Navigation Menu

Istighathah Is Built Upon The Division Of Tawhid

The Qur’an Shows That The Arab Mushrikun Did Not Ascribe Lordship To Their Gods

The Qur’an Argues Against Them Through What They Already Accepted

Two Ways The Qur’an Proves The Division Of Tawhid

The Reality Of Shirk Based Duʿa

Three Firm Foundations In The Issue Of Seeking Help

Shirk Based Duʿa Is Not Built Upon Disputed Theoretical Issues

Calling Upon The Dead Is A Clear Shirk Based Form Of Duʿa

Claiming That Quraish Affirmed Lordship For Their Gods

Claiming That Quraish Gave Management To Their Objects Of Worship

Claiming That Quraish Gave Ownership To Their Gods

Claiming That Quraish Believed In Forced Intercession

Claiming That Being Muslim Separates The Act From Shirk

Claiming That The Name “Gods” Is What Made Their Act Shirk

Claiming That Naming The Act Worship Is The Difference

Claiming That All Of Them Believed Their Gods Had Benefit And Harm

Claiming That “There Is No Doer Except Allah” Removes The Name Of Shirk

Relying On Many Statements Of Later Permissive Voices

The Report “O Servants Of Allah, Hold It” Or “Help”

Summary

Seeking Help From Other Than Allah Is Built Upon Understanding Tawhid

The issue of istighathah (seeking help in distress) is not a minor fiqh issue. It rests upon a major foundation in aqidah: the division of Tawhid (singling Allah out). The mushrikun of Quraish affirmed Tawhid al Rububiyyah (singling Allah out in Lordship). They accepted that Allah alone creates, owns, provides, and manages all affairs. Their error was not that they denied Allah’s Lordship. Their error was that they committed shirk (associating partners with Allah) in Tawhid al Uluhiyyah (singling Allah out in worship).

This is why their belief in Allah as Creator and Provider did not remove the name of shirk from them. They still called upon others besides Allah, sought intercession through them, and worshipped them. So the main proof is clear: affirming Allah’s Rububiyyah alone does not save a person if he directs acts of worship to other than Allah.

The Qur’an Shows That Quraish Accepted Allah’s Lordship

The Qur’an repeatedly argues against the mushrikun using what they already accepted. They accepted that Allah is the Creator, Provider, Owner, and Manager. The Qur’an then used this against them: if Allah alone owns and manages all affairs, why worship and call upon others?

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ

Most of them do not believe in Allah except while they commit shirk. (Yusuf 106)

This verse shows two matters at once. They had a kind of belief in Allah, but they still committed shirk. This is the meaning of the division of Tawhid.

The Qur’an also records their own answers:

قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم

Say, who provides for you? (Yunus 31)

أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ

Or who owns hearing and sight? (Yunus 31)

وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ

And who manages the matter? (Yunus 31)

فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ

They will say, Allah. (Yunus 31)

These Qur’an verses prove that the argument was not meant to convince them that Allah is the Lord. Rather, it was meant to expose their contradiction: they accepted Allah’s Lordship, but still worshipped others besides Him.

The Qur’an Condemns Calling Upon The Dead

The clearest form of shirk based duʿa (supplication) mentioned is calling upon those who do not create, do not hear, do not answer, and are dead.

وَالَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ ۝ أَمْوَاتٌ غَيْرُ أَحْيَاءٍ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ أَيَّانَ يُبْعَثُونَ

Those whom they call upon besides Allah do not create anything, while they themselves are created. They are dead, not alive, and they do not know when they will be raised. (al Nahl 20–21)

Calling upon the dead, seeking help from them, and crying out to them in calamities is therefore shirk according to the apparent meaning of revelation. Revelation did not make this ruling depend on whether the caller believes the dead independently create, own, or manage affairs. The act itself is condemned.

Their Sincerity In Danger Proves Their Contradiction

The mushrikun would call upon Allah alone during danger. When they were saved, they returned to shirk.

فَإِذَا رَكِبُوا فِي الْفُلْكِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ إِذَا هُمْ يُشْرِكُونَ

When they board the ship, they call upon Allah, making the religion sincerely for Him. Then when He saves them to land, they suddenly commit shirk. (al Ankabut 65)

This proves that they knew Allah alone has the complete power to rescue. Their shirk was not built on believing their gods were equal to Allah in Lordship. Their shirk was directing worship, duʿa, and istighathah to others besides Him.

Their own talbiyah also showed this meaning: “Here I am. You have no partner. Here I am. Except a partner who belongs to You. You own him and whatever he owns.” (Sahih Muslim 1185.) This means their false partner had no ownership, management, or control apart from Allah.

The Core Proof Against Istighathah To Other Than Allah

The argument is simple. If Quraish affirmed Allah’s Lordship and still became mushrikun because they called upon others, then a later person cannot justify the same act by saying, “Allah alone creates and manages.” That was already accepted by many of the first mushrikun.

Therefore, the issue is not merely what a person says about Allah’s Lordship. The issue is whether an act of worship is directed to other than Allah. Duʿa, istighathah, reliance, and seeking rescue in what only Allah can grant are from worship. Directing them to other than Allah is shirk.

The First Objection: Quraish Gave Lordship To Their Gods

Some claim that Quraish only committed shirk because they believed their gods had something of rububiyyah (Lordship). This objection is rejected because the Qur’an itself records that they affirmed Allah as the Creator, Owner, Provider, and Manager.

Even if some Arabs committed shirk in rububiyyah, the objection still fails. It is enough that some mushrikun affirmed Allah’s Lordship and still had the name of shirk applied to them. This proves that shirk in worship can occur without believing the object of worship has independent Lordship.

The Second Objection: Quraish Gave Management To Their Gods

Some claim that Quraish accepted Allah as Creator but gave management to their gods. The Qur’an answers this directly:

وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ

And who manages the matter? (Yunus 31)

فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ

They will say, Allah. (Yunus 31)

Their own answer destroys the objection. They accepted Allah as the one who manages the affair, but still worshipped others.

The Third Objection: Quraish Gave Ownership To Their Gods

Some claim that Quraish accepted Allah’s creation and management, but gave ownership to their gods. The Qur’an also rejects this:

قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

Say, in whose Hand is the kingdom of everything? (al Mu’minun 88)

سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ

They will say, Allah’s. (al Mu’minun 89)

They accepted that the kingdom of everything belongs to Allah. So their shirk was not based on giving full ownership to their gods. Their shirk was in worship and duʿa.

The Fourth Objection: Quraish Believed In Forced Intercession

Some claim that Quraish believed their gods could force Allah to accept their intercession. This is also false. If their gods could force Allah, then those gods would have a type of management and control. But the Qur’an states:

وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلَا يُجَارُ عَلَيْهِ ۝ سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ

He protects, and none can protect against Him. They will say, Allah’s. (al Mu’minun 88–89)

The Qur’an also says:

مَن ذَا الَّذِي يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ

Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? (al Baqarah 255)

No proof exists that Quraish believed their gods could force Allah. Rather, the Qur’an establishes that intercession belongs only by Allah’s permission.

The Fifth Objection: Being Muslim Changes The Act

Some say the difference is that later people are Muslims, while Quraish denied the Prophet ﷺ. This may affect the question of excuse, ignorance, and establishing proof upon a person. It does not change the ruling of the act itself.

Muhammad ﷺ came to warn against shirk based worship. He did not say that calling upon other than Allah becomes permissible after accepting his prophethood. The act remains shirk, even if the individual case needs proper judgement and proof.

The Sixth Objection: Quraish Called Them Gods

Some say Quraish called their objects of worship “gods,” while later people do not use that name. This is not a real difference. Revelation did not condemn them merely because of the label. It condemned the act: calling upon, worshipping, seeking intercession from, and attaching the heart to other than Allah.

Changing the name does not change the reality. If an act is worship, giving it another name does not remove its ruling.

The Seventh Objection: Quraish Called Their Duʿa Worship

Some say Quraish knew their duʿa was worship, while later people do not call it worship. This may explain why some later people are mistaken or excused until proof is made clear. But it does not remove the name of shirk from the act itself.

The ruling of an act is based on its reality, not only on what people call it. If a person directs a form of worship to other than Allah, the act remains shirk even if he does not understand its true name.

The Eighth Objection: All Of Quraish Believed Their Gods Had Benefit And Harm

Some use Qur’an verses that negate benefit and harm from false gods, claiming this proves Quraish believed all of them could benefit and harm. The answer is that some may have believed this, but the claim must be proven for all of them.

The main point is enough: if even one mushrik affirmed Allah alone in Lordship, creation, ownership, and management, while still being called a mushrik because of worshipping other than Allah, then the condition claimed by the opponent collapses.

This proves that shirk and worship do not require believing the worshipped thing has rububiyyah. Directing worship itself to other than Allah is enough for the act to be shirk.

The Ninth Objection: “There Is No Doer Except Allah”

Some say that because they believe there is no true doer except Allah, the name of shirk does not apply to them. This claim is rejected because the Qur’an and Sunnah do not build the ruling of shirk based duʿa on this philosophical condition.

The revealed principle is that there is no creator except Allah. As for the wording “no doer except Allah,” the summary rejects building the ruling of istighathah upon this disputed claim. Even among the Ashʿaris, al Juwayni (d.478AH) and al Razi (d.606AH) affirmed effect for other than Allah in some sense. The general people also believe in causes, power, and properties. Many who seek help from the dead at graves believe the dead are a real cause of benefit.

So this objection cannot protect the practice. The warning must remain clear: shirk based duʿa is a grave danger.

The Tenth Objection: Many Later People Permitted It

Some rely on the number of later voices who permitted such practices. The answer is that the early imams are stronger in proof and status. Al Tabari (d.310AH) is presented as an early mujtahid. Imam Ahmad (d.241AH) is also used as proof through his statement: “No refuge is sought in a created thing,” when using the hadith, “I seek refuge in the perfect words of Allah.” (Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/336. Sahih Muslim 2708a and 2708b.)

The meaning is clear. Seeking refuge in Allah’s words is permissible because His words are not created. Seeking refuge in created beings in matters that belong to Allah is not permissible.

The Report About “O Servants Of Allah, Help”

The report, “O servants of Allah, hold it,” or “help,” does not justify calling upon the dead. It is placed under natural causation and specific reports, where Allah has appointed certain living, present, hearing servants in particular situations.

This is not the same as calling upon the dead, who do not create, do not hear, and do not answer. The Qur’an says:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ

Indeed, those whom you call upon besides Allah are servants like you. (al Aʿraf 194)

Even if someone claimed that the report has an area requiring scholarly examination, it cannot be used to justify the clear act of calling upon the dead at graves. The report concerns a specific case known through narration. It does not provide a basis for seeking help from the dead. (Musnad Abi Yaʿla 5269. al Muʿjam al Kabir 10518. ʿAmal al Yawm wa al Laylah, Ibn al Sunni, 508. Musnad al Bazzar, 11/181. Majmaʿ al Zawa’id, al Haythami, 10/132.)

The Final Principle

Istighathah directed to other than Allah, when it involves calling upon the dead or seeking rescue in what only Allah can grant, is shirk based duʿa. The Qur’an proves that many of the first mushrikun affirmed Allah’s Lordship, creation, ownership, and management. Their shirk was in worship, duʿa, intercession seeking, and devotion to other than Allah.

Therefore, the later attempt to justify istighathah by saying “Allah alone creates and manages” fails. That was already the belief of many mushrikun, and it did not save them. The dividing line is not merely belief in Allah’s Lordship. The dividing line is whether worship is directed to Allah alone.

End of Summary.

Transcription Of A Broadcast About Seeking Help From Other Than Allah, Tawhid Al Rububiyyah, And Tawhid Al Uluhiyyah By Maher Ameer

This PDF by Abu al Abbas al Dagistani has slight adjustment in the order of some sentences or words, and has not been reviewed by Maher Ameer.

Istighathah Is Built Upon The Division Of Tawhid

The most important point in the topic of istighathah (seeking help) is that it is built upon a central and basic foundation. Establishing the truth in it, and confirming what is meant and what is believed, is built upon this matter, namely: recognising the division of Tawhid (singling Allah out).

So it must first be affirmed that the mushrikun (those who commit shirk) of Quraish affirmed Tawhid al Rububiyyah (singling Allah out in Lordship), and that they singled Allah out in creating, ownership, and management.

This did not benefit them at all. It did not remove from them the description of shirk (associating partners with Allah) which revelation described them with, and for which revelation blamed them because of their deeds. Among those deeds was calling upon other than Allah Most High, from their righteous people, their objects of worship, and their gods.

Without recognising this division, there will be no point of agreement with the opponent. One will always meet the conditions, restrictions, and forced controls of the opponent, by which he tries to separate between his own action and the action of the mushrikun.

The importance of this division is not only that what comes after it is built upon it. Rather, it is also because its proof is so clear and plain in the speech of revelation that no sensible or fair person, who has even the smallest knowledge of the speech of the earlier and later ulama, can deny it.

If he disputes this, then not a single step should be taken with him. Why?

Because if he denies what is stronger, more apparent, and clearer, then he will deny what is below it in proof even more.

The Qur’an Shows That The Arab Mushrikun Did Not Ascribe Lordship To Their Gods

This is what the noble Qur’an is full of in detail, in explaining that the Arab mushrikun did not ascribe anything of rububiyyah (Lordship) to their gods, meaning creation, ownership, and management. Rather, they committed shirk in uluhiyyah (worship).

Look at any tafsir in explaining the verse:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ

Most of them do not believe in Allah except while they commit shirk. (Yusuf 106)

Any tafsir: Athari, Ashʿari, Muʿtazili, Zaydi, or Imami. Look at the words of al Tabari (d.310AH), al Qurtubi (d.671AH), al Zamakhshari (d.538AH), al Baydawi (d.685AH), and al Hakim al Jushami (d.494AH). You will find their words clear and direct.

This is apparent from the verse:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّهِ

Most of them do not believe in Allah.

There is belief in something.

إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ

Except while they commit shirk.

And there is shirk in something else. This is the division.

You find this clear and widely transmitted in the tafsir of the imams when explaining this meaning.

The Qur’an Argues Against Them Through What They Already Accepted

The other point is that there are proofs whose necessary meaning is that they believed in Tawhid al Rububiyyah, and that they singled Him out in rububiyyah, meaning ownership, creation, and management.

This is when revelation argues against them in order to bind them to Tawhid al Uluhiyyah (singling Allah out in worship), and to explain their contradiction, since they committed shirk with Allah in uluhiyyah while singling Him out in rububiyyah.

قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم

Say, who provides for you? (Yunus 31)

أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ

Or who owns hearing and sight? (Yunus 31)

وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ

And who manages the matter? (Yunus 31)

قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

Say, in whose Hand is the kingdom of everything? (al Mu’minun 88)

And other many Qur’an verses with this meaning, where revelation argues against them by saying that they believe in His rububiyyah, so why do they commit shirk with Him? Meaning, the argument is built upon Tawhid al Rububiyyah as though it is a matter accepted by them.

From that is:

قُلْ أَتَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا نَفْعًا

Say, do you worship besides Allah that which owns no harm for you and no benefit? (al Ma’idah 76)

If they believed that these objects of worship independently gave benefit and harm, or that they independently managed affairs, or that they independently had control, or that they independently created, then the argument of revelation would have been invalid, and this argument would have had no meaning.

So revelation argues against them and says to them: if you believe that Allah is the Creator, the Manager, and the Provider, then why do you commit shirk with Him and worship other than Him?

Look at this clear proof and how sound it is.

If they did not single out Allah in rububiyyah, and they committed shirk with Him by ascribing creation, command, and management to their gods, then Allah saying to them:

قُلْ أَتَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ مَا لَا يَمْلِكُ لَكُمْ ضَرًّا وَلَا نَفْعًا

Say, do you worship besides Allah that which owns no harm for you and no benefit? (al Ma’idah 76)

Or His saying:

وَالَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ ۝ أَمْوَاتٌ غَيْرُ أَحْيَاءٍ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ أَيَّانَ يُبْعَثُونَ

Those whom they call upon besides Allah do not create anything, while they themselves are created. They are dead, not alive, and they do not know when they will be raised. (al Nahl 20–21)

They would have said in argument: rather, we believe that they harm and benefit, and we believe that they provide, manage, and create, and so on. We do not accept this from you. Your proof, O Muhammad ﷺ, is invalid.

So we do not only have proofs that they singled Him out in rububiyyah, meaning creation, ownership, and management. Rather, we also have the arguments by which the Qur’an addressed them, and the accepted matters upon which the Qur’an built its argument, in order to bind them by showing their contradiction.

So revelation argues against them: if you believe that Allah is the Creator, the Manager, and the Provider, then why do you commit shirk with Him and worship other than Him?

These arguments show that these matters were accepted by them. The Qur’an was not convincing them that Allah is the Creator, the Manager, and the Provider. This was not a speech in revelation that applied to all of them in that way. Perhaps some of them did not single Allah out in rububiyyah. Yes, we accept that some of them committed shirk in rububiyyah.

But as for saying that all Arabs committed shirk in rububiyyah, proving this is harder than scraping thorns from the qatad tree. No one disputes this except a stubborn person following desire.

Why do we say this?

Because this matter goes beyond the different groups. You find this division among the Muʿtazilah, the Imamiyyah, the Zaydiyyah, the Ashʿaris, and the Atharis.

Uluhiyyah is especially clear with Imam al Tabari. I gathered the words of Imam al Tabari in Tawhid al Salafi. I came across the words of some Imamiyyah replying to us, saying that the Salafis or Taymis in this matter are an extension of Imam al Tabari, and they do not care about declaring him mistaken.

Only our opponents from the Ashʿaris dispute this because of their love and honour for Imam al Tabari, and because they are not pleased with this. So they interpret his words according to what they believe.

Two Ways The Qur’an Proves The Division Of Tawhid

1. The proofs for this include what proves it by direct wording.

From them is the verse:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ

Most of them do not believe in Allah except while they commit shirk. (Yusuf 106)

What was required from them was to single out Allah in both types of Tawhid, both types of belief, and both types of singling Him out in what befits Him of honour.

Likewise, the Qur’an verses affirming that they singled Allah out in creation, ownership, and management include:

قُلْ مَن يَرْزُقُكُم

Say, who provides for you? (Yunus 31)

أَمَّن يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ

Or who owns hearing and sight? (Yunus 31)

وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ

And who manages the matter? (Yunus 31)

فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ

They will say, Allah. (Yunus 31)

These are matters that revelation recorded against them.

If you wanted to record a person’s position on these matters, you would not find words that are more complete in proof and explanation than the words of the Qur’an.

And you would not find answers clearer than the answers of the mushrikun in showing this affirmation of Tawhid al Rububiyyah.

2. Among the proofs are those which show this by binding argument.

Meaning: as long as you affirm Tawhid al Rububiyyah, why do you worship other than Him?

When you combine the two ways, what is required becomes certain for you, and no sensible person can reject it. It is a matter that goes beyond the different groups, as we said, and it is present and widely transmitted in their tafsir works. This is regardless of how they apply this matter, since you may find some of them affirming this and then seeking help from other than Allah.

What matters here is that they affirm this division and the proof of these Qur’an verses.

The Reality Of Shirk Based Duʿa

After affirming this division, we move to the issue of istighathah.

You affirm with certainty that there is a shirk based duʿa (supplication). Whoever disputes that there is a shirk based duʿa is a stubborn sophist.

This duʿa was condemned by revelation, and revelation condemned the one who calls upon other than Allah:

وَالَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ لَا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ ۝ أَمْوَاتٌ غَيْرُ أَحْيَاءٍ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ أَيَّانَ يُبْعَثُونَ

Those whom they call upon besides Allah do not create anything, while they themselves are created. They are dead, not alive, and they do not know when they will be raised. (al Nahl 20–21)

فَإِذَا رَكِبُوا فِي الْفُلْكِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ إِذَا هُمْ يُشْرِكُونَ

When they board the ship, they call upon Allah, making the religion sincerely for Him. Then when He saves them to land, they suddenly commit shirk. (al Ankabut 65)

This shirk based duʿa is a dangerous matter. It is not from the issues of fiqh. It is not from the secondary issues where differing is wide. Counting it as a secondary matter goes against the way of revelation.

Rather, revelation condemned it and singled it out in many Qur’an verses, to explain how the mushrikun fell into it and how they contradicted themselves.

It explained that they:

1. Contradicted their Tawhid in rububiyyah.
2. Contradicted their own action at the time of istighathah.

How could they single out Allah at the time of danger through istighathah and duʿa, because they knew that none could save them in that situation except Allah, then when they returned to land, they committed shirk with Him?

Here there is another proof that they believed Allah was alone in a type of help and power in which no one else shared with Him, and in which He was not equal to their objects of worship. They made the religion sincerely for Him, not committing shirk with Him. Then when they returned to land, they committed shirk with Him.

This shows that they believed Allah was above all of their beliefs, and that they did not set anyone else as a rival against Him.

Likewise, from this is their saying: “Here I am. You have no partner. Here I am. Except a partner who belongs to You. You own him and whatever he owns.” (Sahih Muslim 1185.)

Meaning:

He has no ownership apart from You.

He has no management apart from You.

He has no control apart from You.

Also from this is Allah asking them:

قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

Say, in whose Hand is the kingdom of everything? (al Mu’minun 88)

All of this is recorded against them. So here you affirm that there is a shirk based duʿa that must be known and warned against.

Three Firm Foundations In The Issue Of Seeking Help

1. The first firm foundation:

Affirming the division, and that it is a widely transmitted matter proven by revelation. It is a matter that goes beyond the different groups, who are not united by one madhhab bias.

2. The second firm foundation:

There is a shirk based duʿa that must be known and must be warned against.

3. The third firm foundation:

Revelation must have explained this to us with a clear and sufficient explanation, in clarifying the shirk based duʿa and warning against it. The proof of revelation in this matter is enough because of how serious it is.

Revelation would not make clear to us the seriousness of this matter, then leave us to the understandings of people, their conditions, and their invented outlines by which they separate between the action of the mushrikun of Quraish and their own action.

It cannot be said that this is from the secondary speculative matters, because revelation clearly says that there is a shirk based duʿa which must be known, warned against, and avoided, so that we do not fall into it.

Shirk Based Duʿa Is Not Built Upon Disputed Theoretical Issues

Here there is a question: should we examine issues such as ordinary causes, effective causes, the definition of worship, and other matters which they make you feel must be examined, and which they make appear unclear and extremely complicated before the issue can be reached?

The answer is: no.

Even so, we are able to do that in order to establish what we intend, prove it, and refute the evidences of the opponent. We are able to do this, and we have done it. Books have been written and pages have been filled on this, and this is known to students of knowledge and those who have studied.

Know that revelation did not attach a dangerous matter like this to theoretical matters such as these. This is a matter in which they themselves differed. The Muʿtazilah have a view, the Maturidis have a view, and the Ashʿaris have a view.

Even the Ashʿaris themselves differed. Al Juwayni (d.478AH) and al Razi (d.606AH) affirmed effect, while other imams opposed the majority of the Ashʿaris concerning the view that there is no true doer except Allah, that the servant’s power has no relation except mere connection, and that there is no relation of effect.

So this is a theoretical matter built upon a precise inquiry in which they themselves differed. A very dangerous and extremely important matter is not built upon this. Rather, making these matters conditions is a shortness of view.

Calling Upon The Dead Is A Clear Shirk Based Form Of Duʿa

So now:

There is a shirk based form in duʿa, namely, calling upon the dead:

لَا يَخْلُقُونَ شَيْئًا وَهُمْ يُخْلَقُونَ ۝ أَمْوَاتٌ غَيْرُ أَحْيَاءٍ

They do not create anything, while they themselves are created. They are dead, not alive. (al Nahl 20–21)

Therefore, calling upon these people, seeking help from them, and crying out to them in calamities and serious needs is shirk according to the apparent meaning of revelation.

Revelation did not impose restrictions, outlines, or conditions upon you in describing it, such as their singling them out in ownership, or their believing that they independently possess something of ownership and management.

No, revelation did not impose this. Nothing like this exists in revelation. Revelation clearly states what it intends.

When a person performs this form, namely calling upon the dead, then the starting point is that the blame that came upon this form among the mushrikun includes him and applies to him. The opponent must then escape from this by mentioning an effective difference that would justify this matter.

Now, you have finished what is upon you. Your opponent must bring proof that separates between his calling upon the dead and the calling of Quraish upon the dead.

They will mention several matters.

Claiming That Quraish Affirmed Lordship For Their Gods

They will say that the mushrikun of Quraish affirmed something of rububiyyah for their gods.

We have replied to this by affirming the division and its wide transmission. We do not accept this difference, because there were those who singled Allah out in rububiyyah and still committed shirk with Him. Also, duʿa was only directed to them so that they might bring the people near to Allah and be taken as intercessors. The importance of the division is that it closes this door.

Claiming That Quraish Gave Management To Their Objects Of Worship

They will mention that the mushrikun of Quraish singled out Allah in creation, but affirmed something of management for their objects of worship.

This is false, because the Qur’an argued against them and asked them:

وَمَن يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ

And who manages the matter? (Yunus 31)

So they answered:

فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ

They will say, Allah. (Yunus 31)

Claiming That Quraish Gave Ownership To Their Gods

They will say that the mushrikun of Quraish singled out Allah in creation and management, but they ascribed something of ownership to their gods.

No, because the Qur’an asked them:

قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

Say, in whose Hand is the kingdom of everything? (al Mu’minun 88)

سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ

They will say, Allah’s. (al Mu’minun 89)

Claiming That Quraish Believed In Forced Intercession

They will say that they singled Allah out in ownership, creation, and management, but affirmed for their gods a forced intercession that compels Allah, exalted is He, so that Allah has no choice except to answer it.

This is false, because if they possessed independent forced intercession, that would mean they possessed something of management even more so.

Rather, this should not be accepted from them, because the verse is clear when Allah asked them:

وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلَا يُجَارُ عَلَيْهِ ۝ سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ

He protects, and none can protect against Him. They will say, Allah’s. (al Mu’minun 88–89)

مَن ذَا الَّذِي يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ

Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? (al Baqarah 255)

Likewise, it is not accepted from them, because if they accepted that their gods created, this would mean that they managed. If they accepted that their gods owned, this would mean that they created and managed.

Rather, when the Qur’an asked them:

مَن ذَا الَّذِي يَشْفَعُ عِندَهُ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِهِ

Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? (al Baqarah 255)

This is a mention of Allah’s praises through all perfections, so that it may be built upon it that none has the right to be worshipped except Him. So they affirmed that no one intercedes with Him except by His permission, so that His right to worship could be built upon it, and that none has the right to be worshipped except Him.

If they believed other than that, they would have said: our gods intercede without His permission. This is not found in the speech of revelation, nor in their replies.

Even if we accepted that all these Qur’an verses did not exist, where is your proof for this matter? It must be clear and apparent proof.

Claiming That Being Muslim Separates The Act From Shirk

They will say that the difference is that we are Muslims, while they denied prophethood.

This may help in excusing the opponent. The speech here is about whether this form is shirk or not. It has no connection to their affirming the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ.

Muhammad ﷺ only came to warn against this shirk based form. He did not say to them: this action is shirk only if you believe in me. Nor did he permit them to believe in him and in his prophethood, and then call upon Wadd, Yaghuth, Yaʿuq, and Nasr.

Claiming That The Name “Gods” Is What Made Their Act Shirk

They will say that the mushrikun of Quraish used to call those whom they called upon gods, while we do not call them gods.

This is absurd. Revelation did not come with this. It did not say to them: what you are doing is wrong, but your problem is that you call them gods.

Claiming That Naming The Act Worship Is The Difference

They will say that they used to call their duʿa worship, while we do not call it worship.

This difference may help in excusing the opponent, in the sense that he is ignorant or has misinterpreted the matter and does not know that his action is called worship until the proof is established against him.

The mushrikun of Quraish knew that the reality of their action was worship. They knew the verbal description of what they were doing was worship. They knew that what they were doing was making other than Allah into an object of worship. They affirmed that, unlike later people who do not know. For that reason, they are excused until they know the reality of their action. But this does not remove from the action the description of being shirk.

Claiming That All Of Them Believed Their Gods Had Benefit And Harm

Some of them came to some Qur’an verses in which benefit and harm are negated from their objects of worship. They said: revelation only negated benefit and harm from their objects of worship because they believed that those objects of worship had benefit and harm. Likewise, the Qur’an verses which say that they only worshipped them so that they would be a source of honour for them.

We accept that some of them may have believed this. There is no problem with that. But the question is: did all of them believe that?

You must understand an important matter: it is enough for you that one mushrik existed who singled Allah out in rububiyyah, singled Him out in creation, ownership, and management, and believed in the rububiyyah of Allah alone, while despite this Tawhid he was a mushrik. Meaning, this Tawhid of his did not benefit him. Only one person.

The opponent must prove that all of the Arab mushrikun affirmed something of rububiyyah for their objects of worship, and that this was the cause for describing their actions as worship of other than Allah.

This is because, according to them, the condition of worship is that the worshipper ascribes something of rububiyyah to the one he intends. When he does not ascribe anything of rububiyyah to him, it is not worship.

So they must prove that all Arabs ascribed something of rububiyyah to their objects of worship, and they must generalise this description to every mushrik, because according to them it is a condition of shirk.

This is overturned by the existence of one mushrik in whom the meaning of shirk was realised, whose action was described as shirk and as worship of other than Allah, and whose duʿa was shirk based, while he did not ascribe anything of rububiyyah to the one he intended. Then what we seek to prove is established, and their universal claim is destroyed.

This is what is required to be proven: that the meaning of worship and the meaning of shirk can be separate from the condition of ascribing something of rububiyyah to the one worshipped. If it is separate in one man, then what is required is established. This claim of theirs is impossible. By Allah, it is impossible. Why?

Because even if we accepted that all the Qur’an verses prove what they intend, and then we found only one verse proving that among the mushrikun were those who did not ascribe anything of rububiyyah to their object of worship, while the word shirk still applied to them, and their belief did not save them from their action being described as worship of other than Allah, and from them being described as mushrikun despite their belief.

Only one verse, such as the verse:

وَمَا يُؤْمِنُ أَكْثَرُهُم بِاللَّهِ إِلَّا وَهُم مُّشْرِكُونَ

Most of them do not believe in Allah except while they commit shirk. (Yusuf 106)

Or the Qur’an verses recording matters against them, such as:

وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ

If you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say, Allah. (al Zumar 38)

Then their proof is invalid.

Claiming That “There Is No Doer Except Allah” Removes The Name Of Shirk

They will say that we believe that there is no doer except Allah, so the description of shirk does not apply to us.

We do not accept this corrupt belief in the first place. Building anything upon it is corrupt, and there is no proof for it from the Book or the Sunnah.

There is no creator except Allah. Also, creation comes with several meanings, such as His saying:

فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ

So blessed is Allah, the best of creators. (al Mu’minun 14)

Then what do you say about the one who affirms effect? Is it permissible for him to seek help? This is what occurs from the majority of those who seek help.

This is because only the elite understand this belief, and they do not form a large percentage compared to the generality of those who seek help.

Not all Ashʿaris affirm it. Rather, major men departed from it, such as al Razi and al Juwayni. They affirmed an effect for other than Allah and affirmed a real action for other than Allah.

The general people affirm power and specific properties, and they study this in schools. Because of this, a number of Ashʿaris complained about this issue: that the general people believe in deposited power and the effect of things, and they do not understand the issue of detached acquisition in actions.

Rather, the generality of those who seek help from the dead at graves and humble themselves before them believe that they are a real cause in this.

So the Ashʿaris must join us in warning against this very grave danger, namely the issue of shirk based duʿa. But you find some of them saying that it is not shirk, but it is haram.

Upon what basis? You have proofs that this duʿa is from the special actions of the mushrikun, that it is worship of other than Allah, that it is shirk, and that the mushrikun used to single Allah out during danger, then when they were saved, they committed shirk.

Meaning, the Qur’an named the opposite of their sincere duʿa to Allah during danger as shirk.

Relying On Many Statements Of Later Permissive Voices

If they turn to rhetoric and to gathering many statements of those who permitted it, then we have the early imams with us. All of them are mujtahids, while everyone whose statement they work with are muqallids by your own admission.

So we have al Tabari, who was a fifth mujtahid, and no one in his time opposed him. Likewise, Imam Ahmad (d.241AH), in his statement: “No refuge is sought in a created thing,” when he used the hadith “I seek refuge in the perfect words of Allah” as proof. Why? Because no refuge is sought in a created thing. (Majmuʿ al Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, 1/336. Sahih Muslim 2708a and 2708b.)

The Report “O Servants Of Allah, Hold It” Or “Help”

11. The hadith: “O servants of Allah, hold it,” or, “help.”

This is from the area of natural causation. We came to know through revelation that there are those whom Allah, exalted is He, appointed in certain situations, and that it is permissible to say such and such, and such and such, due to the proof of revelation.

This has no connection to shirk based duʿa, nor to calling upon those who do not create, and those who do not hear and do not answer.

They are dead, not alive. So where is this compared to the living, present one whom Allah appointed?

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ

Indeed, those whom you call upon besides Allah are servants like you. (al Aʿraf 194)

Then, even if we said that there is an issue in this duʿa, there are clear and apparent forms that do not enter into this issue.

Meaning, even if we said that this hadith falls into a grey area of proof, fine. But using this grey area, or this matter in which there is scholarly examination, to cause confusion regarding the clear dark form that is established is unacceptable. And we do not accept in the first place that this hadith falls into the grey area, nor is there any problem in it.

This is a request from one who is living, present, and hearing, whom Allah appointed to answer. We learned this through the report. But the most important point is: do you have anything of this type from those who permitted this action with what you do with the dead? No, by Allah. Drawing an analogy from this is among the most corrupt matters. (Musnad Abi Yaʿla 5269. al Muʿjam al Kabir 10518. ʿAmal al Yawm wa al Laylah, Ibn al Sunni, 508. Musnad al Bazzar, 11/181. Majmaʿ al Zawa’id, al Haythami, 10/132.)

This is an important foundation in this issue and a strengthening of its pillars.

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all creation.

This is an approximate transcription of the broadcast, and it is the effort of one with little ability.

Corrected by Abu al Abbas al Dagistani.