The Opinion of Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Barelvi
Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Barelvi (1324–1391 AH), commenting on verse 89 of Surah Al-Baqarah, writes:"It is known that seeking prayers through the intercession of the Prophet is an ancient Sunnah, and denying his intercession is worse than the Jews and Christians. Even before his intercession, the needs of the people were being fulfilled."
(Tafseer Noor-ul-Irfan, p. 21)
In his interpretation of this noble verse, the Mufti follows the path of the People of the Book and commits a significant error in interpreting the Quran to defend his false and corrupt beliefs. He has spoken about Allah's Book in a way that none of the Salaf (righteous predecessors) have. The true account is that the Jews, who were People of the Book, would fight the two tribes of Aws and Khazraj, who were not People of the Book. The Jews knew that a prophet was soon to be sent, whose victory was destined. Thus, they expressed their support for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), saying they would believe in him, follow him, and with his help, they would fight and overcome the polytheists, meaning Aws and Khazraj. They sought victory over these polytheists.
When the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sent and the Quran was revealed, the Jews reneged on their words and disbelieved in him. Thus, they were cursed and became disbelievers. Mufti Sahib did not understand this and inserted the concept of intercession into his interpretation without any basis. No companion, Tabi'i (successor to the companions), or trustworthy Imam has ever deduced such an interpretation from this noble verse. The falsehood of Mufti Sahib's statement is evident as no companion or esteemed Imam believed in intercession through the person of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Indeed, it was these very individuals, the Salaf of the Ummah, who were well-acquainted with the meanings and implications of the Quran and Hadith.
Interpretation by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (661–728 AH) has beautifully written regarding this verse:"Allah described the Jews as those who recognized the truth before it was explicitly articulated and called towards. When the one articulating it came to them from a group they did not like, they did not submit to it. They only accept the truth from their own group, despite not following what is obligatory upon them in their beliefs. This affliction also affects many who affiliate themselves with a particular group in knowledge or religion, such as jurists or Sufis, or others, or with a highly revered religious figure – other than the Prophet (peace be upon him). They only accept religious opinions and narrations from their group, not realizing what their group obligates. However, Islam obliges following the truth, regardless of who brings it – whether in narration or opinion – without specifying any person or group other than the Prophet (peace be upon him)."
(Iqtidāʾ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm, 1/88-89)
A Narration About the Understanding of the Jews
"Some of our elders narrated to us: No one among the Arabs knew more about the matter of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) than us. We had Jews living with us who were People of the Book, while we were idolaters. Whenever we did something they disliked, they would say: 'A prophet is about to be sent, whose time is near. We will follow him and with him, we will fight you, just like the people of Aad and Iram were destroyed.' When Allah sent His Messenger, we believed in him, while they disbelieved. By Allah, this verse was revealed about us and them:'And before this, they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieved...' (Al-Baqarah 2:89)"(As-Sirah by Ibn Ishaq, p. 84; Dala'il an-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqi, 2/75; its chain is good)
Mufti Naeemi's Interpretation of Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 118
Mufti Naeemi further writes in the interpretation of verse 118 of Surah Al-Baqarah:"To desire to reach the Lord without the intercession of the Prophet is the work of disbelievers. When the Lord does not reach us without the intercession of the Prophet, even though He is free of all needs, then how can we reach Him without an intercession, while we are in need?"
(Tafseer Noor-ul-Irfan, p. 27)
A follower of Mufti Sahib should explain what kind of intercession he wants to prove from this verse of the Quran. The discussion here is about using someone's person as an intermediary in prayer. As for religion and Shariah, Allah has given it to us through His Prophet, but within this Shariah, all the detailed methods of our worship have been explained. Dua (supplication) is a form of worship, and in fact, the essence of worship. Does any proof from the Quran and Sunnah indicate that one can use a person's name as an intermediary in prayer? If mentioning someone's name as an intermediary in dua were permissible in Islam, Mufti Sahib would not have had to go to such lengths. No companion, Tabi'i, or Imam from the Salaf has ever deduced such an interpretation from this noble verse, nor has anyone among the Salaf believed in this. It is surprising that those who abandon the following of the Prophet by claiming ignorance of the meaning and interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah, how can they, on the other hand, claim to derive new meanings from the Quran and Sunnah to support their innovations?
The confusion of Mufti Sahib is further evident in another statement:
"It is known that even Pharaoh believed in the intercession of the Prophet. Whoever denies this intercession is more misguided than Pharaoh."
(Tafseer Noor-ul-Irfan, p. 264)
What should be made of this contradiction, where Mufti Sahib, in the same book, first states that not taking the intercession of the Prophet is the work of disbelievers and then claims that the disbelievers' leader, Pharaoh, believed in the intercession of the Prophet? One of these statements must be correct. If the disbelievers denied the intercession of the Prophet, then according to Mufti Sahib, Pharaoh was not a disbeliever. If Pharaoh was a disbeliever, it implies that taking the intercession of the Prophet's person is a practice of disbelievers. The Barelvi brothers continue to embrace this practice of the disbelievers!
Mufti Sahib writes under verse 193 of Surah Al-Imran:
"It is also correct to supplicate using the intercession of one's faith. If it is permissible to use one's faith as an intercession, then taking the intercession of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is also completely correct."
(Tafseer Noor-ul-Irfan, p. 119)
Faith is a form of action, and supplicating using one's deeds is permissible and allowed in light of Shariah texts. Comparing one's faith with the person of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a baseless analogy by Mufti Sahib. Acts of worship will be performed as guided by Shariah. To invent new methods of worship based on one's opinion and intellect is an innovation (Bid'ah). Any form of worship not prescribed by Shariah is considered an innovation. If it were permissible to use the person of the Prophet as an intercession, just like the intercession of faith, then the companions and Imams of the religion would have surely done so. The true religion was followed by the companions and the Imams of the religion.
It is clear that Shia, Hanafi, Deobandi, and Barelvi groups are all proponents and practitioners of forbidden, disliked, and innovative intercession.
The Intercession of the Pious Predecessors and the Acknowledgment by Anwar Shah Kashmiri
The renowned Hadith scholar from Darul Uloom Deoband, Anwar Shah Kashmiri (1292–1352 AH), mentions the permissible intercession according to the Salaf:"You should know that the intercession of the Salaf was not as commonly understood. When they wished to seek intercession from someone, they would take that person along with them to supplicate for them."
(Faydh al-Bari 'ala Sahih al-Bukhari, 3/434)
Alhamdulillah! The Ahl-e-Hadith adhere to the beliefs, methodology, and religion of the Salaf. We also believe that the correct way of seeking intercession from a pious person is to ask them to make dua for us. Therefore, we do not believe in intercession through deceased individuals. The Book of Allah, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ummah bear witness to this. Kashmiri Sahib acknowledges that the Salaf only believed in the intercession of the living, who would supplicate for them. This acknowledgment is a clear testimony to the truthfulness of the Ahl-e-Hadith.
Anwar Shah Kashmiri writes about the innovative intercession:
"As for seeking intercession through the names of the righteous as is common in our time, where those being interceded with have no knowledge of the intercession, nor is it required that they be alive; only their names are mentioned with the belief that they have a special status and acceptance with Allah. It is a matter I do not prefer to delve into. I neither assert its authenticity from the Salaf nor do I deny it."
(Faydh al-Bari, 3/424)
Thus, Kashmiri Sahib acknowledges that seeking intercession through the names of deceased saints is not established from the Salaf. However, he also states that he does not deny it. It is surprising that despite admitting the lack of evidence from the Salaf, Kashmiri Sahib is not willing to abandon this innovative practice established by later theologians. He expresses his helplessness in this matter. May Allah grant us the strength and ability to accept the truth and reject falsehood.
In explaining the Hadith about the intercession of the companions of Sayyidina Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Kashmiri Sahib writes:
"This intercession was an active one because they would say to him afterward: 'O Abbas, stand and supplicate for us,' and he would supplicate for them. The verbal intercession, i.e., seeking rain by mentioning the names of the righteous without their presence, is not established. I say that Imam Tirmidhi mentions that the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught a Bedouin these words: 'O Allah, I turn to You with Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy... O Allah, accept his intercession for me.' Thus, the verbal intercession is also established from this. Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah's denial of it is an exaggeration."
(Faydh al-Bari, 4/68)
Kashmiri Sahib's dilemma is evident; on one hand, he acknowledges that the intercession through the names of the righteous is not established from the Salaf, but on the other hand, he tries to justify this innovative intercession by distorting the meaning of the Hadith. There is no text in the Book and Sunnah that the Salaf did not act upon. If there were any evidence from a Hadith for supplicating to Allah using the names of deceased righteous people, the Salaf would have acted upon it as they did with the permissible forms of intercession.
Regarding the Hadith of the blind man, Kashmiri Sahib's interpretation is not valid. It is clear from the words of the Hadith itself that at the time of supplication, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was present with the blind man and prayed for him. That is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught him the words of supplication: "O Allah, accept his intercession for me." If the Prophet (peace be upon him) had not prayed for him, what would these words mean? It is evident that this Hadith only establishes the intercession through the supplication of a living righteous person. Kashmiri Sahib and his followers try to manipulate the meaning of the Hadith to prove their innovative intercession, which is why they have to admit that there is no evidence from the Salaf for this practice. How could there be, as the Salaf were adherents of the Book and Sunnah?
Is it still not clear that the Ahl-e-Hadith adhere to the beliefs and methodology of the Salaf? It is as clear as daylight that the followers of blind imitation invent new methods of worship and, despite claiming to follow the Imams, make failed attempts to justify these innovations with arguments from the Quran and Hadith.
Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, a follower of the Salaf, therefore declared intercession through the names of the righteous as impermissible. How can he be blamed for this when he wrote:
"The Hadith of the blind man provides no proof for them, for it explicitly shows that he sought intercession through the Prophet's (peace be upon him) supplication and intercession."(Qāʿidah Jalīlah fī al-Tawassul, p. 64)
This is regarding the Hadith of the blind man. As for the Hadith of Sayyidina Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) in Sahih Bukhari, Kashmiri Sahib himself admitted that it does not establish the current practice of intercession.
Another statement of his reads:
"His statement: 'O Allah, we used to seek intercession with You through our Prophet (peace be upon him)...' does not mention the common practice of intercession with the absent, even without them knowing. It indicates the intercession of the Salaf, which is to present a person who is close to Allah and ask him to supplicate for them, and then refer to this supplication in their own supplication. This is what was done with Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the uncle of the Prophet (peace be upon him). If this Hadith referred to the method of intercession by the latter generations, they would not have needed to take Abbas with them, and the intercession of their Prophet after his death would have sufficed, or the intercession of Abbas without his presence with them. This method is permissible according to some later scholars, but Ibn Taymiyyah forbade it. I am unsure because he cited a statement from the book 'Tajrid al-Qaduri' by Imam Abu Hanifa that swearing by other than Allah's names is not permissible. They inferred from the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah's names that intercession by names is also prohibited. If intercession is the same as swearing, then Ibn Taymiyyah's view is correct. If they are different, then intercession is permissible."
(Faydh al-Bari, 2/379)
Therefore, no companion, Tabi'i, or Imam of the religion ever offered the intercession of righteous people or their names to Allah. This method is a later invention. Now, regarding the statement of Imam Abu Hanifa about not swearing by anything other than Allah's names, which negates the intercession of persons, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is correct. However, understanding this discussion depends on comprehending the prohibition of swearing by anything other than Allah's names.