Some 20th and 21st Century Scholars on Ibn Taymiyya

Ali Nar (1938-2015) on Ibn Taymiyya:

Ibn Taymiyya fell into extremes. He heavily criticized the jurisprudential schools and the people of Sufism. He even adhered to the belief of tashbih [likening Allah to creatures or objects]... In short, the scholars of his time and those who came after concluded that he had deviated in many respects with his knowledge. (Imam-Hatip High Schools Theology Lessons [in Turkish], Selâm Publications, Istanbul, 1984, p. 57)

Molla Sadreddin Yüksel (1920-2004):

“In Turkey, especially in Istanbul, a new group has emerged that is utterly ignorant and completely uneducated. This group, calling itself Salafi, proudly claims to follow Ibn Taymiyya and his successors, who went so far as to—Allah forbid—attribute a body and place to Allah. They reject the madhhabs [Islamic jurisprudential schools] and the mujtahids." (Articles [in Turkish], Madve Publications: 11, October 1985; p. 7)

Shaykh Hüseyin Avni Kansızoğlu says:

"With a style born and developed within the framework of his temperament and character, he displayed an excessive boldness beyond what was necessary or possible, a condescending attitude that should never have existed, an unimaginable aggression toward many great figures far beyond his stature, tiresome repetitions stemming from haste, sophistry, and similar reasons, and unbearable contradictions. If his contradictions and repetitions were to be removed, hardly a quarter of his writings would remain. Anyone who reads his books not with the air of an infatuated dreamer but with the seriousness of a scholar will see this truth. His works such as Iqtida, Qa‘ida Jalila, Furqan, Ubudiyya, his books on creed, and the creed-related sections of his Fatawa are of the kind composed of statements that are slightly altered in one book compared to another, and sometimes repeated verbatim without any change." (Inkishaf Journal [in Turkish, İnkişaf Dergisi], Issue: 7)

Dr. Ahmet Şimşirgil (professor of history at Marmara University) says:

"Ibn Taymiyya, during his time, sowed discord between two Muslim states, and subsequently, his ideas pushed the Islamic world into terrible divisions and fragmentations. The Wahhabi movement, which caused the greatest harm within the Ottoman Empire, was influenced by him. While the Wahhabis struck and weakened the Ottoman Empire, the protector and disseminator of Ahl al-Sunnah, they acted in alignment with the British." (Türkiye Newspaper, May 6, 2022)

Dr. Ebubekir Sifil (professor at Yalova University) says:

"It is clearly understood that Ibn Taymiyya adopted and defended, in a manner that leaves no room for interpretation, the view that the punishment in Hell for disbelievers and polytheists will not be eternal, and that even if they remain in torment for a very long time, there will surely come a day when they will be released from it." (Inkishaf Journal, Issue: 7) "The eternity of life in Paradise and Hell is among the indisputable essentials of faith, established by the Qur'an, Sunnah, and scholarly consensus. The verses and hadiths related to this matter are too numerous to be listed here. The Muslim community, from the early generations to the later ones, has unanimously upheld this belief. Ibn Hazm, in Maratib al-Ijma, states that there is consensus on the eternity of Paradise and Hell, and that there is also consensus on the disbelief of those who oppose this consensus." (Milli Gazete [Turkish daily newpaper], July 24, 2004)

Owner of Bedir Publishing [well-known bookstore publishing classics] and famed intellectual Mehmed Şevket Eygi (1933-2019) says:

"The minds of some of the Muslim populace are utterly confused. Truly, we are in a very distressing, exasperating, and thought-provoking state. False mujtahids and innovators are muddling people's minds with deviant ideas and opinions. Shazz means 'that which is outside the norm, an exception, differing from the general view.' One of these deviant ideas and opinions is Ibn Taymiyya's claim that 'Hell is not eternal.' This claim contradicts the clear verses of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the consensus of the Muslim community, and the view of the scholars. Ibn Taymiyya's contrary opinion on this matter is not an exercise of ijtihad but merely a delusion." (Milli Gazete [daily newspaper in Turkish], October 30, 2009)

Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (1882-1971) wrote:

"Indeed, Ibn Taymiyya opposed the great mujtahids and even the Companions on certain matters of belief and practice, and it has been established through the criticisms of many scholars that he failed to attain the truth in these matters. According to some scholars, Ibn Taymiyya was a mujassima [one who attributes a physical form to Allah]. That is, he believed that Allah exists in a particular direction, that the Supreme Throne is eternal in its essence, he opposed visiting graves, and held that a woman divorced with three pronouncements in one sitting is divorced only once... Initially, many scholars such as Jalal Kaznawi, Konawi, and Jariri greatly praised Ibn Taymiyya and almost formed a faction around him. However, in the face of his unequivocal statements, they gradually turned away from him one by one. Even Dhahabi advised him and for a time tried to reconcile him with his opponents, but in the end, he too significantly distanced himself from him." (Quoted from Ahmed Davudoğlu: See Those Who Destroy Religion in the Name of Reforming It [in Turkish], 5th Edition, Huzur Publishing, Istanbul 1989, p. 47.)

Ali Eren (columnist and author) says:

"Ibn Taymiyya introduced many issues that contradict Ahl al-Sunnah, which no one had brought up for eight centuries after the Age of Happiness (Asr-ı Saadet). With this aberrant stance, Ibn Taymiyya did not merely target a single school of thought but opposed the entirety of Ahl al-Sunnah. To say he opposed them is even an understatement, for he went beyond opposition and deemed all Muslims adhering to the Ash’ari and Maturidi creeds as belonging to the group of deviants. By labeling the issues unanimously accepted by Muslims of Ahl al-Sunnah creed as deviance, he himself reached the utmost degree of deviance. Ibn Taymiyya not only slandered the imams of creed but also regarded himself as the supreme imam of the entire Muslim community from the Age of Happiness to his own time, even going so far as to excommunicate (takfir) the Sufis, ascetics, and saints who held a revered place in the minds of the Ummah. While he saw no issue in disparaging Islamic scholars, he considered himself the one who best understood the words of the Messenger of Allah and the lifestyle of the righteous. The scholars Ibn Taymiyya most vehemently opposed were those most advanced in knowledge and practice. The more renowned, knowledgeable, and widely respected an imam was—acknowledged by the majority of the Ummah for their thorough research and excellence—the more Ibn Taymiyya became their enemy, attacked them, and subjected them to his harshest criticism. Yet, as there is a buyer for everything, there have indeed been those who followed such a disposition." (Guraba Magazine, Issue: 9, December 2008)

Dr. Ekrem Buğra Ekinci (professor of Islamic Law at Marmara University) wrote:

"Despite Ibn Taymiyya’s vast knowledge in outward (zahiri) sciences, he was a person full of contradictions because he did not purify and perfect his soul under the guidance of a true spiritual master (murshid). For this reason, he could not attain certainty and stability even in his outward knowledge. One should not assume Ibn Taymiyya was a consistent man. None of his ideas are stable. He says one thing in one place and the opposite elsewhere. Consequently, people either judge him based on a single statement or claim he repented from his erroneous views. He praises the Mawlid in one instance but attacks it in another. He says one thing here, another there. He is not a decisive person. He praises Sufism at times and becomes its enemy at others. He is a highly inconsistent, unbalanced, and unfortunate individual. In his time, because he was a Hanbali, some considered him a follower of Ahl al-Sunnah, a Hanbali, or even a mujtahid in the school. However, there can be no ijtihad contrary to the consensus (ijma). For instance, his views—such as considering three divorces (talaq) as one or that an oath of divorce does not result in actual divorce—are against the consensus. He has some beneficial books, and if some early scholars mentioned him favorably, it was either due to their courtesy or because they did not have access to all his works and thus could not fully know him." (translated from the original article at https://www.ekrembugraekinci.com/question/?ID=60393 in Turkish)

Compiled and translated by: Murat Yazıcı

Western Hats Are Not Permissible According to Sunni Scholars

I noticed a video showing young students finishing a course on memorizing al-Qur'an al-Karîm. I was saddened to see that the students were wearing western hats. All of these hats were forbidden in widely-used classical texts written or adopted by Sunni scholars in the Osmanlı (Ottoman) times. I will give pictures from books written at different dates and will provide translations at a suitable time.

The following is from Kâdîzâde Ahmed Efendi [Qadizada Ahmad Afandi] (d. 1783), Birgivî Vasiyetnamesi Kâdîzâde Şerhi [Birgivî Will and Testament Kâdîzâde Commentary], Bedir Yayınevi [Bedir Publishing], Istanbul 1988, p.200:

The translation of the relevant part:

(If a woman ties a black rope around her waist and says, "This rope is a zunnar," she becomes a disbeliever and her husband becomes forbidden to her, they have said). They have said that wearing things specific to disbelievers, such as clothing, is an act of disbelief. Like wearing a zunnar or a hat. According to the hadith, which states, "Whoever resembles a people is one of them," based on this principle, the ruling of the group she resembles applies to her as well due to her imitation.

Note: Zunnar is "A coarse, hard belt made of rope or hair, with the ends hanging down in front, which priests tie around their waists."

From the famous basic aqida and fiqh book Miftahu'l-Janna known as "Mızraklı İlmihal" and widely distributed and read during the Osmanlı (Ottoman) times:

Here "şapka" means hat, it is a Turkish word used for all the western hats (hats customarily used by non-Muslims) shown in the pictures above. The importance of this book is, it has been very widely used by the people, and distributed and approved by ulama [scholars] and the state in the Osmanlı [Ottoman] lands over several centuries.

Additional documents and translations will be provided inshaallah in due time.

Sunni Scholars Have Rejected Ibn Taymiyya

The following have been taken from:

https://twitter.com/abhistoria/status/1362531768931405828

The Egyptian jurist al-Khafājī (d. 1658) rejected Ibn Taymiyyah's view on the visitation of the tomb of the Prophet. As did Mullāh ʿAlī al-Qārī and Qaṣtallānī.

Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 1370), the famous Shāfiʿi jurist and historian wrote disparagingly of Ibn Taymiyyah's followers, describing them as a minority in his time:

The Shāfiʿī scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 1566) described Ibn Taymiyyah in harsh terms, as his remarks below show.

Another Shāfiʿī scholar, Munāwī (d. 1622) spoke harshly of Ibn Taymiyyah and followers.

Some Documents Showing Ibn Taymiyya's and Ibn Qayyim's False Belief Regarding Hellfire

 

A Typical Example of Wahhabi Attitude Towards Sunni Muslims

Professor Mehmet Ali Büyükkara wrote a book titled "İhvan'dan Cüheyman'a Suudi Arabistan ve Vehhabilik" [Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism from Ikhwan to Juhayman] which I read a long time ago. I quoted a few short passages from that book in my blog (in Turkish):

http://muratyazici.blogspot.com.tr/2007/06/ibni-suuda-ingiltere-hindistan.html

At p. 46, he states:

“İngilizlerin bölgedeki siyasi temsilcisi W. Shakespear, 1914 Şubatında Riyad’a gelmiş, bu vesileyle İngilizler ile Suudiler arasında sıcak yakınlaşmalar tesis edilmişti. I. Dünya Savaşı çıkınca bu dostluk daha da pekişti. Osmanlı’nın ittifak çağrısına red cevabı veren İbni Suud, bunun hemen arkasından, Osmanlı heyeti hala Riyad’da iken, İngilizlere ittifak teklifinde bulundu....Artık büyük savaşta Osmanlı’nın Necd valisinin safı belli olmuştu. Bu birliktelik, İbni Suud’a İngiltere-Hindistan İmparatorluğu’nun şövalyelik nişanı verilmesiyle pekiştirildi.”

My translation:

"W. Shakespear, the political representative of the British in the region, came to Riyad in 1914 and warm friendships between the Saudis and the British were established as a result. This friendship became stronger when the First World War started. Ibn Saud who rejected the call for an alliance from the Ottoman State, immediately after this, while the Ottoman delegation was still in Riyad, offered an alliance to the British... ...From now on, the side of the Ottoman governer of Najd was evident. This togetherness was strengthened when the chivalry medal of the British-Indian Empire was given to Ibn Saud."

A couple of pages later, Prof. Büyükkara gives some quotes from Jack Philby's book [Arabia of the Wahhabis, London, 1928]. I recently found a copy of Philby's book and here are the relevant couple of pages (the quotes in question are underlined):

Jack Philby, Arabia of the Wahhabis, London, 1928, pp. 23-24.

Note: "Aulad Iblis" means "children/descendents of the Devil."

Murat Yazıcı
 

A mis-attribution to Imam Birgivî: Ziyarat al-Qubur

Imam Birgivî rahimahullah  (d.981/1573) is a well-known and respected scholar of the Osmanlı (Uthmani, Ottoman) state. I have seen Wahhabis and Deobandis quoting passages from this book wrongly attributed to Imam Birgivî  to accuse Sunni Muslims with shirk. Therefore, it will be beneficial to blast this Wahhabi/Deobandi balloon -inshaAllahu ta'ala. Here are two typical examples of misuse/abuse of Imam Birgivî's name:

A relatively recent work has demonstrated that the book named Ziyarat al-Qubur (Visitation of Graves) was not authored by Imam Birgivî rahimahullah. The work in question is the following masters thesis by Ahmet Kaylı:

http://seyhan.library.boun.edu.tr/record=b1647371~S1

Title: A critical study of Birgivi Mehmed Efendi’s (d.981/1573) works and their dissemination in manuscript form / by Ahmet Kaylı; thesis advisor Derin Terzioğlu. Thesis (M.A.)-Bogazici University. Institute for Graduate Studies in Social Sciences, 2010.

Summary: This study examines how one of the most influential and controversial Ottoman scholars of all time, Birgivi Mehmed Efendi (929-981 / 1523-1573), was perceived and received by other Ottoman readers and writers in the centuries following his death. This it accomplishes through a critical analysis of his bibliography on the one hand, and through a study of the historical dissemination of his works on the other. By critically handling the over one-hundred texts that had been attributed to Birgivi, the study identifies many misattributions to him and illustrates that some of these false attributions were directly instrumental in turning Birgivi into an anti-Sufi scholar with an uncompromising salafî persuasion, an image that is still well and alive, if also increasingly questioned, in the present time. The thesis also scrutinizes the inventory of Birgivi’s own works in order to establish as accurately as possible the relative significance of each work and the role that each might have played in the formation of the image of the author as well as in the determination of his reception. Finally, by exploring the dissemination of manuscript copies of these works based on the manuscript libraries in Istanbul, the study first proposes a historical map of Birgivi’s works in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and then tries to understand and explain the dissemination in the historical context and in relation to the developments of the period.

The following are selected passages from this thesis (page numbers in parentheses refer to the thesis; other sources mentioned in these passages are listed below as "References"):

“This work, which is variously called Risâle fi ziyâretil-kubûr, er-Reddu’l-kabriyye, Risâle fî menhiyyâti’l-kubûr, and Müntehabu Iğâseti’l-lehfân, is a treatise that has been composed by way of selection from Ibn Kayyim al-Jawziyya’s (d. 751/1350) book Iğâsetu’l-lehfân fi mesâyidi’ş-şeytân. This much is stated by the author at the beginning of the treatise. The selection is about the manner and rules of visiting graveyards and saints’ tombs.” (p. 53)

“Risâle fî ziyâreti’l-kubûr has recently found attraction in the salafî circles: an edition of the work was made in Riyad in 1995 as a work of Birgivi, and a Turkish as well as a Bengali translation was prepared based on this edition.” (p. 58)

“Ahmet Turan Arslan ...stated doubt about its Birgivi authorship. The reasons for his doubt are that early sources do not mention this treatise among Birgivi’s works, and that Birgivi does not refer to the work in the chapter on visiting cemeteries in Tarîkat-ı Muhammediye which he wrote shortly before his death, though he does refer to other risales of his own in relevant chapters of this work.” (p. 53 and footnote 121)

“Huriye Martı provides convincing proof that this doubt is warranted. Martı emphasizes that it is not of Birgivi’s habit to rely on a single source and compose a treatise as a summary of that work. She also finds it significant that no reference is made to any of the classical Hanafi sources to which Birgivi amply refers in almost all of his works.” (p. 53 and footnote 122)

“It [Risâle fi ziyâretil-kubûr] was ascribed to Birgivi by Nihal Atsız ... there are in Istanbul libraries at least 16 manuscript copies of this selection [Risâle fi ziyâretil-kubûr], but Atsız mentions only one copy and Arslan adds a second one. We have checked all of the copies, but none displays the name of Birgivi –not even the single copy mentioned by Atsız. Atsız must have ascribed the work to Birgivi simply because the volume containing that copy contains also a number of treatises by Birgivi.” (p. 53)

“The author of this work is, we believe, Ahmed Rumi el-Akhisari (d. ca. 1043/1633), as one of the manuscripts (Süleymaniye Kütübhanesi [Sulaymaniya Library], Fatih 5387, ff. 71a-86b) openly ascribes it to him. This is the only manuscript copy to specify an author for the work. But there are other reasons to believe Akhisari’s authorship of it. For example, some of the copies are in volumes consisting exclusively of Akhisari’s work.” (pp. 53-54)

“There is evidence suggesting Akhisari’s affiliation with the Kadızadelis. A note in a manuscript relates that Akhisari was a student of a certain Kadızade.” (p. 60)

“It is clear that Ibn Kayyim is one of Akhisari’s sources of inspiration, at least on the question of visiting graves and saints’ tombs. In the relevant section of Tarîkat-ı Muhammediyye, the magnum opus of Birgivi which he composed shortly before he died, however, there is no reference either to Ibn Kayyim’s book or to this selection [Risâle fi ziyâretil-kubûr], while it is Birgivi’s habit in this work of his to refer, in relevant places, to his own treatises.” (p. 56)

“There is no reference to Ibn Kayyim al-Jawziyya or his work in Birgivi’s Tarîkat-i Muhammediyye... as there is no evidence indicating Birgivi’s familiarity with Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) and his students.” (p. 57)

“[Dr.] Lekesiz acknowledges, ... in his unpublished dissertation supervised by [Professor Ahmet Yaşar] Ocak and completed in 1997, that there is no reference to Ibn Taymiyya in any of Birgivi’s works.” (Footnote 138 on p. 57)

“Risâle fî ziyâreti’l-kubûr is indeed a work by Ahmed Rumi el-Akhisari.” (p. 49)

References:

1.      Nihal Atsız. İstanbul Kütüphanelerine Göre Birgili Mehmed Efendi (929-981 = 1523-1573) Bibliyografyası. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1966.

2.      Huriye Martı. Birgivi Mehmed Efendi. İstanbul: TDV Yayınları, 2008.

3.      Ahmet Turan Arslan. Imam Birgivi: Hayatı, Eserleri ve Arapça Tedrisatındaki Yeri. İstanbul: Seha Neşriyat, 1992.

4.      M. Hulusi Lekesiz, XVI. Yüzyıl Osmanlı Düzenindeki Değişimin Tasfiyeci (Püritanist) bir Eleştirisi: Birgivi Mehmet Efendi ve Fikirleri, PhD, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 1997, p. 114.

Compiled by: Murat Yazıcı

The following are scanned images of a few pages from Dr.Kaylı's thesis:

Istimdad in the fatwas of Shaykh al-Islam Ebussuud Efendi

Shaykh al-Islam Ebussuud Efendi rahimahullah (d. 1574) served as the 14th Shaykh al-Islam [supreme judge and highest official] of the Osmanlı [Ottoman] Empire in the years 1545-1574. One thousand one (1001) of his fatwas were published by Ertuğrul Düzdağ in 1972. The following are my translations of three questions and their answers:

IV. AWLIYA

872. Question: What is required according to sharia [Islamic law] if Zayd calls the names of awliya when he stands up from his place or when he suffers from a calamity?

Answer: Nothing is required.

873. Question: Is anything required according to sharia if Zayd communicates an ailing to the grave of one of awliya or shuhada [martyrs] by sacrificing a sheep for their souls and donating [the meat] to the poor for the purpose of istimdad [seeking help] from them [awliya or shuhada]?

Answer: If he seeks help [from awliya or shuhada] by sacrificing the animal for Allahu ta'ala and donating the resulting sawab [reward for the good deed] to their souls, nothing is required.

874. Question: What is required according to sharia for those who convey the sick and the sacrifices to the takka [dervish lodge] of Qaraja Ahmad by believing that "there is healing in visiting there for the sick"?

Answer: Nothing is required provided that they know that healing [cure, recovery to health] is from Allahu ta'ala and they believe that Qaraja Ahmad is a pious servant [creature of Allahu ta'ala, a mortal being].

Note: The name "Zayd" is a generic name of any man whose action is the subject of a question in such fatwas. Qaraja Ahmad rahimahullah (d. 1450) was a scholar that authored several books.

TURKISH ORIGINAL OF THE TEXT:

IV. Evliya

872. Mes’ele: Zeyd, yerinden kalktıkta, yâ bir belâya giriftar ol­dukta, evliya ismin çağırsa şer'an ne lâzım olur?
Elcevap: Nesne lâzım gelmez.

873. Mes’ele: Zeyd, evliyâullahtan veya şühedâdan bir kimsenin mezarına, anlardan istimdâd için bir marîz iletip, anların ruhları için koyun kurban eyleyip, fukaraya tasadduk eylese şer'an Zeyde nesne lâzım olur mu?
Elcevap: Kurbanı Hak te'âlâ ta'zîmi üzerine eyleyip, seva­bını anların ruhlarına ihdâ edip, istimdâd ederse nesne lâzım gel­mez.

874. Mes’ele: Karaca Ahmed tekkesine hasta ve kurban ileten kimseler, "hasta anda varmakta şifâ gelir" deyu i'tikad eyleseler, şer'an o kimselere ne lâzım olur?
Elcevap: Şifâyı Hak te'âlâ hazreti cenabından bilip, Karaca Ahmedi bir abd-i sâlih i'tikâd ederse nesne yoktur.

Source: M. Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Kanuni Devri Şeyhülislamı Ebussuud Efendi Fetvaları Işığında 16. Asır Türk Hayatı, Enderun Kitabevi, Istanbul 1972.

Murat Yazıcı

Tawassul of the Jews of Khaibar

The 89th âyat al-karîma of Sûrat al-Baqara is one of the âyats which reveals that it is permissible to have recourse to and ask intercession of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s beloved servants, and first of all, the master of prophets, Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm). The ’ulamâ’ of hadîth unanimously report that this âyat karîma descended for the Jews of Khaibar. These Jews were in war with the Asad and Ghatfân tribes during the Jahiliyya Ages. They prayed, “Oh our Rabb! Help us for the right of the Prophet You will send in the Last Age!” while they fought, and they won victories by making an intermediary of the last Prophet. But when Rasûlullâh (sallAllâhu ta’âlâ ’alaihi wa sallam) came and proclaimed Islam, they envied and persisted in disbelieving him.   ...’Abdullâh ibn ’Abbâs related that the Jews of Khaibar used to fight with the Arab unbelievers called Ghatfân during the Jâhiliyya Ages and were always defeated. After they prayed begging, ‘Oh our Rabb! Help us for the sake of Your beloved Prophet whom You promised us You would send in the last Age,’ they became victorious over the Ghatfân unbelievers. But they did not believe Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm) when Allâhu ta’âlâ sent him as the Prophet. They became unbelievers. Allâhu ta’âlâ states this fact in the [above-mentioned] âyat al-karîma.

Source: Advice for the Muslim, p. 173.

http://www.hakikatkitabevi.net/book.php?bookCode=015

Imam Qurtubi rahimahullah gives similar information in his tafsir:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=89&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Murat Yazıcı

Rasulullah (sallallahu ’alaihi wa sallam) responds to salams from afar

Imam Ghazali rahimahullah states:

"Have Rasulullah (sallallahu ta'ala alayhi wassalam) present in your heart, then say "assalamu alaika ya ayyuhan nabiyyu..." and believe that He will hear you and He will respond to you..."
        
Source: Ihya Ulum al-Din, section that explains how we should say "assalamu alaika..." in the tashahhud.

إحياء علوم الدين - (ج 1 / ص 169)
وكذلك الملك لله وهو معنى التحيات وأحضر في قلبك النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم وشخصه الكريم وقل سلام عليك أيها النبي ورحمة الله وبركاته وليصدق أملك في أنه يبلغه ويرد عليك ما هو أوفى منه
ثم تسلم على نفسك وعلى جميع عباد الله الصالحين

Imam Birgivî's Dua with Tawassul

Source: Imam Birgivî, Tariqat al-Muhammadiyya, cf. the end of the section on "43rd disease of the heart."

Murat Yazıcı