Is talking to dead Guides polytheism?

[Link]

Salam

This is a subject, that has become a huge dispute among Muslims.

The Messengers as mediums between God and his servants

And We did not send any Messenger but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission; and had they, when they were oppressive to themselves, come to you and asked forgiveness of Allah and the Messenger had (also) asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah Oft-returning (to mercy), Merciful.

And of the dwellers of the desert are those who believe in Allah and the latter day and take what they spend to be (means of) the nearness of Allah and the Messenger's prayers; surely it shall be means of nearness for them; Allah will make them enter into His mercy; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

They said: O our father! ask forgiveness of our faults for us, surely we were sinners.

The dispute about dead

As such there is no dispute that asking intercession of the Prophet while he is alive, was not Shirk (worshiping him).

There is however a claim, that talking to him while dead, is du'a (prayer) and is worshiping him.

Proof in undisputable Sunnah

In Salah, we say "peace be upon you Prophet" directly to him. Now during his life time, this line in prayer (the five daily ones) was done by Muslims near him and far away from him.

If the notion of him being absent and should not be giving all hearing status is the problem, then why did Muslims address him in Salah when far away, and why did he not change this near the end of his life, if we weren't meant to communicate to him after his death?

Further proof in Quran

And ask those of Our Messengers whom We sent before you: Did We ever appoint gods to be worshipped besides the (Ultimately) Compassionate?

If talking to dead Messengers was Shirk, this verse would not make sense, whether Mohammad (s) asks them this sincerely or is being told to ask them this rhetorically, doesn't make a difference.

There also a series of verses that show if Mohammad (s) was ignorant or was in doubt, to seek the Ahlulbayt appointed by God before him, that is the family of the reminder, the Messengers sent before, those given the book before him, and this would be in a way seeking guidance from dead guides, but it's not Shirk, it's actually an appeal from God, that the family of the reminder is open for guidance whether they are alive or dead, just as the family of Moses (a) and Aaron (a) would have guided if Mohammad (s) was ignorant, the Ahlulbayt of Mohammad (s) are guides and a way to know the truth about everything in God's religion, whether they are physically here or not.

Trait of hypocrites

In the chapter the hypocrites, it is revealed a sign of hypocrisy is being arrogant towards the position of intercession of the Messenger:

And when it is said to them: Come, the Messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you, they turn back their heads and you may see them turning away while they are arrogant.

Two other traits are mentioned, they plot against believers with the disbelievers and the other trait is they are ignorant of spiritual truths like honor belonging to God, Messenger and believers and the unity they have in that sense of honor, and the treasures of earth and heavens belongs to God.

We see the Wahabi movement of Saudi Arabia has all three characteristics of hypocrisy mentioned in this chapter.

(1) They are arrogant towards using the Messenger as a interceder using the excuse he is dead despite the proofs that communication to him has not been cut off.
(2) They are ignorant of spiritual side of Islam and the unity of God's light with the Messengers and believers gaining light from the Messengers, they are so ignorant, they call it Shirk as well.
(3) They work tirelessly against the believers and are willing to use the diabolic forces and do deals with them to work against believers and diminish their cause.

 

[dybmh]

In my opinion, your argument would be stronger if the verses which prohibit shirk are brought and then attempt to show how talking to the dead is not included in those verses.

In addition, the title of the OP indicates these are "dead Guides", capital "G". This to me is a little concerning, why capitalize the G? That appears to me to be associating God's attribute of "Exalted" on the memory of the deceased. If the wikipedia article on Shirk is correct, applying one of God's attributes to another is indeed a form of Shirk.

And while on that subject, even considering the dead as a guide is attributing God's attributes on another. Consider: Why would a Muslim converse with the dead for guidance when instead they could appeal to God for guidance. It seems to me that Islam would favor appealing to God vs. conversing with the dead if the topic is guidance.

Regarding the phrase "peace be upon him"; that's a prayer directed to God, so, that isn't a good example imho. Neither, imo, is the case where individuals asked for Muhammad's assitance on their behalf while he was alive. That's not talking to the dead.

Your best arguments are under the headings: "Further Proof in Quran" and "Traits of Hypocrites". Although, neither of these are quoting Quran. Without direct quotes these arguments lack impact.

Perhaps a distinction can be made between "talking" to the dead vs. listening to a guide sent by God? If a Muslim is very very careful never to petition or conversate with dead; but instead accepts the guidance with full faith in God's will to direct the lives of the faithful, maybe it's not Shirk?

And all this ignores the possibility that direct contact with non-material beings could be the product of imagination or mental illness. If the guidance is indeed coming from God in the form of a message from a dead guide, why would God send direction to a Muslim in a manner which could be confused for mental illness? It seems to me that guidance from God would come in a difference manner, something more concrete.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. Thank you for the interesting topic.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, talking to dead is superstition and foolishness. As far as Hindus, most of us are polytheistic and that is why I am replying to this topic. Hindu Polytheism is not guided by talking to dead. We also do not have messengers or messages from our deities.

 

[Link]

In my opinion, your argument would be stronger if the verses which prohibit shirk are brought and then attempt to show how talking to the dead is not included in those verses.

I showed a verse that told Mohammad (s) to talk to dead Messengers.

Consider: Why would a Muslim converse with the dead for guidance when instead they could appeal to God for guidance. It seems to me that Islam would favor appealing to God vs. conversing with the dead if the topic is guidance.

God could've spoken to all creation directly, but, he does so through special creation. The fact is we received Quran from Mohammad (s) and itself is reminding of a reality, that reality is the Mastership of God's chosen guides and kings. God himself wants us to go through the means he appointed.

Regarding the phrase "peace be upon him"; that's a prayer directed to God, so, that isn't a good example imho. Neither, imo, is the case where individuals asked for Muhammad's assitance on their behalf while he was alive. That's not talking to the dead.

No it's talking to the Prophet directly, it's not him, it's "you", "peace be upon you O Prophet", is the line.

Your best arguments are under the headings: "Further Proof in Quran" and "Traits of Hypocrites". Although, neither of these are quoting Quran. Without direct quotes these arguments lack impact.

If people are interested in knowing exactly which verse, they can simple google it, I didn't make a verse up.

And all this ignores the possibility that direct contact with non-material beings could be the product of imagination or mental illness. If the guidance is indeed coming from God in the form of a message from a dead guide, why would God send direction to a Muslim in a manner which could be confused for mental illness? It seems to me that guidance from God would come in a difference manner, something more concrete.

The Quran shows disbelievers would doubt what they are seeing and think they are enchanted if doors to heaven open up, but then emphasizes, he has made stars in the heaven connected to this world and made it an adornment on those who gaze. The stars are Ahlulbayt of the time, and although disbelievers will doubt in those type of signs, believers will be guided by them. That's the nature of the difference between the two, one cannot be guided even if God opens doors to heavens and shows spiritual world, while the other believes in the hidden signs of God as well as the divine books and the divinely appointed guides.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. Thank you for the interesting topic.

You welcome, thanks for replying.

 

[Shakeel]

It is shirk and there is zero dispute about that among Islamic scholars.

 

[Link]

It is shirk and there is zero dispute about that among Islamic scholars.

Convenient you get to declare who is scholar and who isn't, and who is Islamic and who isn't, circular reasoning at it's finest.

 

[Shakeel]

Convenient you get to declare who is scholar and who isn't, and who is Islamic and who isn't, circular reasoning at it's finest.

There are requirements for scholarship. I didn't invent them, actually. Now that you mention it, do you have the guts to name some of those "Islamic scholars" who support shirk?

 

[Link]

There are requirements for scholarship. I didn't invent them, actually. Now that you mention it, do you have the guts to name some of those "Islamic scholars" who support shirk?

Meh, I don't believe in clergy class and their so called authority, why don't you exercise that and let us know all the scholars that agree with Tawasul to the Prophet and the ones who don't. You seem to care about what scholars say as if they are chosen representatives of God so why don't you let us all know. Let us see how unbiased you are in your criteria of scholarship and who is who, and what they all said.

 

[Shakeel]

Meh, I don't believe in clergy class and their so called authority, why don't you exercise that and let us know all the scholars that agree with Tawasul to the Prophet and the ones who don't. You seem to care about what scholars say as if they are chosen representatives of God so why don't you let us all know. Let us see how unbiased you are in your criteria of scholarship and who is who, and what they all said.

I've never heard of a scholar who disputed that the shirk you enjoin is not shirk. It's up to you to provide proof. That's what this thread is for. The reason you don't provide names is because you know your lies will be even clearer to everyone. Better keep to vague claims without any proper references.

 

[Link]

I've never heard of a scholar who disputed that the shirk you enjoin is not shirk. It's up to you to provide proof. That's what this thread is for. The reason you don't provide names is because you know your lies will be even clearer to everyone. Better keep to vague claims without any proper references.

Hah, everyone knows you are being very narrow with definition of scholar to be only your sectarian scholars (very few). Any research on this issue, will show, many scholars Sunni and Shiite, actually, the great majority, agree with Tawasul. It's the Salafi/Wahabi sect alone really that declares it as shirk and you are famous for your takfir of other Muslims in this regard.

 

[Link]

Here an article from a Sunni website about quoting scholars about permissibility of Tawasul:

Quoting the Scholars on the Permissibility of Tawassul (alsunna.org)

 

[Link]

This is the claim by the Sunni author of that Sunni website:

Benefitial Information: this is an emphasis to what was mentioned before that the Muslim scholars used to deem the tawassul and istighathah by the Prophet after his death permissible and unobjectable.