Debunking Danial pt 2.3

If he cares so much about Hanbali scholars’ opinions, and misuses their differences here goes:

Majmal Aṣūl Ahl al-Sunnah

Nāṣir al-ʿAql

Ruling on Circumambulating Graves

Question:

A questioner asks about circumambulating graves.

Answer:

Circumambulation (ṭawāf) in itself is a pure act of worship, and this is the fundamental principle. As for people circumambulating graves, it does not fall outside of one of two situations: either they intend it as an act of devotion, in which case this is shirk—for whoever circumambulates anything other than the Kaʿbah as an act of worship is committing shirk. Or, it is done merely by following the crowd, without the circumambulator knowing why—such as some visitors or those who come to these places and shrines, particularly tourists who do not know the reasons for circumambulating the graves, yet follow others unaware of the purpose. This constitutes an innovation (bidʿah) and a great sin, but it is not called shirk, because the person does not realize that it is an act of worship and does not intend it as such.

17 / 7

Majallat al-Buḥūth al-Islāmiyyah

A Group of Authors

Conclusion

After this study of the topics and issues included in this research, the most important results can be highlighted as follows:

1. That ṭawāf in terminology is: circumambulating the Kaʿbah in a specified manner.
2. That circumambulating the Kaʿbah is legislated by the Qur’an, Sunnah, and consensus, and indeed it was among the prescribed acts of worship in previous nations.
3. That circumambulating other than the Kaʿbah, such as shrines and graves, is not permissible; rather, it is among the gravest sins. It falls within the category of major shirk if it is done out of veneration for the occupant of the grave or as a means of seeking nearness to them.

320/50

Fatāwā Nūr ʿalā al-Ḍarb by Ibn Bāz – Edited by al-Ṭayyār and al-Mūsā – Section on ʿAqīdah

Ibn Bāz

Trees, stones, or any celestial bodies constitute shirk with Allāh, Glorified and Exalted is He. Likewise, circumambulating graves is a reprehensible act. Circumambulation is only for the Kaʿbah; graves are never to be circled. This is a great innovation, indeed major shirk, if done with the intention of drawing near to the occupant of the grave. If someone assumes it is an act of drawing near to Allāh, this is a bidʿah (innovation). Circumambulation is a specific act of worship reserved for the Ancient House, the Kaʿbah; graves are never to be circled. If it is done as an act of nearness to the grave’s occupant, it becomes major shirk. Likewise, invoking the deceased, seeking help from the deceased, making vows for them, or offering sacrifices to them—all are acts of major shirk.

It is obligatory for Muslims to beware of this and for prominent Muslims to prevent others from committing this act. Rulers and leaders must stop the ignorant from this shirk. This is the duty of Muslim rulers because Allāh, Glorified and Exalted, has established them to prevent harm to the community, enforce what Allāh has obligated, and safeguard public interests. This is the duty of rulers. Princes, kings, sultans, and leaders are appointed to establish Allāh’s command on earth, and they must implement Allāh’s rulings. Therefore, a prince in a village, a ruler anywhere, a sultan, the head of a republic, or anyone with authority must contribute to this good by removing buildings, domes, and mosques built over graves, leaving the graves uncovered—like the graves in Al-Baqīʿ during the Prophet’s ﷺ time and in our current time in Madinah. Graves are left exposed without any building, mosque, room, dome, or anything else, for the Prophet ﷺ forbade building over graves or establishing mosques upon them.

271

is this enough or he just loves the ambiguous differences among scholars? I will let you decide.

Regarding Tawassul

Al-Duʿāʾ wa Manzilatuhu min al-ʿAqīdah al-Islāmiyyah

Jilān bin Khidr al-ʿArūsī

If it becomes clear that the prohibition of tawassul through anything other than the names and attributes of Allāh – is the position of Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions, and that they agreed on forbidding expressions such as “by the right of Your Prophets and Messengers” without disagreement among them, then it becomes evident that it is false to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah was the innovator who forbade tawassul through created beings. Scholars are unanimous on its permissibility, as claimed by al-Subkī and al-Nabhānī. Al-Kawtharī said: “The practice of the ummah regarding tawassul and ziyārah continued until the innovation of its prohibition emerged – al-Ḥarrānī refuted the scholars’ claim in his time.”

It is astonishing that al-Kawtharī was devoted to following Abū Ḥanīfah in jurisprudence, defending him even to the point of accusing some companions, as he did with Anas ibn Mālik, and hence some friends nicknamed him “the Madman of Abū Ḥanīfah.” Yet, despite all this, he neglected Abū Ḥanīfah’s principles in usūl (foundations of creed). This matter we are discussing is clear evidence of this.

It is clear beyond doubt that Abū Ḥanīfah’s position was to forbid innovative tawassul, and this is reported in most Hanafi texts. References have been cited in the footnotes, and it is highly unlikely that al-Kawtharī was unaware of these Hanafi sources, as the matter is mentioned in most of their books. Al-Kawtharī, apparently, allowed his personal bias and dislike for Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah to dictate his statements, blinding him from following his own school in this matter and other matters of foundational creed.

Similarly, al-Būṭī claimed: “As for tawassul by the status of the Prophet ﷺ or other righteous and close ones, we do not know of any discussion or research on this in the era of the Salaf in the three well-regarded centuries.” He then mentioned certain hadith used by those who permit innovative tawassul, saying: “This is all we have received from the Prophet ﷺ, his companions, and the rest of the Salaf concerning tawassul. The matter remained so until Imam Ibn Taymiyyah distinguished between tawassul through prophets and righteous people during their lifetime and tawassul through them after death, permitting the first and forbidding the second. We do not know any evidence for this distinction from the era of the Salaf.”

He then claimed that the evidence for tawassul during life is absolute.

In this statement, al-Būṭī makes several claims:

1. The Salaf did not speak on this topic.
2. Ibn Taymiyyah was the innovator of this view.
3. He distinguished between the living and the dead.
4. There is no evidence for this distinction.
5. The evidence is universal for both cases.

Response to these claims:

• The claim that the Salaf did not speak on this issue is false, as is evident from the statements of Abū Ḥanīfah and his followers. Others besides the Hanafis addressed it, including al-ʿIzz ibn ʿAbd al-Salām, who discussed the hadith of the blind man and noted that if authentic, it applies exclusively to the Prophet ﷺ. He preceded Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah, having died in 660 AH. Hence, the first two claims are refuted: Ibn Taymiyyah was not the innovator and was not the first to speak on the matter.
• The distinction between the living and dead that al-Būṭī claimed does not hold, for several reasons:
• The tawassul Ibn Taymiyyah permitted differs from the tawassul he forbade, as previously defined.
• Ibn Taymiyyah does not base rulings on life or death but on what is sanctioned in the sharʿ: if it is legislated, he permits it; if not, he forbids it, because duʿāʾ is an act of worship subject to divine ordinance. Evidence for this is that he did not permit tawassul through the absent living, as there is no report of the companions invoking the Prophet ﷺ in his absence during battles or migrations. If it were purely a matter of life or death, this would have been permitted.
• The distinction between life and death is clear and logically required by the textual and rational evidence.
• 
  
• The claim of universality of evidence is also problematic. For instance, the hadith of the blind man is in the context of life, and not tawassul to the absent, let alone the deceased. The hadith of tawassul through al-ʿAbbās contradicts his claim, as it was through the present. The hadith of Fāṭimah bint Asad is fabricated, and the hadith of Mālik al-Dār is weak. Only tawassul by barakah (seeking blessings from the Prophet’s ﷺ hair, sweat, or wudu) remains valid, but tawassul differs from seeking barakah. Tawassul does not require the physical presence of the one invoked, whereas seeking barakah does.

It will be further explained in Chapter Four.

It is clear, praise be to Allāh, that tawassul through created beings in duʿāʾ is an innovation, supported by abundant evidence. Many scholars forbade it, including Abū Ḥanīfah and his companions, and Ibn Taymiyyah did not forbid it uniquely.

Third type: Parties and regular invocations (awrad):

Duʿāʾ is worship and thus subject to divine prescription; one should not impose restrictions or allow freedom contrary to its nature. Nevertheless, some adhered to specific duʿās at fixed times or in particular gatherings. This practice became widespread, especially among Sufis, some mutatafakirūn, and the general populace, who only know these innovated duʿās. Authentic duʿās, however, are employed only by those steadfast in the Sunnah, and they are few.

Subhanallah as if the author is talking to him.

Al-Wilayah al-Takwiniyyah (The Ontological Authority) and Its Meaning:

It refers to the control of the universe being in the hands of the Imams, peace be upon them, including Fāṭimah (peace be upon her), according to what Allāh Almighty has ordained. Just as the control over death belongs to ʿAzrāʾīl, they, peace be upon them, have authority over it in creation and annihilation. However, it is clear that their hearts are vessels of Allāh’s will; just as Allāh Almighty grants humans the power over voluntary actions, He has granted them, peace be upon them, the ability to act in the universe.

What we mention applies to all the infallibles, peace be upon them, for all the powers that were granted to the prophets, peace be upon them, are also confirmed for the infallibles, peace be upon them, as they are superior to them. Fāṭimah (peace be upon her) is superior to all the prophets, peace be upon them, except the Messenger ﷺ.

(Reference: Fiqh al-Zahra – Introduction, p.12, under the title “Al-Wilayah al-Takwiniyyah wa al-Tashriʿiyyah”)

In his book Al-Hukūmah al-Islāmiyyah (pp. 35–52), under the title Al-Wilayah al-Takwiniyyah, Khomeini writes:

“The establishment of wilayah and governance for the Imam (ʿa) does not mean that he is deprived of his elevated station with Allāh, nor does it make him like other rulers. The Imam has a praised status, a lofty rank, and an ontological caliphate over which all particles of the universe are subject to his authority and control. It is a necessity of our doctrine that our Imams possess a status unattainable by a near angel or a sent prophet. According to our narrations and reports, the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and the Imams (ʿa) existed as lights before this world; Allāh placed them near His Throne and granted them a station and nearness known only to Him. Gabriel said, as narrated in the Miʿrāj accounts: ‘If you came closer by an inch, you would be burnt.’ They (ʿa) themselves said: ‘We have states with Allāh which neither a near angel nor a sent prophet can reach.’ Such a station exists for Fāṭimah al-Zahra (ʿa) as well, not in the sense of being a caliph, ruler, or judge; this station is something beyond wilayah, caliphate, and command. When we say that Fāṭimah (ʿa) was not a judge, ruler, or caliph, this does not mean she was deprived of that exalted station, nor does it mean she was an ordinary woman.”

Khomeini, having reached the peak of deviation, clarifies that this is the reality of the Rāfiḍah, inseparable from them, as he states: “It is a necessity of our doctrine” and “according to our narrations and reports.”

On pp. 78–79, he states:

“Ḥujjat Allāh (the Proof of God) means that the Imam is the reference for the people in all matters. Allāh has appointed him and entrusted him with every act and management that benefits people and brings them happiness. Likewise, the fuqahāʾ (jurists) are the guides and references of the ummah. Ḥujjat Allāh is appointed by Allāh to oversee the affairs of the Muslims; his actions and words are binding upon the Muslims, and disobedience to them is not permitted, in implementing hudūd, collecting khums, zakāh, kharāj, and ghanāʾim, and distributing them. This means that if you refer to tyrannical rulers despite the presence of Ḥujjah, you will be accountable and punished on the Day of Judgment. Allāh, glorified and exalted, holds the Commander of the Faithful (ʿa) as evidence against those who rebelled against him or opposed his command, just as He holds ʿUwaymiyah, the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers, and their supporters accountable for usurping rights and occupying posts for which they were not eligible.”

On p. 80, he states:

“The fuqahāʾ today are the proof (ḥujjah) over the people, just as the Messenger ﷺ was the proof of Allāh over them. Everything that was entrusted to the Prophet ﷺ has been entrusted to the Imams through the fuqahāʾ after them. They are the reference for all matters, problems, and issues. The government, authority over the people, governance, collection, and spending are delegated to them. Whoever fails to obey them, Allāh will hold accountable and judge for that.”

if this isn’t kufr (infidelity) I don’t know what is kufr.

the rest of the video is gibberish.

Thank you for reading!