Salafīs (also called Wahhabīs or Ghayr Muqallidīn) claim to uphold pure Tawḥīd. However, by attributing uniquely divine actions to Prophet ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), such as creating, reviving the dead, and ascending physically, they blur the distinction between Creator and creation. A separate article will examine the Quranic verses underlying these claims.

The Salafī Criticism of Ṣūfī Beliefs

The Salafī Rejection of the Saints’ Miracles

As Ṣāleḥ al-Fawzān makes it clear, Salafīs consider it major shirk to believe that the awliyāʾ or the righteous, whether dead or alive, can help by alleviating distress, curing illness, or granting benefit

Question: Is it permissible to pray behind an imam who believes in saints and righteous people? Please advise us, may Allah bless you.

Answer: Believing that saints and righteous people can bring benefit or harm, heal the sick, or relieve distress—as the grave worshippers today believe, those who venerate shrines—is major shirk, and we seek refuge in Allah from it. The one who holds such a belief is outside the fold of Islam, because they are worshipping other than Allah Almighty. This is because harm, benefit, relief from distress, and fulfilling needs that only Allah can do are not in the power of anyone except Allah, glorified and exalted be He. Believing that the dead or those in graves can bring benefit or harm, or even that the living can do so in matters that only Allah can do, such as healing the sick, granting provision, or removing harm, is major shirk. This is because it involves relying upon other than Allah Almighty and directing the highest forms of worship to other than Allah Almighty. Therefore, if this imam is as you have described, then he is not from the people of Islam as long as he remains upon this belief, and his leadership in prayer is not valid because he is a polytheist with Allah Almighty.

[Majmūʿ Fatāwā Faḍīlat al-Shaykh Ṣāliḥ bin Fawzān, vol 1, pg. 245]

Ibn Taymīyyah (رحمه الله) (d. 728H) also confirms this is shirk, whether the saints are dead or alive; believing they have such powers is a form of associating partners with Allāh. Therefore, Salafīs hold that attributing powers exclusive to Allāh to anyone else fundamentally undermines the core of monotheism and constitutes shirk

As for the prohibited forms of istighātha (seeking help), they are also of various types:
First: Seeking help from the Prophet ﷺ or from a righteous man who is alive, present, and physically before you, in matters that only Allah ﷻ is capable of—such as forgiving sins, guiding hearts, curing illnesses, granting provision, granting victory over enemies, and other things that none but Allah ﷻ can do. This type of istighātha is major shirk that takes one out of the fold of Islam, and it was the shirk of the Arabs in the pre-Islamic period.

However, these people may even exceed the shirk of the pre-Islamic Arabs, for they also commit shirk in tawḥīd al-rubūbiyyah (the oneness of Allah’s Lordship), which the polytheistic Arabs themselves affirmed. The pre-Islamic Arabs acknowledged that Allah is their Creator, Provider, Giver of life and death—whereas some of these extremists refuse to accept provision except from their shaykhs. Moreover, the polytheistic Arabs would sincerely call upon Allah in times of hardship, but these extremists only increase in their shirk during hardships. And there is no power and no might except with Allah.

[Kitāb al-Istighāthah fī al-Radd ʿalā al-Bakrī, pg. 43]

Ṣūfī View: Istighātha Allowed as Saints Help and Perform Miracles Through Allāh’s Permission

While the Salafīs accuse Ṣūfīs of shirk for seeking aid from Awliyā and believing that divine karāmāt or miracles manifest through them. The Ṣūfīs, however, maintain that all such help or miraculous acts performed by the Awliyā or the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occurs solely by Allah’s will.

When Ibn Taymīyyah (رحمه الله) issued the fatwā that istighātha (seeking aid) is shirk, Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (رحمه الله) (d. 756H) penned a defence against this claim in his book Shifā’ al-Suqām. He defended istighātha by explaining that it is permissible because the true helper is Allāh alone, while the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intercedes by calling upon Allāh on behalf of the supplicant. Thus, the help received from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occurs only by Allāh’s will or creation.

If the opponent says: “I do not prohibit tawassul (intercession) and tashaffu’ (seeking intercession) based on the traditions and evidence you have presented, but I prohibit the use of tajawwuh (seeking through someone’s status) and istighátha (seeking help), because they give the impression that the one through whom help is sought and the one from whom help is requested are higher than the One to whom the request is directed and from whom help is ultimately sought.” We say: No Muslim believes this, nor do the terms tajawwuh and istighátha indicate this. Tajawwuh comes from jáh and wajáha, meaning high rank and status. One may seek intercession through someone of high status to someone who is even higher in status than them. Istighátha is seeking help. The one seeking help (mustaghíth) asks the one from whom help is sought (mustagháthi bihi) to obtain help for him from another, even if that other is higher than the intermediary. Thus, tawassul, tashaffu’, tajawwuh, and istighátha through the Prophet ﷺ and other prophets and righteous people has no other meaning in the hearts of Muslims than this, and none of them intends anything other than this. […] The one from whom help is truly sought is Allah the Exalted, and the Prophet ﷺ is an intermediary between Him and the one seeking help. [pg. 378-379]

The third type of tawassul: when that desired matter is requested from him, meaning that he ﷺ is capable of being a cause for it through his supplication to his Lord and his intercession to Him. This returns to the second type in meaning, even though the expression is different. An example of this is when someone said to the Prophet ﷺ: “I ask you for your companionship in Paradise,” and he said: “Help me against your soul by prostrating frequently.” The traditions regarding this are also numerous, and people intend nothing by their requests except that the Prophet ﷺ be a cause and intercessor. Likewise, the Prophet’s ﷺ response, even when it comes according to the question, as we have narrated in Dalá’il al-Nubuwwa by al-Bayhaqi, with the chain of transmission to ‘Uthmán ibn Abí al-‘Ás (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: “I complained to the Prophet ﷺ about my poor memorization of the Qur’an, so he said: ‘A devil called Khinzab. Come close to me, O ‘Uthmán.’ Then he placed his hand on my chest, and I felt its coolness between my shoulder blades, and he said: ‘Come out, O devil, from ‘Uthmán’s chest.’ He said: After that, I never heard anything except that I memorized it.” Notice how the Prophet commanded the devil to leave in the name of Allah, knowing that this was by Allah’s permission, creation, and facilitation. The intent is not to attribute creation and independent action to the Prophet ﷺ; no Muslim intends this. Therefore, turning the discourse to this [interpretation] and prohibiting it is a form of deception in religion and confusion for the common monotheists. [pg. 382-383]

And one says: “I sought help from Allah” and “I seek help from Allah,” meaning requesting the creation of help from Him. So Allah the Exalted is mustagháthi (the one from whom help is sought), and help comes from Him through creation and bringing into existence. The Prophet ﷺ is mustagháthi (one from whom help is sought), and help comes from him through causation and acquisition. [pg. 385]

[Shifa` al-Saqam, pg. 378-379, 382-383, 385]

A careful study of Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī’s (رحمه الله) argument reveals that Ṣūfīs believe Istighātha is permissible and does not amount to shirk because when Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is beseeched for relief, the relief appears to come “from” the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) in the sense that he is the immediate cause or means through which you receive it. However, the ultimate source remains Allah. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) doesn’t create or generate the relief from his own independent power. Rather, Allah grants it through the Prophet’s (صلى الله عليه وسلم) intercession. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) acts as a cause or means through which Allah provides the relief.

Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ramlī (رحمه الله) (d. 957H) is another scholar who defended istighātha, explaining that miracles and acts of assistance performed by the saints or the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) occur by the will and power of Allāh, who manifests His divine miracles through these chosen individuals:

The Imām was asked:

Regarding what occurs amongst the awwām who when in distress say “ya shaykh fulān” and “ya Rasūlullāh” and things like this from seeking aid (istighātha) with the Prophets and the Awliyā, the ‘Ulemā and the righteous, is this permitted or not? And do the Messengers, Prophets, Awliyā, the righteous, and the Mashayekh possess the ability to assist others after their deaths, and what strengthens that view?

He replied:
Istighātha (seeking aid) with the Prophets and Messengers, the Awliyā, the ‘Ulemā and the righteous is permitted.

The messengers, Prophets and the Awliyā have [the ability to] assist after their death because the miracles of the Prophets and Awliyā are not severed following their death. As for the Prophets, then they are alive in their graves praying and doing hajj as it has come in the reports. So assistance from them will be a miracle on their behalf; and the martyrs are also alive, and have been seen, openly killing the kuffār. And as for the Awliyā, then it is a karama from them. The people of the truth believe that this occurs from the Awliyā both with intention, and without intention-things that sever the customary manner of phenomenal reality (khariqa lil ādah), that Allah the Exalted brings forth through them.

[Al-Fatawa al-Kubra al-Fiqhiyyah wa bi-Hamishihi Fatawa al-Ramli, vol 4, 382]

Lastly, Hazrat Shaykh ‘Abdul Qādir Jīlānī (رحمت‌الله‌علیه) (d. 561H), a famous Sufi saint, explains that at the highest spiritual stage, the Awliyā by Allah’s will, be granted extraordinary divine powers, including the power of bringing things into existence. He goes onto explain how the Qur’anic phrase “Be, and it is” (كُن فَيَكُونُ; kun fa-yakūn) while associated with Allah’s supreme creative power, the Awliyā who becomes fully annihilated in Allah’s Oneness, whatever they command to “Be” (kun fa-yakūn) will likewise come into existence by Allah’s permission.

Here, a person is granted the power of creation (takwin), that is, the power of originating and bringing things into existence. And by the permission of Allah, through His command ‘Be’ (kun), wonders and marvels come into manifestation, and he becomes a refuge and sanctuary for God’s creation. He attains expansion of the heart (inshirah sadr) and his good remembrance becomes elevated in both worlds. And in some of Allah’s books, there is His statement: ‘O children of Adam! I am Allah, there is no deity besides Me. Whatever I say to a thing “Be,” it immediately comes into being. So by becoming annihilated (fana) in My unity, you too, whatever you say to a thing “Be,” it will immediately come into being by My permission.

[Futooh al-Ghaib, pg. 125]

The Problematic Beliefs of the Salafīs

The Salafī Belief About ʿĪsā (عليه السلام)

Salafīs believe that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) has the power to create life, such as making birds from clay and giving them life, and that he can revive the dead. For instance, their renowned scholar Ibn Uthaymīn (d. 1422H) affirms this belief by stating:

He (Jesus) breathed into it (a bird), and it became a bird that flies by the permission of Allah, and people watched that […] The Qur’an mentions that Jesus (peace be upon him) revived the dead by Allah’s permission, and in another verse, he brings forth the dead. These two acts are different: the first is reviving the dead before burial, and the second is reviving and bringing them out of their graves after burial. There is no doubt that these miracles given to Jesus by Allah are beyond human capability, and His support for him with these miracles is evidence and proof that he was a messenger from Allah, the Creator and Omnipotent.

[Majmūʿ Fatāwā Ibn ʿUthaymīn, vol 5, pg. 303]

The Salafīs also believe that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was physically raised to heaven, a claim that will be expounded upon later in this article to show why it is theologically erroneous.

It is ironic that the excuses Salafīs use to justify their own beliefs mirror exactly the same justifications Ṣūfīs use when excusing their shirk. It was noted earlier that the Ṣūfīs also maintain that such miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission. One must ask: what truly distinguishes the Ṣūfīs from the Salafīs? The Salafīs attribute miraculous powers to ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), claiming he performs them by Allāh’s permission. Similarly, the Ṣūfīs hold the same belief but extend these divine miracles to the awliyāʾ, who are also believed to act through Allāh’s permission. Despite this, Salafīs are quick to label Ṣūfīs as mushriks.

The Salafī Belief About Dajjāl

Salafīs, just like other Sunni Muslims, also hold similar beliefs about the Dajjāl (Antichrist), including the claim that he will have the power to revive the dead. These problematic beliefs can be seen in the following quote:

Allah the Mighty and Majestic has given the Dajjal the ability to bring a dead person to life. However, this enemy of Allah cannot do this through his own power and might, but only through Allah’s permission and command, not independently. […] Just as Allah the Mighty and Majestic gave `Isa (Jesus) (peace be upon him) the ability to bring the dead to life, heal the blind and the leper, and inform people about some unseen matters – all of which was only by the permission of Allah, the Glorified and Exalted – similarly, He gave the Dajjal some extraordinary abilities by His permission as a trial and test for His servants, Glory be to Him.

[IslamQA: How can the Dajjal resurrect the dead when this ability belongs exclusively to Allah?] (Accessed: 13 August 2025)

Criticism of the Salafī Beliefs in Light of the Writings of Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) (d. 1326H)

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained that the core of true monotheism is that Allāh alone possesses divine attributes such as creating life, giving life and death, knowing the unseen, and having complete control over everything. He emphasized that these attributes are unique and cannot be shared or divided. He stated that when Salafīs claim that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) has powers like creating birds or reviving the dead, or that the Dajjāl can raise the dead they are wrongly attributing Allāh’s exclusive powers to created beings which thereby undermines Allāh’s uniqueness and amounts to shirk.

Furthermore, Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained how the Salafī belief that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was physically raised to heaven creates a theological problem. He explains that the disbelievers repeatedly claimed they would accept the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) if he physically ascended to heaven. Yet, the response given to them was that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is only a human messenger, as stated in the Quran:

أَوۡ يَكُونَ لَكَ بَيۡتٞ مِّن زُخۡرُفٍ أَوۡ تَرۡقَىٰ فِي ٱلسَّمَآءِ وَلَن نُّؤۡمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيۡنَا كِتَٰبٗا نَّقۡرَؤُهُۥ ۗ قُلۡ سُبۡحَانَ رَبِّي هَلۡ كُنتُ إِلَّا بَشَرٗا رَّسُولٗا ٩٤

Translation: ‘Or thou have a house of gold or thou ascend up into heaven; and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a book that we can read.’ Say, ‘Holy is my Lord! I am not but a man sent as a Messenger.’

[Holy Quran 17:94]

It is further known that Allāh never breaks His promises, and the promise He made to humans was that they would live and die on earth:

قَالَ فِيهَا تَحۡيَوۡنَ وَفِيهَا تَمُوتُونَ وَمِنۡهَا تُخۡرَجُونَ ٢٦

Translation: He said, ‘Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, and therefrom shall you be brought forth.’

[Holy Quran 7:26]

Furthermore, humans have their permanent place on earth:

قَالَ ٱهۡبِطُواْ بَعۡضُكُمۡ لِبَعۡضٍ عَدُوّٞ ۖ وَلَكُمۡ فِي ٱلۡأَرۡضِ مُسۡتَقَرّٞ وَمَتَٰعٌ إِلَىٰ حِينٖ ٢٥

Translation: He said, ‘Go forth, some of you being enemies of others. And for you there is an abode on the earth and a provision for a time.’

[Holy Quran 7:25]

Therefore, the question arises whether Allāh forgot this promise when He took ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) to heaven or whether ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was not truly mortal if he physically ascended to heaven. Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad’s (عليه السلام) quotes surrounding all these arguments will be shown below:

Statement 1

Muslims, particularly the Ahl-i-Hadith, profess strong faith in Tauhid, but, unfortunately, their condition fits the proverb, ‘Spitting the gnat and swallowing the camel’. Can we really call them believers in the Unity of God when they believe Jesus (as) to be one and without partner, just like God is, and when they believe that he went to heaven in his physical body and will return to earth some day, and that he is the one who created the birds! The unbelievers repeatedly swore that if the Holy Prophets could only ascend to heaven in his physical body, they would at once accept him, but the answer given to them was قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّي هَلْ كُنْتُ إِلَّا بَشَرًا رَسُولًا i.e., tell them, my Lord never breaks His word, and I cannot go to heaven because He has promised فِيْهَا تَحْيَوْنَ وَفِيْهَا تَمُوتُونَ and وَلَكُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ مُسْتَقَرٌّ Are we to believe that God forgot this promise when He took Jesus to heaven, or are we to assume that Jesus was not a mortal at all? If Jesus did go to heaven in his physical body, it would inevitably follow, in the light of the Quranic statement, that he was not a human being. What is more, these so-called advocates of Islam have attributed even to the Dajjal qualities which necessarily make him God. What a pity that they should profess Tauhid and yet make such claims!

[Fountain Of Christianity, pg. 66]

Statement 2

What Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) misunderstood is that the Ṣūfīs also affirm that Allah is their Creator, Provider, and the One who gives life and causes death. However, just like the Salafīs, they believe that Allah has granted certain servants divine powers by His permission and will as shown earlier. Similarly, the idolaters never claimed that their gods were Allah Himself; their saying was also this: that their gods had been given divine powers by God Almighty just as Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained. In the same way, Ṣūfīs hold that their saints have been granted divine powers by Allāh, while Salafīs hold that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) was granted such powers, both mirroring the excuses of the idolaters by justifying that these abilities occur solely by Allāh’s will and permission.

Some people from the Muwahhideen sect, based on a verse of the Quran, believe that Jesus, the son of Mary, used to create birds of various kinds and give them life by blowing into them. Therefore, they have objected to this humble one, saying that if he claims to be a Messiah, then he should also create a bird out of clay and then bring it to life and show it to us. Because if the billions of birds that Jesus created are seen flying all over the place, then the Messiah should also have some birds that he created that still exist today.

The answer to all these false and baseless objections is that the verses in which this is written are in the category of mutashabihat (verses with ambiguous meanings). To interpret them as meaning that God Almighty had, with His will and permission, made Jesus a partner in His attributes of creation is clear blasphemy and gross infidelity. Because if God Almighty can also give His special attributes of divinity to others, then there is no difference between Him and His creation, and the whole concept of monotheism collapses. So this proves that his claim to divinity is false.

And the Muwahhideen’s excuse that they do not believe that Jesus was the creator of birds by his own power, but that their belief is that God Almighty had given him this power with His permission and will, and that He had made him a part of His creation by His will, and that it is His prerogative to make whomever He wills His Messiah, the Almighty, the One who does whatever He wills. This is pure paganism and worse than kufr (disbelief). This Muwahhideen was also asked if he could now identify which of these birds were created by God Almighty and which were the offspring of the birds that Jesus created? So he answered by his silence that he could not identify them.

It should now be clear that the belief of some Muwahhideen of this time that some of the species of birds are the creation of God Almighty and some are the creation of Jesus is a completely corrupt and pagan idea. And one who holds such a belief is undoubtedly outside the circle of Islam.

And the excuse that we do not consider Jesus to be God, but rather believe that God Almighty has given him some of His divine attributes is a very hateful and false excuse. Because if God Almighty can give His divine attributes to His servants with His permission and will, then He can undoubtedly give all His divine attributes to one servant and make him a complete God. In this case, all the religions of the idolaters will be proved true. Because if God Almighty can give the attribute of creation to a human being with His permission and will, then He can similarly make someone omniscient with His permission and will and give him such power that God Almighty like God Almighty, he is present and visible everywhere. And it is clear that if divine attributes can also be divided among the servants, then the oneness of God Almighty is false.

As many idolaters there are in the world, they do not even say that our gods are God, but in reality, like these Muwahhideen, their saying is also this that our gods have been given divine powers by God Almighty. The Lord Most High and Exalted is He, and these are only small gods. It is surprising that these people consider calling someone the Messenger of Allah a word of shirk and forbid it, but they are making a humble son of Mary a partner in divinity.

Brothers! Your religion is actually this that divinity can also be divided among the creatures, and God Almighty makes whomever He wills a partner in His attributes of creation, knowledge, omniscience, power, etc., forever. Then why have you people started so much war and strife with your heretical brothers? Those poor people also do not consider their saints to be gods, they only say that God Almighty has given them some divine powers with His permission and will, and because of the powers that they have obtained by the permission of God, they give someone a son and someone a daughter. And they are present and visible everywhere. They accept vows and offerings and grant wishes.

Now, if any seeker of truth asks this question that if such beliefs are completely false and pagan ideas, then what are the correct meanings of those verses of the Quran in which it is written that Jesus, the son of Mary, made a bird out of clay and breathed into it and it became a living bird by the command of God?

[Izala-e-Auham, pg. 251-253]

Statement 3

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) explained that Christians can argue that the divine miracles of ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), which are unique to Allah, prove his divinity.

It is, however, a mistake on the part of our unthinking ulema that they attribute certain qualities to him; for instance, that he used to fashion, like the Creator of the universe, the frame of a bird and made it alive by breathing into it so that it flew away; that he revived the dead with the touch of his hand so that they began to walk about; and that he possessed knowledge of the unseen; and that to this day he did not suffer death, but rather, he is present in Heaven in his physical body. If all that is attributed to him were true, then there would be no doubt about his being the creator of the world, knower of the unseen, and reviver of the dead. If, on these premises, a Christian were to argue in favour of his divinity i.e. on the basis that the existence of the qualities of a thing is proof of the existence of the thing itself then what answer would the Muslims give to such a claim.

It would be an interpolation of the Word of God to assert that these miracles occurred as a result of prayer. For, the Holy Quran does not mention any prayer in connection with the flight of something that was fashioned in the shape of a bird and was breathed into, nor does it state that such a shape became alive in reality. It is impermissible to add something to the Word of God from oneself. This was the kind of alteration on account of which the Jews were cursed. […] an affirmation of true creation on his part amounts to a grave mischief and an association of partners with God. […] Allah the Exalted states in the Quran that even if the whole world joined together to create a gnat, it would not be able to do so, because in such a case it would become God’s partner in creation. It would be equally false to allege that God Almighty had Himself given him permission to create. There is no contradiction in the Word of God: He does not bestow such permission upon anyone. Allah the Exalted did not bestow upon the Chief of the Messengers, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, permission to create even a fly. Then how could the son of Mary receive such permission? Fear God Almighty, and do not seek to convert metaphor into physical reality.

[Testimony of the Holy Quran, pg. 119-120]

Statement 4

Hazrat Mirza Ghulām Aḥmad (عليه السلام) again explains that the Salafīs hypocritically accept that ʿĪsā (عليه السلام) performs divine actions by Allāh’s permission. At the same time, they harshly condemn Ṣūfīs for holding the same belief regarding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) or the saints, even though Ṣūfīs also maintain that such divine miracles occur solely through Allāh’s will and permission.

It is astonishing to consider the understanding of those people who call themselves Ahl-e-Hadith and non-conformists (ghair muqallid) and claim that they prefer the paths of Tawhid. They are the same people who accuse the Hanafis of associating some saints with divine attributes and seeking their help. Yet, we have already proven that these people attribute many divine qualities to Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), declaring him as the Creator, the Reviver of the Dead, and the Knower of the Unseen. They ascribe to him attributes that they do not regard permissible for any other human, even though the foundation of divine monotheism (Tauhid) is that God is One, without partners in His essence, His attributes, or His actions, and no other creation is like Him in being One without partners.

These are the same people who objected to the miracles that manifested through Hazrat Syed Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani (may Allah be pleased with him) and other revered saints. These self-proclaimed Monotheists (Muwahhideen) used to laugh at the notion that a ship could emerge from the river after twelve years with all the people who had drowned still alive in it. Yet now, these same people attribute miraculous qualities to the Dajjal (Antichrist) that they never deemed permissible for any saint. They used to say that invoking ‘Ya Sheikh Abdul Qadir, something for the sake of Allah,’ is disbelief (kufr), yet now they consider it permissible to attribute to the Messiah (Jesus) a form of disbelief that is even greater. They regard him as having extraordinary attributes, akin to God’s uniqueness without partners

[Tohfa-e- Golarhviyyah, pg. 207-208]

Salafīsm Follows the Footsteps of Past Jews and Christians Who Became Polytheists

Hazrat Musleh-e-Maud (رضي الله عنه) explained that the Prophet warned his followers not to turn graves into places of worship just as Jews and Christians had done before, despite originally being monotheistic. Later, when Muslims became corrupt, they followed in the footsteps of those nations, falling into grave worship, ascribing God’s attributes to saints, seeking favours from the dead, and committing other forms of shirk. Salafīsm follows that same path by ascribing Allah’s attributes to ʿĪsā (عليه السلام), mirroring the earlier deviation of the Christians.

From Islamic sources, there is evidence that the era of monotheism preceded the era of polytheism. Islam appeared last of all — look at its history: it is a religion which, from beginning to end, presented pure monotheism, in which there was never any mention of spirit-worship. Its Prophet could not even tolerate that any companion should say to him, “Whatever you wish, will happen” (as has already been mentioned earlier under the verse “Do not set up rivals to Allah”).

When the Prophet was on his deathbed, he warned his people with these words: “May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they took the graves of their prophets as places of prostration” (Bukhari, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Prayer in Churches). When his community later became corrupt — what happened to them? They began prostrating at graves. They ascribed God’s attributes to saints. They sought favors from the dead. In short, there was no polytheistic practice they did not commit.

[Tafseer Kabeer, vol 1, pg. 318]

The Deobandi sect, originating in South Asia in the 19th century, is a Hanafi reformist sect within Sunni Islam. Many Deobandis have adopted theological positions that overlap with Wahhabi or Salafi tendencies, particularly in their opposition to practices they view as innovations (bid‘ah) or forms of shirk (polytheism), such as istighātha (seeking help from dead saints) and excessive veneration of graves. However, despite this outward opposition, writings the founding Deobandi scholars have endorsed or permitted istighātha themselves. Deobandi texts contain clear statements affirming that calling upon the dead is allowed. Deobandis believe that asking dua from the dead (worshipping them) is allowed!

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi Encouraged Istighātha

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (d. 1323H), a prominent Deobandi scholar and one of the founders of the Deoband sect, issued a fatwa regarding the permissibility of istighātha by permitting seeking intercession from the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم at his grave. He states:

When you go to the Holy Grave, ask him for his intercession this way: Yā Rasūl Allāh, I ask you for intercession and make you my means to Allāh. Let me die as a Muslim on the path of your Ummah and Sunnah. And if you want to send greetings on behalf of someone who is not present, say: Yā Rasūl Allāh, Fulān ibn Fulān greets you; he asks for intercession through you to your Lord.

[Zubdat ul-Manāsik, pg.137]

The cited book was verified by Muhammad Tayyib an-Nanotwi, Hussayn Ahmad al-Madani, Muftī Mahmud Hassan al-Gangohi, Muhaddith Muhammad Zakaria and, other Akābir of Deoband.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رحمه الله: Istighātha (Seeking Aid) Is Shirk

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab رحمه الله (d. 1206H), the founder of the Wahhabi sect, considered such statements like directly asking the Prophet for intercession as clear acts of shirk (polytheism). His teachings strongly opposed any form of istighātha (seeking help) from the deceased, viewing it as a violation of pure tawḥīd (monotheism).

So it is not said, “O Messenger of Allaah (or) O wali of Allaah, I ask intercession from you…” or other such (requests) such as “Reach me (to aid me) or “Rescue me” or “Heal me”, or “Aid me against my enemy” and what is similar to that, from those affairs in which none has power over except Allaah, the Exalted. When he requests any of that which has just been mentioned (from those in the life) of al-Barzakh, it is from the types of Shirk, since no text has been related from the Book or the Sunnah (for this practice), and nor any narration from the Rigteous Salaf regarding it. Rather, the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the predecessors have established that this is major shirk (shirk akbar), which is fought against.

[al-Durar al-Saniyyah, vol 1, pg. 231]

Is There a Difference Between Istighātha (Seeking Aid) and Tashaffuʿ (Seeking Intercession)?

Some people might object that there is a difference between seeking intercession (tashaffuʿ) and istighātha (seeking aid), and therefore argue that what Gangohi practiced was not istighātha and thus not shirk. However, what they fail to understand is that Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH) has already clarified that there is no meaningful difference between such terms. He explained that whether it is tashaffuʿ or istighātha, they essentially refer to the same concept:

If these [three] types [of Tawassul] and the [different] situations regarding the one who asks the Prophet – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam – [for aid] has become clear and the meaning has become apparent, then it should not concern you how one calls it: whether it’s Tawassul, Tashaffu’, Istighathah, Tajawwuh or Tawajjuh, because the [intended] meaning of all of these [different wordings used] is the same.

[Shifa` al-Saqam, pg. 314]

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, a student of Mufti Taqi Usmani, further stated that istighātha refers to calling upon and seeking help from other than Allah. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that Gangohi promoted a form of istighātha, since regardless of the reason, he still encouraged people to call upon Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The second relates to calling upon and seeking the help of other than Allah (known as Istighātha and Istiʿāna). […] As such, in accordance with the position that the dead can hear in their graves, it would be permitted to request the deceased for Duʿāʾ and intercession at his grave.

https://daruliftaa.com/aqidah-belief/various-forms-of-tawassul-and-istighatha-and-their-rulings/ (Accessed: 20 July 2025)

If a person has sexual intercourse with a minor girl, ghusl will not be obligatory on her. But in order to get her into the habit, she should be made to bath.

[Bahishti Zewar, pg 71]

Non-Ahmadi Muslims (Sunnis and Shias) believe that sexual pleasures with a minor (pre-pubescent) wife are permissible. This belief is shared across all four Sunni madhabs and Shia schools.

Islam teaches the opposite. Islamic law requires consummation only between two consenting adults. Yet non-Ahmadi interpretation allows any intimate interaction before puberty. Sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent wife is considered lawful if it does not endanger her physically.

For example, a five-year-old girl may be taken to bed by her husband for intimate relations. Her consent is not required since pre-pubescent children cannot provide valid consent.

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā ibn Sharaf al-Nawawī (Arabic: أبو زكريا يحيى بن شرف النووي;‎ (631A.H-676A.H) (October 1230–21 December 1277), popularly known as al-Nawawī or Imam Nawawī, was a Sunni Shafi’ite jurist and hadith scholar.^[11] Despite this, he authored numerous and lengthy works ranging from hadith, to theology, biography, and jurisprudence that are still read to this day.

And the sleeping with a minor age wife and having intercourse with her, if the husband and the guardian of the wife agreed upon something that is not harmful for the minor age wife, it is legitimate and if they did not agree upon then Ahmad and Aboo Ubayd say that if she is at nine years of age she can be forced to, not the younger ones, and Malik and Shafi’i and Aboo Hanifah say that the criteria is that she can bear intercourse, and the differences of opinion about this issue comes from these scholars. But the correct opinion is that it does not depend upon age.

[Saheeh Muslim Sharh Al-Nawawi, vol. 9, pg. 295]
[IslamQA]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (Arabic: ابن حجر العسقلاني;^[a] 18 February 1372 – 2 February 1449 CE / 773 – 852 A.H.), or simply Ibn Ḥajar,^[4] was a classic Islamic scholar “whose life work constitutes the final summation of the science of Hadith.”^[6] He authored some 150 works on hadith, history, biography, tafsir, poetry, and Shafi’ijurisprudence, the most valued of which being his commentary of Sahih al-Bukhari, titled Fath al-Bari.^[7]

Nikah of a minor age to an adult is allowed, there is consensus of scholars on this, even if she was in cradle, but he should not sleep with her until she can bear it.

[Fath ul-Bari fi Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari, vol. 11, pg. 347]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Hanafi)

From the famous and most authoritative Fatwa website of “Sunnis”.

According to the Shariah, if a girl is a minor (did not attain puberty), she may be given in marriage by her father. There is no age limit to be intimate with one’s wife even if she is a minor.

[IslamQA]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Salafi)

فإن كان المقصود بالسؤال مفاخذة الرجل زوجته الصغيرة فهذا جائز كما بيناه في الفتوى رقم: 56312.

وأما إن كان المقصود بالسؤال مفاخذة غير الزوجة فهذا محرم سواءً كان المفاخذ صغيراً أو كبيراً ذكراً أو أنثى، وهو من مقدمات الوطء الحرام، ولا نظن أن حكم هذا الفعل يخفى على عاقل. وانظر في ذلك الفتوى رقم: 35464.

والله أعلم

Question: What’s the ruling on thighing minors?

Answer: If the question refers to the thighing of a minor wife by her man then this is permissible. But if the question refers to the thighing of a non-wife then it’s forbidden whether it’s the thighing of a minor or an adult, a male or a female.

[Islamweb]
[Archived link]

“Sunni” (Hanafi)

This quote proves that sexual intercourse is allowed even with a pre-pubescent (minor) girl.

If a person has sexual intercourse with a minor girl, ghusl will not be obligatory on her. But in order to get her into the habit, she should be made to bath.

[Bahishti Zewar, pg 71]

The author even supports the idea of making the child do ghusl so she gets into a habit. The author is Ashraf Ali Thanvi, the founder of the Deobandi Sunni sect in Islam. They are Hanafi by Madhab. He has millions of adherents around the world.

“Sunni” (Hanafi)

This is from one of the most important Fiqh books for Hanafis. A 12th-century legal manual by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani, is considered to be one of the most influential compendiums of Hanafi jurisprudence (fiqh).

Thereafter, the option available to a virgin is annulled by her silence, but the option available to a boy is not annulled, unless he says, “I consent,” or he does something that conveys the meaning of consent, the latter rule applies to a girl as well if her husband has had intercourse with her prior to her puberty. These situations are analogous to the situation at the time of the conclusion of the nikah contract.

[Al Hidayah, pg. 497]

“Sunni”

Syed Abul A’la Maududi is one of the most influential scholars of the past century with millions of followers. In his tafsir of Quran 65:5, he says that the husband can live with a pre-pubescent wife (those who have not started menstruating yet). The Urdu word used is خلوت which includes any relations between a couple, including sex.

اس لیے ایسی لڑکیوں کی عزت بیان کرنا جنھیں حیض آنا شروع نہ ہوا ہو، صریحاً اس بات پر دلالت کرتا ہے کہ اس عمر میں نہ صرف لڑکی کا نکاح کر دینا جائز ہے بلکہ شوہر کا اس کے ساتھ خلوت کرنا بھی جائز ہے۔ اب یہ بات ظاہر ہے کہ جس چیز کو قرآن نے جائز قرار دیا ہو، اسے ممنوع قرار دینے کا کسی مسلمان کوحق نہیں پہنچتا۔

Therefore, regarding mentioning the Iddah for those girls who have not yet started menstruating openly indicates that at this age, not only is it permissible for a girl to get married but it is also permissible for her husband live with her. Now it is evident that whatever has been declared permissible by the Quran, no Muslim has the right to declare it forbidden.

[Tafheem Ul Qur’an, vol. 5, pg. 570-571]

“Sunni” (Hanbali)

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Nāṣir al-Saʿdī (Arabic: الشيخ عبد الرحمن بن ناصر السعدي), also known as al-Siʿdī (1889–1957), was an Islamic Scholar from Saudi Arabia. In the tafsir of Quran 65:4, he proves that the Iddah (waiting period) is needed even for wives that are pre-pubescent i.e they have not started menstruating.

So for those who are thinking how does it prove that one can have sexual relations with a pre-pubesecent? Well, you would have to understand why Iddah (waiting period) is needed. It is needed to make sure that the wife is not pregnant with a baby after the passing away of the husband. So since a pre-pubescent has an Iddah, it proves it is also allowed to have sexual intercourse and other sexual pleasures with her.

Thereafter, the option available to a virgin is annulled by her silence, but the option available to a boy is not annulled, unless he says, “I consent,” or he does something that conveys the meaning of consent, the latter rule applies to a girl as well if her husband has had intercourse with her prior to her puberty. These situations are analogous to the situation at the time of the conclusion of the nikah contract.

[Tafseer As-Sadi, vol. 10, pg. 141]

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

This fatwah is from the Islamqa website under the Shafi’ madhab section. They also agree that Quran allows intercourse with a girl who has not reached puberty. The only consent allowed is that of her father and husband. Her consent does not matter.

Once the young girl is married, she may move in with her husband and partake in sexual intercourse, whether she reached the age of puberty or not, when the following conditions are met:

1. The father permits and deems it an acceptable practice.
2. She could physically bear sexual intercourse
3. Society in terms of its practice and culture approves of it
4. That the law of the country one lives in, is not contravened.

[Islamqa]

“Sunni” (Shafi’)

Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller)^[1][2] is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence.

A waiting period is obligatory for a woman divorced after intercourse, whether the husband and wife are prepubescent, have reached puberty, or one has and the other has not.

[Reliance of Traveller, pg. 567]

“Sunni” (Salafi)

This is one of the most famous contemporary scholars of “Sunnism”. He also explains that Quran 65:4 allows nikah and consummation with pre-pubescent girls.

Marriage of Minors before Puberty with Suitable Consent Unanimously Approved

Praise be to Allah. Following recent times, there has been an increase in journalistic interventions and the interference of journalists in legal rulings without knowledge, which is an action that could have adverse consequences on society. One such intervention is their involvement in the issue of marrying minors who have not reached puberty to suitable partners and their demand to set an age for the marriage of girls. This interference touches upon a legal ruling that refers to the people of knowledge and is based on the Quran and the Sunnah. There is nothing in Sharia law that specifies the age at which a girl can be married. Instead, Sharia law indicates otherwise. Allah Almighty said in Surah At-Talaq: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated.” This refers to young girls who have not yet reached the age of menstruation, so their waiting period is three months, similar to those who have not menstruated out of menopausal age. This is evidence from the Quran that young girls can be married, divorced, and subject to waiting periods. The Sunnah also supports this, as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. This is evidence from the Sunnah on this matter, and the scholars unanimously agree on its permissibility.

Imam Bukhari said in his Sahih: “Chapter on the marriage of a man’s young daughter.” He mentioned the verse: “And those who no longer expect menstruation.” So, he set their waiting period to three months before puberty. It was narrated by Muhammad ibn Yusuf, who narrated from Sufyan, from Hisham, from his father, from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), that the Prophet (peace be upon him) married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, and she stayed with him for nine years. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fath: He set their waiting period to three months before puberty, which indicates that marrying them before puberty is permissible. This is a good inference, although the verse does not specifically mention this concerning the father or the virgin. The origin of transactions is prohibited unless there is evidence, and there is a hadith narrated by Aisha about her marriage to Abu Bakr while she was still a minor, so whatever is not mentioned therein remains on the original ruling. Ibn Hibban commented on this narration saying that it is agreed upon that it is permissible for a father to marry off his young daughter, even if she has not reached puberty.

Ibn Batal said in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari: “The scholars unanimously agree that fathers can marry off their young daughters, even if they are in their cradle, but their husbands should not consummate the marriage until they are fit for intercourse and capable of bearing children, and their situations vary according to their physical development and capabilities.” When the Prophet (peace be upon him) married Aisha, she was six or seven years old and he consummated the marriage when she was nine. This practice was legislated for this Ummah, just as the companions used to marry in their youth and adulthood without specifying a certain age. No one should legislate except what Allah and His Messenger have legislated because therein lies sufficiency. Whoever opposes this has wronged themselves and legislated for people without Allah’s permission. Allah, the Exalted, said about such people: “Or have they partners [i.e., other deities] who have ordained for them a religion to which Allah has not consented?”

It is obligatory for those who call for setting an age for marriage to fear Allah and not contravene His Sharia or legislate something that Allah has not permitted. Judgment belongs to Allah, and legislation is His right alone, shared by no other. This includes marriage rulings, and Allah has encouraged marriage in the Quran: “And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “O young people! Whoever among you is able to marry, should marry, for it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty.” May Allah guide everyone to what He loves and is pleased with and protect everyone from contravening His Sharia and religion.

Written by:

Saleh bin Fawzan Al-Fawzan

Member of the Council of Senior Scholars

12/10/1432 Hijri Calendar

[Alfawzan.af.org.sa]
[Archive link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Fatwa of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who is one of the most influential Shia scholar to this day.

There is, however, no objection in other enjoyments like touching lasciviously, hugging and rubbing the thighs, even with a suckling infant

[Tahrir Al Vasilah, vol.3, pg 229]

Shia (Twelvers)

Fatwa of Ayatollah Sistani, a Twelver Shia Iranian–Iraqi Grand Ayatollah and marja’.^[1][2][3][4] One of the most senior scholars in Shia Islam,^[5] he has been described as the spiritual leader of Shia Muslims worldwide (as of 2003),^[6] “the undisputed leader of Iraq’s Shias”,^[2] included in top positions of “The Muslim 500: The World’s Most Influential Muslims”, from 2009 to 2023,^[7][8][9] and named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2004 and 2005

لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل إكمال تسع سنين ، دواماً كان النكاح أو منقطعاً، وأما سائر الاستمتاعات كاللمس بشهوة والتقبيل والضم والتفخيذ فلا بأس بها

Issue #8: It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse (with one’s wife) before she reaches 9 years in age, be it in Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage). As for all other pleasures such as lustful touch, kissing, embracing, and thighing (i.e. rubbing penis between the thighs), there is no problem in it.

[Minhaj al-salihin, vol.3, pg 10]

Shia (Twelvers)

Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad-Sadiq Husayni Rohani (Persian: محمد صادق حسینی روحانی; 16 July 1926 – 16 December 2022) was an Iranian Shia marja’.

فصل مسألة 1 – لا يجوز وطء الزوجة قبل اكمال تسع سنين حرة كانت أو أمة دواما كان النكاح أو متعة بل لا يجوز وطء المملوكة والمحللة كذلك، وأما الاستمتاع بما عدى الوطء من النظر واللمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ فجائز في الجميع ولو في الرضعية.

Issue 1: It is not permissible to have intercourse with a wife before completing nine years of age, whether she is free or enslaved, and whether the marriage is Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage). Likewise for an owned or made lawful slave girl. As for intimacy besides intercourse such as looking, touching with desire, embracing and thighing, it is permissible with all of them, even with a suckling infant.

[Urwa-Tul-Wusqa, vol. 2, pg 469]
[Scan]
[Archived link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Abu al-Qasim al-Musawi al-Khoei was an Iranian-Iraqi Shia marja’. Al-Khoei is considered one of the most influential twelver scholars. After the death of Muhsin al-Hakim in 1970, he became the spiritual leader of much of the Shia world until his death in 1992. He is also the teacher of Sistani!¹

 ومما يزيد في ذلك وضوحاً ملاحظة صحيحة ابن أبي يعفور عن أبي عبدالله (عليه السلام) ، قال في الجارية التي لم تطمث ولم تبلغ الحبل إذا اشتراها الرجل ، قال: «ليسوأما الاستمتاع بما عدا الوطء من النظر واللّمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ فجائز في الجميع(1) ولو في الرضيعة

Furthermore, to make this clearer, there is a notable observation from the reliable source, Ibn Abi Ya’fur, who reported from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him). He mentioned concerning a young girl who has not yet menstruated and has not reached the age of pregnancy, if a man marries her, he said, “There is no harm in enjoying her in any way other than sexual intercourse, such as looking, touching with desire, embracing, and fondling, and this applies even if she is an infant.”

[Sharh Urwa-Tul-Wusqa, vol. 2, pg 125-126]
[Archived link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Mohammed Kazem Tabataba’i Yazdi (Persian: محمد کاظم یزدی; 1831–1919) was a Twelver Shia Marja’ based in Najaf, most famous for compiling a collection of religious rulings, al-Urwa al-wuthqa. The book is considered as the most prominent compilation and Fiqhi book of him so that it is mentioned there are many—Islamic—scholars who hold this book with themselves.

فصل (مسألة): لا يجوز وطء الزوجة (1) قبل إكمال تسع سنين حرة كانت أو أمة دواما كان النكاح أو متعة، بل لا يجوز (2) وطء المملوكة والمحللة كذلك. وأما الاستمتاع بما عدا الوطء من النظر واللمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ فجائز في الجميع ولو في الرضيعة.

Chapter (Issue): It is not permissible to have sexual intercourse with a wife (1) before she completes nine years, whether she is a free woman or a slave, whether it’s in the context of Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage). Moreover, it is not permissible (2) to have sexual intercourse with a female slave or a woman who has been temporarily married. As for enjoying other intimate activities apart from sexual intercourse, such as looking, touching with desire, embracing, and fondling, it is permissible for everyone, even if it involves an infant girl.

[Urwa-Tul-Wusqa, vol. 5, pg. 502]
[Archived link]

Shia (Twelvers)

Muhsin al-Hakim was an Iraqi Shia religious authority.

إذا تزوج الرجل الجارية وهي صغيرة، فلا يدخل بها حتى يأتي لها تسع سنين ” (* ۱)، وفي خبر زرارة عن أبي جعفر (ع): ” قال: لا يدخل جرة كانت أو أمة، دواما كان النكاح أو متعة (۱) بل لا يجوز وطء المملوكة (۲) والمحللة كذلك. وأما الاستمتاع بما عدا الوطء من النظر واللمس بشهوة والضم والتفخيذ، فجائز في الجميع (۱)، ولو في الرضيعة.

“When a man marries a young female slave, he should not consummate the marriage until she reaches nine years of age” (1), and in the narration of Zurara from Abu Ja’far (peace be upon him): “He said: Do not engage in relations with a free or enslaved girl, whether it’s a Nikaah (permanent marriage) or Mut’ah (temporary marriage)”. Rather, relations are not allowed with an owned slave girl or one made lawful in this manner as well. As for deriving pleasure from that which is between a female slave’s legs until she reaches nine years of age, other than relations, such as looking, touching affectionately, embracing, and thighing, it is permissible with all, even an infant girl.

[Mustamsak al-ʿUrwā al-wuṯhqā, vol. 14, pg. 78-80]
[Scan]
[Archived link, vol 17, pg 78]
[Archived link, vol 17, pg 79]
[Archived link, vol 17, pg 80]

References