Talk:Tawassul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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!
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
