Unlawful Tawassul?

can someone ask the "mufti" who wrote the answer to add a fifth category. otherwise, i won't know where to go.

i believe the Hadith shaykh gibril quoted but when i look at the 4 categories this "mufti" has mentioned, as sidi faqir agrees, the Hadith does not fit into any of them. if a fifth isn't added, i am scared that someone might accuse this SaHabi of going out of bounds in terms of lawful tawassul.

 

same place you got the haji imdadullah nasiHa a few weeks back

 

1. but why call upon them?

2. see, i agree with [1] above; all muslims do. [3] and [4] are agreed upon. but it is [2] i have an issue with. shaykh gf haddad's article http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=3322 shows that a saHabi called upon rasulAllah sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam for help directly. as we agree, it is none of the 4 types of tawassul mentioned.

now, the reason i have an issue with [2] is because it is obvious the saHabi called upon rasulAllah sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam believing that Allah has given him sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam authority to help. and i totally follow shaykh buti's explanation of ibn 'ataAllah that all things happen because Allah wants them to.

3. i think the words given over some authority are ambiguous. what does it mean? like sulaiman 'alaihis salam and the winds. Allah surely gave him 'alaihis salam authority but that obviously doesn't mean Allah no longer controls them. in this sense, the statement is true. so given over does not mean sulaiman has total control and Allah no longer controls them; it means Allah has given sulaiman authority and attributing this control to sulaiman 'alaihis salam is in reality attributing it to Allah as without his granting, sulaiman 'alaihis salam can do nothing. in this sense, negating any authority for anyone is wrong.

as shaykh buti says, all things happen because Allah places effectiveness in them. and as the shaykh buti articles says, it is not disbelief to attribute effectiveness to the means.

4. another ambiguous part of the statement is to also benefit or harm. this could mean "benefit or harm" like Allah - no muslim believes this and it is su' adh-dhann of fellow muslims to claim this. or "benefit or harm" can mean Allah has given some authority to the means to benefit or harm - like the medicine can benefit us only if Allah wills. in the second meaning, saying it is a branch of shirk is what i disagree with and i think that is what shaykh buti means when he says it is not disbelief to believe this.

i agree with your [5] but then how can we believe in [2] at the same time? [2] does not allow any scope for attributing anything to other than Allah but [5] is. [2] needs to be expanded. it is not as simple as that and proof of this is that we needed to add a [5] in light of http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=3322

i would scrap [2] and replace it with:

[2] To call on other than Allah believing a certain individual can also benefit or harm without Allah's given authority is Shirk. If, however, one believes a certain individual can benefit or harm with the authority given to them by Allah, then this is permissible providing one always believes that means in themselves have no efficacy of their own; rather it is Allah that is the cause of all occurrences. This can not be Shirk as one believes Allah's authority is His own but certain individuals who can benefit or harm can only do so by Allah's given authority and they can do nothing without Allah's given authority. La Hawla wa la qawwata illa billahi'l 'alayyi'l 'adeem.

 

it sure does. any suggestions?

 

see, the site where i took the original quote from lists 4 types of tawassul.

Now read shaykh gibril's istighatha article. which type of tawassul is this?
http://www.sunniport.com/masabih/showthread.php?t=3322

 

Is this true in all cases?

For example:

34:12 - And to Sulaiman We subjected the wind

21:81 - And to Sulaiman, We made subservient the violent wind that it blew at his bidding

This means Allah had given Sulaiman the authority to control the winds.

Also, wouldn't those aHadith that mention losing an animal in the wilderness and saying "Oh people of Allah, help me" be affected by the above statement?