Istighathah: Seeking aid from other than Allah

[akabirofdeoband]

I have a confusion on this issue that maybe brother godilali can help with.
This goes back to the occasionalist thread-Allah creates each moment and it is all dependant ontologically on him for each instant.
As occasionalists we believe Allah(saw) is responsible for everything- I guess this is the ultimate Tawheed.
So when I ask my wife for salt, it is done knowing she is a sabab and all her actions are created and its from Allah(swt)
So that asking for help is allowed- but here the sabab is seen and explicit-

When the sufis ask for mADdad from the saints.they differ. on what that means off course
But can it be shirk in the light of the above- if they believe that Allah is creating each moment?

The mushriks don't believe in occasionalism so I can see why you would attack them
Also Aaami muslims probably dont understand occasionalism, so you might make Sadd adh dharai3 etc

But is it truly shirk?

Also for some of the saahib e haal they see the saint in kashf and ask for help so the sabab is there.
but if they articulate all of this and then say Maddad (and there is a long ta'wil that goes with it) then
shouldn't we try and make ta'wil to excuse people for kufr...wasn't this the way of Abu Hanifa.

I can see a lot of pros and cons to this so I guess i'm throwing it out for ideas

[SunniSeeker]

I have a confusion on this issue that maybe brother godilali can help with.
This goes back to the occasionalist thread-Allah creates each moment and it is all dependant ontologically on him for each instant.
As occasionalists we believe Allah(saw) is responsible for everything- I guess this is the ultimate Tawheed.
So when I ask my wife for salt, it is done knowing she is a sabab and all her actions are created and its from Allah(swt)
So that asking for help is allowed- but here the sabab is seen and explicit-

When the sufis ask for mADdad from the saints.they differ. on what that means off course
But can it be shirk in the light of the above- if they believe that Allah is creating each moment?

The mushriks don't believe in occasionalism so I can see why you would attack them
Also Aaami muslims probably dont understand occasionalism, so you might make Sadd adh dharai3 etc

But is it truly shirk?

Also for some of the saahib e haal they see the saint in kashf and ask for help so the sabab is there.
but if they articulate all of this and then say Maddad (and there is a long ta'wil that goes with it) then
shouldn't we try and make ta'wil to excuse people for kufr...wasn't this the way of Abu Hanifa.

I can see a lot of pros and cons to this so I guess i'm throwing it out for ideas

assalamu 'alaykum,

Yes ultimately, those who argue for the permissibility of istighatha always acknowledge that it is Allah that accepts, grants etc. That is why it is a fallacy to call it shirk and why this whole argument is redundant.

If you argue against it on the premise that the proponents actually beleive that the wali helps/assists independently of Allah then you are going to come to the conclusion that it is shirk. In this case never mind that kind of istighatha being shirk, the beleif that anyone/thing can have power independent of Allah is shirk. Period.

If however you acknowledge that no sane muslim believes the above, you have to conclude that they are not commiting shirk when they do istighatha. It's that simple. Assuming the above is a case of a 'straw man' argument, in the sense that what is being condemned is something nobody believes anyway.

So you see there really isn't an issue here ultimately, otherwise the fact that Shaykh Abdal Qadir Jilani RH is referred to as Gawth al Azam in the original article would be very problematic indeed, and how ironic would that be...?

It's very similar to dividing tawhid into rubooobiyah and ubooodiyah just so one can tarnish the muslims with shirk. Like I said, 'straw man' arguments.

JazakAllah Khayr for your post akhi, it makes a lot of sense to me.

wassalam.

[Saad]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

It would be wrong to use the term ghaws in the sense of ma fawq al-asbab. Ahl al-Sunnah don't use it in that sense while Ahl al-Bid'ah do.

Already discussed here.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post469760

Scholars who have declared it shirk, none of them have said its shirk only if believed that one who is called for help is independent of Allah. I am sure they were aware of it but they didn't make any distinction. This is only obfuscation on the part of proponents of Istighathah. It has to be with 'ibadah and not occasionalism. Also no one has made takfir of proponents of Istighathah.

Shah Waliullah divided tawhid into 4. http://deoband.org/2010/05/aqida/all...-unity-of-god/

He writes,

"You should know that there are four degrees (maratib) of tawhid:

1.The first is the restriction of necessary existence (wujub al-wujud) to Him, may He be exalted, for none other than He is Necessary.

2.The second is the restriction of the creation (khalq) of the Throne, the Heavens, the earth, and the rest of the substances to Him, may he be Exalted. These two levels were not discussed in the divine scriptures, and the Arab polytheists, Jews, and Christians did not disagree about them; rather Magnificent Qur’an asserted that these were premises accepted by them.

3.The third is restricting the management (tadbir) of the heavens and earth and what lies between them to Him, may He be Exalted.

4.The fourth is that no one besides Him is entitled to be worshiped (’ibadah), and these two are intertwined and inseparable due to a natural connection between them."

[akabirofdeoband]

Let me clarify a bit more.
I have a mobile Phone.
It works in England....But its connection doesnt work in USA
I use it in england,dial 999 and shout help help
This isn't shirk- There is a sabab. The mobile works .I expect the police to answer.There is a sabab.
The police help bi idhinllah.
I try using it in USA shouting help help.
The phone doesnt work.
I thought there was a sabab, but there isnt.The police cant help me cos they cant hear me.
Is this SHIRK

Or is this just misunderstanding.

Because lets change the example.
The mobile phone in ENgland is dunya

And the mobile in USA is asking the wali in Barzakh

Does that makes sense?


No what some of the sufis possibly say is that in fact there are asbaab Barzkahi, and these are Mujarrab, and tried by ahlul kashf throughout time.
This is their argument.
And to reject kashf is fine so they will allow you to reject it, but they will say don't call us mushrik because we are occasionalists,


Having said All of that there are a lot of juhaal that believe the awliya have their own tasaruf in creation and they ask them in that light, which might be actually shirk

[Saad]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Read the article again. Understand the difference between ma fawq al-asbab and ma taht al-asbab.

It has nothing to do with kashf, etc. Kashf is even not ikhtiyari. If it is not allowed to ask for help at the grave, then kashf or non-kashf doesn't make a difference. As Imam Gangohi said, “The second is to address the person of the grave by saying, ‘You fulfil my work’. This is shirk, regardless of whether this is said at the grave or away from it."

http://deoband.org/2009/02/aqida/dev...efs/istigatha/

So, stick to the understanding of akabir.

[akabirofdeoband]

Saad
we say there is no sabab.
They say there is a sabab.
So we could say they are lying
we could say they are making a bida
we could say they are deluded
but shirk??

I think I'm not managing to explain this.

[akabirofdeoband]

Just to clarify saad
I feel v uncomfortable with istighaatha and would never do it
But would just like more clarification from the ulema on how to address those points

[Saad]

Assalam o 'alaykum,

Refer to the first part of Rasa'il Rashidiyyah of Imam Gangohi and Al-Khayr al-Kathir of Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi. Read what they have to say about asking the dead for help with the belief that they are merely means (sabab). They both state its shirk.

There is no doubt in this belief (thinking the dead person to be a sabab) being a ma'siya i'tiqaadiya, and any act of reverence (resembling an act of worship) based on this thinking being a ma'siya 'amaliya. There is no doubt in either of these two. It is based on this "resemblance to worship" that in the itlaaqaat of the Shariah such thinking and practice is often referred to as "shirk". It is not shirk jali though which would be kufr.

This is because in order to be shirk jali it must be the opposite to tawheed and what is entailed thereby (occasionalism).. Since tawheed is rationally necessary, this must be rationally incoherent. The above, though without proof, or more accurately against proof, is not rationally incoherent to the level where it would contradict tawheed. Thus it is not shirk jali.

Maulana Thanwi elaborates on this in the footnote of page 707 in Bawadir.

I showed my reply to Mufti Husain prior to posting it. In this issue, I don't adopt anything different than what he does. His discussions on the issue can be found by searching the archives.

No. I do not say that this issue is analogous to ta'wil being marjooh and not outright batil.

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post525919

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post526038

[akabirofdeoband]

Ja zakallahu Khayrun

You're site has some amazing material .
I hope it grows insha'allah

[insufficient]

Bro akabirofdeoband, the things you are putting forward are along the exact same lines as my own thoughts.

br. Saad, I will look into the material suggested .