Talk:Tawassul

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Why Tawassul?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hadith analysis 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Status of Imam Abu Hanifa on Tawassul 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Salafis do believe in Tawassul 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  8.1 

message: All the content that was merged in from Waseelah was lifted wholesale from . 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)
thread_title:  Removing merged content 

message: 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)
thread_title: Majorly POV

message: 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)
thread_title: Unreliable content

message: Neutral Content with authentic sites such as BBC is Insserted.Hope to Improve it.Msoamu (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is BBC considered to be neutral and authentic?Mhhossein (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC References

message: 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)
thread_title: False POV claim

message: 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)
thread_title: Misleading information rectified

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Doctored reference rectified

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: NIzari Ismaeili and Tawassul

message: 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)
thread_title: New Sunni scholars

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article appears biased by avoiding all contrary/opposing views 

message: The editor  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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tawassul in the light of Sunna 

message: An editor  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)
replies: text: According what WP rules they are unreliable? please explain to me? Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs more coverage of opposing viewpoints + unreliable sources