When does Istighaatha fall under Kufr or Shirk?

Has anyone got anything useful or anything of substance they can quote apart from emotional arguments?

 

So Hasan01234. How are duas answered? Sometimes by favourable events that lead to what is sought after, sometimes by preventing the opposite of happening. Sometimes in unusual and unexpected ways. Does miracles of the Anbiya and Awliya end after their passing?

An accepted dua to Allah can be noticed in different ways and the dua of help may be seen in many different ways, do not put a limit on Allah's Power.
It could be answered by sending angels, jinns directly or indirectly, perhaps a stranger who'll guide you to what you are seeking.

It is as if you stopped at the 'they make dua' then just never thought about what that would imply. Just to defend your own view of istigatha and tawwasul.

 

Take a look at Shaykh Alawi al-Maliki's answer to this in Mafahim under the chapter, 'Is it Shirk to seek something no one is capable of giving except Allah?' He says right at the end

فالقائل : يا نبي الله ؛ اشفني أو اقض ديني ، فإنما يريد اشفع لي في الشفاء وادع لي بقضاء ديني ، وتوجه إلى الله في شأني ، فهم ما طلبوا منهم إلا ما أقدرهم الله عليه ، وملكهم إياه من الدعاء والتشفع .

He says (summarised), if someone says 'O Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم of Allah cure me, or repay my debt', Shaykh Alawi says there are not seeking anything except what Allah has empowered them with and what they possess WHICH IS JUST DUA AND INTERCESSION. see scans.

I'll try to choose my wording as carefully as I can but when people used to approach the Prophet peace be upon him for things, like Forgiveness and companionship in Jannah, they didn't mean that He peace be upon him would grant it but he would do dua for it. (This is backed up by Imam al-Subki who I've posted in the other thread on Istigatha).

 

For me it's simple, when a Wali was alive, you wouldn't approach them and ask them to grant you a child or to cure you from sickness or to repay your debt, you would ask them to do dua on your behalf because they are closer to Allah than you. Even if you said to a Wali when he was alive, 'O Wali grant me a child', you would 100 percent mean, 'O Wali do dua to Allah that he grants me a child'. Even thought this wording should be discouraged as it gives the wrong impression, because the person asking is a Muslim, we take his speech to mean that Allah is the real giver.

Now if you're asking a wali to do dua for you when he's alive, why after his death, does he gain the power to somehow grant you a child? He doesn't. But he can still do dua on your behalf. A Wali isn't given the power either to grant you a child. The most they can do is dua. Giving a child is exclusive to Allah and I'm sure if you ask any expert in Kalaam, they would say this is borderline kufr, is not outright kufr depending on the intention. Sh Zayni Dahlan says wording like this is wrong but a fatwa of kufr is not given because being a Muslim is a Qarina so we take this wording as Majaz Aqli. I'd like to think that no one actually believes a Wali gives a child, even if it is with a power that Allah has given but this is not established at all whatsoever. This could be borderline kufr. They don't possess anything except Dua and intercession.

 

There is a fatwa still in manuscript form on the permissiblilty on saying 'Ya Abdal Qadir Jilani Shayan lillah' which is endorsed by scholars like Muhammad Abdul Baqi Farangi Mahalli and Ayn al-Qadat al-Haiderbadi. In the endorsement of Muhammad Abdul Baqi Farangi Mahalli he states (summarised):
- The hearing and seeing of the Prophets and Awliya is established after their passing
- When people call out for example and say 'Ya Abdul Qadir Jilani', there's no problem because they are seeking intercession and waseela
- He says no one after their passing possesses any Tassaruf in Wujud*, there is no giver or gifter except Allah
- He says nothing is sought from them EXCEPT with what they possess which is Tawassul. (Meaning they don't possess anything except they can intercede and do Dua on your behalf)

*I don't think he denies tassaruf after death absoutely but Tassaruf fil Wujud, interpret that how you want. He states
لا يملك شيءا من التصرف في الوجود

Scan below

 

Jazakallah khayr for your reply. I have looked into the Ayaat you quoted and to be honest none of them were news to me.

I am going to keep it brief as possible. Here are the Ayaat you quoted in the order you quoted them:

12:40,
3:64,
5:72,

13:36,
16:65,
18:110,
24:55.

Only Ayah in the bold actually tackles issue at hand rest are against your stance, or at least do not support your position in anyway or form.

The one that does tackle the issue; primarily is talking about minor Shirk ar-Riya. IF that is correct than the Ayah is about Shirk in Ibadah and not about Shirk is/of Ibadah. Secondly the usage of word worship is in meaning of obedience as is in the case of ayaat which say, o my father worship not Satan, and O mankind did i not tell you not to worship Satan. You cannot be taking usage of Ibadah literally.

It is better for me to referr this subject to scholars than discuss here. It is neither beneficial for you or for me, and definately not common folk. It will only create confusion.

Salam alaykum.

 

so in other words, if one keeps a lucky charm, or a statue with them for good luck like his favourite pop star's, or believes that the statue or the good luck charm or a ring can harm or help and asks it (the statue) for help but doesn't affirm any of the following then they are stupid but not mushrik: divinity, intrinsic capability, wajib ul wujud, worthy of worship etc?

 

jazak Allahu khaira mawlana abu hasan.

 

Mawlana, can you clarify when performing istigathah, what request would be deemed kufr and/or haraam?

 

the mushrikin of makkah deemed their idols as junior gods. and they believed like the mushrikin of hindostan that these stones have the power to help or harm and hence they ought to be worshipped.

we do not worship awliya or anbiya
we do not consider them gods
we do not consider them as being able to help without the leave of Allah or against His Will (al iyadhu billah)
we do not consider them as absolute givers
we do not consider them as equal to or partners in Attributes of Allah (ma'adhAllah)

we believe they are slaves of Allah, they are humans like us, but they have a special place near Allah vide the hadith: [literal translation]: "i become his hand by which he holds.." meaning Allah ta'ala by His Own Will has granted them powers of dispensation [within the limits Granted by Allah and by His leave].

 

unless of course, you intend a voice activated remote control mechanism - such as "alexa help me with my homework".
this is not shirk.

 

the classical definition of ilaah = worthy of worship.
the idol at the outset is deemed 'worthy of worship' and hence 'asking' it is shirk akbar.

 

am sorry brother but you don't seem to understand the basic meanings of words.

what do you mean by an 'idol'?

in the context of shirk/polytheism, idolatry:
the statue of liberty in NY is not an idol
the statue of lenin in st.petersburg is not an idol
the celebrity singer-dancer-actor 'idol' is NOT an 'idol'

HOWEVER,
the statue of buddha in bamiyan
the statue of buddha in bodh gaya
the statue in sao paulo
or the numerous stones worshipped by hindus
the various self styled swamis or cult leaders who are deemed as gods or incarnations or whatever nonsense (nasta'ghfirullah wa na'udhu billah min dhalik)

are all idols meaning 'they are worshipped as gods'.

===
thus the definition of "Sanam" or "idol" MEANS that it is deemed a god (al iyadhu billah - laa ilaaha illaa Allah, waHdahu laa sharika lah)

now you cannot change the definition and say: 'i am asking it for help with the intention that Allah is the real giver' does not alter the fact that, the idol in the first place is deemed a god - and one becomes a mushrik instantly. the secondary clause of "by Allah's will" has no implication.

if you said: "can i ask a stone - or the door of my house" or "can i ask lenin's statue to help"
we would say that it is extreme stupidity - but not shirk. because the door or the stone is not deemed a god at the outset. nobody worships lenin's statue.

HOWEVER, hindus worship anything - including trump. so suppose they began worshipping a stone barricade on the road - (look it up) now asking THIS stone would be no different than asking any other idol. because, this is now deemed a god or whatever related to their god.

so yes. in this case it is shirk akbar.
===

 

jazak Allahu khaira for you answers and granting your precious time.

 

'grant you a house' in what context? as a minister or influential person or a wealthy fasiq or kafir who is alive. it is not shirk akbar. it is makruh at worst.

to ask a kafir for dua is bordering on kufr; as it contradicts the explicit verse that the dua of kafir is rejected. this was one of our objections to nazim qubrusi asking the pope to do dua - because there was an element of honouring religious leader of kafirs, which is kufr according to fuqaha.

to ask a muslim fasiq for dua who is alive is not kufr. because Allah ta'ala will accept the dua of both righteous and sinful muslims. however, if it may imply respect or increase his delusion, it is disliked to ask him for dua - because ulama have said that a fasiq mu'lin should not be shown respect. seeking dua on a regular day is a form of honouring the person.

however, if the person is going on Hajj or visiting madinah or on a journey - asking them (i.e. a muslim fasiq) to do dua, as is common, does not fall under 'honouring the person' per se, but relying on the acceptance of dua in holy places such as multazam or acceptance of dua in a journey.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

it beggars belief that a muslim does not know this basic definition! initially i did not want to answer this question, but i couldn't resist quoting a few explicit aayat - those which employ idiom (such as تَدۡعُونَ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ ) are numerous to list:

أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعۡبُدُوۤا۟ إِلَّاۤ إِیَّاهُۚ

meaning - that worshiping anyone other than Him is shirk.

وَمَاۤ أُمِرُوۤا۟ إِلَّا لِیَعۡبُدُوۤا۟ إِلَـٰهࣰا وَ ٰ⁠حِدࣰاۖ


أَلَّا نَعۡبُدَ إِلَّا ٱللَّهَ وَلَا نُشۡرِكَ بِهِۦ شَیۡـࣰٔا وَلَا یَتَّخِذَ بَعۡضُنَا بَعۡضًا أَرۡبَابࣰا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِۚ


وَٱعۡبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَلَا تُشۡرِكُوا۟ بِهِۦ شَیۡـࣰٔاۖ

here ibadah of Allah is juxtaposed with shirk - meaning worshipping anything other than Allah is shirk.


وَقَالَ ٱلۡمَسِیحُ یَـٰبَنِیۤ إِسۡرَ ٰ⁠ۤءِیلَ ٱعۡبُدُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ رَبِّی وَرَبَّكُمۡۖ إِنَّهُۥ مَن یُشۡرِكۡ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدۡ حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ عَلَیۡهِ ٱلۡجَنَّةَ وَمَأۡوَىٰهُ ٱلنَّارُۖ

this is in context of "iybudu Allah" - implying that the opposite is shirk as mentioned in the next portion of the aayah.


قُلۡ إِنَّمَاۤ أُمِرۡتُ أَنۡ أَعۡبُدَ ٱللَّهَ وَلَاۤ أُشۡرِكَ بِهِۦۤۚ



وَقَالَ ٱلَّذِینَ أَشۡرَكُوا۟ لَوۡ شَاۤءَ ٱللَّهُ مَا عَبَدۡنَا مِن دُونِهِۦ مِن شَیۡءࣲ



وَلَا یُشۡرِكۡ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِۦۤ أَحَدَۢا


یَعۡبُدُونَنِی لَا یُشۡرِكُونَ بِی شَیۡـࣰٔاۚ


may Allah ta'ala give guidance.

 

My apologies hazrat. I hope you can overlook this incident. I tried to to ask too many pedantic questions on the forum and my initial question on this thread was the following, before the thread took a turn:
"i have heard that asking an idol for help with the belief that it will give with the will of Allah is shirk al akbar.
Can anyone please explain why (principly) it would be shirk al akbar? Because the definition of shirk is that something falls under if it means association with the dhaat (worshiping another or considering another to be wajib ul wujud) or in sifaat (mentioned below from the pdf shared by mawlana aqdas sahab in another thread about tawhid and shirk)."
I don't know how to add this as a reply since it is from the 3rd page and this is the 1st page, apologies.
However, when the thread took a turn, that is when I asked that question because I had always thought that it was shirk as well so when heard a new opinion, I though to get a clarification.

I apologise for my vague language. I meant that if someone has that belief, would it be shirk. You replied, and very helpfully so. Jazak Allahhu khaira for your answer.
The reason for asking this was because this is what the wahabis accuse us of doing. They say that the aforementioned scenario is what the mushrikeen of makkah fell into (from what I understand, or at least they say something very similar). I just wanted the sunni input on the matter, which you kindly granted.
Question: Could you please also kindly explain, principly, why this would be shirk according to the definition of what constitutes shirk - meaning why this comes unders shirk fil dhaat or sifat - in other words, the second question on this thread please. May Allah reward you for your work.

Does this mean it is shirk to ask a fasiq who is alive to grant you a house (for example), or make dua for you? This would be shirk al akbar?

 

For my own personal study and research, I like to know, who said this "divide Tawheed into Zaat and Sifaat" or this is your own conclusion?

Why not just divide it into Zaat / Dhaat ? why DhaaT and siFaT ? why not Dhat , SiFat and Asma ?

the 3 categories of Tawhid is not wahhabi or salafi innovation

look here: https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/on-classification-of-tawhid.2439/

If you are new to this you can do further study and may be you should see the clear difference between the SUNNI POINT OF VIEW VS WAHABI SALAFI point of view


Sunni point of view here
https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/on-classification-of-tawhid.2439/


Wahabi Salafi point of view here
https://www.salafiri.com/yes-the-salaf-divided-tawhid-into-3-categories/


in case you are having difficulty understanding the difference, we can discuss that in another thread

 

I divide Tawheed into Zaat and Sifaat. What you mentioned are Wahhabi definitions which have no Tawheed/One-ness in them.

Their Tawheed Ulluhiyyah is to worship Allah only and alone ... iF that is the case than to believe Jesus is god but not worship him doesn't negate their Tawheed Ulluhiyyah.

Their Tawheed Rububiyyah is Allah is creator manager doer of all. He gives life, takes life, this is Tawheed Rububiyyah ... Yet Prophet Isa gave made clay figurines into living birds bi iznillah. If u go by their Tawheed Rububiyyah prophet isa alahayhis salam is upon station of Rabb bi iznillah.

Their Tawheed Sifaat has no Tawheed in it. I am going to narrow it down to part where problems become apparent. Allah is Rauf Raheem. In their Minhaj Rauf Raheem is attribute n unique to Allah. Just mere lafzi affirmation establishes tawheed of it n Shirk would be ascribing these to a creation. Only problem is Prophet is said to be Rauf N Raheem too in Quran. Either Rauf Raheem are not unique to in Allah, and that doesnt go down well either because every sift n ism is unique to Him like it is to none other. So there Tawheed Sifaat has no way of making distinxtion between Him and His creations attributes. Hence no Tawheed in it.

These are products of a dumb mammals mind, Ibn Taymiyyah. Whose ignorance n lack of knowledge of Tawheed is screamingly evident for anyone who has studied Muslim methodology.

Most of you if not all of u are Wahhabi definition of Tawheed Ulluhiyyah. Which is established n negated on ibadah n not belief.

 

Please quote me couple.