Different views about intermediation (توسل)

There is complete agreement on some aspects of intermediation while a fractious climate of opinion marks its other aspects.
The Muslim scholars agree that virtuous deeds like prayer, fasting, pilgrimage to Makkah, zakat and recitation of the holy Qur’ān can serve as legitimate means of intermediation. There are, of course, some people who deny intermediation without action (passive intermediation) i.e. through prophets, righteous ones, saints and relics, though the Muslim scholars have affirmed the possibility of intermediation through these means. These differences have been eloquently highlighted by Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī:
“The conflicting view relates to intermediation without action (passive intermediation), i.e. when individuals and personalities are taken as means, for example, to say, “O God, I take Your Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as an intermediary to You,” or “I take Abū Bakr as-Siddīq or ‘Umar bin al-Khattāb or ‘Uthmān or ‘Alī as intermediaries to You.” Some scholars treat it as forbidden. I believe that this difference is only superficial because in intermediation through an individual, the intermediary powers are vested in that individual on the basis of his deeds and intermediation through action is unanimously acceptable. People who deny intermediation have adopted a stubborn posture. If they had cared to look at the problem perceptibly, it would have cleared up, the doubts would have vanished and the conflict would have resolved which has led them to hurl unsavoury allegations against the Muslims. Intermediation without action is actually attributed to the intermediary and he has acquired this status on the basis of his actions. A man tends to choose someone as his intermediary because he loves him and reposes unqualified trust in his spiritual superiority as a consequence of this love, or he believes the intermediary is loved by Allah Himself. As He says:

(Allah) loves them and they love Him.[3]

Or he believes that all these qualities are found in the intermediary. If you reflect on it, you are bound to find this matrix of love. And this belief is the action of the intermediary because belief is a form of action, which grips his heart. The intermediatee seems to say:

“O, my Lord! Undoubtedly, I love such and such person and I truly believe that he also loves You, he is Your loyal servant and he wages jihad for Your sake, and I believe You love him too, and You are pleased with him, and I offer him as an intermediary on account of my love for him, and I believe You will grant my prayer.”

“But there are a number of religious scholars (intermediationists) who limit its scope to the One Whose knowledge spans the secrets of the heavens and the earth and Who can detect the waywardness of the eyes and penetrate the secrets of the hearts. A person who says, “I take the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as my intermediary,” and the other who says, “I take the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as my intermediary because I love him,” are both on the same footing because he has chosen the first source of intermediation on the basis of his trust in the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and his love for him. If the prayee had not loved and trusted the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), he would not have chosen him as his intermediary. The same applies to the saints and the holy personages.

“This discussion lifts the haze off of the concept of intermediation. It clearly shows that the difference is only superficial and does in no way insinuate that the prayees (intermediatees) should be maligned as non-believers and chucked out of the fold of Islam. It is a moral stigma.”[4]


[3]. Qur’ān (al-Mā’idah) 5:54.
[4]. Muhammad bin ‘Alawī al-Mālikī, Mafāhīm yajib an tusahhah, (pp.117-8).