Istigatha practised and advised by Shaykh (Maulana) Yusuf Motala (HA)

Asslamo Allaikum,

1. Hadhrat Shaykh Mawlana  Yusuf   Motala Saheb  D.B  stated  that  the  Noble  Companions  RM  would  say   nothing  except  the  words  ' Ya  Muhammad,   Ya Mansoor ,   Ummatak Ummatak '  يا �...ح�...د يا �...نصور اُ�...تـك اُ�...تـك (to  gain  the  Messenger  of   Allah's   spiritual  attenenton  and  tawajjuh)  upon  coming  across  each  other  in  the  Battle  of  Yarmook many  years  later  the  Messenger  of  Allah's   passing  away.   Hadhrat  asked  the  congregation  to  recite   this  as  a  wazeefah  throughout  the  night
2. Hadhrat also  stated  how  the  Messenger  of  Allah  would  pray  'Allahummagh firli watub  alayya ,  innaka antat tawwabul Ghafoor'  in  salah;  we  should  therefore  repeat  the  same  tens  and  hundreds  of  times  in our  rukus and  sajdahs (in  nafl salah),  esp in  what  is  left  of  these  blessed  nights  of  Ramadhan.

He  also  expressed  great  concern  for  the  Ummah and  the  suffering  and  tribulations  it  is  subjected  to, saying,  ‘Despite  this  we  continue  to  live  our  lives  as  if  we  have  no  connection  with  those  who are  suffering.  This  disconnect  is  such  that  we  are  too  busy  indulging  in  food  and  drink  whilst  they  pay  the  price.

‘We  should  make du'a for  Allah  to  safeguard  their iman (and  ours)  and  keep  them  steadfast  and unwavering  for  they  are  losing  family  members  at  a  rate  of  knots.’  May  Allah  protect  the  Muslim  Ummah and  enable  us  to  make  the  most  of  what  is  leL  of  Ramadhan.

Riyaz Ibrahim

Minutes 24:50 onwards...

Evidence mentioned by Shaykh (Maulana) Yusuf Motala (HA):

Apparently it is stated that this incident of Sahabah (RA) doing this has been mentioned in Futuh al-Sham of Imam al-Waqidi.

Response by Shaykh (Mufti) Hussain Kadodia (HA) about the book and the Author:

ahlalbidah.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/clarification-on-the-...

Hadrat,

From your reply I see the need to specify what the point of contention is.

The book under discussion is not the “Futuh as-Sham” originally authored by al-Waqidi. That, insha Allah, was a reliable source of history, like Waqidi’s other works. This book is unfortunately mafqud, with no sign of it anywhere in the world.

Thus, the discussion has nothing to do with Waqidi’s reliability.

Our discussion is focused on the book in print, titled “Futuh as-Sham” and attributed to al-Waqidi. It is also translated as “Conquests of the Sahabah”.

There are two major issues with this book:

• The first issue is the Ascription. While the book has been ascribed to al-Waqidi, there is absolutely no doubt in the falsity of this ascription. The book was definitely authored centuries after al-Waqidi, in all probability by a historian of the 7th or early 8th century. This is clear from the quotes in the book from authorities that lived centuries after al-Waqidi. Similarly, any person with knowledge of asanid would know that the asanid mentioned in the book could no way belong to al-Waqidi. They are double or triple the length of his asanid, from shuyukh who lived after him. Then, those with expertise in the Arabic language make it clear that the language of the book is that of centuries later, definitely not of the 2nd and 3rd century. The same goes for the poetry mentioned therein.

Then you have the number of integral facets of the book that run contrary to the widely-narrated view of al-Waqidi. For example the book is filled with the exploits of Dhirar, however al-Waqidi without a doubt believed Dhirar to have died in Yamamah, before the Conquests of Sham even begun. This view of al-Waqidi has been transmitted from him by all the giants in the field. So, how would it be possible for al-Waqidi to have still authored a book detailing every minute detail of Dhirar’s exploits, when he believed him to have died years earlier?

Any person who reads the book with a critical eye, would immediately spot these glaring discrepancies in its attribution to al-Waqidi.
It is for this reason that dozens of scholars have clearly stated that this book is definitely not by al-Waqidi.

Here is a list of some of the researchers who mentioned this. I have come across many others who have stated the same and plan on compiling their names in an article soon insha Allah.

Here is a portion of a book that also discussed the incorrect ascription:

So, to conclude, the author of the book is unknown. It is probably a 7-8th century historian, but is is definitely not al-Waqidi.

• The second issue is the reliability of the contents.

As mentioned above, the book isn’t by al-Waqidi, rather by someone coming hundreds of years later. It is obvious that the author wasn’t present at the time of these campaigns, thus the necessity for him to have narrated them from reliable sources.

Who are his sources?

He quotes many passages from al-Waqidi’s Futuh as-Sham, however those make up a small portion of the book. Where is he getting the balance from?

A book by an unknown author who isn’t divulging his sources holds no academic weight.

Then, to get an idea of the accuracy of his narrations, all one has to do is compare his narrative with those of the accepted historians.

I have compared numerous chapters of Futuh as-Sham with books considered the “Sihah” of tarikh viz. al-Bidayah wa an-Nihayah, Tarikh at-Tabari, Tarikh Ibn Athir, Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Tarikh Madinah ad-Dimashk of Ibn Asakir etc. While differences in narrations are normal and acceptable in tarikh, the problem here wasn’t slight differences between narrators. It was as if two different campaigns were being compared.

All the famous books of tarikh would narrate the campaign along similar lines, while Futuh as-Sham would differ in every possible manner: from the year of the battle, the order of the conquests, the leaders of each battle, the manner in which the battle played out and even the casualties. Add to this the tons of heroic exploits and fine details only found in this book and it becomes clear that this isn’t a book of history.

It is a novel, written by some well-intentioned, yet misguided historian, who felt that fabricating these heroic exploits was an acceptable manner to get people to love the Sahabah, similar to the misguided Sufi’s who fabricated ahadith in fadail.

The author fabricated numerous characters to serve as his heros’ and spiced up the lives of others for the same purpose.

The link I posted above quotes a number of researchers who have studied the book and have arrived at the conclusion above.

Allah Ta’ala knows best

Shaykh (Mufti) Husain Kadodia (HA)

Can this be considered Salawaat?

The obvious answer is that Islamic Scholars have generally not deemed or used يا �...ح�...د يا �...نصور اُ�...تـك اُ�...تـك as Salawaat. Specifically we look at what is Salawaat?

Shaykhul-Hadeeth (Maulana) Zakariyya Kandhalwi (RA) writes in Fazail-e-Durood:

The scholars have expounded many meanings for the wordṣ Salāt in this verse, and in each place the most appropriate meaning in relation to Allāh, His angels and the believers will be meant. Some scholars have written that Salāt upon the Prophet(Sallallahu A’lihi Wassalam) means praise and respect of the Noble Prophet (Sallallahu A’lihi Wassalam) with mercy and affection. Furthermore, this praise and respect will be according to the rank and status of whoever the act of conferring ṣalāt is attributed to.

For example, it is said that the father is kind to his son and that the son is kind to his father, or that the brothers are kind to one another. Now it is obvious that the kindness shown by the father to his son will differ to that shown by the son to his father and that of the brothers to one another.

Likewise, Allāh’s conferring Salāt upon the Noble Prophet(Sallallahu A’lihi Wassalam) means Allāh is praising and honouring him with mercy and kindness. The angels are also conferring ṣalāt but their Salāt, blessings and respect will be according to their own position. Thereafter, the believers are ordered to confer blessings [which is also in ac cordance to their own status].

Imām Bukhārī (may Allāh have mercy on him) has narrated from Abū Āliya (may Allāh have mercy on him) that the meaning of Allāh conferring Salāt is to praise the Noble Prophet(Sallallahu A’lihi Wassalam) in the presence of the angels and the blessings of the angels are their prayers. Sayyidunā Ibn Abbās` has interpreted yuṣallūna [in the verse] as yubarrikūna , meaning they pray for blessings. 

Ḥāfi�" Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh have mercy on him) states that this meaning complies with Abū Āliya’s opinion, except it is more specific in context. Elsewhere, after mentioning the various meanings of Salāt, he mentions that Abū Āliya’s (may Allāh have mercy on him) opinion is the most preferred, namely that Allāh’s ṣalāt is praising the Noble Prophet(Sallallahu A’lihi Wassalam) and that the ṣalāt of the angels and others is requesting Allāh to confer ṣalāt. Furthermore, this request is for an increase in the blessings already be ing conferred, not for the conferring of blessings to be initiated.

Utterance of “Ya Muhammad”

[24:63] Do not take the call of the messenger among you as a call of one of you to another. Allah definitely knows those of you who sneak out hiding themselves under the cover of others. So, those who violate his (messenger‘s) order must beware, lest they are visited by a trial or they are visited by a painful punishment.

Why is it Haraam to say "Ya Muhammad"?

Why saying YA Muhammad is consider Shirk or Haram? Some scholars say that saying YA Muhammad is shirk or haram because of the prefix ‘Ya’  means present since the prophet is not present everywhere that’s why it is considered Haram? But According to Arabic Grammar prefix YA  can be used for both near and far person (Jaamin Durood Arabin vol.2 pg.106). Then Why it is said so?

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh.

In principle, if one says “Ya Rasool al-Allah or “Ya Muhammed” with the belief that Rasullullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) hears every sound, sees every action, etc, then it is impermissible and constitutes Shirk (polytheism).

If one believes that the words “Ya Rasullullah” or “Ya Muhammed” are being sent to Rasullullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) via the angels in the form of Durood and Salaam, then it is permissible for one to say such words.

However, if one utters such wordings out of extreme love for Rasullullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) without the incorrect belief that Rasullullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) listens to every word, sees us, etc, then it is merely Mubah (permissible) for one to utter such words.

Nevertheless, since many people have the incorrect belief that Rasullullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) is Hadhir and Nadhir (omnipresent), knower of the unseen or that Rasullullah (Sallalalhu Alayhi Wa Sallam) listens to one who pronounces the words “Ya Muhammed” or “Ya Rasullullah”, it is highly advisable that one refrains from uttering such words.[1]

The reference that you have quoted is unclear. In all probability, you are referring to “Jami al-Duroos al-Arabiyyah”.

And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best                                       

Ismail Desai,
Student Darul Iftaa
Durban, South Africa

Checked and Concurred by,
Moulana Abdul Azeem Bin Abdul Rahmaan

Student Darul Iftaa

Shaykh (Mufti) Abdur-Rahman Mangera (HA): Istigatha should be best avoided

This is a mixed talk but Shaykh (Mufti) Abdur-Rahman Mangera (HA) starts from minutes 6 onwards...

Calling someone after death?

Allamah Zafar Ahmad Uthmani (amy Allah have mercy on him) author of Ila as-Sunun (proof of Hanafi fiqh from Prophetic traditions) writes that there are similar details for calling someone after death. Those are:

1. To call the Nabi or wali at his grave.
2. To call them from a distant place but this calling in not to address them directly. It is from the overwhelming rapture of their love one does it.
3. To call them with the belief that they hear from a distance.
4. To call them in their absence but this is neither to address them or due to overwhelming rapture but as a recitation of a dua which contains their name as being addressed.

From all these situations:

• #1 is permissible according to the consensus of muhaqqiq (scholars). Provided that at the grave the impermissible istenanat (help) is not sought (this has been elaborated in this fatwa before).
• #2 is also permissible
• #3 is impermissible. Because to belief such is shirk (associate partners with Allah SWT)
• #4 is permissible given that this dua is explicitly present in a verse of Quran or hadith.

Irshad fil masala e istemdad, Maqalaat e Usmani ra page 288
 

Specific Fatwaas on this incident:

Fatwa 1:

Is it permissible to recite the following as a Wazifa directly calling on Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam without believing him to be hazir nazir:

'Ya  Muhammad, Ya Mansoor ,   Ummatak Ummatak '  يا �...ح�...د يا �...نصور اُ�...تـك اُ�...تـك  in order to gain the  Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam's spiritual  attention & tawajjuh.

Is there any precedent amongst our akabireen of having done the same or similar &, what of someone who has done the above but not believing Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam to be hazir nazir?
 

No it is not permissible .

Darul-uloom Zakariyya

Note: On the historical visit of Sheikh-ul-Hadith Moulana Muhammad Zakarriya Kandhelwi (Rahmatullah Alayh) to South Africa in 1981 (1402 A.H), he was requested by some brothers to make Dua for the establishment of a Darul Uloom (higher religious institution) and for the preservation and propagation of Islam.

Fatwa 2:

Is it permissible to recite the following as a Wazifa directly calling on Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam without believing him to be hazir nazir:

'Ya  Muhammad, Ya Mansoor ,   Ummatak Ummatak '  يا �...ح�...د يا �...نصور اُ�...تـك اُ�...تـك  in order to gain the  Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam's spiritual  attention & tawajjuh.

Is there any precedent amongst our akabireen of having done the same or similar &, what of someone who has done the above but not believing Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam to be hazir nazir?
 

Aapa,

This isn't a Durood, its a DIRECT CALLING towards Nabi (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam)

OP updated.