor I merged it with Shia perspective.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Seyyed: The removal without discussion was the problem. Your edit had no problem. Mhhossein (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I removed the Quranist view because it uses a shia source and MISINTERPRETS IT. The Shia source is talking about Shafa'ah and he has been given space at the Shafa'ah article. He is not even talking about Tawassul. Your comment that I removed "some dubious (but not proven to be unreliable sources)" coming without any proof of their reliability from your side is utter hypocrisy, and yes you can feel free to open an ANI about this with my exact quote.Seyyed I fail to see why you have reverted me to be frank. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Let's discuss before removing any information.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sa.vakilian: Exactly what would you like to discuss? Websites are unreliable as per policy, you are ware of that. Muhammad Husayn Tabataba'i's work has been mentioned in the Shafa'ah article where it belongs, and he is not a Quranist as I am sure you aware. So what else can we discuss? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: You have mentioned several cases. First, let's check the websites:

• Tawassul - Seeking a Way unto Allah This is a book by Abdolkarim Biazar Shirazi who is a reliable Shia scholar. In such cases the site is similar to google books and the reliability depends on the author.
• The Doctrine of Tawassul In the Light of Qur'an & Sunnah Apparently it is unreliable due to the fact that it has not mentioned any author. However, I suggest to replace it with a reliable source instead of removing it, particularly if you think the information is correct and useful.
• The Truth about "Wasila" It has the same problem.
• Seeking means (tawassul) through the Prophet Seeking Rescue from the Living and Dead and Making Tawassul Through Them As I see, these are authentic Fatwas and thus they are reliable. However, a Sunni user can better judge about their authenticity.

Second, You are right. I removed what relates to Shafa'ah. --Seyyed(t-c) 09:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Article appears biased by avoiding all contrary/opposing views

Hi. I'm not Muslim, I'm not knowledgeable, I'm not an expert. I've come here to learn. I also don't know the entire edit history of this document and the talk on this page suggests a lot of back and forth editing and revision. But I'll tell you my perspective:

This article reads like a biased article at the moment, precisely because it treats its subject as entirely non-controversial. If some Muslims, including perhaps Salafi Muslims, have opposing views, there must be some mention of this. If it's not an entirely clear black-and-white issue, or if their a complexities, the solution is not simply to avoid the topic. Let it be complex, if necessary, but give some indication of what the different views are on this subject. Right now, this article reads like a faithful person's justification of whatever is the most liberal interpretation of Tawassul, without an attempt at nuance, and without an indication of the possibility of disagreement. But the fact that a position is being justified hints at an unspoken opposing view... that view can't remain silent. zadignose (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

The editor @Towns Hill: has attempted to rewrite this article. Some of his edits seem acceptable, others not (e.g. removing material from the Encyclopedia of Islam and a PhD). Please put your suggestions here and we can discuss before editing. 81.159.252.117 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tawassul in the light of Sunna

The context of two part "Tawassul in the light of Sunna" and "Sunni perspective" is so close to each other and i believed that can be merged!Saff V. (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

An editor @Saff V.: keeps adding text from 2 polemic publishers named Muslimmatters.org and al-Jummah magazine. Both sources fail WP:IRS as and so have been removed. If you think they are reliable then please provide your evidence here on the talk page first. 86.147.112.142 (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

According what WP rules they are unreliable? please explain to me? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Examples include Oxford University Press, Brill etc... Muslimmatters.org and al-Jummah magazine are not academic publications and have not been vetted by the scholarly community. They are polemic publications that propagate the views of their sect. 86.147.112.142 (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs more coverage of opposing viewpoints + unreliable sources

Article requires opposing points of view per WP:NPOV. I’ve quoted The Oxford Dictionary of Islam in the intro to reduce the POV imbalance, but morn coverage of the opposing POV is required. Secondly, there are unreliable sources such as Sunnah.org and Shiabooks.ca, to name a couple. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 05:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent insertion of Unreliable sources

Ahmad Pavilion is continuously adding unreliable and partisan sites as sources to put his personal opinions in to this article. ScholarM (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@ScholarM: All interpretations of primary source Quran are provided from eminent sunni Scholars like Imam Razi, Imam Tabari and Imam Ibn Katheer. Scholarly opinions are provided from Imam Ibn Aqeel Imam Ibn Al Jouzi, Imam Maqreezi, Imam Aloosi and Imam Hajjawi. Your comments are not correct since All exegesis and opinions are from the eminent and indisputable sunni scholars. If any unreliable and partisan sites as sources or my personal opinions you can indicate that unreliable. otherwise not fair to remove totally the information.Ahmad Pavilion