A Muslim Taqiyyist on Calling to Dead Muslims

The following excerpt is taken from the noted Muhammadan pseudo-intellect and dawagandist Daniel Haqiqatjou’s lengthy reply against his fellow Muslim taqiyyists who came out with a join letter condemning him for being a heretic and idolater: My Response to the Wahhabi “Statement Regarding Daniel Haqiqatjou”.

The letter, which can be accessed here “Statement Regarding Daniel Haqiqatjou.”, was signed by pseudo-scholars like Muslim Metaphysician, Abbas (EF Dawah), Ijaz, Adnan Rashid, Ali Dawah Bassam Zawadi and Farid Responds.

Haqiqatjou explains and defends the traditional Islamic practice of calling to dead Muslims like Muhammad. All emphasis will be mine.

For example, Allah says in Quran [7:55]:

In the English language, calling with requests while humbling oneself is referred to as “prayer” or “supplication.”

So du’a has two meanings: “Calling out with requests” and “Calling out with requests while humbling oneself.”

We now come to istighatha. Istighatha simply means calling out with requests for aid. It does not involve humbling oneself. The Quran uses the term istighatha in this way.

Allah says in Quran [28:15]:

All premodern Muslim scholars acknowledge that dua and istighatha do not amount to worship in some contexts (e.g., when living people call on one another with requests).

However, they came to hold differing opinions about the dead. Ibn Taymiyya tended to assume that calling to the dead was worship, and hence shirk.

However, THE MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS resisted this view. They emphasized that calling out with requests is not necessarily worship, even when it comes to the dead. To be clear, they held that calling out to a dead person with requests can be worship if the caller believes that the dead person is powerful like a god, and he humbles himself before that dead person (e.g., by prostrating, sacrificing animals). However, they argued that merely calling out by itself is not necessarily worship and hence shirk.

Tawassul vs. Istighatha

Religious scholars came to discuss this issue with respect to two widespread practices. Both of these practices assume that dead persons have a type of life in their graves.

The first practice can be described as follows. Muslims are encouraged to approach pious living persons, and request that these persons ask Allah for things on their behalf via du’a, as it is believed such du’a is likely to be answered. So I can say to a pious man, please make du’a that Allah heal me.

As mentioned earlier, premodern Muslims generally believed that the dead have a type of life in their graves (barzakh) and can do various things, including making du’a. This gave rise to the practice of living Muslims calling out to dead Muslims and requesting that these dead Muslims ask Allah for things on their behalf. Most commonly, they would ask the deceased Prophet Muhammad. So they would go to his grave and say, “O Prophet ask Allah to heal me” or “O Prophet ask Allah to save me from the Hellfire.” This is known as “tawassul.” Tawassul can be defined as the practice of calling out to dead people and requesting that they ask Allah for things on one’s behalf.

Tawassul may be contrasted with istighatha. As noted earlier, istighatha has the more general meaning of calling out with a request for aid. However, it has a more technical meaning of calling out directly to a dead person with a request for aid, especially the Prophet. So one says “O Prophet heal me” or “O Prophet save me from the Hellfire.” The dead person can provide such help in one of two ways. Either he can choose to ask Allah on one’s behalf. Or He can perform a miracle. So if someone says “O Prophet heal me,” the Prophet can respond by asking Allah to heal one via dua. Alternatively, the Prophet can work a miracle himself which heals one.

Many scholars including al-Subki and al-Haytami do not distinguish clearly between tawassul and istighatha.

The single most influential historical Sunni text on istighatha is Shifa` al-Saqam, written by al-Subki (1284-1355) who is one of the major scholars of the Shafii school. In the text, al-Subki makes a number of different arguments defending istighatha, but in one argument he claims that, in reality, istighatha nothing more than a type of tawassul. Al-Subki says that whenever a Muslim does istighatha and says, “O Prophet heal me,” he is tacitly intending, “O Prophet, heal me by making du’a to Allah to heal me.” So according to al-Subki, the Muslims who seek aid from the Prophet through istighatha – these Muslims implicitly believe that the way the Prophet will aid them is not by directly answering them, but by asking Allah on their behalf via du’a. This, of course, is just tawassul.

This is how al-Subki explains all this:

Why is all of this important? Some early Muslims like Ibn Hanbal endorsed tawassul. Moreover, with time, tawassul won acceptance within ALL FOUR SUNNI LEGAL SCHOOLS. For example, tawassul is endorsed by the Ḥanbalī Ibn Qudāma, the Shāfiʿī al-Nawawī, the Māliki Ibn al-Ḥājj, and the Hanafi Ibn ʿĀbidīn.

Although istighatha was more controversial, it also won a significant amount of acceptance. This was in part because many scholars considered it to be the same as tawassul. Leading proponents of istighatha include Shafii scholars like Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī, al-Suyūṭī, Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ramlī and al-Haytamī. Moreover, even those scholars who did not endorse istighatha usually did not claim that istighatha was shirk – although here there are rare exceptions like the Hanbali scholars Ibn Aqil and Ibn al-Jawzi.

This situation changed with Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya argued that both tawassul and istighatha were haram. He claimed that tawassul was not shirk itself, but it was a means to shirk. He further claimed that istighatha was the worst kind of shirk. In doing so he challenged the positions held by ALL FOUR LEGAL SCHOOLS in his day.

Eventually, Ibn Taymiyya’s views were largely adopted by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the Wahhabi movement. Most Wahhabis consider tawassul to be haram, although some (like Ibn Baz) take the unprecedented position that it is actually shirk. All Wahhabis also consider istighatha to be shirk. One of the main reasons why Ibn Abd al-Wahhab takfired the general body of religious scholars in the Ottoman Empire is that they did not agree with him that istighatha was necessarily shirk. Remember that for Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, one becomes a disbeliever if one does not takfir others who are guilty of shirk (e.g., those doing istighatha). This is his chain takfir principle.

But in these matters it is not clear that Ibn Taymiyya’s position is the strongest. Ibn Taymiyya himself conceded that tawassul is not shirk. But if this is true, it is not necessarily the case that istighatha is shirk. For if someone calls out “O Muhammad heal me,” his tacit intention may simply be that the Prophet makes dua for him (which is tawassul, and not shirk). Alternatively, the person who says “O Muhammad heal me” may not have any more specific intention. He may not care how the Prophet heals him, whether by dua or by a miracle from himself. Is such a person guilty of shirk? This is not clear for his statement is at least open to being a type of tawassul.

The upshot of all this is the following. It is not obviously shirk for a Muslim to say “O Muhammad heal me.” Nor is it obviously shirk for a Muslim to do the same with other prophets by saying things like “O Moses heal me,” or “O Jesus heal me.” This is in fact the view OF ALL FOUR PREMODERN SUNNI LEGAL SCHOOLS. It is also the standard view of Ottoman scholars. It is for this reason that Ibn Abd al-Wahhab declared a jihad against them.

However, personally, I think Ibn Taymiyya is correct that Muslims should avoid both tawassul and istighatha. For this is safer, and lowers the chance of falling into shirk, which is the greatest sin. For this reason, I have never promoted tawassul or engaged in it myself. Moreover, I believe that istighatha is wrong and haram, for, at minimum it can lead to shirk. In fact, as I have stated numerous times, I think istighatha may not only lead to shirk. There is a possibility that it is shirk.

Moreover, some forms of istighatha are more likely forms of shirk than other types. For instance, suppose a person says, “O Prophet heal me” but does not specify that the Prophet should do this by dua. This could possibly be shirk.

Likewise, when a person goes further in humbling himself to the dead person, his acts are more likely shirk. So the person who bows down and says “O Prophet heal me” has more likely committed shirk than the person who simply says “O Prophet heal me” without bowing.

Finally, it is certain that a person has committed shirk if he says “O Prophet heal me” while believing that the Prophet is a god, who possesses godlike attributes such as being independently powerful (istiqlal).

Further Reading

Mohammed Hijab Proves Muslims are Muhammadans who Worship a False Prophet! (https://answeringislam.blog/mohammed-hijab-proves-muslims-are-muhammadans-who-worship-a-false-prophet/)

INVOCATION AND WORSHIP: THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA PT. 1 (https://answeringislam.blog/invocation-and-worship-the-islamic-dilemma-pt-1/)

Five Step Outline Proving Muhammad is Worshiped as a God (https://answeringislam.blog/five-step-outline-proving-muhammad-is-worshiped-as-a-god/)