Istigātha at a distance

Never ask a Wahabi where Allah is
Never ask a Deo about their blasphemous statements
Never ask a Barelvi to substantiate their definition of Istigatha

No one defined your definition of Istigatha. No one answered the questions. All I got was, 'it's possible, by the will of Allah, Where's your evidence, the Barzakh Akhi'

This is so embarrassing ngl

 

Brother, you’re not missing anything major. The issue here isn’t that we’re saying fundamentally different things on paper — it’s that one of us is being consistent and honest about it, and the other is moving goalposts every time his questions get answered.

At first, Hasan claimed the concept of calling upon a wali from afar was something only the “awam” believe. I responded by pointing out that this belief isn’t just held by the laypeople — it’s found in the words of Sayyiduna Shaykh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī himself, Sayyid Aḥmad Zarrūq, and documented by Imām Aḥmad Riḍā Khān in Fatāwā Riḍawiyyah. That alone should’ve ended the claim.

But then he shifted: “Well, those statements aren’t explicit definitions.” So I gave him explicit, functional definitions — even word-for-word — from the very texts he demanded. He moved the goalposts again and said, “Okay, but are those statements Qatʿī in both thubūt and dalāla?” At this point, it’s no longer about the issue — it’s about trying to avoid admitting he was wrong.

Then he claimed Istighātha as I presented it should be discouraged for the awam — because the evidentiary support is supposedly too “ẓannī.” But when called out, he said, “Where did I say it was wrong for the awam?” Again, contradiction.

The bottom line: his reasoning is inconsistent. He quotes scholars (whose statements are also ẓannī) to define Istighātha — but then demands Qatʿī evidence for anything that disagrees with his view. He says he’s happy to be corrected, but when presented with proof, he dismisses it by claiming it doesn’t count unless it’s formatted like a dictionary definition.

So to answer your question — no, we’re not saying the same thing. I’m saying there’s a valid, historically documented tradition of direct Istighātha with the awliyā’, including from afar. He keeps shifting between “I believe that too, but it’s weak” and “I don’t believe it, and the awam shouldn’t either,” depending on how the discussion is going.

The back-and-forth exists not because of confusion in our position — but because his own stance is a moving target.

 

Bro just stop ranting and reflect for once,
You keep on posting questions and when they are answered or followed up on you just avoid them.

Stop being a clown and try to listen and respond accordingly.

Never did I say you are a wahhabi, from where are you reaching that conclusion?

 

what i mean by this was that the other members of the group are saying that because the shariah has not said it to be an impossibility then it is possible that Allah may grant his awliya this power. Isn't this you and everyone else is saying?
I am still confused about what the dispute is about: hassan's claim and what the others in the group are saying? Aren't they saying the same thing. Hassan says that he believes you can call awliya from afar but it is dhanni, this is the same as what one of the brothers said.

 

if you know what strawmanning means. yes.

if the above is to imply that *i* am, explain how so.

 

Loooool hahahah. I'm a Wahabi too aren't I? Jokers. This is why your awaam are becoming wahabis in their masses

 

٘my apologies. Did i misunderstand you hazrat? Isn't this what you and everyone else is saying?
I don't know if there has been a mistunderding. I believe in istighatha. I believe in saying ya rasulullah madad and ya ghawth al madad.

 

I ask the Prophet(sallahu alayhi wa sallam) to help me from afar in my distress, so he(sallahu alayhi wa sallam) makes dua to Allah to help me with any means and it is accepted. What makes you believe it to simply just be dhanni that the means itself would be the Prophet(sallahu alayhi wa sallam) himself from barzakh?

Or are you saying that there are limitations on what dua the prophet(sallahu alayhi wa sallam) is allowed to make for the benefit of his Ummah?

Your contention is really not that sophisticated.
You have a disease in your heart, it's nothing intellectual.

 

I'm strawmanning? Wow

 

it is obvious that you cannot read. i did not call you a wahabi or wahabi inclined. but just slipping into that position without realising it.

 

no strawmen please.

 

you are shooting wildly. it is not us who made up anything else answers.

istimdad and istighatha are well known concepts and the definition of the word. it is you who carved out the 'exception' meaning it does not mean help. so who should provide asnwers?

what is your definition of 'nass'?

 

.

 

With this logic I can say a jinn holds up the earth and stops it from wandering into space. Because there's no text to negate this I can believe it ! Plus it's a possibility isn't it?

 

salam
can I please just ask what the problem is with hassan's position?
From what I understand, he is saying that you can ask Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa alihi wasallam for help and he will hear from afar and help.
In the case of the awliya, it is dhanni that they might have been given power to hear by Allah or the message might be conveyed. Others in the group are saying that because it is possible and we have no nass to say that it is not possible, then it may well be the case that Allah has grant them the power on based on this HOPE and HUSN AL DHAN, we call out to the wali.
So what is the disagreement about?
Like, I genuinely don't understand.

 

Imam Yusuf Al-Nabhani writes,

'The first meaning is: The one seeking help asks Allah by the Prophet, or by his rank, or by his right, or by his blessing, to fulfill his need. The one seeking help in this regard does Dua to Allah, and makes the greatest prophet a means of acceptance to Allah.

The second meaning is: The one seeking help asks the Prophet to do Dua to Allah and ask Allah to fulfill his need because the Prophet is alive in his grave. Just like people are going to ask him for intercession on the day of judgement, so he will intercede for them and just like the people used to ask him in his worldy life to do dua for rain and other than that. So he would do dua for rain and other than that and Allah would answer him'.

Imam Yusuf Al-Nabhani says these are the 2 definitions of Istigatha and these are 2 only two definitions he's wrote about in his book. Again I read his book a while back and nowhere does he define Istigatha the way it is being defined here.

Calling me Wahabi inclined or whatever you said is not going to work. Barelvis call anyone who disagrees with them, even in insignificant matters, wahabis. Look at how Mufti Akhtar Rida Khan called Muhadith Saharanpuri a Wahabi just for disagreeing on the names Abdul Mustafa.

 

I don't claim to well read on Imam Ahmad Rida Khan at all but your conception if Istigatha which category will it fall into?

Daruriyaat e Deen
Daruriyaat ahl al sunnah
Thabitaat- rejector is sunni but sinful
Zanniyaat- rejector is mistaken but not sinful

These are his categories as far as I'm aware

 

Again, imagine someone from the awaam came to you and asked you about your conception of Istigatha and he asked you to provide proof from the Quran and Hadith. I'm happy to accept its possible but you can't give any definitive Nas and the Nas you can give is Dhanni.

 

Answering my questions with further questions is not an answer. By your logic I can establish absoutely anything in Islam because there isn't anything that negates it or there's nothing in Nas establishing it. Because there's nothing in Naas saying the awliya can't hear from afar, now I can establish that the Awliya can hear from afar? What?

I've been through Al-Amnu Wal Ula, his fatwa on Istigatha, Inba al-Hayy, and Hayat al-Mawat. As far as I remember he doesn't define Istigatha as a Wali being able to hear from afar and coming to help. In his fatwa on Istigatha, all he does say it is not shirk (being far). In Hayat al-Amwat I've shown the scan. In Inba al-Hayy he establishes hearing for the Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم which I agree with.


My claim is there's is no definite text proving that a wali can hear from afar, he hears and comes to your aid. Anything you can provide is Dhanni.

AH said
'why should he "come to help"? can't he help from afar?'

Anything from the Quran and Sunnah as evidence please? Or are we going to resort to 'its possible, Allah has the power'

You can't just says 'it's possible and there's no text negating it so therefore I am going to establish it'. Using this logic you can absoutely establish anything just because its possible and you don't even need Quran and Sunnah to back yourself up! Dangerous precedent


And can anyone answer my questions without questions lol. They're still unanswered. I think Barelvis are afraid to show people their definition of Istigatha is extremely weak and Dhanni and has no textual proof to back it up. All you have is 'its possible, the Barzakh akhi, what proof do you have they can't hear'

 

why are brothers rushing to answer him when he is himself unclear about what he wants to know?

hassan_0123 may not be a wahabi, but certainly he is not a scholar and obviously has no scholarly method and does not even realise how he slips into wahabi mode. in our time, people pick on snippets, apply their own reasoning to it and pose "tough" questions assuming THEY cannot be questioned - and they may get offended if you ask them if their questions are reasonable.

that said, let us ask him what he wants.

---

so how many books have you read actually, if not all?

this is in which book you have read?

hmm.

a wali being able to hear from afar - which scholar has said it is definitely not possible?
and why should he "come to help"? can't he help from afar?

so your problem is you are unable to find an explicit statement that "a wali can hear you from afar and help you".

the last statement is the classical wahabi statement. what is the difference between your statement and the wahabi statement? if not, then admit it that you have no problem with wahabi objection.

in other words, you can adapt definitions according to your convenience. which book says explicitly that tasarruf means "one who's dua is definitely accepted"?

btw, is this zanni, qaTyi, what?

let us first agree on the definition of "taSarruf" "istimdad" and "istighathah."

wa laysa yaSiHHu fi'l adh'hani shay'un
idha'Htaja'n nahaaru ila dalili.

i need explicit definition that istimdad "DOES NOT mean wali being able to hear from afar and coming to help".

istimdad means to help. you cannot alter the definition except by providing naSS that "it does not mean a wali is able to hear from afar and coming to help". go ahead and give me one definition by major sunni ulama who allow istimdad, istighatha who said: "istimdad DOES NOT MEAN a wali is able to hear from afar and coming to help"

of course, it is FORM of tawassul - because tawassul means to seek an intermediary means/sabab. it can be by dua, by seeking taSarruf of awliya (granted and allowed by Allah ta'ala).

for example, you go to a doctor and he gives you medicine - though it is Allah who gives cure. but the doctor and medicine are asbab. going to the doctor is a form of seeking help by means.

but how did you decide that in the "multitude of thing" this one definitely does not mean 'able to hear and to help'?

what is the meaning of كشفت? give me ten meanings from the multitude of things - but at the same time tell me WHY it cannot be used for "help"

which portion of the statement says: "you are outside his grave?" and why the miles and miles away? i assume you are the same person i refuted on x who was stuck up on distance.

which explicit statement by any of the ulama (who allow istimdad/istighatha) says that only 100 meters outside the grave is allowed, miles and miles away is shirk or disallowed?

he qualifies "my name" because how else would you "call someone for help"? you have to "call" him by his name - isn't that obivous?

while it is true that the REAL and ACTUAL and ABSOLUTE giver and helper is Allah ta'ala; and no one can give or withhold EXCEPT when Allah ta'ala permits them, we believe that Allah ta'ala has given awliya/anbiya the taSarruf - ability to dispense in the means. thus when we ask a waliy, it is in the manner 'from that which Allah ta'ala has given/permitted you'.

------

show me where scholars have defined istighatha does not mean "awliya can help from afar".

you probably need to read up a text like mukhtasar al-ma'ani on how ithbat and nafiy is used; and how nafiy cannot be inserted in a statement that gives meaning of ithbat, unless there are other indicators.

why this "Miles and miles" away? i have given shah abdul aziz that distance for the soul does not matter. you are imposing your narrow idea of material world on entities who are not constrained by physical aspects of this world.

====
your summary of questions:


1) Is your version of Istigatha Dhanni or Qatti?
in this specific issue, is it necessary to have qaT'yi dalil? which principle of fiqh dictates this?

2) If its Qatti, can I have evidence from the Quran and Sunnah which are Qatti in Thubut and Dalala please? There's no Ijmaa in this at all and if you're going to use Qiyas from the Prophet peace be upon Him to a Wali, it already shows your belief is Dhanni.
is it qaTyi that they cannot hear and cannot help?
if it is so, give us proof from qur'an and sunnah that it is indeed impossible for them to help. no wahabi ranting please.

3) Can I have evidence that someone's calling out reaches a Wali in the first place? If you're saying its Qatti, Qatti evidence please
can i have evidence that it does not reach the wali? if you are saying it is qatyi, qatyi evidence please.

4) That this Wali even hears it? (Evidence please not mere possibility) If you're saying its Qatti, Qatti evidence please
that the wali cannot hear it? evidence please, not mere wishful thinking. If you are saying it is qaTyi, qaTyi evidence please.

5) That this person is actually a Wali.
that this person is NOT a waliy.

6) If he can hear you, he has the ability to help? Evidence please. If you're saying its Qatti, Qatti evidence please
If he can hear you, he does not have the ability to help. Evidence please. If you're saying its qaTyi, qaTyi evidence please.

7) What is the definition of Tassaruf according to the scholars of Tassawuf.
go ahead and give us your definition first with explicit statements to that effect. not your interpretation and summation.

8) Does this Wali even have Tassaruf? Evidence please
does this wali NOT have tasarruf? evidence please.

9) Does this calling out reach him every single time or only specific times? Evidence please
does calling out does not reach him every single time or only specific times? evidence please.

-----
asking questions is easy. besides, it is YOU who claimed that they do not hear. so go ahead and furnish the proof.