Asʿharī school on worship and istighāthā: clarifying the mis-representations by salafīs and barelvīs

Contents

1 Introduction
2 Principled view on Rubūbiyyah debate
2.1 Views of alSanusi (rh) (d. 1485AD/890AH)
2.1.1 Similarity of Shirk via Taqarrub in today’s claimants to Islām
2.2 Allegations of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) (d. 1328AD/728AH)
2.3 Views of Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) (d. 1037AD/429AH)
2.4 Views of Al-Rāzī (rh) (d. 1210AD/606AH) on Rubūbiyyah (ربوبية; Providence of Allāh(swt) ) and ʿIbādāh (عبادة; worship)
2.5 The Imām himself on Istighāthā
2.6 Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) (d. 1480AD/855AH) on rubūbīyyah, worship and duā (دعا; invokation)
2.7 Deobandies vs Barelvis on Ilmul-Ghayb and Mukhtar e kul
2.8 Walīullah family on Istighātha (إستغاثة: invoking for help)
2.9 Ashʿarism, “dependent” powers of creation and Ahmad Raza Khan
2.10 Conclusion
2.10.1 Understanding worship
2.10.2 Major shirk can take place without shirk in rubūbiyyah
2.10.3 Strawmanning of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) should be avoided
2.10.4 Psuedo-Ashʿarīs are not Asʿharīs

1 Introduction

In this article, I will shed light on the view of Asʿharī (أشعري) school and its prominent scholars on their understanding of worship as well as its consequences on the question of Istighātha. Specifically, a number of neo-Asʿharīs have been postulating that Shirk in ʿIbādāh cannot be concieved without shirk in Rubūbiyyah. As well as these barelvī neo-Asʿharīs have turned making Istighātha great as one of their creedal issue—un unfortunate happening indeed. They do not recognize shirk via ʿIbādāh unless it is conditioned on shirk in Rubūbiyyah, and it is considered to be one of the major creedal points of Atharīs following Hatim al-Awni (alive).

To make it clear, the original claim of Hatim al-Awni can be found in his short treatise on ʿIbādāh, where he asserts that for it to be said that a person is worshiping anything besides Allāh(swt) , he must believe in either of two beliefs: (i) the object of worship is independent of Allāh(swt) and (ii) Allāh(swt) is unable to govern His kingdom, so He needs helpers. If you were to assert that a saint created heavens and the earth (dependent on God), has an encompassing knowledge/power over creations (dependent on God), that would not be Shirk, and neither would it be Shirk to dedicate all acts of ʿIbādāh such as sacrifice, Ṣalāh, etc, so long as one does not believe in the two clauses that Hatim al-Awni formulates. So let us have a look at major Ashʿarī scholars and their views: Al-Rāzī (rh) , alSanusi (rh) , and Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) .

On the other hand, we also find Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) accusing the Ashʿarī school of having a deficient view of tawḥīd (توحيد; islamic monotheism)—as deficient as that of pagans essentially.

2 Principled view on Rubūbiyyah debate

In order to understand the issue honestly and properly, one must formulate some basic principles. Al-Shāshī (rh) (d. 956AD/344AH) writes in his textbook Uṣūl work that among the wrong arguments is to argue that just because one Ilah (underlying cause of a ruling) does not exist, the ruling does not exist, without negating other possible underlying causes. الِاسْتِدْلال بِعَدَمِ العلَّة على عدم الحكم

To make it simple: consider a person who urinates and then defacates after one hour. His wuḍū will be broken due to two reasons, therefore it will not be sufficient to say that if he did not urinate, his wuḍū did not break.

This is related to the Rubūbiyyah debate in the following manner: (i) proving that some pagans had shirk in Rubūbiyyah is one claim, (ii) proving that all pagans had shirk in Rubūbiyyah is another claim, and (iii) proving that all pagans only had shirk in Rubūbiyyah, while shirk in worship cannot be defined without shirk in Rubūbiyyah is another claim. In order to prove (iii), proving (i) or even (ii) is not sufficient. Generally speaking, a consistent flaw of awnists or pseudo-ashʿarīs is that they prove (iii) by proving (i).

Whereas we claim that if we prove even one route of major shirk that does not involve direct shirk in Rubūbiyyah, their whole claim is gone, and it is proven that major shirk can take place without direct shirk in Rubūbiyyah, and this is undeniably proven in the kalām works of both the Ashʿarīs and the Māturīdīs, especially with regards to the case of how the scholars of both schools explain the shirk of pagans who worshiped idols to draw closer to Allāh(swt) . I will suffice with citing Ashʿarī scholars in this document, whereas Māturīdī citations are even more numerous.

2.1 Views of alSanusi (rh)

He classifies 6 types of major Shirk:

• 1. Shirk-ul-Istiqlāl: This is belief in multiple independent deities, like Shirk of Majūs.
• 2. Shirk-u-tabīḍ: This is belief in God being composed of multiple entities like Shirk of Naṣārā.
• 3. Shirk-u-Taqrīb: This is to worship others besides Allah to get closer to Allah, like Shirk of Jahili Arabs.
• 4. Shirk of Taqlīd: This is to worship other than Allah following others, like Shirk of later pagans.
• 5. Believing in ta’thīr for Asbāb.
• 6. Doing acts for other than Allah.

He says that the categories (1-4) are major Shirk by default. In (5) he says that if someone believes in means that basically act independently, then this is by ijma’ kufr (and Shirk). (6) would be minor Shirk.

Focussing on the third bullet or even fourth bullet in the list of alSanusi (rh) , the question that we pose to the Barelvī Ashʿarīs or Awnist-Atharīs who deny that shirk in ʿIbādāh can take place without shirk in Rubūbiyyah, can anyone find where is shirk in Rubūbiyyah in what alSanusi (rh) describes as major Shirk ?.

Likewise, the Awnists would say that this was Shirk because these intercessors had tathīr or independence or ability to overturn the will of Allāh(swt) . However, we find that alSanusi (rh) simply links it to devoting acts of worship to other than Allāh(swt) based on the assumption that it is against Adab (respect) to worship the too sublime God directly. وأما الشرك التقرب الذي دان به متقدمو الجاهلية، فشبهتهم الحامِلةُ لَهُم على ذلك: تَسوِيل الشيطانُ اللَّعين لهم إذ وسوس لَهُم: إنَّ عِبادَتِكُم للمولى العظيم على ما أنتم عليه من غاية الضُّعفِ والدَّناءةِ والعجزِ والمهَانةِ، و تركِكُم التقرب إليه بعبادة من هو أعلى منكم عنده وأشرف وأقوى، كالملائكة والشَّمس والقمر والنُّجوم والنَّار ونحوها، سُوءُ أدَبٍ عظيم، ألا ترى في الشّاهِد أنَّ تخطَّي الأدنى الحَقير جِدا خدمة الحاكم والقائد والوزير ونحوهم مما هو شريف عند الملك إلى الملك إبتداء سوء أدب على الملك، لَما فيه مِن تجاسُرِ الحقير على القربِ منه وعدم مراعاة هيبته و عظمته بالتوسل إليه من بُعدٍ بِمَن يُمكِنهُ التوصُّلَ إلى خِدمته من أعوانه و خواص مماليكه

Then alSanusi (rh) calls this Shirk in Rubūbiyyah ? No ! He calls this Shirk in ʿIbādāh and Ulūhiyyah (ألوهية; Singling out Allāh(swt) for worship). Furthermore, he also differentiates it from the muslims doing intercession with Rasūlullāh(sa) , which does not include doing worship of Rasūlullāh(sa) . Lets say someone decides to offer five times prayers to Rasūlullāh(sa) , fast and sacrifice for him, with the belief that Allāh(swt) is too sublime to be offered these acts, that would be the same as Shirk of pagans, but muslims do not do that. However, we find a number of ‘’Abdul-Rasūl Majhul Ashʿarīs” parroting the claims of Awnists (including one Deo-Awni graduate) that even if someone literally prostrates to an idol directing the act to the idol, it would be kufr but not shirk. I will deal with their article separately. Coming to the question of intercession and taqarrub. What is and what is not the Shirk via intercession or taqarrub:

• Belief that God cannot be worshiped due to being too sublime and humans being too impure, or due to God being too far spatially or due to a simple God who cannot be unknown except via Imāms.
• Dedicating specific acts that are customarily recognized as manifestations of worship, to other than Allāh(swt) .
• Belief in a perfect intercessor whom God never refuses or can never refuse.

What is not major Shirk:

• Going to grave of a saint believing that he hears in the near vicinity and asking him to make duā to Allāh(swt) .
• Asking Allāh(swt) to make angels, saints, or prophets, to pray for you.
• Asking Allāh(swt) for the sake of one’s love for the prophet or his maqām.

2.1.1 Similarity of Shirk via Taqarrub in today’s claimants to Islām

It should also be said that the view AhluSunnah is unlike the view of Najdīs and other extremists, we do not hasten to do takfīr on someone doing tawassul or istighāthā with a ta’wīl that prevents takfīr.

But it is dishonest to say that the exact likeness of Shirk via Taqarrub of pagans is not found in some fringes of deviant sects, such as you can see a shīah (شيعة; shia sect) scholar claiming that you cannot make duā to Allāh(swt) due to Allāh(swt) being too sublime, you must necessarily go make duā to the AhlulBayt. Then we have a Russian (fake) “Sufi” who explicitly compares Allāh(swt) to Putin and just like you cannot approach Putin without approaching his ministers, you do not approach Allāh(swt) without approaching Awliyā. Such is blatant Shirk expelling from the fold of Islām for which the Shirk apologists keep offering their gymnastical apologies.

A text similar to this is found in the works of Ahmad Raza Khan (d. 1921AH), what is known as the infamous Ya Allah or Ya Junaid dilemna of a drowning man. In this story, the man was crossing the water saying Ya Junaid and Shayṭān whispered to him to say Ya Allah so he said Ya Allah and started drowning. The story ends with a footnote: “If you have not reached Junaid, how can you reach Allāh(swt) ”. This is no different than what alSanusi (rh) describes as the shirk of pagans who considered it against respect to approach Allāh(swt) .

However, to be fair to Ahmad Raza Khan, it is mentioned from Asrār Rashīd that Ahmad Raza Khan elsewhere called this story inauthentic. However, in essence it only doubts the authenticity but does not doubt that Ahmad Raza Khan cited the story in his works and also failed to understand why it is problematic.

2.2 Allegations of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh)

In a number of his works, Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) is seen accusing Ashʿarī school and the Mutakalimūn of the following:

• You say that an ilāh means the one who can create.
• Pagans believed that only Allāh(swt) is the creator.
• In your view, pagans fulfilled there is no ilāh except Allāh(swt) , thus your conception of tawḥīd is as deficient as that of pagans.

Not to mention that Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) did not really engage with the Māturīdī (ماتريدي) school and in the Māturīdī school, the dominant view of translating the word ilāh is the same as that of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) . Coming back to his attacks on Ashʿarīs, there are many references for his charges such as وليس المراد «بالإله» هو القادر على الاختراع، كما ظنّه من ظنّه من أئمة المتكلمين، حيث ظن أن الإلهية هي القدرة على الاختراع، وأن من أقر بأن الله هو القادر على الاختراع دون غيره فقد شهد أنه لا إله إلا هو، فإن المشركين كانوا يقرُّون بهذا وهم مشركون كما تقدم بيانه والإلهية تتضمن استحقاقه للعبادة والدعاء لا أنها بمعنى القدرة على الاختراع كما يذكر ذلك عن الأشعري فإن هذا هو الربوبية التي كان المشركون يقرون بها وأنَّ هَذا هُوَ مَعْنى قَوْلِنا لا إلَهَ إلّا اللَّهُ حَتّى قَدْ يَجْعَلُوا مَعْنى الإلَهِيَّةِ القُدْرَةَ عَلى الِاخْتِراعِ ومَعْلُومٌ أنَّ المُشْرِكِينَ مِن العَرَبِ الَّذِينَ بُعِثَ إلَيْهِمْ مُحَمَّدٌ ﷺ أوَّلًا: لَمْ يَكُونُوا يُخالِفُونَهُ فِي هَذا بَلْ كانُوا يُقِرُّونَ بِأنَّ اللَّهَ خالِقُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ

The response to this charge is as follows:

Indeed, the Mutakalimūn of the Ashʿarī school did define an Ilāh with the definition of a creator but they did not restrict major shirk to considering someone an Ilāh (as per their definition). This reduces the attack of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) to a strawman. This is clear in the works of major scholars of the school prior to Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) and one can just say that he should have been more charitable in his reading before accusing a huge body of scholars and Aimah of AhluSunnah with having the same tawḥīd as pagans. Moreover, in the view of the Ashʿarī school, the right of worship follows from other attributes.

One can cite Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) and Al-Rāzī (rh) to prove the above.

2.3 Views of Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh)

Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) is clearly an icon and an early authority in the Ashʿarī school. In his work titled: “Al-Asmā-wal-Sifāt”, he describes a category of Arab pagans in the following words:

The people who affirmed that beginning and resurrection is from the creator (Allāh(swt) ) and they denied the messengers and worshiped the idols: they believed that these (idols) would bring them closer to Allāh(swt) in proximity and did Hajj for them and did other rituals (of worship). قوم أقرّو بالابتداء والإعادة من الخالق سبحانه، وأنكروا الرسلَ، وعبدوا الأصنامَ؛ زعموا أنها تُقرِّبُهُم إلى اللهِ زلفى، وحجُّوا إليها، و نسَّكُوا لها النُّسُك. (Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) )

What is the reason these people are mushrikīn in the eyes of Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) ? Independence ? God not being able to govern His kingdom ? God being too unaware ? deities having ta’thīr ? Pagans lying about their beliefs ? Them being in doubt ?

None ! He simply links it to dedicating acts of ʿIbādāh for the sole reason of getting proximity to a God who could only be reached via conduits.

Not to forget that Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) strongly defends the view that an ilāh is the creator, yet he does not take the charge of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) . Furthermore, Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) writes about a certain deity Al-Shi’ri that was worshiped by the pagans but not considered an Ilāh (by Ashʿarī definition).

Therefore, the maximun that Ashʿarīs could be charged with is a less precise definition, not having the deficient tawḥīd of pagans. And they would justify their definition by arguing that the meaning of Ma’būd is derived from other attributes of an Ilāh and it is lāzim for it, just like Al-Tabarī (rh) (d. 923AD/310AH) says that an Ilāh is the One who does what He wills and none can challenge it. This does not mean that as long as one does not attribute such ability to a creation, major Shirk cannot occur.

2.4 Views of Al-Rāzī (rh) on Rubūbiyyah and ʿIbādāh

As for Al-Rāzī (rh) , his quotes are litered all over his tafsīr. I will cite just a few of them. Similar to alSanusi (rh) , Al-Rāzī (rh) also interprets the shirk of pagans via the proximity route as being due to the reason that they considered God too sublime to be worshiped by lowly humans, that does not have any direct shirk in Rubūbiyyah. He writes:

Rather what is worthy for the humans is to worship the servants of Allāh(swt) who are higher in rank, like celestial objects, like heavenly souls, thereafter, these (higher ranked beings) perform the worship of the supreme God, this is the meaning of their statement: ‘’ we do not worship them except to draw near to Allāh(swt) in proximity”. The gist of the matter regarding the idol-worshipers is that they said that the supreme God is too sublime to be worshiped by the human. حاصِلُ الكَلامِ لِعُبّادِ الأصْنامِ أنْ قالُوا إنَّ الإلَهَ الأعْظَمَ أجَلُّ مِن أنْ يَعْبُدَهُ البَشَرُ لَكِنَّ اللّائِقَ بِالبَشَرِ أنْ يَشْتَغِلُوا بِعِبادَةِ الأكابِرِ مِن عِبادِ اللَّهِ مِثْلَ الكَواكِبِ ومِثْلَ الأرْواحِ السَّماوِيَّةِ، ثُمَّ إنَّها تَشْتَغِلُ بِعِبادَةِ الإلَهِ الأكْبَرِ، فَهَذا هُوَ المُرادُ مِن قَوْلِهِمْ: ما نَعْبُدُهُمْ إلّا لِيُقَرِّبُونا إلى اللَّهِ زُلْفى. (Al-Rāzī (rh) )

Likewise when commenting on the shirk of the banī isrāil by worship of the golden calf, Al-Rāzī (rh) comments that all the prophets agreed that worship of other than Allāh(swt) is kufr (here he means major shirk that is kufr as is clear from his statement above), regardless if that worship is done with the belief that the one being worshiped is the Ilāh or if one believes that worship of these intermediaries will draw near to Allāh(swt) , as worship is the peak of veneration and the peak of veneration is not suited for anyone else besides the one from whom the peak of reward comes.

لا يُمْكِنُ أنْ يَكُونَ خالِقًا لِلْعالَمِ ومُدَبِّرًا لَهُ ومَن شَكَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ كامِلَ العَقْلِ والأقْرَبُ أنَّهُمْ طَلَبُوا مِن مُوسى عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ أنْ يُعَيِّنَ لَهُمْ أصْنامًا وتَماثِيلَ يَتَقَرَّبُونَ بِعِبادَتِها إلى اللَّهِ تَعالى وهَذا القَوْلُ هُوَ الَّذِي حَكاهُ اللَّهُ تَعالى عَنْ عَبَدَةِ الأوْثانِ حَيْثُ قالُوا: ما نَعْبُدُهُمْ إلّا لِيُقَرِّبُونا إلى اللَّهِ زُلْفى [الزُّمَرِ ٣]. إذا عَرَفْتَ هَذا فَلِقائِلٍ أنْ يَقُولَ: لِمَ كانَ هَذا القَوْلُ كُفْرًا؟ فَنَقُولُ: أجْمَعَ كُلُّ الأنْبِياءِ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّلامُ عَلى أنَّ عِبادَةَ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ تَعالى كُفْرٌ سَواءٌ اعْتَقَدَ فِي ذَلِكَ الغَيْرِ كَوْنَهُ إلَهًا لِلْعالَمِ أوِ اعْتَقَدُوا فِيهِ أنَّ عِبادَتَهُ تُقَرِّبُهُمْ إلى اللَّهِ تَعالى لِأنَّ العِبادَةَ نِهايَةُ التَّعْظِيمِ ونِهايَةُ التَّعْظِيمِ لا تَلِيقُ إلّا بِمَن يَصْدُرُ عَنْهُ نِهايَةُ الإنْعامِ والإكْرامِ.

2.5 The Imām himself on Istighāthā

We do not find detailed treatment of the issue from Abul-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (rh) (d. 936AD/324AH) himself, however there is an interesting portion of text in his treatise addressed towards the mujāhidīn, where he writes basic creed. This work is called رسالة إلى أهل الثغر ( a message to the people on the frontlines). In it he says that it is agreed upon that a human cannot become free of his Rabb and that Allāh(swt) did not differentiate between ʿIbādāh and Istighātha.

وأجمعوا على أن الإنسان غير غني عن ربه عز وجل في سائر أوقاته، وعلى الرغبة إليه في المعونة على سائر ما أمر به ممتثلين لما أمرهم به في قوله عز وجل: إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ 1 فلم يفرق بين العبادة وبين الاستعانة

I am fully aware of the common responses give that: but we also call the police ? Abul-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī (rh) is most likely not referring to the act of saying: “ya fulan help”, rather the very philosophy of ʿIbādāh which is synonymous with duā.

We ask to those who claim that Rasūlullāh(sa) was given an encompassing knowledge of all creations and an encompassing Qudrah to help all creations in any manner possible, that what then becomes the rationale of asking Allāh(swt) ? Since, if I see glass of water near my wife, I will normally not say: “Ya Allah give me glass”, rather I will ask my wife to fetch for me water while I believe that she is dependent upon God and God creates her action, but I won’t invoke God for that. If anyone believes that just like my wife can give me water, Allāh(swt) has given any creation an ecompassing knowledge over creations, power to listen everyone everywhere and dispense all their needs, then the necessity of invoking Allāh(swt) vanishes.

Let us clearly differentiate between what is contested and what is not:

• Saying Ya Rasūl Salām Alayk, is not shirk.
• Saying Labbaik Ya Rasūlullāh is not shirk.
• Saying Oh Rasūlullāh(sa) , grab me by my hands to Jannah and other poetic expressions of seeking help is not shirk.
• Going to the grave and making duā to Allāh(swt) thinking that the area around the grave has barakah, it is not shirk.
• Going to the grave to ask the person there to make duā to Allāh(swt) is not shirk.
• Invoking with the intention of Allāh(swt) blessing the taking of name is not shirk.
• Thinking that some angels have been granted ability to help people find lost objects (but not encompassing knowledge and power).
• Falsely assuming about someone that he may have a kirāmah or so without that generalizing to sufficing for all needs.

But what we are clearly contesting is the belief that Allāh(swt) has granted Rasūlullāh(sa) knowledge about all creations and qudrah over them, such that every person from anywhere can ask Rasūlullāh(sa) for any need, thinking that Rasūlullāh(sa) or any saint can fulfill the needs. It is dishonest to assume that there is no one who has this exact belief about imāms, saints, peers, or prophets.

This is further expanded upon by Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh)

2.6 Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) on rubūbīyyah, worship and duā

Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) argues as follows in the explanation of the verse إلَهِ النّاسِ:

(Ilāh of humans), indicates that as Allāh(swt) is single in His Rubūbiyyah over them and His ownership over them, no one shares in that, likewise He is the only Ilāh to them, no one shares in his Ilāhiyyah, and this is always the way of qurān, it argues with them using their acknowledgement of tawḥīd in Rubūbiyyah and ownership, against what they denied from the tawḥīd of Ilāhiyyah and ʿIbādah. إشارة إلى أنه كما انفرد بربوبيتهم وملكهم لم يشركه في ذلك أحد، فكذلك هو وحده إلههم لا يشركه في إلهيته أحد، وهذه دائمًا طريقة القرآن يحتج عليهم بإقرارهم بتوحيدهم له في الربوبية والملك على ما أنكروه من توحيد الإلهية والعبادة، فمن كان ربهم وملكهم فهم جديرون بأن لا يتألهوا سواه ولا يستعيذوا بغيره كما أن أحدهم إذا دهمه أمر استعاذ بوليه من أبناء جنسه واستغاث به (Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) )

About duā, Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) says:

A slave does not make duā except that he finds himself in weakness, difficulty, and need, and finds in his Rabb, the knowledge, the power, and the deliverance, and this is what is the aim of all worship, that is why duā is ʿIbādāh. فإن العبد لا يدعو إلا وقد استحضر من نفسه الذل والصعب والحاجة، ومن ربه العلم والقدرة والكفاية، وهذا هو المقصود من جميع العبادات، فلهذا كان الدعاء مخ العبادة (Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) )

Pondering upon the statement of Burhānuddīn al-Biqāi (rh) , it is clear that the very essence of worship is duā. Every creation is bound by means and everyone knows weaknesses of each other, there would countless times in one’s life when he feels powerless, such as: a sickness that doctors can’t figure out, a baby being born, surrounded by enemies, etc. If he thinks that there is no need to call upon Allāh(swt) in any of these situations and he thinks that someone else has all the pre-requisites to fulfill all these needs, then logically he never has to turn to Allāh(swt) or make duā to Allāh(swt) !

This highlights the most fundamental issue between Deobandīs and Barelvīs:

2.7 Deobandies vs Barelvis on Ilmul-Ghayb and Mukhtar e kul

Many Barelvis claim that the most essential difference between attributes of creation and that of Allāh(swt) is that attribute of creation is (i) given by Allāh(swt) , (ii) it is limited, and (iii) it can perish. Thus they cite Ahmad Raza Khan saying that knowledge of Rasūlullāh(sa) is like a drop in the ocean of knowledge of Allāh(swt) and there is no comparison. They use this text to repel any charge of Shirk.

However, saying that the knowledge of Allāh(swt) is like a drop in ocean in comparison does not negate the following possibilities:

• 1. Allāh(swt) gave Rasūlullāh(sa) knowledge of all the possible things in all possible ways and Rasūlullāh(sa) only does not know what Allāh(swt) knows about Himself and knowledge of all things compared to what Allāh(swt) knows about Himself is like a drop in ocean.
• 2. Allāh(swt) gave Rasūlullāh(sa) an encompassing knowledge of all creations until plus eternity and qudrah over them, while that is a drop in ocean.
• 3. Allāh(swt) gave Rasūlullāh(sa) an encompassing knowledge of all creations until the day of judgement, while Rasūlullāh(sa) also knows the exact time of the hour, while that is a drop in the ocean.

All of these possibilities are Kufr and Shirk even while they may be understood as drop in the ocean in comparison to the knowledge of Allāh(swt) , all of them contradict mutawātir texts and make duā to Allāh(swt) completely redundant. Furthermore, we can provide:

• 1. Citatins of Al-Mātūrīdī (rh) (d. 853AD/238AH) where he considers that Im-ul-Ghayb is Ilm-ul-Rubūbiyyah علم الغَيْب علم الربوبية and also specifically cites case of knowledge of all things plus eternity إنما يعلم الغيب اللَّه. ثم قوله: (الغَيْبَ) يخرج على وجهين: أحدهما: ما يغيب بعضهم من بعض؛ يقول: ما يغيب بعضهم من بعض فهو يعلم ذلك. والثاني: لا يعلم الغيب إلا اللَّه، أي: ما كان وما يكون إلى أبد الآبدين لا يعلم ذلك إلا اللَّه وإن أعلموا وعلموا ذلك., which is finite, so finiteness does not prevent the matter from falling into Shirk.
• 2 .The real reason is that any type of knowledge-power pair that makes it possible, rational, and justifiable for creations to ask another creation for all needs they can imagine, this is Shirk. This makes asking Allāh(swt) completely redundant and meaningless exercise.

To summarize, the Deobandī side would argue that we have no issues in believing following about the knowledge of Rasūlullāh(sa) :

• 1. We call it the news of Ghayb that Allāh(swt) gave to Rasūlullāh(sa) , not that Rasūlullāh(sa) has a sifah by which he knows everything.
• 2. These news can be a lot, it could contain events that would happen in the world.
• 3. It could be specific knowledge of individuals like we know of Rasūlullāh(sa) coming in dreams of scholars and instructing them specific things.
• 4. It could be a lot of knowledge that is only secret between Allāh(swt) and Rasūlullāh(sa) .
• 5. It could be knowledge of the tablet ( not all happenings are written on the tablet).

But it cannot be affirmed in a manner justifying Istighātha and it cannot be affirmed to negate clear texts such as Allāh(swt) having exclusive knowledge of five things and the hour, and it cannot be affirmed as a sifah not requiring senses or news from Allāh(swt) .

2.8 Walīullah family on Istighātha

Coming to the family of Shāh Walīullāh (rh) (d. 1762AD/1176AH), everyone of them have negated the false justification of Istighātha to the point that it is no longer possible to argue using the weak evidence of endorsing nād-e-Ali or whatever weakly proven or interpretable stuff that people of bidah bring.

Shāh Walīullāh (rh) says:

Know that it is obligatory to negate attributes of Allāh(swt) (the necessary being) from them (prophets) like Ilm-ul-Ghayb and ability to create the universe, etc, and this is not a deficiency ثم ليعلم أنه يجب أن ينفي عنهم صفات الواجب جل مجده من العلم بالغيب والقدرة على خلق العالم إلى غير ذلك وليس ذلك بنقص (Shāh Walīullāh (rh) )

Shirk means to ascribe to others any of the qualities which are unique and exclusive to Allāh(swt) only. For example, to accomplish various feats in the universe by merely desiring it, as is refered to to in the verse, “Be and it is”, inherent knowledge, which cannot be acquired through the senses, inspiration or a dream, curing the sick, to deprive someone to the extent that his sustenance is made difficult, to be kind to someone such that his sustenance is made easy for him, he is granted good health and he becomes successful with this grace. والشرك أن يُثبِت لغير الله من الصفات المختصة، به تعالى كالتصرف في العالم بالإرادة- الذي يعبر عنه ب (كن فيكون)- أو العلم الذاتي- غير المكتسب بالحواس و دليل العقل والمنام والإلهام و نحو ذلك. أو الإيجاد لشفاء المريض- أو اللَّعنِ على شخص. والسخط عليه حتى يُقدَّر وليه الرزق أي يمرض أو يشقى بسبب ذلك السخط. أو الرحمة لشخص حتى يبسط له الرزق ويصح بدنه ويدعد بسبب هذه الرحمة (Shāh Walīullāh (rh) )

Shāh Abdul Azīz (rh) (d. 1823AD/1239AH) (son of Shāh Walīullāh (rh) ) says:

It is from the matters of Shirk that one deems the status of awliya and aimmah equal to that of anbiya and to believe for anbiya what necessitates divinity such as belief in Ilm-ul-ghayb, or being able to hear from every one and having power of everything.

یا رتبہ آئمہ و اولیا برابر رتبہ انبیاء و مرسلین گرداند و انبیاء و مرسلین را لوازم الوہیت از علم الغیب و شنیدن فریاد ہر کس و ہر جا وقدرت بر جمیع مقدرات ثابت کنند (Shāh Abdul Azīz (rh) )

As we notice again and again, the ability to hear everywhere, know all affairs and dispense all needs of all creations is considered to necessitate divinity. Another son of Shāh Walīullāh (rh) , Shāh Abdul Qādir (rh) (d. 1820AD/1230AH) says in his translation/footnotes of the qurān:

Shirk is to consider an attribute of Allāh(swt) in someone else, for example, to believe about someone that he can know anything and do anything, or our good or bad is in the hands of this person, and with this belief he directs to mthe veneration dedicated for Allāh(swt) to someone other than Allāh(swt) , such as prostrating to someone else and asking his help for needs. شرک یہ کہ اللہ کی صفت کسی اور میں جانے مثلا کسی کو سمجھے کہ اس کو ہر بات معلوم ہے اور وہ جو چاہے سو کر سکتا ہے، یا ہمارا بھلا یا برا اس کے اختیار میں ہے، اور یہ کہ کر اللہ کی تعظیم کسی اور پر خرچ کرے مثلا کسی اور چیز کو سجدہ کرے اور اس سے حاجت طلب کر (Shāh Abdul Qādir (rh) )

Another son of Shāh Walīullāh (rh) , Shāh Rafīuddīn (rh) (d. 1817AD/1233AH) says:

There are second type of rituats which some people practice when they fall sick with the belief that powers of Shaykh Siddu are other devils are invoked, animals are sacrificed in their names, knowledge of the unseen and tasarruf in the universe is sought from them to get increase in sustenance, offspring and cure of sickness, and to make souls obedient for such purposes. This is clear Shirk and there is no excuse in this. رسموں میں سے دوسری قسم ہو جو چیچک اور دوسرے امراض میں بجا لاتے ہیں اور اس نظریے سے کے شیخ سدو اور دوسرے شیاطین کی تاثیریں عمل میں لاتے ہیں ان کے نام پر ذبح کرتے ہیں اور ان سے علمِ غیب چاہتے ہیں اور تصرف کائنات جزئیہ میں مانند کشادہ کرنے رزق اور اولاد دینے اور امراض رفع کرنے اور ارواح کو تابعدار کرنے میں اور اس کی مثل کام میں لاتے ہیں، یہ خود شرکِ صریح ہے، اس مقام میں کوئی عذر نہیں. (Shāh Rafīuddīn (rh) )

2.9 Ashʿarism, “dependent” powers of creation and Ahmad Raza Khan

While Ahmad Raza Khan did not believe that Rasūlullāh(sa) was the creator of heavans and the earth, he nevertheless posited that if someone believes that God granted power to Rasūlullāh(sa) to create heavans and the earth, it won’t be Shirk. This seems to be the apparent meaning of his citation (atleast I could not think of any other meaning), where he says:

Muslims! Where is the justice? If a certain attribute is specific only for Allah then what would happen if we join someone’s name with Allah using the word “AND”? And what if we used the word “THEN”? How can one prevent Shirk? E.g. to create the heavens and the skies and to provide sustenance to all the people from the beginning till the end is the characteristic of Allah alone. Now, if someone says that Allah AND His Prophet are the creators of the heavens and Earth, Allah AND His Prophet provide sustenance through their innate powers then indeed it is Shirk. However, if we say that Allah THEN His Prophet are the creators of the heavens and the Earth and that Allah THEN His Prophet through their own (innate) powers are the provider of sustenance then this will not be Shirk?!

Now dear Muslims! To test them, say to them that Allah and THEN His Prophet are ‘Alim al-Ghayb (knower of the unseen) and that Allah and THEN His Prophet remove the calamities from us, then see whether or not they give the verdict of Shirk!

أيها المسلمون ! النصفة لله ! ما كان من أمر يختصُّ باللهِ ولا دخل لمخلوق فيه، فأيُّ فرق لو قال بالواو أو بِثُمَّ ؟ كيف تتحقَّقَ النجاة من الشرك، على سبيل المثلا كونه تعالى كالقا للسموات والأرض ورازقاً بالقدرة الذاتية للأوّلين والآخرين من شؤون الله خاصَّة. أفإنما يكون شركا لو قال أحد: اللهُ خالق السماوات والأرض و رسوله، والله رازق العالم و رسوله بالقدرة الذاتية، ولو قال: الله خالق السماوات والأرض ثمَّ الرسول، الله رازق الدنيا ثُمَّ الرسول بالقدرة الذاتية، أفلا يكون شركاً. أيها المسلمون ! قولوا بين يدي أهل الضلال امتحانا لهم: الله عالم الغيب ثم الرسول، حلَّ اللهُ مشاكلنا ثُمَّ الرسول، وانظروا يحكمون بالشرك أم لا ؟ (Ahmad Raza Khan)

This is a blatant violation of the understanding of the school. In the language of the Ashʿarī school, believing someone can create means it is God and believing that God allowed someone ability to create is believing that God made another God.

Yes, the majority of scholars did excuse the Mutazillah (معتزلة: rationalist school opposing the traditionalists), but only because the Mutazillah did not extend their belief to creation of bodies. Some of the scholars nevertheless did not accept this excuse from them and proceeded with takfīr. However, the majority view is that Mutazillah did not reach major shirk, but if they believed in creations creating bodies ex-nihilo then that would be major shirk, as Abdul Ḥakīm al-Sialakoti (rh) (d. 1657AD/1067) writes below:

إن المعتزلة لا يثبتون الشريك في وجوب الوجود و استحقاق العبادة؛ و يمنعون كون الخلق مطلقا مناطا لاستحقاق العبادة، بل مناطه خلق الجواهِر والخلق الذي يكون بلا آلات وأسباب، ويمنعونَ ورود الآية السابقة؛ أعني: قوله تعالى: (أفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لَّا يَخْلُقُ) (Abdul Ḥakīm al-Sialakoti (rh) )

Furthermore as Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) and Al-Mātūrīdī (rh) write in various places, that if there was another creator besides Allāh(swt) (even if dependent on God), the marifah of Allāh(swt) becomes impossible. The syllogism goes as follows:

• 1. Allāh(swt) can empower a creation to create the universe.
• 2. Allāh(swt) can also empower that creation to know everything in that universe and manage universe.
• 3. It becomes impossible to know if whom we know as God is the dependent contingent being and the necessary being is hidden behind or is it the necessary being himself.

The following quotes in arabic support this syllogism:

وجائز أن يكون اللَّه تعالى أقدر ملكا من ملائكته وقواه على خلق السماوات والأرض، وإذا كان كذلك لم يظهر بما ذكرنا: أن اللَّه تعالى هو الخالق لهما؛ فبطل أن يكون في خلق السماوات والأرضين وفي خلق سائر الأشياء – دلالة حكمته وقدرته ووحدانيته، وقد جعل اللَّه تعالى خلقهما دلالة لهذه الأوجه التي ذكرناها. (Al-Mātūrīdī (rh) )

ودليل آخر: وهو لو جاز أن يكون للعقلاء والجمادات وسائر الحوادث صانعانِ أو أكثر من صانع واحد.. لم يصلِ الواحِد من العقلاء إلى معرفة صانعه بعينه؛ ليعبده بعينه و يشكر على إنعامه عليه، ولم يكن صانعه قادرا على تعريف إياه (Abū Manṣūr Abdul Qāhir al-Baghdādī (rh) )

لا سَبِيلَ إلى مَعْرِفَةِ اللَّهِ تَعالى إلّا بِواسِطَةِ أفْعالِهِ الَّتِي لا يُشارِكُهُ فِيها أحَدٌ مِنَ القادِرِينَ، والإحْياءُ والإماتَةُ كَذَلِكَ، لِأنَّ الخَلْقَ عاجِزُونَ عَنْهُما، والعِلْمُ بَعْدَ الِاخْتِيارِ ضَرُورِيٌّ، فَلا بُدَّ مِن مُؤَثِّرٍ آخَرَ غَيْرِ هَؤُلاءِ القادِرِينَ الَّذِينَ تَراهُمْ (Al-Rāzī (rh) )

The arguments given by these scholars against a second creator remain valid even if that is dependent.

2.10 Conclusion

2.10.1 Understanding worship

Worship is showing peak veneration towards someone with peak humility in one’s self. Such can only arise if someone considers that an entity possesses all imaginable benefit and harm for one’s self. Thus, the mechanism of how someone believes in such benefit/harm for other than Allāh(swt) is irrelevant. If he believes that a being hears everywhere and this being is a perfect intercessor such that Allāh(swt) never rejects anything this being says, then from the perspective of that person, all of his benefit and harm is in the hands of that intermediary even while Allāh(swt) is deemed the real doer. Likewise, belief in an entity being able to hear from everyhwhere, know anything, do anything, this will necessarily bring worship. So belief is one way to judge whether someone is worshiping another being and another way is to look at custom. If a certain act is fixed in a custom as worship and dedicated to a divinity then doing that for other than Allāh(swt) is worship, provided that one does not have an overriding ta’wīl such as he thinks that star or object is his qiblah or concentration practice, so in these situtations, the paradigm with which a person directs acts starts to effect the ruling. However, detailed treatement of this issue will be done in another piece.

2.10.2 Major shirk can take place without shirk in rubūbiyyah

The most important corollary is that both the Ashʿarī and the Māturīdī school clearly affirm that major shirk can take place by worshiping other than Allāh(swt) and that worship does not require shirk in Rubūbiyyah. I have not detailed the writings of Māturīdī scholars as that is not the topic, but they are too many, one could only suffice with Al-Mātūrīdī (rh) , and Abū Muīn al-Nasafī (rh) (d. 1115AD/508AH).

Then His statement “Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” can mean Shirk in belief which is to make other than Allah partner to in His Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah, and second is to make other than Allah partner in His worship, and all of this is Shirk with Allah, so there is no difference if someone associates other than Allah in His Rububiyyah and His Uluhiyyah and if someone associates other than Him in His worship. Do you not see that He says “your Ilaah (god) is one Ilaah (God).” then Allah says “and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.”, He made association in Rububiyyah, Uluhiyyah and association in worship same, all of it is Shirk with Allah.

ثم قوله: (لا يَغْفِرُ أنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ ويَغْفِرُ ما دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشاءُ) – يحتمل: الشرك في الاعتقاد، وهو أن يشرك غيره في ربوبيته وألوهيته، وبين أن يشرك غيره في عبادته؛ ألا ترى أنه قال: – ﷿ -: (أنَّما إلَهُكُمْ إلَهٌ واحِدٌ)، ثم قال اللَّه – تعالى – في آخره: (ولا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبادَةِ رَبِّهِ أحَدًا): جعل الإشراك في الألوهية والربوبية، والإشراكَ في العبادة واحدًا؛ كله شرك باللَّه، وباللَّه التوفيق. (Al-Mātūrīdī (rh) )

“Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills.” It is possible (that it is) Shirk in Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah, as there are amongst the polytheists who ascribe partners to Allah in creation like Majus and Christians. It is possible (that it is) Shirk in Ibaadah (worship) as there are among them (polytheists) who ascribed partners in worship like the polytheists among Arabs, like how Allah informs about them: “We do not worship them except in order to get closer to Allah in proximity”. And all of it is Kufr of Allah and Shirk in Uluhiyyah, because the Ilaah is the creator and it is the object of worship in reality. (لا يَغْفِرُ أنْ يُشْرَكَ بِهِ ويَغْفِرُ ما دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشاءُ) يحتمل الشرك في الألوهية و الربوبية فان من المشركين من يجعلون له شريكا في التخليق كالمجوس والنصارى ويحتمل الشرك في العبادة فان منهم من يجعلونه شريكا في العبادة كمشركي العرب كما أخبر الله تعالى عنهم: ما نعبدهم إلا ليقربونا إلى الله زلفى، وكل ذلك كفر بالله واشراك له في الألوهية فان الإله هو الخالق و هو المعبود على الحقيقة (Abū Muīn al-Nasafī (rh) )

2.10.3 Strawmanning of Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) should be avoided

Again, Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) was able to allege that Al-Rāzī (rh) was a pagan star-worshiper for citing text of magicians engaged in this stuff, while Al-Rāzī (rh) explicitly writes in the start of his book that he does not believe in anything contrary to Quran and Sunnah, and he is just documenting that. It is also documented that Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) engaged in childish refutations such as his refutation of Al-Rāzī (rh) on the statement of Al-Rāzī (rh) that he came from the east, citing that such is innovation and then going on a rant.

So it seems a recurrent issue with Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) that he does mubālagha against his opponents and is definitely not free from strawmanning them or possibly maligning them. In anycase, one can say that on this particular issue, Ibn Taymiyyah (rh) was nevertheless defending the truth, even while his accusations against Ashʿarīs were unfounded and strawmanning.

However, the Salafī followers of today do not have any excuse that he may have in the court of Allāh(swt) , if they repeat his accusations in our times when the texts of Ashʿarī scholars can be searched within minutes, then they may not have that excuse.

2.10.4 Psuedo-Ashʿarīs are not Ashʿarīs

As for the Barelvi pseudo-Ashʿarīs or Athari/Hanbali Awnists or whoever reinvents the meaning of worship or justifies making duā to Allāh(swt) meaningless/redundant, then they are doing a crime that is much worse than strawmanning by Salafīs. They are essentially distorting the religion of Allāh(swt) and to accuse the Ashʿarī school of such and lay their claim upon the school. These people do not represent the scholars of the two schools in anyway. Infact, what is understood from the writings of Ahmad Raza Khan is that he believed that as long as you believe that any ability is granted by Allāh(swt) to a saint, it cannot be shirk. He does not rule out ability to create heavans and the earth, ability to hear from everywhere, ability to know everything of creations, ability to distribute Jannah and Jahannam, and he exorts his followers to seek help from other than Allāh(swt) with this belief. While modern day barelvis often resort to justifying that with citations of scholars which have nothing to do with this belief, those scholars are either talking about going near the grave and asking the wali to make duā to Allāh(swt) or they are poetry or some other issue. This particular radical istiqlāli kind of thought is unprecedented in two schools. As for Atharī Awnists and others, they only deem such acts textually wrong, but their understanding of shirk is exactly the same as that of Ahmad Raza Khan.

Finally, I would understand that if Barelvis wish to interpret Ahmad Raza Khan differently, that would be granted to them so that they do not fall into the error what I think he fell into. Likewise, the problems with Najdi Da’wah should not be mixed with the issues in this area.