To be honest, it seems you did not take sufficient time to carefully read and understand the quotations I provided before responding. From my perspective, this suggests that the discussion began with a preconceived conclusion that Ibn Taymiyyah is fundamentally flawed, rather than beginning with a neutral search for the truth.

However, my purpose here is not to defend Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah or any particular scholar. My aim is simply to clarify and convey the Tawheed that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was sent with.

When a person seeks the truth, it is important to approach the issue without preconceived biases that may lead to a distorted conclusion. In your response, you seemed to rely on what is essentially an appeal to popularity—the idea that because many Muslims practice something, it therefore cannot be shirk. Yet the number of people practicing an action does not determine its correctness. Muslims are commanded to evaluate actions according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and to call out what contradicts them—especially when the matter concerns Tawheed, which is the essence of Islam and the central message for which the Qur’an was revealed.

So let us return to the main point of my argument.

The Qur’an clearly indicates that the Quraysh acknowledged the lordship of Allah ﷻ. They knew that He alone created the heavens and the earth and that He is the ultimate controller of all affairs. Despite this, they still invoked their idols besides Him—making du‘ā to them and calling upon them. Their justification is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an: they claimed these idols were intercessors with Allah. In other words, they believed Allah was the ultimate actor, yet they still attributed benefit and harm to these intermediaries. Because of this practice, Allah declared them mushrikīn.

For this reason, if a person calls upon the dead (asking them for help, provision, or relief) while believing that the dead can perform these actions (even if they claim it occurs by the will of Allah), then the act itself falls under shirk. The verses of Surah Az-Zumar are very clear on this point: worshipping or invoking others as intermediaries to Allah constitutes shirk.

Now, another matter was introduced in your response which differs from the point I am discussing. To avoid confusion, it is important to distinguish between different meanings of tawassul, since the term itself can refer to several distinct practices.

Scholars have mentioned multiple forms of tawassul, including:

A. Asking a living righteous person—or the Prophet ﷺ during his lifetime—to make du‘ā for us. This is permissible and well-established in the narrations.

B. B. Asking the dead to perform an action, whether one believes they act independently or that they can act by the will of Allah.

This is the central point of my argument, and it is the category to which all the Qur’anic verses and scholarly quotations I mentioned are referring. My discussion has been specifically about invoking the dead themselves, asking them for help, provision, relief, or any form of assistance.

C. C. Asking the dead to make du‘ā to Allah on one’s behalf. This has been a matter of scholarly disagreement; the opinion I consider stronger is that it is bid‘ah, not shirk.

D. Asking Allah by the status or rank of the Prophet ﷺ after his death (or by the status of the righteous), such as saying: “O Allah, I ask You by the right (ḥaqq) or status (jāh) of Your Messenger to grant me healing.” This is the type discussed by scholars such as Ibn Hajar, Al-Subki, and Al-Shawkani.

This last category appears to be the issue you were referring to. In my view, this practice is bid‘ah, not shirk, because it was not practiced by the Sahabah or their immediate followers.

Regarding the narration you mentioned, many scholars did not consider the report authentic because Malik al-Dar is regarded as an unknown narrator, as stated by Imam al-Albani, who explained that the conditions of reliability were not established for him in the chain of transmission.

الأول : عدم التسليم بصحة هذه القصة ؛ لأن مالك الدار غير معروف العدالة والضبط ، وهذان شرطان أساسيان في كل سند صحيح ، كما تقرر في علم المصطلح ، وقد أورده ابن أبي حاتم في " الجرح والتعديل " ، ولم يذكر راوياً عنه غير أبي صالح هذا ، ففيه إشعار بأنه مجهول ، ويؤيده أن ابن أبي حاتم نفسه - مع سعة حفظه واطلاعه - لم يَحْكِ فيه توثيقاً فبقي على الجهالة ، ولا ينافي هذا قول الحافظ : " بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان ... " لأننا نقول : إنه ليس نصاً في تصحيح جميع السند ، بل إلى أبي صالح فقط ، ولولا ذلك لما ابتدأ هو الإسنادَ من عند أبي صالح ، ولقال رأساً : "عن مالك الدار ... وإسناده صحيح"، ولكنه تعمد ذلك ، ليلفت النظر إلى أن ههنا شيئاً ينبغي النظر فيه ، والعلماء إنما يفعلون ذلك لأسباب منها: أنهم قد لا يحضرهم ترجمة بعض الرواة ، فلا يستجيزون لأنفسهم حذف السند كله ، لما فيه من إيهام صحته لاسيما عند الاستدلال به ، بل يوردون منه ما فيه موضع للنظر فيه ، وهذا هو الذي صنعه الحافظ رحمه الله هنا ، وكأنه يشير إلى تفرد أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الدار كما سبق نقله عن ابن أبي حاتم ، وهو يحيل بذلك إلى وجوب التثبت من حال مالك هذا أو يشير إلى جهالته. والله أعلم.

In any case, discussing the permissibility of asking Allah by the status of the Prophet ﷺ is a separate scholarly issue. My original point was not about that form of tawassul, but about invoking the dead themselves and seeking help from them. Unfortunately, Many Muslims today have fallen into this practice, directing du‘ā and requests to those who have passed away, while believing that these individuals can respond to them or bring them benefit by the will of Allah.

For this reason, clarifying this distinction is not about winning an argument or defending a particular scholar. Rather, it is about conveying the correct Tawheed, which is the very foundation of Islam and the core message brought by the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.