Can ‘Istiqlalis’ Define Ibadah Easily?
With time, we always find ourselves returning to this critical discussion: what is Ibadah? One can easily access the articles authored on this blog through this single link.
A recurring argument that ‘istiqlalis’[1] make throughout this entire debate is that Salafis are not able to define Ibadah “easily” in a practicable manner that covers 100% of examinable scenarios so that one, even a layman, could instantly, without recourse to ijtihad, determine whether Shirk has taken place or not.[2] They boast that their definition meets such a high standard, though.
This has already been responded to in a number of ways.
First, when these individuals say “easily,” they mean that there should be one single determinant cause (manat) that signifies that Shirk has taken place. To suggest that there can be even more than one makes things “complicated.” Any unbiased, learned person would scoff at such reasoning since it is not alien to any student of knowledge that some ahkam could be interlinked with more than one manat. So why can it not be the same for Shirk? To insist that only one uniform manat could actualize Shirk is a positive claim requiring evidence.
Secondly, when ‘istiqlalis’ say “easily,” they insist there should be no grey areas whatsoever. Why? According to them, Tawheed is the cornerstone of the deen. They reason: how can it possibly not be apparent in literally 100% of every single possible scenario? But cold, hard facts disprove this argument for which no actual evidence has been provided and is only presumed based on subjective logic.
With their entire body of scholars, the Mu'tazilites think that affirming attributes for Allah is Shirk because they believe it entails establishing eternal entities alongside Allah. Asharis believe that affirming literal secondary causation[3] is Shirk in causation since they insist that only Allah truly causes effects. Salafis,[4] with their whole body of scholars, believe that istighatha to the dead is Shirk. Yet, none of these scholars from any of these theological schools ever said to themselves, “Wait a minute, we cannot adopt this position. Surely, matters of Tawheed must be clear to all on every single issue.”
Or how about the fact that classical scholars differed on whether sujud to other than Allah is unconditionally Shirk? And so many other examples can be provided. So, clearly, it is not the case that Islam expects there to be no grey areas whatsoever, especially when large bodies of scholars strongly disagree with each other on certain issues.[5] This proves that most scholars, if not all, never reasoned this way.
Of course, ‘istiqlalis’ may retort by saying that these differences between scholars are invalid because either 1) Only one group is correct, or 2) All of them are wrong. The problem, however, is that not all ‘istiqlalis’ are Ashari occasionalists or Mu’tazilites,[6] so what option to opt for then? Clearly, they would have to concede that the bar they have raised is an unreasonable one.
Thirdly, this is the good old fallacy of the heap, whereby just because a precise cut-off point cannot be determined, this negates the clear cases. It is like saying that since we do not know at which exact moment someone is considered bald, we cannot affirm when it is evident that the person is bald. In other words, for these ‘istiqlalis,’ if grey areas exist and you fail to demonstrate the hukm for literally every scenario with definitive certainty, you are not entitled to call out the obvious cases[7] of when Shirk takes place. This is just basic fallacious reasoning.
Fourthly, the definition of Ibadah by ‘istiqlalis’ does not even meet their own standard! ‘Istiqlalis’ state that Ibadah cannot occur unless one ascribes to his object of reverence and veneration attributes of Rubibiyyah. Here is the catch: ask the ‘istiqlali’: what are the attributes of Rububiyyah? He will tell you that they are attributes exclusive to Allah alone, such that Shirk would take place if attributed to anyone else. But this response is not very helpful; you must press on and ask three questions:
1) Can you list those Rububiyyah attributes for me?
2) Can you tell me how you came to know that these are the only Rububiyyah attributes?
3) Can you show me clear classical scholarly precedents through explicit statements for your response to the previous two questions?
I guarantee you, the reader, that you will not receive any satisfactory responses from these ‘istiqlalis’ for these three questions combined if you properly probe them.
Take the first question, for example. What are the Rububiyyah attributes according to these ‘istiqlalis’? Probing them long enough will reveal that their response ultimately boils down to self-sufficiency. However, in this article, we showed that there are attributes of Rububiyyah regardless of whether they are coupled with an affirmation of independence, such as creation ex-nihilo, the forgiveness of sins, granting salvation, guiding people, moral legislation, etc. Many attribute these things to their saints, yet the ‘istiqlalis’ would defend their stance as not constituting Shirk because they did not affirm these things with independence. But this fails the criterion of having classical scholarly precedents, for classical scholars made no such qualifications for Rububiyyah attributes.
Salafis would deem many forms of istighatha today as Shirk in Rububiyyah, given the sorts of entailments they come with regarding abilities ascribed to the saints (e.g., hearing all cries of help and supernaturally helping people with their trials and hardships, etc.).
Thus, when the ‘istiqlalis’ boast about their definition of Ibadah being “so simple and straightforward,” we, in fact, find that it is far from that. Their very definition of “Rububiyyah,” which is the cornerstone of their definition, is contentious in and of itself! So how does that help the discussion and their definition? When their delineation of what constitutes Rububiyyah attributes is itself highly controversial and lacks clear scholarly precedent, why should their supposed “easy” definition of Ibadah become appealing?
Dr. Hatem al- Awni as a Case in Point
Take Dr. Hatem al-Awni, for example. In his book, Mafhum Shirk al-Ibadah, p. 23, he cites Imam at-Tabari as saying that creation ex-nihilo is a power only Allah has. No qualifications were made that it must be coupled with independence. This gives the impression that Dr. Hatem agrees and should also deem it Shirk if someone ascribes creation ex-nihilo to a saint (even with Allah’s permission).
Also, on pages 8 and 26, Dr. Hatem says that it is Shirk to even ascribe some attributes of Rububiyyah to other than Allah (أو بعضها). This gives the impression that Dr. Hatem believes in multiple Rububiyyah attributes. In fact, on page 104, he mentions creation, dominion, and sustaining (الخلق والملك والتدبير) as examples.
Also, on pages 61 and 81, Dr. Hatem says that controlling and sustaining the universe (التصرف في التدبير) is an attribute of Rububiyyah. One could only wonder at this point whether Dr. Hatem is aware that many ascribe such powers of tasarruf to their saints (all with “Allah’s permission,” of course!), whereby Allah actually gives the saints abilities to sustain the universe. So they have actual secondary causal powers (تأثير) but with Allah’s permission.
On pages 129-131, Dr. Hatem clarifies and qualifies all his previous remarks. For him, Rububiyyah attributes are only Rububiyyah attributes if they are coupled with divine independence and self-sufficiency.
But here lies the problem, all these “attributes” collapse into one and only one: independence. Why do Dr. Hatem and these ‘istiqalis’ talk about attributes in the plural when ultimately, they collapse into one? Why did Dr. Hatem mention creation and sustenance as Rububiyyah attributes but then clarify later that they only become Rububiyyah attributes when they are qualified by independence? This makes no sense.
If someone believes that a saint can speak without Allah’s permission, then that someone has committed Shirk. But does that mean we now say that speaking is an attribute of Rububiyyah? No, because it is not the speaking per se that is unique to Allah here, but rather self-sufficiency. The attributes of Rububiyyah are supposed to be exclusive to Allah alone. But what was the point of Dr. Hatem saying that creation and sustaining are Rububiyyah attributes when, in fact, he believes that they can be attributed to the creation by Allah’s permission without violation of Tawheed? What does being a “Rububiyyah attribute” even mean anymore, then?!
Notice the confusion and obfuscations here. These ‘istiqlalis’ cannot properly enumerate or define “Rububiyyah attributes,” which is a core part of their definition of Ibadah, yet they boast about the supposed simplicity of their definition!
Conclusion
Is the ‘istiqlali’ definition “easy” in the sense that it can be written out in a single sentence? Sure. But is it “easy” to accept and grasp when the very method of the ‘istiqlalis’ for determining what Rububiyyah attributes even are is highly contentious and unfounded? Absolutely not. The discussion cannot progress beyond the definition when both parties cannot even agree on what the “Rububiyyah attributes” are, let alone mean!
The next time an ‘istiqlali’ boasts about his supposedly straightforward definition of Ibadah, probe him on the meaning of Rububiyyah attributes with the three questions above. Then judge how ‘effortless’ his attempts are in defining Ibadah. Raise the bar high against him just as he likes to raise it against others. Make sure you do not afford him the flexibility of there being grey areas in his determination of the numeration and definition of Rububiyyah attributes. Let him taste his own medicine and see the boasting dissipate.
Recommended Reading:
[1] This is a label given to those who believe that Shirk cannot occur unless a person believes the object of veneration has some form of independence (istiqlal) from Allah, either completely or partially, by being able to influence Allah’s will against His permission.
[2] I am not exaggerating; they literally set the bar that high.
[3] Something the majority of the human race, Muslims included, believe.
[4] Not only Salafis, as demonstrated here.
[5] Check out this related article: The Complexity of Formulating Principles and Maxims
[6] This is keeping aside the fact that the theological schools of Asharism (non-Sufi influenced) and Mu’tazilism do not teach ‘istiqlalism.’
[7] And what is “obvious” could differ from person to person. Allah judges us on what we know and what we genuinely believe we know.
Wouldn't their position also entail that calling onto idols/statues (which are all just another creation) is not shirk as long as you don't believe they help independently?