When does Istighaatha fall under Kufr or Shirk?

salam
maybe this will help. The source is dawat e islami's faizan e farz uloom. It has references from shaykh e muhaqqiq and Mulla Ali Qari.

 

Let me ask you: Can an angel grant a child?


Because in the Qur’an, Jibrīl (‘alayhis-salām) says to Sayyidah Maryam:


“إِنَّمَا أَنَا رَسُولُ رَبِّكِ لِأَهَبَ لَكِ غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا”

“Indeed, I am only a messenger of your Lord, to grant you a pure boy.”

(Surah Maryam, 19:19)


Let’s break that down:

• The angel didn’t say, “I will make du‘ā to Allah to give you a child.”
• He said, “I grant you” — and the Qur’an reports that wording without correction.
• Does anyone believe the angel created the child independently? No.
• The meaning is: he is a sabab (means), acting by the permission of Allah.

So if the Qur’an itself allows such wording for an angel — and acknowledges that created beings can be involved in divine outcomes bi idhnillāh — then:


Why is it suddenly “ridiculous” when the same is said about a wali?

• No Sunni says the wali creates the child.
• Just like the angel, the wali is a means, not a source.
• The real belief is: Allah gives, through whom He wills.

This is called majāz ‘aqlī — and it’s not just allowed in theology, it’s literally used in the Qur’an.

 

This zig zagger is getting pretty annoying.

Brother Abdullah Ahmed , gently explained your mistake and your only response was *sigh*.

How can anyone take you seriously if you're not even interested in a civil discussion. It is not a battle of ego's, stop trying to score points and come with the intention of trying to 'guide us', if you truly believe we are mistaken.

 

No you've got me stumped (sarcasm).

 

@Hassan_0123
No answer to these questions?

 

You said youth are leaving because of “our version of istighāthah.”

I didn't say that. I said droves and droves of your youth are becoming Wahabi, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Possibly more.

And not just because of Istigatha. Many reasons.

 

Hassan, before you go any further, let’s pause the zig-zagging and actually focus on something you yourself posted — the quote from Sayyid ‘Ali al-Khawwās.


I already said I’ll concede that not all awliyā’ have tasarruf over all matters — including something like granting a child.


But the quote itself says:


“These matters are from the treasures of Allah which He gives only to the Prophets by revelation.”


So here are the straightforward questions I asked you — and you haven’t answered them:

1. If Sayyid ‘Ali al-Khawwās says the Prophets have been given access to these treasures by Allah, do you concede that this means we can ask the Prophet ﷺ for things like a child, healing, or sustenance?
2. If you believe the Prophet ﷺ can be asked because he has tasarruf granted by Allah, then what’s your objection? Because the very quote you brought gives the answer.
3. And second: If you admit (as you did) that some awliyā’ may have tasarruf over some things, then do you concede it’s valid to ask those awliyā’ for those specific things that Allah has granted them influence over?

I’m not asking you to speculate or detour into generalities.

I’m asking you to respond to your own source.

If you’re going to quote ‘Ali al-Khawwās, then own the full implications of what he said.


You said youth are leaving because of “our version of istighāthah.” But if you can’t even give a straight answer about whether the Prophet ﷺ can be asked for something Allah gave him tasarruf over, you’re the one making the entire framework incoherent.


So before we go further: Answer the above. Clearly. Without deflection.

 

I've quoted from
Imam al-Subki
Imam Yusuf Al-Nabhani
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi
Muhadith Abid Al-Sindhi
Shaykh Alawi al-Maliki

ALL of whom defined Istigatha as asking the person for Dua/intercession.

I'm still waiting for 1, just one scholar who's definition of Istigatha matches yours (which is a Wali can hear from a far distance and help) and now your second claim that a Wali can grant things which we should only ask Allah for.

I'm not replying until I get clear, explicit evidence for this. This version of Istigatha is extremely flimsy and you know it is. Its genuinely shocking how bad its been defended.

 

I am saying that the only difference between saying “Ya Rasullah ﷺ make dua/intercede with Allah that I be healed” and “Ya Rasullah ﷺ heal me” is the wording used, the meaning and intent of both is the same. This is explicitly stated by Imam Al-Subki which I posted from his book in the other thread.

If someone were to say the second wording but while lacking the correct understanding of dua/shafaah, this is an issue, and some awwam don't understand this.

Finally, if the meaning of both is the same but wording different, why not encourage awwam to just use the former wording as it is less ripe for confusion?

As for:
The Arabic text does not say that people are only allowed to ask for du‘ā and shafā‘ah — rather, he’s explaining why saying things like “O Prophet, cure me” or “repay my debt” is not shirk. Because the intent behind those words is: “Make du‘ā to Allah for my healing,” or “intercede with Allah for my need.”

Exactly! I am speaking about how some don't understand this, how some may say "o prophet cure me" while not having the intent "make dua to Allah for my healing". If someone has that intent no problem.

But if they just used the wording of "make dua to Allah" instead there is no possibility of confusion

 

1) Define Tassaruf as I asked in the other thread on Istigatha.

2) You can go to a Wali and ask for those things but they will do dua on your behalf. That's it. It's tawassul. They don't have the ability to grant those things or even a power which Allah has given (you need to provide proof for this btw if u believe this)

3) Some Awliya may have Tassaruf but you need to define what Tassaruf is and what is the scope of this Tassaruf. And the Wali you're asking even has Tassaruf or is even a Wali. Refer to my questions in the other thread which are still unanswered.

4) You need to prove Allah has granted them power over those things they can supposedly give. You won't be able to, impossible. What has Allah made them power over, what do they possess? You can't prove it from Nass.

5) 'And if a person asks them — believing they act only by Allah’s permission — then that request is valid, and in line with Sunni theology, majāz, and sababiyyah'. As for this clarify, do they themselves grant that thing or do they just do dua for it. If you say they do grant that thing with a power Allah has given, show me where a sunni scholar has definied Istigaatha/Karamat of the Awliya like this.

You haven't quoted a single scholar.

It all rests on this notion that 'A Wali has power to grant something' which is not proven anywhere and you won't be able to prove it. You need to define what Tassaruf is and what can the Wali do in their Tassaruf. Prove that they grant a child with this Tassaruf.

 

Okay, I’ll entertain your line of reasoning for the sake of discussion.


Let’s say we accept Sayyid ‘Ali al-Khawwās’s statement that most awliyā’ don’t have tasarruf over certain things like children or wealth — and that these are from the treasures of Allah which He only grants to the Prophets through revelation.


Fine. I’ll concede that point for now.


But that raises two questions for you to answer:

1. If these treasures are granted to the Prophets, as the quote itself admits, then do you concede that I can go to Rasūlullāh ﷺ and ask him for something like a child, or wealth, or cure — because he has been given that tasarruf by Allah?
   If yes — then you just admitted the very form of istighāthah you’ve been rejecting.
   If no — then you’ve contradicted Sayyid ‘Ali al-Khawwās himself, who clearly says the Prophets do have this by way of waḥy.

So which is it?

1. Let’s say you continue to argue that awliyā’ don’t have tasarruf over everything. Fine — but do you concede that some awliyā’ do have tasarruf over some things?
   If yes — then do you also concede that it’s valid to ask those awliyā’ for those specific things Allah has granted them power over?

Because that’s all we’ve been saying from the beginning:

• We don’t claim every wali can do everything.
• We say some are granted certain karāmāt and tasarruf.
• And if a person asks them — believing they act only by Allah’s permission — then that request is valid, and in line with Sunni theology, majāz, and sababiyyah.

So if you accept Sayyid ‘Ali’s words, you’ve just admitted two things:

• That the Prophet ﷺ can be asked for things others cannot be asked for.
• And that some awliyā’ can be asked for what Allah has granted them tasarruf over.

Meaning: your entire “you can’t ask a wali for a child” campaign only works if you assume the wali has no tasarruf and that the person asking believes he acts independently — which no one here has claimed.


You’re arguing against positions no one actually holds, while quoting texts that refute your own conclusion.

 

Sigh

 

Hassan, you’re swinging wild again.


Let’s just be honest here — you’re not responding to the actual argument. You’re reacting to words you misread, concepts you don’t understand, and scholars you keep quoting without grasping their point.


Your latest outburst — accusing me of “twisting Shaykh Zayni Dahlan’s words” — is based on a fundamental failure to understand what was being said. I never claimed Shaykh Zayni Dahlan used the word “child.” That was an illustrative example, not a claim about what the Shaykh literally said. The point — which you continue to miss — was about the form of istighāthah that involves addressing the wali directly to ask for help, relief, or fulfillment of a need, and why this is not shirk.


What Shaykh Zayni Dahlan is doing in his own words is offering an ilzāmī jawāb to those who raise objections to such phrases. He explains that the objection is often based on ألفاظ موهمة — “phrases that could seem problematic” — and clarifies that even when someone says something like “O wali, help me,” the intended meaning is that the wali acts bi idhnillah, as a means, never independently. That’s majāz ‘aqlī, and it’s well-established in Arabic rhetoric and Sunni theology. His entire point is to defend the permissibility of this form of speech when accompanied by correct belief — not to condemn it.


But instead of engaging with that argument, you fixated on one example — the word “child” — and acted like I claimed Shaykh Zayni Dahlan explicitly said “a wali can grant a child.” That wasn’t the claim. That wasn’t the point. And frankly, that kind of deflection shows you don’t have an answer to what was actually being discussed.


Then, to make things even more bizarre, you pivoted to quoting Shaykh Alawi al-Maliki — as if that somehow strengthens your case. But the quote you posted from Shaykh Alawi actually destroys your own argument. He writes:


فإن الناس إنما يطلبون منهم أن يتسببوا عند ربهم في قضاء ما طلبوه من الله…

People only ask them to act as intermediaries with their Lord in fulfilling what they asked from Allah.


That’s literally the framework of istighāthah that you’ve been trying to disprove this entire time. He’s saying that even if someone uses direct wording — “O Prophet, cure me” or “help me” — the intent is not independent action. It’s seeking tawassul, du‘ā, or sababiyyah — and as long as the belief is correct, the form of the request is not shirk. Shaykh Alawi is defending the language of direct request with the aqīdah of tawḥīd — something you’ve been claiming is impermissible.


So once again, you’ve quoted a scholar who refutes your position and supports the view you’re trying to fight.


Your comment about “you won’t find Qur’an or hadith saying a wali can grant a child” is meaningless. No one claimed that. That’s a strawman you built to feel like you’ve scored a point. The real issue is not whether those exact words appear in Qur’an or hadith — it’s whether the concept of a wali being a sabab, by du‘ā or karāmah, bi idhnillah, is valid. And it absolutely is. That’s why karāmāt are a well-established part of Sunni creed — affirmed by Ahl al-Sunnah, denied only by the Mu‘tazilah and the Wahhabis. Ironically, in trying to accuse others of Mu‘tazili tendencies, you’ve just repeated their denial of karāmah, sababiyyah, and figurative language.


No one is saying a wali independently gives anything. That would be shirk. The position being defended — by Shaykh Zayni Dahlan, Shaykh Alawi, and classical scholars before them — is that even if a literal phrase is used, the belief matters more than the form. The intent is intercession, du‘ā, or invoking a sabab that Allah empowered. And that’s exactly how we speak every day when we say “the doctor cured me” or “the medication saved his life.” It’s majāz — not shirk. It’s tawḥīd with figurative language — not false belief.


You’ve misunderstood every text you’ve quoted. You’ve confused illustrative examples with theological claims. You’ve quoted scholars that refute your own argument. And you’ve ignored centuries of Sunni discourse on how majāz, sababiyyah, and karāmah function.


You’re not defending tawḥīd. You’re just showing everyone you don’t understand the tradition you’re trying to weaponize.


We’ll make du‘ā for you. Through a wali, of course.

Bi idhnillah.

 

What exactly is your point here?


These posts are clearly showing that when the awaam ask a wali for help, they do so believing the wali is not acting independently of Allah — which is precisely what we’ve been saying from the beginning.


Are you now trying to pretend that this was your position all along?


Because your entire argument has been aimed at rejecting this very form of istighāthah — where the wali is addressed directly and asked for something. And yet these posts you’re sharing are defending that exact practice.


So which is it?

 

Sayyiduna Ali al-Khawaas states that majority of Awliya don't even have Tassaruf. I've quoted scholars after scholars in both threads on Istigatha backing up my point. Waiting for evidences for a Wali can grant a child (without Dua) or a Wali has been given power to grant children. Can I any mainstream Ashari/Maturidi scholars who this please ? I haven't seen this at all from Imam Ahmad Rida Khan also, saying a Wali has a power given to him by Allah and with that power he can do these extraordinary things like grant children. If you believe that someone apart from Allah can grant you a child, that is worrying.

 

https://x.com/D1mashqi/status/1698036292330627298?t=zTvWDN7IyraB41PtICL6Zg&s=19

https://x.com/D1mashqi/status/1681982392066535424?t=5ampOoElTo0LaHAHn7wl6Q&s=19

These two threads prove ny point.

 

Next go please anyone?

Trying to twist Sh Zayni Dahlan's words into making it look like a Wali grants a child is the biggest cope I have ever seen lol. He doesn't say anything like that at all hahaha wow

As for Shaykh Alawi, read the full answer

وجوابه : أن هذا سوء فهم لما عليه المسلمون في قديم الدهر وحديثه ؛ فإن الناس إنما يطلبون منهم أن يتسببوا عند ربهم في قضاء ما طلبوه من الله عز وجل : بأن يخلقه سبحانه بسبب تشفعهم ودعائهم وتوجههم ؛ كما صح ذلك في الضرير وغيره ممن جاء طالباً مستغيثاً متوسلاً به إلى الله ، وقد أجابهم إلى طلبهم وجبر خواطرهم ، وحقق مرادهم بإذن الله ولم يقل صلى الله عليه وسلم لواحد منهم : أشركت .

You won't find anything from the Quran, Hadith or Salaf saying a Wali can grant a child. As for a Wali having some sort of power which he then acts upon, this is the belief of the Mutazila. You need to read Allama Sharaf's section on miracles of the Awliya.

A Wali granting a child or having the ability to grant a child is the most ridiculous thing I've heard and there's no proof of it. A human being able to grant a child to someone else without Dua? Ajeeb

 

You completely misunderstood (or deliberately misrepresented) Shaykh Alawi al-Maliki’s statement.


The Arabic text does not say that people are only allowed to ask for du‘ā and shafā‘ah — rather, he’s explaining why saying things like “O Prophet, cure me” or “repay my debt” is not shirk. Because the intent behind those words is: “Make du‘ā to Allah for my healing,” or “intercede with Allah for my need.”


He explicitly says:


فهم ما طلبوا منهم إلا ما أقدرهم الله عليه، وملكهم إياه من الدعاء والشفاعة


Which means: They are only asking from the Prophet what Allah has empowered him to do — namely, du‘ā and intercession.


This doesn’t mean the wording has to be limited to “O Prophet, make du‘ā for me” — it means that even if someone says “O Prophet, cure me,” the meaning is understood to be “intercede for my cure.”


This is مجاز (figurative expression) — and the entire point of this quote is to show that such statements are not shirk because the actual belief behind them is tawḥīd.


So instead of proving your point, this passage actually supports the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah position that istighāthah is valid when done with correct belief — even if the wording is literal.


Stop twisting the words of our scholars to fit your narrow understanding. You’re not refuting shirk — you’re refuting your own strawman.

 

Do you even understand what you’re reading and posting?


These scans aren’t helping your case — they’re actually proving the very form of istigatha you think you’re refuting.


Mufti Zayni Dahlan is giving an ilzami jawab here — responding to the objections against istigatha by addressing their reasoning, like the issue of الافاظ الموهمة.


And even then, the Shaykh says: maybe you misunderstood — and that what was intended was مجاز عقلي. Meaning, the effect isn’t inherent in the wali himself, but rather it occurs by the will of Allah, just like water quenches thirst not independently, but because Allah placed that effect in it.


So this directly refutes your “only du‘ā” argument — because Zayni Dahlan is not limiting it to just du‘ā. The entire point he’s making is that even if someone seeks a child through a wali — which, by the way, has countless historical precedents — it’s not believed that the wali grants it independently of Allah. That’s precisely why he brings up the concept of مجاز in the first place.

 

This is clear as day from Sh Zayni Dahlan.

وشبهة هؤلاء المانعين للتوسل : أنَّهم رأوا بعض العامة يتوسعون في الكلام، ويأتون بألفاظ توهم أنهم يعتقدون التأثير لغير الله تعالى ، ويطلبون مِنَ الصَّالحين أحياء وأمواتاً أشياء جرت العادة بأنها لا تُطلب إلَّا مِنَ الله تعالى ، ويقولون للولي : أفعل لي كذا وكذا ، وربَّما يعتقدون الولاية في أشخاص لم يتصفوا بها ، بل اتصفوا بالتخليط وعدم الاستقامة ، وينسبون لهم كرامات وخوارق عادات وأحوالاً ومقامات ليسوا بأهل لها ، ولم يوجد فيهم شيء منها .

فإنَّما أراد هؤلاء المانعون للتوسل أن يمنعوا العامة من تلك التوسعات ؛ دفعاً للإيهام ، وسداً للذريعة ، وإن كانوا يعلمون أنَّ العامة لا تعتقد تأثيراً ولا نفعاً ولا ضراً لغير الله تعالى ، ولا تقصد بالتوسل إلا التَّبَرُّكَ ، ولو أسندوا للأولياء شيئاً لا يعتقدون فيهم تأثيراً .

فنقول لهم : إذا كان الأمر كذلك ، وقصدتم سد الذريعة ، فما الحامل لكم على تكفير الأمة ؛ عالمهم وجاهلهم ،
خاصهم وعامهم ؟ وما الحامل لكم على منع التوسل مطلقاً ؟ بل كان ينبغي لكم أن تمنعوا العامة من الألفاظ الموهمة ، وتأمروهم سلوك الأدب في التوسل ، مع أنَّ تلك الألفاظ الموهمة يمكن حملها على الإسناد المجازي مجازاً عقلياً ؛ كما يحمل على ذلك قول القائل : هذا الطعام أشبعني ، وهذا الماء أرواني ، وهذا الدواء أو الطبيب نفعني ؛ فإنَّ ذلك كله عند أهل السنة محمول على المجاز العقلي ؛ فإنَّ الطعام لا يُشبع ، والمُشبع هو الله تعالى ، والطعام سبب عادي لا تأثير له ، وكذا ما بعده ، فالمسلم الموحد متى صدر منه إسناد الشيء لغير مَنْ هو له يجب حمله على المجاز العقلي ، وإسلامه وتوحيده قرينة على ذلك ، كما نص على ذلك علماء المعاني في كتبهم ، وأجمعوا عليه .